Week of 2007-12-31 (and 2007-12-24)

I'm back in Chicago. I was hoping it would be all snowing and nice, but the snow's all melted, and I think there's been a few days when Hong Kong was colder this break. Sad.

In these two weeks I:
  • Watched American Gangster, Atonement, and Da Vinci Code. I liked Atonement the best. Da Vinci Code had a significantly different back story than in the book, which church-ified the story a bit. American Gangster was a good story.
  • Hung out with my friends. I will miss them; this is the least willingly I've left Hong Kong since the start of college.
That's about it... boring holidays huh. Maybe classes will bring some challenge into my life...
No comments

Journal Helper

I thought I would say a few things about my other journal.

I've kept it for 6 years, my first entry on 2002-04-18. The funny thing about that is I had started writing because I wanted to try programming a database, and journaling software was the first thing I thought of; I had written the first few entries as test data. The program I wrote then has long been deleted, but the entries remain. Well, I actually lost the first five or so when I deleted the directory containing the program, but what could I do.

The original journals were written in one plain text file, one line for the date and one line for the concatenated text. The test text didn't need paragraphs, but now I just dump them all into one line. Since I've given up my journaling program, I've instead put the entries into HTML files, one year per file. The advantage there is that I can read my journal in a web browser, and the text will word wrap automatically. I still read my entries in a browser sometimes, especially when I need to read chronologically.

Most of my reading, however, is done in a terminal. I wrote a script a while back since I started using Linux heavily. Besides giving me options for doing statistics on my entries (how many entries I've written, how often I write, the most common words I use) and giving me a single command to backup my journal, it does a pretty neat conjunctive search. Because I have over 1000 entries with 700,000 words (see? the script comes in useful), it's becoming increasingly hard to find previous events to reference. Instead, I would do a simple search for it. For example, I might remember going a school concert then watching a movie. I could simply do
./tools -Sd concert movie
and that will give me all the dates in which the words 'concert' and 'movie' appears. Again, it's a neat little script that takes all the search terms and uses them in grep, piping them one after the other. Such is the power of Linux.

I haven't changed the basic layout of my journal for a few years now, but lately I've been trying to think of a different format. Because grep doesn't how I have one line for dates and one line for the text, it has problem searching for a certain date. If I want entries which reference, say, the entry for Christmas of 2005, the output will be all messed up, since it actually matches the date of the entry, but gives the text of the entry before that (since it's the line above, which is how it gets the date). There's probably a really easy way of changing the script to handle that, but I haven't found it yet.
No comments

Interactive Environment

We were talking about the car brand Lexus the other day, and how Lexuses (Lexi?) have a large touch screen in the front of the car, which can automatically connect to your phone through bluetooth, and allow calls to be dialed and taken with the car's speaker (and microphone, I assume) system. Lexi also have keys which work by proximity, so you don't actually turn the key to start the engine, or press any buttons to unlock the door.

What interested me the most was how the car reacts to your presence, whether it's the door unlocking, or being able to pick up contacts and numbers from your phone. It is integrating you into the environment, and allowing you to interact with it in more natural ways.

I was taken by the idea that the environment is static, but waits for data (stored in the phone) to come to it. One thing it reminded me of was the whole software as a service idea. The concept here is similar, that the car waits for input before doing anything. It also reminded me of one of my professor's ideas, where at a party a computer would choose music so some people like it and some people don't, driving the activity more than choosing music randomly. This would work for art galleries, gatherings, or any other social event as well where the different interests of people could be exploited.
No comments

New Year Resolution

Three days into the new year, it's time I shared my new year resolution:

1280 x 800 @ 60 Hz

:D
No comments

Philosophy Game

Last year I took a computer game programming class for a few weeks before dropping it. The class (or at least the part I sat in) was more about narrative and story telling than about things specific to computer games. It should be fine, really, except that I suck at telling stories. Since our first assignment was to write a piece of interactive fiction, I didn't feel like I would do that well. I wrote a terrible outline for a detective story, then dropped the course. The class did, however, make me pay more attention to the interactive fiction scene since.

I did have a better idea in mind, but it wasn't so much a story than an exploration. Not the "let's go on an adventure" type exploration, but a "let's sit and reflect on yourself" type inner exploration. I wasn't sure if it would qualify as a game, so I didn't choose to develop it. The idea stuck with me though, and I would dearly love to see someone write an IF with this.

Here's the idea: the "game" is really an exploration of different possible philosophical beliefs, as many as the author can cram into something like an IF. When the player starts the game, the "room" has little to no description. The idea is that the world is determined by what the player chooses to do. This is hard to explain, so let me demonstrate.

