fhtagn's Friends
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends View]
Below are the most recent 25 friends' journal entries.
[ << Previous 25 ]
| Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 |
robin_d_laws
|
9:16a |
A WaRPed Character  To celebrate-slash-publicize Atlas Games’ release of WaRP, the underlying rules system for the Over the Edge game, under an open license, here’s a character in the WaRP stats. If you sense the presence of the Cut-Ups Method in the concept, you just might be onto something... While the WaRP license doesn’t grant the right to publish material based on the Al Amarja setting, hey, this is a blog entry and I’m a friend of the family, as it were.
Jewel Broussard
Weirdly Normal Person
Ever since she first saw the cartoon character Tiffany Trilobite on television as a young child and sensed weird depths in her, Kipton, OH native Jewel Broussard has instinctively pursued the random and offbeat. Now twenty-nine years of age, working as a substitute teacher, she has lived her entire life in this small village, never suspecting that the mundane events of her workaday existence play out in exaggerated parallel on the mysterious island nation of Al Amarja. When she spoke up at a village meeting for an increase in the firefighting levy, a new crew of violent, privatized emergency workers, the Broussard Clarions, sprang up on the island. When she caught a fellow teacher stealing money from her school’s prom fund, the dean of D’Aubainne University was arrested and executed by the government.
A few days ago, a plane ticket to Al Amarja arrived in the mail. Though usually cautious, Jewel has chosen to go to this place she’s never heard of, in hopes of discovering why someone would have sent it to her.
Mirrored Existence Events of her dull but happy life in Ohio reflect or create dramatic outcomes on the island. What happens when she gets there? 2
Substitute Teacher Knows a little about everything, but mostly how to earn the cooperation of unruly groups. 3
Inspiring Speaker Confidence and innate goodness make those who listen to her want to do as she suggests.
Sweetly naïve (flaw)
Hit Points 14
Please leave any comments at the new main site. |
|
charlies_diary
|
9:03a |
Stuff http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/05/stuff.html We are surrounded by stuff. Physical property, objects we use. Even the poorest of us have some basic stuff: footwear, clothing. Having possessions is one of the defining characteristics of being human—with the questionable exception of a few animal species that have been observed using ad-hoc tools in the wild, nothing else owns anything (and even the tools used by chimpanzees or crows appear to be spur-of-the-moment constructions, abandoned after their immediate use rather than retained for their future potential).
But where do our priorities lie? I am thinking that there are at least two categories: stuff we pay too little attention to, and stuff we prize too highly. And sometimes there are types of stuff that fall to a greater or lesser extent into both sets ... Stuff we pay too little attention to:
Our beds. (Bruce Sterling flagged this up in a memorable essay a couple of years ago.) You spend roughly a third of our lives sleeping. Your bed is therefore the single piece of furniture you use the most. Nevertheless, because we're unconscious most of the time while we use them, we tend to discount their importance. It's not just a matter of comfort: poor or interrupted sleep is associated with a variety of medical problems, some of them quite serious. (It doesn't get much more serious than tail-ending a truck on your motorway commute to work because you didn't sleep well, does it?) If you're going to spend on household furniture, it should rationally make sense to spend more on your bed and bedding than on everything in your living room put together, 42" 3D LCD TV set included.
Our chairs. I'm not sure I buy into the argument that our chairs are killing us: what's doing the killing is our working practices, which promote long periods of immobility while seated in cramped or poor conditions. But our chairs certainly aren't helping, and if you use one at work, it's the second piece of furniture you use most of the time. Yet all too often office supply departments buy work chairs strictly on price rather than on ergonomics or fitness for purpose. (Memo to self: investigate new office chairs.)
Stuff we pay too much attention to:
Wrist watches. Once upon a time—not so long ago—the capacity to accurately time was an expensive instrumentation problem. A town or village might have a central clock, in a tower; setting it and keeping it running accurately was a technical task. It became critical for trans-oceanic navigation (and if you want to know why and don't know, you could do worse than read this book), leading up to the invention of the portable chronometer in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; for a long period, portable nautical chronometers were used (frequently being carried by hand) to copy time callibration from the Greenwich observatory to other master clocks around London. By the mid-19th century the vast expansion of railway networks made accurate time-keeping a matter of strategic military importance; and the increased availability of horological skills bought the compact pocket-watch, and then the wrist-watch, within the budget of every gentleman.
