Running with Scissors

By Shamus Posted Sunday Jan 22, 2006

Filed under: Rants 10 comments

Fair warning: Most of the links in this post are mildly NSFW

Rockstar Games, makers of Grand Theft Auto, manage to get the lion’s share of negative press for the content of their games, but they are mild compared to the guys over at Running with Scissors.

I’ve never seen a company like this. At the bottom of each page is a banner that proudly proclaims, “We Support The Troops”. They curse on their own news page, in the forum guidelines, and pretty much everywhere else. The fan art section is filled with crude crayon drawings, bizzare screenshots, and pictures of real guns. Check out the disclaimer at the bottom of the “About Us” page:

This site contains content not approved for consumption by children, senators, religious leaders and/or other easily damaged psyches, those seeking to enhance or establish political careers and/or possessed of delusions of grandeur. If accidentally exposed, flush eyes with cold water and induce vomiting. If irritation persists, sit quietly and watch PBS. Not for internal use. This site and its related products/propaganda are GUARANTEED not to make you go blind, masturbate (and THEN go blind), become a social liability, induce you to act out atrocities that you would otherwise never indulge in, or burn eternally in hell. Running With Scissors accepts NO responsibility for any and all random acts of stupidity or violence committed by losers who may blame popular entertainment media and/or sugary snack foods for causing their inherent basic lack of control. You’re on your own. Thank you and good night.

There is something here to offend everyone. For right wingers, you have pictures of half-naked women holding copies of the game and links to (I’m assuming, I’m not the clicking sort in these matters) porno sites. For the lefties, you have unqualified support of our troops, not to mention a very un-PC video game where you gun down (among other things) rednecks and Arabs. Amazing.

You could read their page and conclude they must be lunatics out to offend the world, but every once in a while their mask of insanity slips and you catch a glimpse of the folks underneath. Occasionally you’ll read an official statement and get an idea of where these guys are coming from. It’s a sort of test: Do you support free speech? Are you sure about that?

Politics being what they are, I’m betting the full spectrum of people from Hillary to Delay, if asked in front of a camera, would support some effort to shut these guys down. For the children.

But now my point:

When was the last time you saw a company that seemed to exist to prove a point? These guys have something more important on their mind than money. There is no doubt they could dial their products down and make themselves a lot more cash. The whole “controversy” thing doesn’t sell games nearly as well as having the game on the shelf at Wal-Mart. They are, on purpose, pissing away profits by making their game so over-the-top that most retailers refuse to carry it. In a lot of ways, I think they are the gaming equivalent of Howard Stern.

I’m a Christian man. Let’s go ahead and say that I consider myself to be devout. People who know me know that I’m given to thanking Jesus for things and praying. I’m offended by a lot of this stuff, but I wish them all the luck in the world.

Link via eToychest.

 


 

Still Steaming

By Shamus Posted Saturday Jan 21, 2006

Filed under: Video Games 8 comments

So, I wanted to play some Half-Life 2. I launched the game, which in turn launched Steam. It signed on and it discovered there were updates available. They like to issue updates for these games that came out last year at the rate of one every couple of weeks. Since I hadn’t played in a while, there were lots of updates queued up, waiting for me.

It did not ask if I wanted to install them. It just began downloading updates, not just for Half-Life 2 but for several “freebie” games that I never play. It was downloading three updates at once, at about 2kb per second. It did not give me any clue as to how big the total download was or how long it would take. All I know is that I’d carved out a solid twenty minutes where I could sit down and play some Half-Life, and I couldn’t because the ninny software wouldn’t let me. There was no “skip” button, no “ask me later” option. I did not care what was in these updates. The game ran fine for me and I didn’t need whatever fixes they might contain.

It boggles the mind how anyone could make a software system like this. I can only conclude that they designed it with the knowledge that they are thousands of miles away from me and my fists.

 


 

Concerned

By Shamus Posted Friday Jan 20, 2006

Filed under: Nerd Culture 2 comments

How in the world did I miss this? It’s a brilliant and funny comic using Half-Life 2 to generate the images. It’s a great parody.

 


 

Probably right

By Shamus Posted Friday Jan 20, 2006

Filed under: Links 3 comments

Mark normally posts on Sundays, but he seems to be on a roll this week. He has more on the probalistic systems, which I mentioned earlier. This led me to this bit from Nicholas Carr, which is one side of a debate on the merits of probalistic systems.

Back already? Great.

As others have pointed out, one thing about the these systems is that even if nobody is cheating, deciding what is “good enough” is a bit abstract: It depends on what you want to do with the emergent data, and what your standards are for usefulness. Everyone’s big problem seems to be with Wikipedia. It is often used as an example of a probablistic system that doesn’t really deliver and (occasionally) used as an indictment of probalistic systems in general. As far as probalistic systems go, Wiki is really a poor example. I think it’s a stretch to lump it in with systems like Google and Technorati. So what makes Wikipedia so different?

Low fault tolerance

Let’s say I wrote some software that looks at common airplane approach vectors to major airports. Pilots can can enter their current position, their destination, a few other variables, and my program will then come back with, “Based on what other pilots have done in similar circumstances, we suggest using the following approach…” Let’s assume I do a good job and my program makes the right choice nearly every time.

Well, we can stop right there. Nearly every time isn’t nearly good enough in this situation. I don’t care how much depth we give the dataset or how many variables we take into account. The whole system is useless.

