A Few Thoughts before Tuesday

Just a final reminder before tomorrow of what's on the line in this historic election.

There is much more at stake on Tuesday than simply a new guy at the top of the org chart.

The next President of the United States will inherit over 6.25 trillion dollars in public debt and a faulty economy that could slip into a depression. He faces a rising unemployment rate—currently at 6.1% nationally, or over 9.5 million jobless workers. He must address a growing gap between rich and poor and unite a country increasingly polarized along class lines. Will he take the side of the workers who keep the country running, or will he continue to capitulate to corporate interests as the current administration has done for the past eight years? Will the next round of tax cuts benefit you or big businesses? The choice is largely up to us.

President 44 will also have to deal with two unwinnable wars in the Middle East that have cost the country well over 500 billion dollars; the lives of more than 4,700 civilian deaths in Iraq alone. To put this in perspective, that's about one September 11th per week for four years straight. Will we elect a leader who sings 'bomb bomb Iran' or one who will give diplomacy an honest chance?

It's likely that at least one Supreme Court justice will retire within the next four years. As you may know, judges for the Supreme Court are appointed by the president and are not accountable to the people. A Democratic president will most likely appoint a liberal or moderate judge, while—if recent history is any indication—a Republican will seek to appoint a reactionary right-wing justice who is dangerously out of touch with contemporary public attitudes. Several cases are set to come before the Court in the next presidential term, ranging from abortion rights to free-speech issues to torture. These cases could affect the course of the country for decades to come. It behooves us to consider carefully where that course will take us.

In California, we have a chance to strike down legislation whose sole purpose is to restrict the rights of a specific group of people—a group of people every bit as human and deserving of equal legal protection as any other in the country. I am, of course, talking about Proposition 8. Regardless of our individual opinions on homosexuality, as Americans we ought to be appalled, if not outraged, that someone would want to take away as basic a civil liberty as marriage. It shouldn't matter whether it affects us personally. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others. Or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.'

America's image among the rest of the world has been severely tarnished in the past decade. Will we lie down and accept another administration that defines patriotism as how many flag pins we wear and how loudly we parrot the official party line? Will we continue to be governed by the politics of fear and ignorance, or will we wipe the patina free by recognizing once more that 'America' is, more than anything else, a state of mind, a definite concept of what 'freedom' really means? (Thanks, Naomi Wolf!)

The choice, now more than ever, is up to us. So let's take our country back before it's too late. Let's vote for leadership based on hope and compassion, not fear and hatred. Let's refuse to be passive observers and show the world what America is really about. Let's make it happen. On Tuesday, and on every day thereafter.

NIN vs. Radiohead

Wired News has a little thing about Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead's latest label-free distribution. They say

In Rainbows is a real Radiohead album with 10 (college) radio-ready songs that many labels would have been proud to put their stamp on. ... Reznor's sprawling, 36-song instrumental opus is either a brilliant explosion of the traditional album format or an example of poor self-editing.

I'll concede that Ghosts I-IV may not be the best-flowing "album" ever released by NIN, but to say it's an example of poor anything is just... ridiculous! A large percentage of the album is fantastic, presenting some of Reznor & Co.'s best sonic explorations since The Fragile. The album format in general has been a waning art form for some time now; I applaud Radiohead for putting together something that works as an album, but implying that In Rainbows is better or has less substance solely for that reason doesn't sound particularly forward-thinking to me.

But why does there have to be a "smackdown" in the first place? If the albums stand on their own—and, more importantly, if the artists can make and share the music they want to make—who cares?

(Of course, I am a huge Nine Inch Nails fan, so maybe I'm just too emotionally invested. :P )

Musical Xenophobia

I read an article on the New York Times website this morning about music's influence over teenagers. It basically said nothing, but some of the comments were interesting; I read a couple that were a little off-the-deep-end, though, excerpts from one of which follow (Read the full posts here and here; registration [free] may be required).

While the lyrics are worrisome on many of these songs, we are ignoring the greater two dangers - 1) the rhythm of both hip hop and rap, which deliberately causes accelerated heart rhythms and is shown time and again in studies to make listeners more aggressive and by implication ease them into casual violence, aided and abetted by lyrics which subliminally say it’s okay to be violent, it’s okay to be mysoginistic, it’s okay to be strung out; and 2) the loudness of the music, particularly the pervading bass lines, which is rapidly damaging the hearing of a whole generation.

