Archive for the 'Thoughts' Category Page 2 of 2



A Step Towards Psychohistory

A while ago after watching I, Robot I started reading Foundation by Isaac Asimov. I was utterly fascinated as he introduced the concept of psychohistory which is, quoth the author, “a science in which things could be predicted on a probabilistic or statistical basis.” Basically, large groups of people are treated with statistical models to predict how they will respond to certain economic and social stimuli. Unfortunately, after that the story became bogged down in sleep-inducing politics. But I still find the concept of psychohistory very interesting.

Psychohistory is really just like any other mathematical model. Identify the variables and the relationship between them. It’s finding that relationship that’s the hard part.

A recent Slashdot article brought to my attention work by Patricia L. Sullivan who claims she can predict the outcome of wars with 80% accuracy. Her study is limited in its scope, only relating to military conflicts between nations, but it’s the first example of any psychohistory-like endeavour that I’ve seen.

But do we really want to know the future? And would knowledge of the future influence our current decisions for better of worse? Here’s a quote from Asimov which I find ironic in that he says it’s impossible to predict how psychohistoric knowledge will be used.

“I think if we can somehow get across some of the problems that face us now, humanity has a glorious future, and that if we could use the tenets of psychohistory to guide ourselves we might avoid a great many troubles. But on the other hand, it might create troubles. It’s impossible to tell in advance.”

So our “prediction net gain” is zero. I guess we need another science for predicting the effects of predictions… Did anyone else just get a whiff of recursion in the air?

A Multi-touch Future

If you haven’t watched Jeff Han’s demo of multi-touch computing yet, then you need to. Watch it now. No excuses! Microsoft have also come to the party with their own multi-touch appliance, called Surface which has taken that extra step of applying the technology to home use and mobile device interaction. Their vision is that maybe one day soon, we’ll all have one of these digital coffee tables in our homes, just like most of us now own a TV.

I’m really excited about this technology! Multi-touch is going to revolutionise the way we use computing devices. Jeff Han illustrates the point when he refers to the user interface “disappearing” to be replaced by intuitive systems that just behave how we would expect. The old WIMP paradigm of GUI computing has plateaued in it’s advancement and we’re not going to make any progress in human-computer interaction while our systems are constrained by this outdated model. I watch these videos and am disgusted that I’m confined to such inefficient input devices. Compared to multi-touch, the keyboard and mouse seem antiquated. Then there’s all the side effects like RSI. I want multi-touch and I want it now!

To be fair, it would be hard to play a first person shooter using this technology. It suffers from the limitation of requiring close proximity to the screen.

Something I do find curious about Han’s demo is is the onscreen keyboard idea. Why use a keyboard at all? Obviously handwriting recognition would have immediate applications to this kind of technology. Imagine “digital blackboards” in schools. These already exist to some extent but use a projector and only have single contact sensitivity. In terms of words per minute though, typing is usually faster.

It’s also worth checking out Jeff Han’s website to delve into some of his other fascinating projects, like Holodust, “a true open-air volumetric display.” And there’s another really awesome video demo at www.perceptivepixel.com.

One Apathy, Please

I used to care. I used to find current issues interesting. I used to be concerned about the world and where we were headed. But the excessive media saturation of late is getting damn annoying to the point of frustration. Australian politics, climate change, Paris Hilton… In short, I’m over it. I can’t listen to radio news or watch TV news any more. I can’t watch Insight either and I used to really like that show. I respect it for offering a forum for the exchange of ideas that at least tried to be unbiased and consider everyone’s point of view. But I have started to notice myself getting quite angry when I watch these shows.

You may say it’s just a cop-out but apathy is the option that’s less painful and less emotionally taxing, so I’ll have one apathy, please. Served… however.

</vent>

What Motivates Piracy?

Piracy is widespread in modern society; there’s no use denying it. But yesterday, I got to thinking about why. Why has piracy become a socially acceptable activity? Most people do it, and most of them know it’s wrong, but they still do it. Why?

Just to be clear, I do not condone piracy; this is a philosophical exploration of the reasons behind it. If you’re against piracy, good for you, you’re in the minority. So don’t be offended when I make generalisations about the human race as a whole. I really just mean “the majority”. I have no hard evidence to support claims that piracy is more common than compliance; just casual observations accompanied by the fact that piracy is still occurring and therefore is still an issue.

I should clarify what I mean by ‘piracy’. I don’t mean that of the swashbuckling kind, but rather the act of reproducing copyrighted work to the extent that it becomes unlawful. It seems people will pirate just about anything these days, and with increasing ease. Music, software, books, TV shows, movies, just to name a few.

But what motivates someone to choose piracy? The law says it’s wrong. You don’t hear any news reports praising piracy, do you? So why do we do it? There must be a strong underlying principle of human psyche that drives us to pirate.

On the surface, there are a few basic excuses for piracy, most of which are asserted as self-justifying. These are some of the excuses I’ve observed used to justify piracy:

  • Why pay for something you can get for free?
  • The stuff is overpriced anyway, so you have a right to pirate it. This one is particularly annoying because it’s often piracy that drives the prices up.
  • It’s the law’s job to police piracy and if you don’t get caught then it’s OK. I’ve also seen this excuse used extensively to “justify” motorists exceeding the speed limit.
  • The stuff is so easy to pirate, it’s just asking for it. An egocentric one often used to “justify” software piracy. Also used for movie and DVD piracy; the recent cracking of AACS is a good example.