The player starts the game, but seems the initial empty prompt. Pressing enter and seeing nothing, they type "look", the standard descriptive command in IF. The description then replies with that the player discovers he "perceives" something.

The trick to this "game" is that the player's words are taken to be literal, in an unformed universe. By "looking", the player assumes that they (as a character in that game world) have eyes (or a "mental eye"), and which in turn implies that not only the player exists, but they have a physical body and have the sense of sight.

Ideally, the "plot" would be a series of discoveries until the player arrives at the philosophy or a certain period, or even a certain philosopher. The interaction in this game is merely a way of deciding which branch of the game tree the player would traverse.

It is interesting to note that this idea has been used partially in fiction before. Here's the beginning of a chapter from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:
He lay face down, listening to the silence. He was perfectly alone. Nobody was watching Nobody else was there. He was not perfectly sure that he was there himself.
A long time later, or maybe no time at all, it came to him that he must exist, must be more than disembodied though, because he was lying, definitely lying, on some surface. Therefore, he had a sense of touch, and the thing against which he lay existed too.
Almost as soon as he had reached this conclusion, Harry became conscious that he was naked. Convinced as he was of his total solitude, this did not concern him, but it did intrigue him slightly. He wondered whether, as he could feel, he would be able to see. In opening them, he discovered that he had eyes.
He lay in a bright mist, though it was not like mist he had ever experienced before. his surroundings were not hidden by cloudly vapour; rather the cloudy vapour had not yet formed into surroundings. The floor on which he lay seemed to be white, neither warm nor cold, but simply there, a flat, blank something on which to be.
He sat up. His body appeared unscathed. He touched his face. He was not wearing glasses anymore.
This is the same way the player would discover the philosophical terrain around his character. Once the player understands what is going on (I suspect most players would end up with the same "philosophy", since IF assumes a certain background), they would begin trying to see what other philosophies are in the game. I have thought a few interesting branches:
  • "let there be light" would be a biblical worldview, turning the IF into a God game of sorts
  • "think" is another common IF verb, which might result in Descartes' rational "I think therefore I am", a completely non-physical existence
  • "quit" or something similar, firmly setting the world as artificial and voluntary
Interactive fiction is always hard to write, especially when the verbs are numerous in this case. For this philosophy game, the author must not only anticipate what people will write, but also know the logical implications of that verb and what it means for the player's worldview. It will be an exercise in creating a taxonomy of different philosophic viewpoints.

When I read Raph Koster's book A Theory of Fun for Game Design, one of the things that struck a cord with me was his projection for how games can become an art. One of his complaints about current games is that they don't change the player. The player is not affected by the game, but only steps into and out of the game world as the same real world person. This is in contrast to how art has the capacity to influence the individual, and lead the perceiver to some unexplored aspects of life. I think a "game" like this, while it probably will not be immensely popular, definitely falls closer to the category of art than of game.
No comments

Ambigrams and Psychology

I'm more than a little behind in posting.

Every year around winter I get into an art mood, and work on either ambigrams or origami architecture cards. I've done a few ambigrams before, but I didn't think about the psychology behind it until now.

When I first started playing around with amibgrams, I showed a few to other people. Someone then commented that it's just a visual trick, because humans tend to fit what they see into categories they are already familiar with. In this case, we only see letters the right side up, and ignore the other potential interpretation of the letters being up side down.

Thinking about that a few days ago, I was reminded of how humans seem to have a special brain area for recognizing faces. Humans apparently need to recognize faces so frequently that by two months there is already a brain area which activates on perceiving a face. We have a tendency to see faces in random objects, and some people have a selective disability in recognizing faces. More related to ambigrams though is the Thatcher effect, how humans can't immediately identify "problems" in upside down faces, which are otherwise rather... eye-catching when viewed the right side up.

I think the same thing happens with ambigrams. We become so accustomed to reading letters and words right side up that we ignore small features changes. It just so happens that these changes form the same letters (or sometimes different letters) up side down, hence creating the ambigram.

If this theory works out, words that are more common would be easier to see, because of the reader's familiarity with that sequence of letters. For example, someone named Earnest might be faster to read his name in an ambigram, compared with other people who would see the adjective. Seems like it would be a pretty cool psychology experiment.
3 comments

Silence is Golden... Registered?

Ah, I caught up. That was fast.

A few days ago I watched a movie at an AMC theater. Before the movie started, they showed short slip telling people to be quiet while the movie is showing. The slip ended with the words "Silence is Golden®".

I was really surprised that they could register something as common as "silence is golden", especially since it's not being used outside of its usual context.

A quick google search shows this has been brought up a number of times. At least AMC has the wits not to sue anyone over it.
No comments