This guy is either inventing facts on the fly, or otherwise he is the victim of the racist anti-rap propaganda machine that's been active since the inception of hip-hop. Or he's just fallen into the generation gap. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of most rap, and that the blatant violence and misogyny prevalent in commercial rap is somewhat offensive personally. (I make the distinction because mainstream rap is what most people get exposed to, and the positive/political/philosophical lyrics are more often found in "underground" hip-hop.) But I don't believe that there is any sound basis for either of these allegations.

First, any kind of music can increase a person's heart rate. The ability to manipulate a listener's feelings and reactions is a sign of an effective piece of music. Classical music, with its complex melodies and structures, can get my heart going; does that make it an undue influence? So, in that sense, of course it's deliberate. It's not a bad thing in itself. Rhythm and tempo are only a small part of the effectiveness of music. Why else would there be such a wide range?

Second, any statement that contains the phrase "studies have shown..." should be immediately discounted unless the statement is succeeded by reference to said studies. Otherwise it's a baseless assertion. So show me the studies that have proved "time and again" that any kind of music "eases [one] into casual violence." Because I'm not going to buy it without evidence.

Third, no study has shown conclusively that subliminal messages have any strong effect on the one to receive such messages. Perhaps the OP is confusing the concept of subliminal messaging with lyrical metaphors. In any case, such classic lines as "I got the ex if you're into takin' drugs" or "She act like she ain't gon' survive the night without my dick all up in her ass" are rather "superliminal," wouldn't you say? There are a lot of political discussions to be had about the pervasive violence and misogyny in rap lyrics, but that's not our focus right now.

Finally, hearing loss is typically caused by cilia in the ear vibrating so hard and fast that they break. This kind of motion can only be caused by high frequencies; the wavelengths of basslines are too wide to impact the vestibule in this way, which is why low bass tones are more often felt rather than heard. To my knowledge, the only way low-frequency sound can damage hearing is if the SPL is high enough to damage parts of the middle ear, such as the eardrum. Extreme volume can cause hearing loss, obviously, but such loss is in the higher frequency range because high-frequency sounds carry more energy. As an avid fan and DJ of drum & bass, I like to think I know a little something about basslines. ;)

Again, you ignore the effect of subliminal messaging, which is very strong in modern music, due to the nature of the music and the methods of listening. Do you think that there is no relationship at all between the increase of violence among youths and the music they listen to?

Again, show me the studies that prove this. The OP goes on to discuss the ubiquity of hip-hop in contemporary advertising, and points to it as proof that media companies are using the alleged hypnotic qualities of the music as a means to influence people. Now, I'm no fan of advertising's subtle exertion of influence through psychology—which undoubtedly does exist—but this is flat-out xenophobic paranoia. The much more likely reason that hip-hop is so prevalent in the mainstream is that it's popular. It sells.

Of course there's a relationship—occasionally some level of correlation—between between people's behavior and the music they listen to. But there is no causation apparent in either direction; the interplay is much more complex than "listen to music → do what it describes." The same charges have been leveled against jazz in the '20s, rock and roll in the '50s, psychedelic rock in the '60s, disco in the 70's, and "rave" music in the '90s. Again, this is an area of discussion that is very much alive in many different fields, from sociology to politics to marketing, and there is no consensus. To talk like the issue is settled is, frankly, narrow-minded and obviously self-serving.

That's about all I've got for now. I just thought that the original post was so misinformed and badly argued that I had to say something about it. :P

communism vs. Communism

With "communism" being America's second favorite scapegoat behind "terrorists," I thought it might be interesting to some people to see a quick briefing on the subject. A disclaimer: I'm still very much just a student of Marxism and socialism in general, so there may be some small errors; I do believe that it is mostly sound, though.

First, a distinction must be drawn between Communism with a capital 'C' and "regular" communism, as well as between communism and socialism. We'll concentrate on the former for now. Communism, in most people's minds, conjures up images of the Soviet Union, of gulags, rations, and secret police. This is not exactly a coincidence or a mistake, but that's a story for another time. While the Russian Revolution of 1917 began with good intentions—the overthrow of the political and economic elite and emancipation of all workers—its vision was eventually led astray by a number of factors; what many think of when they hear the word communism is more closely associated with Stalinism. Stalinism is rejected by many socialists as a perversion of Lenin's theory of the state and of Marxist communism in general. For the same reason, among others, many do not consider Castro's Cuba—and certainly not China—as real socialist states, despite their proclamations.