The excuses above are examples of rationalising; that is, applying false logic to justify certain actions. It creates the illusion that we have relieved ourselves of any moral responsibility. We use it to convince ourselves to do things we know are wrong. The title of “rationalise” is possibly a misnomer, as it implies logical process which is blatantly absent here. I’m also about to demonise the term “rationalise” which could possibly devalue the meaning of the word “rational” but I can’t think of a better word for it, so here goes.

On a broader level, I am concerned that the endemic use of rationalising is leading the populous to prefer it to logical argument and scientific process. Rationalising is harmless for the most part. E.g. it’s OK to eat junk food now because you’re going to the gym later. But when rationalising becomes the basis for important decisions, it becomes dangerous. For example, consider the defence of the rapist justifying his actions by claiming the victim was asking for it due to the way she was dressed. Obviously no defence in a legal court, but it was enough of an “argument” to convince the rapist to act in the first place. Religious beliefs provide abundant “reasons” for rationalising, but that’s a discussion for another post.

Piracy is common because rationalising is socially acceptable, and that in turn makes the excuses for piracy socially acceptable. However, not one of the excuses above is logically valid as they all fail to address the fact that piracy is wrong. It is wrong because it is illegal but that’s not enough to stop most people. I’d like to argue that piracy is intrinsically immoral, but this would be difficult as I have defined piracy as breaking copyright law. Under this definition, if there was no copyright law, there could be no piracy.

We should obey copyright law simply because it is the law. But this in itself isn’t enough of a reason to convince people. To deter people from piracy, there are severe penalties for breaking copyright laws. Then the authorities have the challenge of actually proving to the public they are capable of enforcing the law, a feat I think they are still yet to achieve. Since Napster, there has been a multitude of high-profile cases resulting in prosecution of pirates, yet piracy is still rife. These cases obviously haven’t offered much of a deterrent. People will continue to commit piracy as long as they believe they can get away with it.

Copyright circumvention tools are becoming increasingly common and easier to use (for movies, music and software at least). The bar has been lowered in terms of the skill required for piracy, thus making it more accessible to the average computer user. Armed with an Internet connection, a couple of keywords and a few mouse clicks, any 12-year old can become a pirate in mere minutes.

Piracy may be easy and you might not get caught, but these aren’t the only reasons people do it. The main motivation for piracy stems from a fundamental desire that has become deeply embedded in our social psyche. It is the desire of the masses to stick it to the man; to resist authority. Increasing efforts technically and legally by corporations to stamp out piracy only fuel our desire to challenge the establishment.

This is not a new ideal; it’s been around for centuries, and continues to appeal to us today. We love the idea that as lowly peasants we can unite our forces to defy authority. Stories of subversion have been around for years and are retold over and over. The tale of Robin Hood is a classic example. And recently we have Pirates of the Caribbean, which is about “real” pirates, but at its core is still about a group of rebels flouting authority.

As long as this point of view persists amongst humans, piracy will continue and any attempts to quell it will only be met with increased resistance.

When Art Becomes Terrorism

I don’t normally repost Slashdot articles, but this is worthy of discussion.

A student at the Houston-area Clements High School was arrested, sent to an “Alternative Education Center” and banned from graduation after school officials found he created a video game map of his school. School district police arrested the teen and searched his home where they confiscated a hammer as a ‘potential weapon’…

Firstly, consider this example: Did the makers of Deus Ex get into trouble for creating a 3D map of Liberty Island where the Statue of Liberty had been destroyed by a terrorist attack? No. Depicting this fictional scenario is a form of artistic expression. And one could argue that an accurate map of an area is necessary to faithfully represent the subject of the work.

What has changed since Deus Ex was released in 2000? Well, that one’s obvious. But the real question is: why is the act of creating a 3D computer model of a school now perceived as a suspicious activity? I can only think of one possible line of argument used to justify the arrest. I’m not saying I agree with it, just trying to understand possible motivations for the arrest.

It has been assumed the map was created for a first person shooter game. In these games, players run around killing people with guns in some environment. By making a map of his school, the student is creating an environment where he can practise shooting up his classmates and is therefore a potential threat.

Say a group of school mates go for a game of paintball. Compared to a computer game, this would seem a more realistic representation of a massacre, given that it takes place in the physical world; and contains actual armed combat. Another example is a game of laser tag taking place on school grounds. Not seen as a threatening activity, well not in Australia at least.

Making a 3D map shouldn’t be treated any differently than other forms of visual representation. Students wandering around the school taking photos are not suspected terrorists. Unless of course, the photos are for texture samples. Students painting scenes of their school is probably a normal part of most art classes. I was at a local high school recently where several students were outside sketching parts of the school. No arrests. I didn’t give it a second thought.

I’d like to think that here in Australia we don’t have such a strong natural prejudice to suspect others by default. I worry this trait is being diluted as we struggle with our identity as a nation and are slowly assimilated by our allies. You know who I mean. That country that has knee-jerk reactions to every single terrible event. As best as I can figure, this is how the “logic” process works post-9/11:

A person does X which results in the death of innocents.
That person is a Y.
Therefore, all other Ys are secretly plotting to do X.

In this case Y=”student of asian appearance” and X=”go on a shooting rampage at school”. The initial event to prompt this prejudice was obviously the Virginia Tech shootings. It’s simply unfair and highly discriminatory to make such generalisations. But it happens because those making the accusation are so afraid of a repeat of X that it becomes easier to suspect every Y than to give each situation fair and thoughtful consideration.

That’s about as deep as I get on a Saturday… Now, time for some Katamari Damacy! Watch out peoples, I’m plotting a rampage through the streets where I roll up objects into a giant ball until it’s big enough to form a star! Arrest me! Quick!