Video Games Are Also Things

Ah, nothing like a ridiculous science article to wake me up in the morning.

I don't even know where to start with this one. Well, for starters, they cheat. Take a look at their methodology:

"Volunteer played a bicycling game on a laptop with two straws attached to their mouths.

If cyclists from their same team – as indicated by a jersey design – passed by, participants received a slurp of their favourite juice. However, if a cyclist from the rival team passed the participant, he or she got a swig of salty tea."

Note that the primary training is done not in the video game but with flavored drinks. The article later claims that they're aware of this issue but that increasingly realistic video games offer increasingly realistic sensations in line with good and bad drinks. Okay, I guess I buy that, but the use of drinks just brings the real issue with the study into sharper relief. I'm talking about the "DUH!" issue.

When you stop to think about it, is this study much different from Pavlov's dogs? That was in the 19th Century! Haven't we learned yet that we can train people to have responses. And just in case it wasn't obvious that this applies to video games, all you need to do is ask an airplane pilot or an astronaut. We've been training them using simulations (that's a big word that means "video games") for over a decade.

This has gotten me thinking about a larger issue. How is it that, with video games more mainstream than ever, society still has this weird notion that video games are some special sort of thing? Video games, awesome as they are, are just games, more sophisticated maybe but still cut from the same cloth as Monopoly.

Games are all about decision-making. In some games, such as Candy Land, the decisions are so simple that they really only exist on a meta-level--every decision boils down to "Do I want to follow this rule or do I want to stop playing this game?"--but other games, such as Chess or Grand Theft Auto, the decisions are a lot more difficult to make. Naturally, some options are better than others in certain situations and some are better almost all the time. Games always reward certain behaviors and punish others. Video games aren't special in this respect. Sure, they're often more realistic (killing a hooker is a different sort of option than moving a bishop) but does Grand Theft Auto really encourage certain real world behavior in a manner fundamentally different from The Game of Life? I don't think so.

Also, video. It's a part of the name. Television, like games, is about decision-making. Only with television, the decisions are out of the audience's hands and instead placed in the hands of characters. Still, we see certain decisions are rewarded while others are punished. With television, the arbiter is not the rules of the game but rather the writer, who decides which choices are good and which are bad. Watch enough of a show and its writer's beliefs will inevitably rub off.

Also, THE WORLD. Seriously. Everything that happens in life is training. If you get a ticket for parking near a fire hydrant, you might think it's a fluke. But if you do it again and get another ticket, you probably won't do it again. On the other hand, you may choose not to pay your tickets, but society has spent a long time training people to pay tickets.

My point is two-fold:

1. The idea that video games can affect a person's decision-making process is not news.
2. The idea that video games are some sort of scary special monster that is different from anything older generations grew up with is flat-out wrong. They're just a lot more fun than Chutes and Ladders.

"Begging the Question" and Other Annoyances

If I had readers, this post would probably make me enemies, but I don't think it's something I actually need to worry about. :-/ Today I want to follow in the footsteps of John August's recent post about "wherefore". (Spoiler alert: It doesn't mean "where"!) and talk about really common grammatical and linguistic mistakes that are far too prevalent in society. Here are the ones that really annoy me:

1. "Begs the question" - John mentions this in his post as an example of misuses that don't bother him but I feel very strongly about it due to my philosophy studies. Most people use it when they mean "raises the question" but it actually refers to a circular form of argument in which the conclusion is presupposed in the question. This is something worth being able to talk about clearly and using it incorrectly basically ensures that it is confusing if you try to use it properly. Furthermore, it's no easier than "raises the question"; it just sounds more "intellectual".