One of the defining characteristics of the USSR under Joseph Stalin was the cult of personality surrounding his image as Lenin's spiritual successor and the one who could make Russia a serious competitor on the world stage. Stalin dealt harshly with critics and opponents, to a degree far exceeding Lenin's dealings with his. It is Stalin's USSR that often comes to mind when one thinks of a "police state." The centralization of control around a single dictator with near unrestrained power is antithetical to true communism; Marx and Engels warned explicitly against personality cults and vesting too much power in too few leaders. Eugene Debs phrased the reasoning for this rather well when he said, "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could, for if you could be led out, you could be led back again." It is up to the workers to think and act for themselves, because no single leader, no matter how ostensibly righteous, can be trusted to act in their interest. The Stalin kind of dictatorship is far removed from Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat," a temporary phase of revolution in which the workers defend their control of the state from the hostile remnants of the bourgeoisie. (Recall the saying "Power concedes nothing without a fight.")

As a result of Stalinism's indelible imprint and the legacy of the McCarthy-era Red Scare, the word "communist" is often used as a pejorative term against someone who challenges the existing social order, or engages in other transgressive advocacy for such causes as universal health care; progressive taxation; gay rights; gun control; corporate responsibility; the protection of civil rights; et cetera, ad nauseam. This use of the word carries with it a strong sense of anti-Americanism and a disdain for democratic institutions; "commies," by this token, are automatically America-haters. The irony, however, is that true socialist organizations are far more democratic than the two-party shell game we have here in the United States. Marxist/Leninist conceptions tend to require strong accountability, electing officials by a direct popular vote (as opposed to the electoral college/delegate system that we use) and providing for the instant recall of an official in the event they don't do their job.

Next up: The fallacy of arguing that the collapse of the Soviet Union discredited communism's viability.

Don't Be Evil

(This is not a tirade against Google, nor is it a paranoid Unabomber-esque treatise against technology. Just some thoughts. Also, yes, I know, much of this is not an original idea; I've read 1984 and The Minority Report as well. :P)

A nice sentiment indeed, and it's a great PR bite. But is it really Google's philosophy? How can we be sure? Google is worth a hell of a lot of money. Now that it's publicly traded, there is the expectation of stockholders that it continue to make more and more money. Raking in money and not being evil often seem like incompatible goals; will those at the helm be able to resist the greed and corruption made so tempting by wealth and power? Will they bend their definition of "evil" to justify questionable deeds or remain relevant?

These are serious questions, because Google has amassed a huge amount of power and influence in its short life. www.google.com is the home page for an awful lot of people, myself included. Google software is becoming ubiquitous, to the point where people type in www.google.com to make sure they have an internet connection. "Google" is a colloquially accepted English verb. Consider also Google Maps. Google News. Google Desktop.

Google Earth.

Power indeed. History has warned us time and again to be wary of placing too much trust, too much authority in any one entity. Google's server farms are some of the most concentrated stores of processing power in the world. Search is an incredibly useful application of that power, and it has undoubtedly sparked a radical shift in the way we remember and recall information. But many of us tend to limit our conception of search technology to civilian and scientific use. With more and more personal data being digitized and stored on networks, could such technology be put to more nefarious ends?

Imagine an instantly-searchable database of personal dossiers on each of a country's citizens: Who they are, where they live, bank accounts, jobs, hobbies. Search by the name of a "person of interest." Search for keywords in the annotations on a citizen's file (collaboratively edited by law enforcement officials using Google Docs, perhaps?). Find all men aged 18-40 of racial minority with prior convictions for assault in Los Angeles County. Compile a list of citizens with a history of political activism known to reside near the planned site for a leader's public address.

Sure, money talks, but information is the real gold in future economies. If Google were to travel the truly evil path, it may have the best chance of any corporation at not just manipulating a government, but becoming one. Forget the police state. Prepare for the Google state.

Professors Par Excellence

Since it's near the eve of my graduation (only one quarter left!), I thought I'd take a moment to reflect on some of the professors I've had who left an impression on me. They're not listed in any particular order.

