From A Cyborg Manifesto:
In the manifesto, Haraway argues that the cyborg - a fusion of animal and machine - trashes the big oppositions between nature and culture, self and world that run through so much of our thought. Why is this important? In conversation, when people describe something as natural, they're saying that it's just how the world is; we can't change it. For example, women for generations were told that they were "naturally" weak, submissive, and overemotional. That it was "in their nature" to be mothers rather than corporate raiders, to prefer parlor games to particle physics. If all these things are natural, they're unchangeable.
On the other hand, if women (and men) aren't natural but are constructed, like a cyborg, then, given the right tools, we can all be reconstructed. Everything is up for grabs, from who does the dishes to who frames the constitution. Basic assumptions suddenly come into question, such as whether it's natural to have a society based on violence and the domination of one group by another. In this way, "the cyborg is a matter of fiction and lived experience that changes what counts as women's experience in the late twentieth century" (Haraway 149).
From The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat:
"The system we developed can support a population of thousands of users in a single shared cyberspace. Habitat presents its users with a real-time animated view into an online simulated world in which users can communicate, play games, go on adventures, fall in love, get married, get divorced, start businesses, found religions, wage wars, protest against them, and experiment with self-government" (Introduction Morningstar and Farmer). Habitat people are not clearly differentiating the levels of technology. They mean to say that human interaction is at the core of the game, but at the same time they imply that there is a level of the technology that shapes what goes on in the social space. The rules shape what occurs between social interaction in the game. This becomes unclear because the reading does not clearly define the two technologies in which ideas are separate but are interconnected.
3.09.2008
3.03.2008
Wiki Proj Check-in
The first time i put up this wiki post, it was requested for speedy deletion. 3mins. after this request, another person from the community declined the speedy and claimed that it has sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Someone added a notability tag to the article and i made changes to it by adding references and expanded it by adding an explanation of the rhyme. A while later the community talked to me about fixing the links to disambiguation pages using AWB. Two minor edits and a section edit was made to my page by the community: 1) robot-assisted fix links to dismbiguation page French, 2) fixing links to disambiguation pages using AWB (the "user stamp" was deleted), and 3) section edit to the references section. I added another background section but that got deleted because someone claimed that it was not relevant to the post. So far, it looks very much like the original post because my newer revisions didn't last on the post other than the three minor edits that have been made by the community.
In doing this wikipedia project I learned how fascinating it can be for a community to come together through a single search engine. It's amazing how quickly edits are made and people flag posts. I find it interesting how there are certain criterias that wiki people go by, but then from seeing the notability flag on my own page I discoverd that everyone has their own point of view with what should and can be posted. For example, one person flagged my page for speedy deletion but then someone else stood up for the post saying that there is sufficient information.
Overall, I feel like wikipedia cannot be a reliable source because there are so many different views and you can never really know which is right or wrong (unless you research the sources for yourself). Before this project, I felt that wikipedia was reliable and I took everything at face value; I figured everything on the page must be correct and reliable to reference. Wikipedia is easily accessible and obtains so much information--it's really neat. Yet, after doing this project myself, I now realize that there can be amateurs like myself who are creating new pages and such with very basic knowledge. Unless you really know what you're doing, how do you know who's ideas can be trusted and who's cannot? I now understand why professors are not in favor of using Wikipedia as a source for writing a research paper.
In doing this wikipedia project I learned how fascinating it can be for a community to come together through a single search engine. It's amazing how quickly edits are made and people flag posts. I find it interesting how there are certain criterias that wiki people go by, but then from seeing the notability flag on my own page I discoverd that everyone has their own point of view with what should and can be posted. For example, one person flagged my page for speedy deletion but then someone else stood up for the post saying that there is sufficient information.
Overall, I feel like wikipedia cannot be a reliable source because there are so many different views and you can never really know which is right or wrong (unless you research the sources for yourself). Before this project, I felt that wikipedia was reliable and I took everything at face value; I figured everything on the page must be correct and reliable to reference. Wikipedia is easily accessible and obtains so much information--it's really neat. Yet, after doing this project myself, I now realize that there can be amateurs like myself who are creating new pages and such with very basic knowledge. Unless you really know what you're doing, how do you know who's ideas can be trusted and who's cannot? I now understand why professors are not in favor of using Wikipedia as a source for writing a research paper.
3.01.2008
Agenda Item Week 9
On Papert's Mindstorms
In looking at learning it is not enough to look at "learning how to learn" (ie. concentrate on the learner) but we need to study the basic structure of the subject itself.