2. "If I was..." - Don't ask me to tell you the official grammar term for this. I wanna say it's the perfect conditional or something, but I really have no idea. I just know it's wrong. It should be "If I were..." The thing that pisses me off about it is that as far as I can tell, the biggest culprit of spreading misinformation about this grammatical structure is television. I guess they think "If I were" sounds snobby, but it only sounds snobby because "If I was" is so overused. It's like a swear word on TV. I wonder if the FCC has any rules about it. If not, let's fight the power and use correct grammar. It's only snobby because lazy writers want to make us feel bad for their mistakes.

Neo-retro Steg

Back in high school I spent a year doing a research project on steganography. Steganography is the art/science of sending hidden messages. It shouldn't be confused with cryptography, which involves sending a message that cannot be understood by an eavesdropper. The goal with steganography is to avoid letting the eavesdropper know a message even exists. Writing a message in invisible ink is a classic example of steganography.

Recently, steganography has gone digital. For example, you can hide a message in an image file by replacing the least significant bits of the image with the bits of the message being hidden. This adds some noise to the file, but is still very effective unless an eavesdropper has reason to believe the image contains a message. That's the type I studied back in high school.

Now it seems, digital steganography has gone old school. Remember ascii art? Those pictures drawn using typographical symbols? Some people have developed a method of hiding data files in an ascii image. The hidden text is right there on the surface, not in the code, but the technique is pure computer. It's a really cool mix of old and new. The only problem is the site is totally falling apart under the weight of the slashdot link that lead me (and many others) to the site. Ah well, someone will make a better version soon and we will all be able to send secret codes in the tacky ascii images we leave on our friends' facebook walls.

Superheroes = Love

I know this is months late, but I like this picture from Halloween for so many reasons and couldn't resist posting it. Except I'm a little sad it's blurry. That's a bummer. But whatever.

(PS. Remember that ____ = love meme? Wtf was that all about?)

Perfect Timing!

Funny how I came across this image right when I needed it. (via FFFFOUND!)

Respecting Your Audience

There's a rule in TV writing that is often broken: Don't end an act (ie. cut to a commercial break) with your main character in a life or death situation. In this day and age, it's just not a plausible cliffhanger. If a main character were going to die, you'd hear about it in ads and on blogs, so you can safely expect that the character will be fine. Obviously, shows do this all the time, but it almost always feels a little bit condescending. How dumb does the writer think the audience is?

I was thinking about this rule while working on the outline for my new pilot project. It's a sci-fi show, and I was considering ending the first act by revealing the sci-fi element. For example, if it were a vampire show (it's not), ending the first act by showing vampires for the first time. Surprise!

I hope it's clear why I think this is a writing mistake. It shows a lack of respect for the audience. They've seen the ads for the show (or, if you're an aspiring writer, they've heard what the script's about from you or whoever they got the script from) so it's not shocking that vampires show up. It's a show about vampires! The real question is, why didn't the vampires show up sooner?

When it comes to respecting its audience, there's no show better than Battlestar Galactica. (VAGUE REFERENCES TO MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!) Towards the end of last season, they killed off a main character. In interviews, the cast and crew insisted she was really dead, but the fans didn't believe it. Her name was removed from the opening credits. Everyone finally accepted that fact that holy shit, they'd actually killed off one of their biggest stars. AND THEN SHE CAME BACK IN THE FINALE. And it was great, because the people behind the show knew that everyone would expect her to come back and they went out of their way to make it convincing. The credits aren't part of the script, but they're definitely part of the show. So is the title. So are the ad campaigns, your logline, etc. If you expect that people are aware of your show, you're bound to write a better script, even if the audience isn't aware of it. After all, you'll be forced to find stronger act outs and get to the point of the show faster. If you accept the fact that people already know your show has vampires, then you are free to spend less time explaining the vampires and more time having them do all the cool things that makes the show worth watching every week.

Obviously, this is all my opinion, and I'm sure some writers (and many execs) will disagree with me. But I'll definitely be restructuring my script and you can bet the vampires will show up on page one.

(But seriously. I'm not writing a show about vampires. Although I do have this really cool idea for feature...)