• Dean Tullsen - For CSE 140/141, the Digital System Design sequence. This course was fairly tough, given that it was hardware-level (as in machine-language programming) stuff. But Professor Tullsen demonstrated that he lives and breathes this stuff by presenting the material in an easy-to-absorb format, and accurately and concisely answering students' questions. It's hard not to share his enthusiasm; he turned a potentially terrifying class into an interesting one.
• Jim Hollan - For COGS 120, Human-Computer Interaction. Jim's got kind of a quirky sense of humor that I can appreciate, as well as a real enthusiasm for his field. His lectures are always interesting and entertaining, and he always seems so damned energized. Hollan is one of the professors that has inspired me to consider teaching.
• José Jara - for ENGL 202, Critical Thinking and Writing (at Mira Costa). A lot of people that took Jara's class didn't like it, because his grading scheme was based partly on how many pieces of writing you submitted throughout the year. Thus you really had to earn that good grade, because credit wasn't automatic; you only got credit for a paper after it shows sufficient polish, detail, and overall style. Credit was unlikely to happen on the first submission. He's a fascinating guy because no matter what your topic is, he knows enough about it to give you advice on making your paper better. It was a good deal of work, but my writing and editing skills improved more from Jara's class than any other writing instruction I've had.
• Farrell Ackerman - For LIGN (general linguistics) 176, The Language of Politics and Advertising. Ackerman is a kooky guy; that's about the best word I can think of to describe him. I really enjoyed his lecturing style in the class that I took. I personally think this class should be a part of the core curriculum at UCSD, because its implications for everyone's lives are so profound. Ackerman, again, showed that he is an expert in his field, and seemed to have total command of virtually all things linguistic. The assignments and readings were compelling and really helped to foster understanding of the topics. This is one of my most favorite classes ever. Ackerman is another professor that inspired me to give back to education.

I'm sure there are others, but these few are, apparently, the really standout examples. Nice work!

Rebirth of the Ether Project

I've been putting into use some of the things we covered in CSE 111, "Object-Oriented Software Design," organizing a hobby project I'm working on. How much will it help? No idea. But I can say that I already have a clearer picture of what needs to be done, and of the overall architecture of the system.

Said project is a Java-based framework for role-playing games. The target is "classic" style RPGs, like the Final Fantasy series, but I believe it could be used for the more open-ended types as well. I'm mostly doing it for my own use, and for the experience, but I'll release it if there's any interest. I'm designing and documenting it as if I were going to, so I might as well, right?

I'll post more info when the preliminary design is completed.

Unlimited Nothing

In an article in this month's Wired, about a proposed subscription-based music service for the Zune: "After all, why buy an iPod if a Zune will give you songs for free?"

This statement is, in my opinion, simplistic and a bit naïve. The Zune wouldn't give you anything for free. One of the reasons that CDs—and even vinyl LPs—are still around despite all the online music services (and piracy) is that people are hoarders. People like to own tangible things that they can hold and touch and collect. Some argue that charging for copy-protected music is wrong because you're basically just buying a bit pattern. But at least under this scheme you still have something to show for your purchase: A local file on your computer.

Music subscription services are different*. You pay a set fee each month, and you can listen to as many songs as you want, and even put them on your MP3 player. Great, right? Sure, as long as you keep paying the subscription. But once you quit, that's the end. You can't download any more music, and the files you do have turn into little digital bricks. Subscriptions like this are less appealing, at least to me, because once you quit paying for them, you have nothing to show for the money you spent. No disc, no record, no reel of tape. Nothing.
*This is my understanding of the way music subscriptions work; I may be wrong...

If all the music labels and electronic distribution services disappeared tomorrow, my Discman (and car, and computer, and Xbox, etc.) would still play CDs. My turntables would play vinyl records. Hell, even my iPod would still play all the MP3s I've bought through iTunes. But I wouldn't have any remnants from my Rhapsody subscription. It's not particularly Buddhist of me, but I just don't care for that idea.

Inauguration

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Integer ipsum turpis, bibendum non, accumsan quis, aliquet sit amet, velit. Sed eleifend. Duis ac urna. Pellentesque a lectus. Praesent ullamcorper, nibh et sodales adipiscing, leo elit sodales mi, a rutrum tortor justo vitae massa. Pellentesque lobortis vehicula ligula. Proin sagittis consectetuer ipsum. Donec mollis. Etiam sed neque vel leo tempus convallis. Fusce a nulla eu elit tincidunt commodo. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Ut egestas augue eu dolor. Ut tempor metus vel augue. Nullam mi. Sed elit. Mauris urna. Etiam cursus justo id ipsum. Ut eros nisl, malesuada quis, faucibus id, rutrum laoreet, lorem. Integer varius dui in velit. In hendrerit feugiat nunc.

Phasellus porta, pede id euismod ornare, metus sapien elementum pede, sed dapibus justo turpis sit amet purus. Etiam libero. In nec felis quis elit vehicula vulputate. Maecenas in nisi cursus tellus condimentum consequat. Donec gravida sollicitudin urna. Duis orci eros, mattis sed, ultricies nec, elementum ac, quam. Duis sit amet tortor ut dui ullamcorper bibendum. Nullam ultricies. Vestibulum vehicula libero id arcu. Mauris eu risus non nisl pharetra adipiscing. Phasellus dapibus purus vitae massa. Sed leo massa, hendrerit non, suscipit vel, placerat id, nibh. Proin blandit vehicula enim. Mauris pede tortor, ultricies nec, dignissim sed, posuere ac, magna. Suspendisse ac metus. Morbi nibh. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos.