Computers will not create an educational revolution. Forget about computers (for a minute!); culture is central to change! Papert is not a mechanical technological determinist. He is more on about reconceptualising traditional subject domains and using, in this instance, the computer as a tool to help do this. Since culture is central to change then it follows that a teacher ought to aspire to be an anthropologist. The computer is merely one important recent addition to the cultural landscape. The question that the anthropologist/teacher ought to focus on is rather than figuring out what we want for the culture, Papert states we need to figure out what it is in the culture that can change and which cultural materials are relevant to intellectual development.
The computer will not replace the teacher. On the contrary, teachers will have to become more skilled to incorporate the new technology into the overall educational context.
With claiming that the teacher ought to be an anthropologist, Papert contrast with the phrase New Math (420).
Papert politicises the educational debate in a highly practical way.
In looking at learning it is not enough to look at "learning how to learn" (ie. concentrate on the learner) but we need to study the basic structure of the subject itself.
Computers will not create an educational revolution. Forget about computers (for a minute!); culture is central to change! Papert is not a mechanical technological determinist. He is more on about reconceptualising traditional subject domains and using, in this instance, the computer as a tool to help do this. Since culture is central to change then it follows that a teacher ought to aspire to be an anthropologist. The computer is merely one important recent addition to the cultural landscape. The question that the anthropologist/teacher ought to focus on is rather than figuring out what we want for the culture, Papert states we need to figure out what it is in the culture that can change and which cultural materials are relevant to intellectual development.
The computer will not replace the teacher. On the contrary, teachers will have to become more skilled to incorporate the new technology into the overall educational context.
With claiming that the teacher ought to be an anthropologist, Papert contrast with the phrase New Math (420).
Papert politicises the educational debate in a highly practical way.
2.22.2008
Agenda Item Week 8
From the reading: Gameflow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games- Sweester & Wyeth
Flow is an experience “so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will get out of it, even when it is difficult or dangerous” [Csikszentmihalyi 1990]. This implies that people play games for the experience itself, and for no external reward. Futhermore, "every flow activity provides a sense of discovery, a creative feeling of being transported into a new reality (a familiar sensation for game players)" (3). Also, the criteria were used to develop a concrete understanding of what constitutes good design and player enjoyment in real-time strategy games. The GameFlow model serves as a starting point for academics and game developers to understand enjoyment in games and to conduct further research into understanding, evaluating and designing enjoyable games (24).
Flow experiences consist of eight elements, as follows:
(1) a task that can be completed;
(2) the ability to concentrate on the task;
(3) that concentration is possible because the task has clear goals;
(4) that concentration is possible because the task provides immediate feedback;
(5) the ability to exercise a sense of control over actions;
(6) a deep but effortless involvement that removes awareness of the frustrations of
everyday life;
(7) concern for self disappears, but sense of self emerges stronger afterwards; and
(8) the sense of the duration of time is altered.
Eight core elements that relate to flow: concentration, challenge, skills, control, clear goals, feedback, immersion, and social.
Are there games where this model wouldn't work?
Flow is an experience “so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will get out of it, even when it is difficult or dangerous” [Csikszentmihalyi 1990]. This implies that people play games for the experience itself, and for no external reward. Futhermore, "every flow activity provides a sense of discovery, a creative feeling of being transported into a new reality (a familiar sensation for game players)" (3). Also, the criteria were used to develop a concrete understanding of what constitutes good design and player enjoyment in real-time strategy games. The GameFlow model serves as a starting point for academics and game developers to understand enjoyment in games and to conduct further research into understanding, evaluating and designing enjoyable games (24).
Flow experiences consist of eight elements, as follows:
(1) a task that can be completed;
(2) the ability to concentrate on the task;
(3) that concentration is possible because the task has clear goals;
(4) that concentration is possible because the task provides immediate feedback;
(5) the ability to exercise a sense of control over actions;
(6) a deep but effortless involvement that removes awareness of the frustrations of
everyday life;
(7) concern for self disappears, but sense of self emerges stronger afterwards; and
(8) the sense of the duration of time is altered.
Eight core elements that relate to flow: concentration, challenge, skills, control, clear goals, feedback, immersion, and social.
Are there games where this model wouldn't work?
Agenda Item Week 7
In Jonathan Belman's reading, "game reviews", he states "we believe that design decisions affect the range of plausible values interpretations for a game in a roughly systematic way" (2).