Don't Call It A Comeback

This is it. I am back. Fo REALZ. Some aspects of this blog, such as the name and the author, will be the same. Other aspects, such as the city I live in, will be different. I'm out in LA, I'm working on a TV show, I'm writing on the side, and this will be a place for my meta-writings. That is, my writing about my new life as a writer instead of a college student. Also, I'll probably continue to talk a lot about random stuff that interests me, like social networks, the media, airport security... I dunno.

My friend Becca claims that blogging is like riding a bicycle, but I don't think that's true. I imagine it's more like jogging, but I've never really gotten to that point where I was good at jogging in the first place, so I can't tell you for sure. Either way, bear with me while I remember how to blog. I'll do my best to make it worth it.

Back... Now Featuring Twitter!

I think this blog might be making a comeback. At the very least I've added my Twitter feed to the sidebar.

On an unrelated note, here are the rules to the official Samblog drinking game:
-Take a drink whenever I say I'm going to start posting again.

If that doesn't get you wasted enough, feel free to drink every time I mention Shake Shack or comics. You're going to be SO done.

College Puzzle Challenge Recap

Here are my notes from the College Puzzle Challenge this past Saturday:

12:29: CPC intro runs late. Team Redundant Squad sets up shop in the "CSB 5th floor lounge thing". That is our official location.
12:55: 78th overall with 1 non-pre puzzle solved.
3:57: after realizing we've forgotten to update for a while, we are now in first at Columbia and #39 overall
4:27: #34 overall. Sandwiches are yummy. Also, music videos are annoying.
5:07: Malaise sets in. We're down to 44th. Robin is folding shit with no idea of how to proceed. Sam thinks he's made a breakthrough but he hasn't. Brad is on a sandwich run. That, at least, is good.
6:27: We were in 2nd, but after 3 quick solutions, we're back in 1st at Columbia, 48th overall.
10:20: IM IN UR PUZEL KUNFUSING UR TEEM. But on the bright side, we finally solved the shirt.

10:44: IT'S A FUCKING WHALE??!?

At around 10:44 I stopped posting as we went into high gear for out last hour and fifteen minutes. Somehow, though, we got sniped at the end, and wound up in second place. Still, not a bad showing for a team of three in a year full of labor intensive puzzles. It was definitely another fun experience and I'm kind of inclined to do it again next year, when my sailing team friends are guaranteed to not have sailing. Well, at least the ones who've graduated.

The Final Standings

A List of Every Puzzle (With Solutions)
(I really liked Lettergate, which was "the shirt", Tails of Adventure, and Form 1515a, but there were a bunch of good puzzles. Just not How to Succeed in Business. That one was LAME.)

P.S. Just so you're not confused, that's Brad in the picture, not Ethan like the Powerpoint says. We lost Ethan and Katie at the last minute and Brad was Katie's replacement.)

THE RETURN

I am back! Sorta! This is a bit lame for a return post, but I just wanted to remind you all that I am alive and, with midterms over and the script for the first episode of my Columbia soap opera finished, I can get back to my true passion: PROCRASTINATING! BLOGGING!

I'm gonna ease back into it with a pair of unrelated links:

-An Opinion Piece on the Writer's Guild strike by Damon Lindelof, co-creator and head writer of Lost. I'm posting it for two reasons. First, I think the writer's guild deserves our support. Second, I think it's one of the best, most well-structured opinion pieces I've ever read. Read, study, take notes. You'll thank me later.

-Zakk Snyder's Watchmen Blog. So what if there's not much on it yet. There should be cool stuff soon. And there's a release date!

Random Thoughts about Columbia

Thought 1: After three years, we've finally got a good supermarket in town. Westside is relatively cheap, has a huge selection, has friendly employees, and replaced my moldy cheese without any fuss. It's really amazing how accustomed I'd come to Morton Williams's terribleness. Going grocery shopping makes me happy now.