But today we're surrounded by clocks—fast, accurate, ubiquitous. Clocks are literally everywhere, inside every computer, cellphone, GPS unit. Young folks today, in many cases, don't wear (have never worn) a wrist-watch, because they're never without a pocket phone. The wrist watch is, in fact, comprehensively obsolete.
Despite its obsolescence, the wrist watch has been reincarnated as an article of jewellery. They're everywhere in the shops around us, not merely accurate quartz-controlled watches (or devices controlled by radio-broadcast time signals) but archaic geared analog devices. The user interface—digits or traditional clock-face—is increasingly embelished, while usability takes a back seat to fashion. At the high end, one-of-a-kind individual works by master horologists sell for six-digit prices.
I'm not mocking the cult of the wrist watch as jewellery (I own a couple myself) but I am, nevertheless, puzzled, if not baffled, at the way an obsolete technological niche has been repurposed as a luxury item.
But.
All of this is leading up to me asking a simple question.
Given the technologies we can foresee arriving within the next decade, and the stuff that's already here, let's look forward 30 years. What everyday items in 30 years time will we not be paying enough attention to? Or continuing to use despite their obsolescence, for purposes radically at odds with their original role?
(My money is on: smartphones, in both categories. Maybe laptops in the former. And rooftop solar panels as a social signaling mechanism about the degree to which their owners are concerned for the environment. Bicycles ...? Toilets ...?) |
|
someposifeed
|
11:42a |
|
|
cartesiandaemon
|
10:46a |
Relative and absolute levels of privelege
I recently read another essay looking for a way of explaining that "Straight white males on average acquire more/better opportunities than non-straight non-white non-males in similar situations" without raising the defensiveness many people experience when talking about privilege. It used the metaphor of "Some people are playing life on 'hard' difficulty and some on 'easy', but we didn't get the choose the difficulty level". Link: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/However, I was reminded of another of Scalzi's essays that I found very moving, on being poor. I found it very effective, and it also seemed to attract much much less defensiveness. It was a list of things that people experience, starting something like: "Being poor is getting angry at your kids for asking for all the crap they see on TV" "Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away" Etc, etc But I wondered, would it have been better if it had started by saying: "Not being poor is not panicing when your kids for ask for all the crap they see on TV" "Not being poor is being able to go to the dentist when you have toothache" Etc, etc I think that would make people MORE defensive. It seems like most explanations of privilege start out by telling people "you can get on a train without wondering if you'll be groped/harassed by police/unable to get up the steps" and leave it implied that other people can't, but I think it's perhaps the second half that needs to be emphasised. Most men already KNOW they can get on a tube train without worrying about being groped -- the relevant piece of information they're missing is that half of the human population can't. And yes, everyone SHOULD know, so it's fair to vent that some people just don't get it. But if I'm genuinely trying to get someone to "get it", might it be advantageous to put the thing they're missing up front in every paragraph, in big letters, spelled out in words of one syllable? It seems to me "privilege" can be absolute or relative. You can say "people whose parents are landed gentry are privileged" or "people who live in the UK are privileged compared to many other people". So saying someone is privileged because they're white is implicitly making two assertions: (a) that they have some opportunities that would be harder or impossible if they weren't (b) that people who don't have those priveleges are the correct "baseline" to measure privilege against. Now, people assuming that straight white males are the "baseline" default sort of person and everyone else falls short is indeed a systematic problem in society. But if you're trying to get someone who isn't familiar with the ideas to "get it", it seems like presenting them with the fairly objective facts about (a), as in the "Being Poor" essay, and inviting their humanity to empathise, is likely to be more effective than saying "OK, humans have a natural tendency to think of themselves as 'baseline' but that tendency is WRONG WRONG WRONG and you should think of someone without any 'privileges' as the baseline for comparison", even if that makes sense. I notice that the same problem can occur even between two people who DO know the terms. If person from non-straight-white-male-group-A is talking to person from non-straight-white-male-group-B and avers to something that B has easier than A, people instinctively take that as saying that B has it easier in general (and get very cross if that's obviously not true). Even thought according to the literal definition of the concept of privilege, it's just as correct to say there is a (quite small) amount of "Black Privilege" of things black people can do that white people find a lot harder, even if "White Privilege" is thousands of times bigger. ConclusionsMy questions are, is the distinction between "you are privileged" making me defensive and "you are privileged compared to most people" making my empathetic one that only applicable to me, or am I right that most people react the same way? Secondly, do you think it would work if more "what it's like to have white/straight/male privilege" essays instead focused on telling people what it would be like if they didn't? Do you think it's harmful if postponse the question of the baseline and just start by establishing the large relative difference? You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/755508.html using OpenID. comments so far. |
|
pennyarcaderss
|
11:33a |
|
|
sinfestfeed
|
1:00p |
|
|
twolumps_feed
|
12:00a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
|
dilbertdaily
|
12:00a |
|
|
givawayoftheday
|
7:00a |
Fort - Digital Identity Manager. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/giveawayoftheday/feed/~3/U0Lej7_Z08U/ http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=31385 Fort is more than just a password manager for Windows. Fort protects your digital identity by storing passwords, credit card numbers and notes behind a single password. Everything is encrypted behind one password and everything you type in Fort will stay in Fort.