"The exact make-up of a particular player's values experience is likely to depend on the idiosyncratic combination of personal, cultural and situational factors that he or she brings to the game" (1). Each person's experience with the game is different. Thus, game values offer personal values of the makers/designers of the game. In a sense, this suggests that games are beginning to resemble more and more like reality.
Examples:
Left Behind: Eternal Forces--
Either this is just poorly balanced game play, or it does suggest something about he relative values of prayer and the lives of non-believers in the designers’ ethos.
Crackdown--
So, while Crackdown can be regarded an intolerant game regarding issues of ethnic origin and gender, it might also be considered tolerant, diverse and inclusive regarding issues of race.
Ico--
The designers of Ico challenge this paradigm that has a religious aspect in it, shifting the focus from violent rescue to caring and protective in-game behaviors.
"The exact make-up of a particular player's values experience is likely to depend on the idiosyncratic combination of personal, cultural and situational factors that he or she brings to the game" (1). Each person's experience with the game is different. Thus, game values offer personal values of the makers/designers of the game. In a sense, this suggests that games are beginning to resemble more and more like reality.
Examples:
Left Behind: Eternal Forces--
Either this is just poorly balanced game play, or it does suggest something about he relative values of prayer and the lives of non-believers in the designers’ ethos.
Crackdown--
So, while Crackdown can be regarded an intolerant game regarding issues of ethnic origin and gender, it might also be considered tolerant, diverse and inclusive regarding issues of race.
Ico--
The designers of Ico challenge this paradigm that has a religious aspect in it, shifting the focus from violent rescue to caring and protective in-game behaviors.
2.10.2008
Agenda Item Week 6
Among the readings, we've learned that games have a deeper meaning in its making, such meanings can be politically or socially. Ultimately, however, I agree with the idea that games function to provide "intrinsic pleasures they provide" despite the particular function it has such as through learning about a topic, playing for fun, hanging out, etc.
Nonetheless, Zimmerman suggests that games have a deeper more complex meaning and function. Design begins with research and through iterative design, games are adjusted through playtesting. In significance, the process of iteration is important and benefits game designers/players because you "discover answers to questions you didn't even know were there" (Zimmerman).
Why do we need play-testing? Key to media is getting the right kind of feedback at the right moment.
Nonetheless, Zimmerman suggests that games have a deeper more complex meaning and function. Design begins with research and through iterative design, games are adjusted through playtesting. In significance, the process of iteration is important and benefits game designers/players because you "discover answers to questions you didn't even know were there" (Zimmerman).
Why do we need play-testing? Key to media is getting the right kind of feedback at the right moment.
2.01.2008
Agenda Item Week 5
Ian Bogust, the author a book on the games and assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, claims that (young) people are more likely to learn about big theories of society by playing games and teaching themselves than to read it in the paper ("Saving the World, One Video Game at a Time" by Clive Thompson). Although I do agree that putting societal issues in a game is a creative approach in spreading knowledge across populations, I also feel that people are selective about the games they play. In this way, how effective are games in reaching the people?
Just as Ben Sawyer, co-founder of the Serious Games Initiative, claims that designing fun and politically nuanced games is really tough--I agree. Games are, in fact, seen as an artistic expression and "by understanding how games express rhetoric in their rules, we not only gain a critical vantage point on videogame artifacts, but also we can begin to consider how to design games whose primary purpose is to editorialize, teach, and make political statements" ("Playing Politics: Videogames for Politics, Activism, and Advocacy by Ian Bogust).
In questioning whether games are or are not effective in imposing societal issues, just being able to discuss it in this way is already a change.
Just as Ben Sawyer, co-founder of the Serious Games Initiative, claims that designing fun and politically nuanced games is really tough--I agree. Games are, in fact, seen as an artistic expression and "by understanding how games express rhetoric in their rules, we not only gain a critical vantage point on videogame artifacts, but also we can begin to consider how to design games whose primary purpose is to editorialize, teach, and make political statements" ("Playing Politics: Videogames for Politics, Activism, and Advocacy by Ian Bogust).
In questioning whether games are or are not effective in imposing societal issues, just being able to discuss it in this way is already a change.
1.28.2008
Wiki Entry Deleted!