Proin pharetra rutrum nibh. Etiam suscipit tincidunt tortor. Ut et nisl. Ut ornare arcu in odio. Nam nulla tellus, volutpat et, facilisis a, pellentesque bibendum, ante. Morbi euismod odio at sem. Vivamus pharetra, nibh vel suscipit sollicitudin, diam nibh faucibus ipsum, vel condimentum sem lorem vitae massa. Nullam vel magna in mi pretium viverra. Nulla pellentesque elementum tellus. Donec venenatis ante. Ut scelerisque libero non nibh. Nunc turpis libero, suscipit eu, facilisis nec, posuere quis, risus. Proin adipiscing mattis velit. Nunc accumsan odio et mauris. Maecenas vel orci quis magna tristique mattis.

Neuroflux is go!

Interacting with Games

(this is a repost from my class-related blog for Cog Sci 120, "Human-Computer Interaction." I miss that class already...)

I (obviously) find video games to be interesting sources of interaction-design discussion. One thing that I've been thinking about lately is the variety of games that come out, and the notion that nearly all of them use the same input device. Aside from games like Dance Dance Revolution or Guitar Hero, the huge majority of console games use the standard controller: Two analog sticks, a D-pad, four thumb-accessible buttons, and four shoulder buttons, plus a couple of extras depending on the console. This basic arrangement has been the standard since at least 1994 when the original PlayStation came out. Prior to the PlayStation, Sega's and Nintendo's controllers followed a pretty clear evolution, with Nintendo following its own path and Sega often "borrowing" certain features from Nintendo. Sega eventually quit the console hardware business after lackluster sales of its Saturn and Dreamcast systems. The graphic below shows an abridged evolution of controllers from the major console manufacturers. The Dreamcast's is the final one in the Sega column; I would argue that its controller was one of its downfalls! It seems that the basic philosophy has followed the "more is more" mentality discussed in the textbook - more buttons means more abilities.

The problem with the "more is more" approach is the sheer complexity of and number of possibilities provided by the latest generation of input hardware. Humans only have 10 fingers; the Xbox 360 control pad has two analog sticks, a digital direction pad, and 11 buttons. Add to this the fact that the controller must be held by at least two fingers of each hand, and realistically only four buttons can be reached at any time. This complexity turns off many novice and casual gamers who often become confused or intimidated by the number of controls, or who don't play often enough to remember all the mappings between the buttons and their in-game functions. The current state of video game controllers can arguably be seen as an example of the pitfalls of using established concepts to inform new designs; relying on old examples and metaphors blinds the designers to alternatives which may be better suited to the task. Does an increase in controls really mean an increase in playability? And the ultimate question for a games system: Does it make a game more fun?

Nintendo has realized that more controls does not equal more fun. In fact, such a panoply of controls can hinder the experience by forcing the player to concentrate more on finding the right button for the right action. As mentioned above, a player may also have to devote significant time and effort to learning the controls. The Wii controller rejects the "more is more" philosophy in favor of something almost entirely new. (An image of it is in the last spot on the Nintendo column of the graphic at left.) It leverages people's natural tendency to gesture and move while interacting by using a two-part controller, held in both hands. Each part includes a few buttons - though significantly fewer than a PlayStation or Xbox - and both parts are motion sensitive. This allows for some unique, and often more natural, possibilities for interaction. For example, in Wii Boxing, the player dodges and swings their arms as though they are fighting a real-life opponent - much more intuitive than pressing buttons on a standard controller. A player can fish by imitating the motion of holding a rod and reeling in, throw a ball by making a throwing motion, swing a sword by slashing, and so on. The increased physicality and streamlined button interaction can provide a much more engrossing experience than the finger acrobatics required of standard gamepads.

The Wii's runaway success - it often sells more than the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 combined - is confirmation that its control scheme is a welcome relief from the gaming status quo. Players are much more comfortable simply picking up a Wii controller and playing a game because the controls are simple and intuitive. Nintendo software is very good at altering the control scheme in response to changing contexts within a game, remapping actions to the controls in ways the player scarcely has to think about. By lowering the interaction barrier, Nintendo has discovered one of the keys to bringing video gaming to a wider audience. The Wii experiment has also shown the value of thinking "outside the box," as well as paying attention to the needs and limitations of users.