On the other hand, let’s say you want a picture of Brittny Spears for your desktop (humor me here) and Google comes back with a less-than-optimal result. Instead of giving you the “official” page run by some media company, it gives you a website maintained by a fan. Odds are, his site has what you want as well. Even if it doesn’t, he probably has a link that will point you to the goods.

The difference between these two situations is pretty stark. One is a waste of time, even with a 99% success rate, and the other works well enough even when it gets things “wrong”.

And this is Wikipedia’s problem: Most people have a pretty low tolerance for error in an encyclopedia. If the info is wrong (or even suspect) then they have to look it up elsewhere, so why bother with Wiki at all? More to the point, if you have a low error tolerance, should you really be using probalistic systems? Probably not.

Lack of Darwinisim

As I understand Wikipedia, each subject has one entry. If I think the guy who wrote the entry for Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia got something wrong, I edit the original article. The next person to visit the page will see my version, not the original. People can review new changes or revert to old versions acording to various rules, but at any time there is only one page for Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, and the average visitor isn’t going to want to take part in the courtship between new data and old data.

This isn’t a good way to foster, uh, probablisim. For a healthy probalistic system, it would need to create a new article that exists parallel to the original. They would be “ranked” according to (perhaps) number of incoming references that favor one version over the other, and the number of times users clicked on “this item was helpful”. The two versions of the same subject would be allowed to compete for visitors, with better pages slowly knocking less useful pages down in the rankings. Thus, each visitor contributes to the system by helping to rank pages, often by simply using them and then going away. This means the data gets more useful even when nobody is editing the articles themselves.

(Note that I’m not suggesting it should work this way. There are many reasons why this might not be a good idea. I’m just saying this would give the system much stronger probalistic properties.)

Detecting bad data

As I mentioned before, often Google will give you a less-than optimal result, but things still work out. Often the “wrong” site will contain a link to the “right” one. Finding a Brittny Spears fan site leads me to the official one. The same is not true for poor Wiki. When I get to the wrong site, I don’t know it’s wrong. If I did, I wouldn’t need to look it up. Even worse, finding the wrong birthday for Napoleon doesn’t lead me to the right one. It leads me to propigate bad data.

Help from the user

It is very, very rare that I ever need to check out page 2 of Google search results. Usually what I want is right there on page 1. However, often my goal is not the #1 result. So, Google is great at narrowing a search down to 10 or so likely contenders, but it has a really hard time picking the right one out of those 10. Since it lists all 10, and lets me choose, it doesn’t have to. That last level of value judgments – the most difficult – is left for the user.

By contrast, there is no way the user can really “help” Wiki, unless they jump in and write an article.

I guess my point in all this is that Wiki, regardless of its usefulness, is a bit shabby when it comes to probalistic properties.

 


 

Star Wars: Done Today

By Shamus Posted Thursday Jan 19, 2006

Filed under: Movies 66 comments

Imagine what it would be like if Star Wars had not been written 30 years ago.

Now picture a young, idealistic George Lucas showing up in Hollywood with the script for Star Wars: A New Hope in 2006. It’s a safe bet the studio executives of today wouldn’t look at the script and see “blockbuster”. Actually, it’s a safe bet they wouldn’t look at it at all. It doesn’t have any toy or comic-book tie-ins, after all. But, assuming George worked hard and was lucky, he might get the thing into the hands of someone who could make it happen. Some Hollywood bigshot. This person would not see the script as the start of a revolution. They probably wouldn’t even green-light it. But if they did, what would happen to the story? How would the movie turn out?

Continue reading ⟩⟩ “Star Wars: Done Today”

 


 

Chizumatic

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Jan 18, 2006

Filed under: Nerd Culture 1 comments

Chizumatic went down a few days ago when Steven Den Beste packed up and moved. Since the site was hosted on his home computer, it vanished when he unplugged it.

I hadn’t thought about this until recently. Most people have their stuff hosted by professionals. If my house is hit by a meteor, my site will continue to exist. (although eventually it would go down when I stopped paying the bill.) Nearly everyone has others host their site for them. In fact, most people don’t even administrate their own site: They sign up at MySpace or BlogSpot or some other place where hosting and administration are both taken care of, and the only thing they need to do is add content.

But what would the net be like if more people were self-hosters like Steven Den Beste? What if all bloggers just ran their own servers out of their own homes?

Linkrot would happen much faster. Old blogs on Blogspot live on, but a self-hosted site would vanish as soon as the owner stopped taking care of it. Sometimes blogs would vanish forever (or get wiped) when a hard drive failed. Bad storms would put little clusters of blogs out when the power went down. In fact, blogs would be winking on and off everywhere as people rebooted, lost power, or borrowed the hosting machine for a LAN party. When some nasty virus struck, it would take out a bunch of blogs and small-time sites as well.

Things would need to be structured differently: most of us can’t get that much upstream bandwidth from a residential location. At least, not in any affordable manner. This facinates me, since the net itself is designed to be bottom-up, and this is one case when top-down actually works a little better.

I don’t really have a point. It’s just interesting to me.

 


 

Honey, can I borrow your lightsaber?

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Jan 18, 2006

Filed under: Pictures 4 comments

I present the following: A photoshop project I did a few years ago, just before Episode II came out. Can you tell what it is? (Besides a lightsaber)


Click for larger view

It is…

My wife’s hair-curling iron, with the lever removed in photoshop. It’s always looked like a lightsaber to me, and everytime I see it I want to turn it on and start carving up droids. So, one day I took a picture of the thing and photoshopped it into the picture above.

Okay, I’m done being a dork now. Back to work.