I wanted to confirm that I have done a Wikipedia entry and that it got deleted and as of 4:13am there is no entry to show for it. I am now going to try and recreate my entry. JL
1.26.2008
Agenda Item Week 4
On NMR: From Computer Power and Human Reason, by Joseph Weizenbaum
I feel that getting a human-like response from a computer is threatening and in a lot of ways discouraging. By blurring the lines of human intelligence and artificial intelligence you begin to question the validity of your own answers in comparison to a 'script'. It is clearly understood that computers cannot understand emotions and Weizenbaum elaborates on this idea. He shares his fear on the idea that some people have considered that a machine can pose as a psychotherapist, for example, and that humans have become immensely dependent on techonology by stating that "science may also be seen as an addictive drug"(372). Weizenbaum questions the morality of creating machines who come very close to human capabilities, in which I also am curious about. I, personally, feel that allowing computers to take on the roles of human is practically inhumane and in a lot of ways ridiculous.
Weizenbaum discusses about Artificial Intelligence programs like Eliza and Doctor and highlights his concerns over people who see computers as assuming an intimate human role. He highlights that some suggest Doctor should be employed a human role of psychotherapist (370). Because the line between humans and machines are drawing closer together, he warns that "computer applications that either ought not to be undertaken at all or if they are contemplated, should be approached with the utmost caution" (268). As he raises the question over the proper place of computers in the social order, it would be interesting to hear others take on this thought.
I feel that getting a human-like response from a computer is threatening and in a lot of ways discouraging. By blurring the lines of human intelligence and artificial intelligence you begin to question the validity of your own answers in comparison to a 'script'. It is clearly understood that computers cannot understand emotions and Weizenbaum elaborates on this idea. He shares his fear on the idea that some people have considered that a machine can pose as a psychotherapist, for example, and that humans have become immensely dependent on techonology by stating that "science may also be seen as an addictive drug"(372). Weizenbaum questions the morality of creating machines who come very close to human capabilities, in which I also am curious about. I, personally, feel that allowing computers to take on the roles of human is practically inhumane and in a lot of ways ridiculous.
1.20.2008
Agenda Item Week 3
On the video: "Get Creative"
CC's signature animated film covers the basics of why we formed, what we do, and how we do it.
Notes on the video:
- "Creative Common wants to allow some uses to their work" and is said to "compliment Big C (copyright)"
- CC says "some rights reserved" where the Big C says "all rights reserved"
- "get creative. it's easy when you skip the intermediaries"
- "We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them — to declare “some rights reserved.”
- Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).
Free in this case means "copyleft" (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) where the public domain has access to shared thoughts and ideas but it is under copyright law. Free means allowed access to everyone but that doesn't mean it is not entirely free where credit is not given to the original creator for putting forth the idea. Creative Commons looks at free software and observes that in a public domain people build off of others ideas and can make profit off of it. An example of this is Disney who has taken something publicly shared that is free and making money off of that. In this way, free is not free but free is freedom (http://creativecommons.org/about/)
CC's signature animated film covers the basics of why we formed, what we do, and how we do it.
Notes on the video:
- "Creative Common wants to allow some uses to their work" and is said to "compliment Big C (copyright)"
- CC says "some rights reserved" where the Big C says "all rights reserved"
- "get creative. it's easy when you skip the intermediaries"
- "We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them — to declare “some rights reserved.”
- Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).
As 'creative' Creative Commons is, I still feel that its lacking in its aspirations. It automatically grants permission to reuse people's thoughts and ideas with much freedom. Much like GNU General Public License it functions to allow people to reuse, modify, and redistribute information. Wikipedia can be seen as a type of Creative Commons where anyone can post entries about anything they want to say and share it in the common. Yet, many entries must go through criterias before it is allowed to even be public or shared. Therefore, what does the term free mean?
Free in this case means "copyleft" (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) where the public domain has access to shared thoughts and ideas but it is under copyright law. Free means allowed access to everyone but that doesn't mean it is not entirely free where credit is not given to the original creator for putting forth the idea. Creative Commons looks at free software and observes that in a public domain people build off of others ideas and can make profit off of it. An example of this is Disney who has taken something publicly shared that is free and making money off of that. In this way, free is not free but free is freedom (http://creativecommons.org/about/)
1.15.2008
Agenda Item Week 2
"the memex has been envisioned as a means of turning an information explosion into a knowledge explosion" (Bush 36). This statement appeals to me, and says to me 'knowledge is power'. That computers act as a form of communication and brings everyone from everywhere together. In this way, technology--the internet, has brought people together to share a commonality.