Today, we are using digital systems more than ever before. Premium websites, services, cloud computing and social media. This means that everyone of us has multiple usernames, passwords and other information that must be stored securely.
The safest thing is to memorize all credentials and not write them down. However, it’s impossible since you might have to memorize more than 25 username and password combinations. This is when Fort comes to rescue.
Note that best improvement idea will be rewarded with lifetime updates and tech support for Fort. Use Idea Informer widget to submit your feedback and do not forget to fill in your name and e-mail – otherwise the Developer will not be able to contact you in case you are the one to win! |
|
xkcd_rss
|
4:00a |
|
| Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 | |
phdcomic
|
11:49a |
|
matociquala
|
4:54p |
our prayers are always answered. that miracles can happen.
I just had one of those labor-saving strokes of genius that I need to share with the world. Which is to say, the easiest method ever in the history of popovers. Here is my basic popover recipe: 2 tablespoons solid fat (butter or animal fat (duck fat, mmm) or solid shortening) 3 large eggs, at room temperature 1 cup (250 ml) whole milk, at room temperature 1 teaspoon salt 1 1/2 teaspoons sugar 1 cup (140 g) all purpose or white whole wheat flour 1 tablespoon vital wheat gluten This tactic assumes you own a wand blender and a wide-mouthed quart Mason jar and a microwave. If not, just make the popovers the way you normally would--or if you are missing the wand blender but have a normal blender, you can melt the butter in a different container and use the normal blender. About an hour or two before dinner, take your Mason jar. Put the butter/whatever in it. Put it in the microwave and melt it. (If you are making Yorkshire pud and are waiting for the roast to be finished before you add the fat, skip this step for now, and stir the fat in before you bake the popovers.) Add the milk, eggs, salt, and sugar to the butter in the Mason jar (or blender)(or just put them in the blender if you are adding the fat later). Do not put the eggs directly into the hot butter before diluting it with the milk. Otherwise you will have scrambled eggs, which are nice, but not popovers. Whiz them all up with the wand blender. Add the flour and the wheat gluten. Whiz that too, until you have a nice smooth batter. Let the batter sit on the counter until dinner is nearly ready. If you are roasting something at 400 degrees, you're good; otherwise preheat your oven to 400 (F). (200 C) Liberally grease 9 cups of a 12-cup muffin tin, or if you are making Yorkshire pud, drizzle a little of the fat from the roast into the bottom of the cups. If you have one of the giant-sized six muffin muffin tins, then you will have bigger popovers and they need to bake a little longer. Using silicon cups for this results in popovers without stumps or a lot of loft, as they just levitate themselves out of the super-slick cups entirely. They still taste good! If you are using fat from the roast you're making, add it now and stir it in. Divide the popover batter between the nine greased cups. You can just pour it from the blender or the Mason Jar. Stick in oven. Do not peek! If you open the door before they are set, they won't rise properly. Bake for 35 minutes or until deep mahogany brown. Pull pan from oven. Tilt popovers in cups, or remove them to a rack or basket. Pierce each one with a bamboo skewer. (careful of the steam!) The purpose of these two procedures is to (a) prevent them from getting soggy and (b) prevent them from collapsing. Eat. However you meant to eat them. Do not plan on leftovers. Wash your one. dirty. dish. Oh, and the wand blender, sure. And the muffin tin. But that was inevitable. ETA: Nota Bene
For even more loft in your popovers, preheat the muffin tin with the grease in it in the 400-degree oven for a few minutes before pouring the batter in. This is a bit tricky, though, and can be skipped. Current Mood: i'm a fucking genius |
|
jameswallis
|
1:56p |
Short creativity and clay-imagination http://www.spaaace.com/cope/?p=301 Gamecamp 5 was last weekend (May 12th) and went about as smoothly as one of these events can. The schedule was filled with great sessions from clever people, and once the day was begun there was a lack of logistical nightmares that made it one of the first GameCamps that I’ve been able to relax at (I’ve been on the committee since GameCamp 2). Plus many old friends and new contacts, excellent food, and a spirit of cooperation, collaboration and the free sharing of ideas that makes the British games business such a lovely place to work.