Thought 2: I think Columbia used the smelliest fertilizer for ever single bush on campus. Our whole school has smelled like manure for a week. WTF?

Not Quite Missed Connection

So I'm sitting on the subway, minding my own business, heading toward work when a girl gets on the train wearing the exact same Beck shirt that I got when I saw him live last year, except in green. In case you don't remember my post-show post, the shirts were do-it-yourself; you bought a blank shirt and a bunch of iron-ons and designed your own shirt right there. Most people went the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink route, but I chose a more minimalist approach: A psychedelic raindrop encapsulating Beck's name and a cityscape.

Sitting on that train, seeing that girl with the same shirt, I realize that she must be my One True Love. Only right when I'm almost done gathering the courage to talk to her, she sits down with her back to me, revealing a (crooked!) picture of Beck on the back of her shirt.

I got off the train at the next stop without saying a word.

Whoa (OR The Hermeneutics of Harry Potter)

Dumbledore's gay?

My thoughts, in no particular order:

-Given that Dumbledore bears a striking resemblance to a certain Gandalf the Grey, was Rowling inspired by Ian McKellen?

-Why now?

-The Harry Potter books are bringing an interesting hermeneutical question to light. There's a longstanding debate on how best to read texts: do you read them as entirely independent entities, drawing your own conclusions, or do you try to read them the way the author intended? Usually, it's not particularly easy to figure out what the author intended. You can't go ask Dante how we're supposed to react to his finding all his role models in hell. But here we have J.K. Rowling traveling around the world telling children facts about the characters, their pasts, and their futures that do not appear anywhere in the book, and often aren't even really hinted at. The Dumbledore thing I'll buy, but Hermione becoming a wizard lawyer after the only mention of her thinking about law is her saying that she'd hate to be a lawyer? I guess it works, but I'd be hesitant to claim it's in the text.

A further example of what I'm talking about: In telling the world that Dumbledore was gay, Rowling also described the Harry Potter story as "a plea for an end to hatred, to bigotry." While I think there is definitely bigotry in the book, and it is uniformly frowned up, my take is that the bigotry is more a function of people being good and people being bad. Yes, Voldemort wants to create a master race of pureblood wizards, but that's secondary to his general malevolence and his status as a dark wizard. Now, I'm not saying my reading is right, and according to Rowling, it's wrong, but the question I'm really trying to raise for your consideration is ultimately one about the final arbiter. Is it Rowling or the book? Who's righter?

Coming full circle in my post, it sorta reminds me of Tolkien's adamant claims that The Lord of the Rings is not about World War II. Whether he meant to or not, the WWII stuff is there. I think the key difference between Harry Potter and other cases like Tolkien, is that Rowling is not merely offering her own interpretation of the material but relating facts that are not mentioned in the book. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, but I do think it's interesting to consider.

People who know me know that I'm big fan of driving. Sure it's a great form of transportation, but mostly I just like the act of driving and everything it entails: going fast, windows down, good music vaguely audible in the background. My friends used to get mad at me back when I first started driving and didn't really know where I was going. We'd get lost a lot and it never bothered me; getting lost in a car was an adventure!

So it's with that in mind that I link you to this awesome WIRED article about the guy who broke the Cannonball Run record. The way he did it, tricked out with GPS systems and spreadsheets, may not be the most romantic method, but it's still a really cool article.

Also, because I love you, here's a BONUS LINK:
Happy 10th birthday, Zaireeka!
(Zaireeka is a 4-disc Flaming Lips album. Each disc has two of the audio tracks from each of the album's eight songs. You play them (and LOUD!) on four different CD players (or more, if you burn copies or use computers). The result is one of the most enthralling music-listening experiences ever. Columbia people, stay tuned for info on a Zaireeka party. I'm dead serious.)

SAM WILL STOMP YOU!

USING HIS GIANT FOOT! (or a drawing of his actual-size foot that makes it appear to be giant!)