"Science has provided the swiftest communication between individuals; it has provided a record of ideas and has enabled man to manipulate and to make extracts from that record so that knowledge evolves and endures throughout the life of a race rather than that of an individual" (Bush 38). This quote appeals to me because before reading this passage, it hadn't occurred to me how science in itself is communication. What I find most interesting is how this article opens with talking about bombs and war. Reading further along the article you then realize the intellectual path into brilliant technological processes. As such, "shortly after 'As We May Think' was first published, Doug Engelbart, a young radar technician, came across it in a Red Cross library for U.S. soldiers in the Philippines. Later, with the memex in mind, Engelbart began work that would result in the invention of the mouse, the word processor, the hyperlink, and concepts of new media for which these groundbreaking inventions were merely enabling technologies" (Bush 36). It is most fascinating how a young radar technician invented such technological advances in which we are most dependent on today.
"Science has provided the swiftest communication between individuals; it has provided a record of ideas and has enabled man to manipulate and to make extracts from that record so that knowledge evolves and endures throughout the life of a race rather than that of an individual" (Bush 38). This quote appeals to me because before reading this passage, it hadn't occurred to me how science in itself is communication. What I find most interesting is how this article opens with talking about bombs and war. Reading further along the article you then realize the intellectual path into brilliant technological processes. As such, "shortly after 'As We May Think' was first published, Doug Engelbart, a young radar technician, came across it in a Red Cross library for U.S. soldiers in the Philippines. Later, with the memex in mind, Engelbart began work that would result in the invention of the mouse, the word processor, the hyperlink, and concepts of new media for which these groundbreaking inventions were merely enabling technologies" (Bush 36). It is most fascinating how a young radar technician invented such technological advances in which we are most dependent on today.
Explanation for my post
In my posts I decided to use the color light sky blue because it is a bright color and goes nicely with the dark background (while staying within a matching color scheme). I changed the font colors to some words to put an emphasis on the expression and meaning of the word. The italicization of words provides a personal effect that is more personal to me. In the template section of the blogger, I minimized the size of the main background so that it would fit the screen better. I also changed the post's background to a black customized background so that there would be a vivid contrast against the text making the text easily visible. In my posts, I also added an anchor tag to a map of the UCSD campus, providing for my post a sense of realism to my blog readers. A picture of the Price Center is also uploaded to make the blog more interesting and appealing. By editing the picture, I formatted it so that the text would wrap nicely around the picture placing it in an appropriate space.
Where I Call Home... (away from home)
I am currently a junior at UC San Diego, and my major is in communications. I first explored this new place with uncertainty and mystery. Besides a rigorous academic career, what else can this prestigious institution offer me? To my left I saw loneliness, and to my right I saw emptiness. Best described as being in an endless realm of unfamiliar countenances, I walked miles and miles across campus searching for something. Finally, I stumbled upon this "something" in which I had been searching for. 
I found myself at the gameroom in Price Center-where I have come to call my home, away from home.
To view a map of the UCSD campus click here!
I have been working at UCSD's Gameroom in Price Center since freshman year and am currently the assistant manager there. Where many people may say college life is parties and drinking, I would say college life is the gameroom. The gameroom is where I have met some of the most amazing people. I've made my close circle of friends here. It pays for my tuition, rent, and miscellaneous uses. I study here; I work here; I eat here; I meet my friends here; I nap here; I play here. Through the tedious studying and pressures of doing well academically, billiards has become my escape.
My love for the game came about through working at the gameroom.
I found myself at the gameroom in Price Center-where I have come to call my home, away from home.To view a map of the UCSD campus click here!
I have been working at UCSD's Gameroom in Price Center since freshman year and am currently the assistant manager there. Where many people may say college life is parties and drinking, I would say college life is the gameroom. The gameroom is where I have met some of the most amazing people. I've made my close circle of friends here. It pays for my tuition, rent, and miscellaneous uses. I study here; I work here; I eat here; I meet my friends here; I nap here; I play here. Through the tedious studying and pressures of doing well academically, billiards has become my escape.
My love for the game came about through working at the gameroom.
1.14.2008
A Short History of Billiards
It is best guessed that billiards originated in France as an indoor version of a lawn game similar to croquet. The term billiard is French, deriving from the word billart, one of the wooden sticks, or bille, a ball.
Originally using only two balls, the game was played on a six-pocket table with a hoop similar to a croquet wicket and an upright stick used as a target (as shown in the picture).
Originally using only two balls, the game was played on a six-pocket table with a hoop similar to a croquet wicket and an upright stick used as a target (as shown in the picture).
Pool 'Noob' Exposed
The first time I was really exposed to shooting pool was at the PC Gameroom at UCSD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)