There’s a tradition at GameCamp that we always give out a neat game-related freebie on the door. As time has gone on we’ve specifically tried to find items that will act as ice-breakers and will encourage attendees to talk to strangers and—even better—play games against them. Last year everyone got a random Lego minifig with a three-line game attached: I blogged about it here.
This year we left it a bit late and by the time we started to phone suppliers we found we’d missed their deadline for printing, threading, engraving, enamelling or whatever else. Oops. It looked like we weren’t going to have anything for the event. Then the week before GameCamp I was in our local toyshop and noticed little packs of modelling clay like Plasticine, six different colours to a pack. Not as cool as Lego but undeniably creative…
So I proudly present the second Gamecamp social game:
Rock Scissors Wha…?
Challenge another player. The challengee chooses the clay-colour for the contest.Ask someone to referee. They shout Go! Players have 45 seconds to sculpt something:
a) recognizable and the correct colour;
b) using all your clay of that colour;
c) that would win a fight against the other player’s sculpture.
After 45 seconds the referee declares which sculpture would win the fight. Artistic merit only counts if both players sculpt the same thing.
The winner gets all the loser’s clay of that colour. At the end the person with the heaviest ball of clay wins an underwhelming prize.

Like the Lego game at last year’s GameCamp, ‘Rock Scissors Wha…?’ is designed to be creative and social, not big or important enough to distract from the main business of the day but fun enough that if you found yourself sitting next to someone you didn’t know, issuing a challenge came naturally. We didn’t end up with an eventual winner—which is a shame because David Hayward had dug up a prize that was truly underwhelming—but I think that in a very real sense everyone was the winner.
Rock Scissors Wha…?’ is a blend of two themes that show up over and over again in my work: creativity and simplicity. The game doesn’t tell you what to make, that’s completely up to you, and I really hoped that people would increase their power-levels over the day, so the final show-down would be on the level of Cthulhu versus the Heat Death of the Universe. It was huge fun to watch people play, partly to watch people engage their creativity and imagination as they sculpted.
Once Upon a Time and Baron Munchausen both challenge their players to create stories from fresh cloth: they supply templates and guides, but they never dictate. And I’ve been working on a new creative game with the amazing Jenifer Toksvig—the working title is ‘Framed!’ but our design brief is to make a drawing game that isn’t Pictionary. Because pretty much every drawing game is either Pictionary (Draw Something is just asynchronous Pictionary, like Words With Friends is asynchronous Scrabble) or Exquisite Corpse, and Pictionary is charades with pencils.
The other theme is simplicity. This is the fourth game I’ve designed in a year that’s small enough to fit on the back of a business card. The whole of ‘Rock Scissors Wha…?’ is a hundred words. Condensing a game down into its barest essence requires mind-bending discipline and it has professional relevance as well: I’ve spent the last few weeks on a fantastic project writing riddles and puzzles short enough to fit into a tweet (140 characters). I’m trying to get permission from the client to write a couple of blogposts about that, if only so I can start an article with the words “I’ve been writing for Stephen Fry again.” |
|
charlies_diary
|
10:49a |
|
|
someposifeed
|
1:37p |
|
|
sinfestfeed
|
1:00p |
|
|
darthsanddroids
|
10:11a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
|
qotdrss
|
12:00a |
|
[ << Previous 25 ]
|