Open Letter to Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

I read on Mashable that you intend to attack Facebook in the name of protecting my privacy. I don't appreciate that at all. You claim you are fighting "a battle for choice and informed consent. Facebook keeps saying that it gives users choices, but that is completely false." If you succeed in taking down Facebook you are removing my choice to be a part of it. You cannot fight for freedoms by taking them away.

I am aware that Facebook monitors and sells my data and I don't mind that at all. You present the idea of them accessing and using my data to make money as if it

London Riots - My idea on how to deal with looters.

Anti-riot: Operation 
Cup of Tea

Everything seems to have quieted down now, although we've been hearing a lot of sirens in the background today. I live in a residential area not near any shops so have had no looting locally, although I've heard rumours of local high streets being hit.
I've seen the idea bandied about to hit looters and rioters with water cannons loaded with smart water or indelible dye, which I think is a lovely idea. That way, all those present can be easily identified later. There is no such thing as an 'innocent' bystander. The police very clearly asked people to stay in and stay away so they could get to work. Anybody still spectating would be actively hindering police and fire departments from doing their job.

But what to do with the looters once they're caught? Put them in jail? What's the

Get real!

If you live in the real world, which one am I in?

Sometimes I get upset with typical things people say that simply make no sense. How often have you read or heard someone exclaim that they live 'in the real world', implying that whoever has incurred their pet hate for the day, does not? Parents tell teenagers about the real world; opposition politicians love to imply that the ruling politicians do not inhabit the real world; people of a certain class, income level, or job-type will readily claim that others aren't in the real world. My question then: if I'm not in the real world, then where am I? Even in multiverse theory, every possible world is real. Of course, the word 'real' is meant more metaphorically, as an indication of socio-economic circumstances. But my problem remains. What could possibly make a plumber's life more real than a banker's? An adult's more than a child's? An economist's more than a person on a low wage? We all observably and obviously inhabit the same reality.

A similar mistake that gets my goat is when people think that crimes are a state of mind. As much as some governments might like to, it's actually impossible both practically and legally to detect or punish thought crimes. Repeatedly I read in the paper (paraphrased): "I wasn't really speeding, I'm not a boy racer." "I said some things while drunk, but I'm not a racist." Tough luck. The law doesn't punish people for what they are, it deals with what people do. Driving too fast is against the law, no matter what your state of mind was while you did it. Directing certain terms at people is against the law; whether or not you are a racist can never be determined anyway.

That's how it works in the real world.

Gamification is the future, but not as we know it.

Dr Richard A. Bartle, Senior Lecturer and Visiting Professor of Computer Game Design at the University of Essex, UK is often quoted by, well pretty much anyone involved with gamification... And I'm just about to disagree with him. I just read Will Gamification be Ubiquitous in 5 Years? on Gametuned, and although I believe Dr. Bartle makes a few good points, he's missing some important new developments. Either that, or his and my definition of gamification just don't agree.

In the slides for his recent talk, Dr. Bartle seems to focus on the type of gamification that is often used by marketing departments to bribe people into behaviour they like to see (buying things or free advertising). This sort of gamification is not made by game designers and is driven mostly by extrinsic rewards. He explains quite correctly why this sort of gamification does not work in

Don't extinct, excel!

I recently got into a discussion with some people on Facebook. A friend had posted a link about the impact of humans on the environment and some of his friends mentioned being supporters of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. I couldn't keep quiet even though I generally know better than to argue with extremists on the internet. To my mind, anyone who advocates human extinction is depressed and suicidal on a species-wide scale and needs some mental health care. Obviously, I do realise humans haven't been taking very good care of their environment, but to extinct us just isn't normal and natural behaviour. The VHEM has a lot of arguments for their case on their website, and a lot of them are fallacious or at best one-sided half-truths. My two main arguments in favour of the presence of the human race on this planet are featured as well.

Robot helper: features

Sleep little dumpling. I have replaced your mother.

In a recent discussion about the usefulness of robot nannies, I realised that my initial imagined future of social robots had a few flaws. Assuming a robot could be designed to have the emotional complexity and expressiveness to nurture children, that robot would probably be sentient and self-aware to such a degree that they were effectively a person, which raises ethical implications on the right to exploit their labour. Any robot that is still effectively a robot could not be the main carer for children because it wouldn't be human enough to form healthy attachments and be a rolemodel. So, in effect, a full-time robot nanny is out of the question, no matter how advanced and trustworthy the technology becomes. However, social robots can still have a bright future as part-time care providers, housekeepers, or remote avatars.

Robots are your friend

When TED tweeted this video of a TED talk by Cynthia Breazeal about robots I knew this would be something I was going to blog about. Some of the first science fiction I ever read was Asimov and I've always felt particularly attracted to his I, Robot stories. Ever since childhood, I expected flying cars and robots, not to mention space colonization to be a part of my future. I'm still waiting. But I needn't be all that disappointed, because the development of robots is further along than I thought! I might not be able to get a dependable robot nanny for my children, but perhaps there will be one for my grandchildren, or maybe a lovely 24/7 robot carer in my old age.

Allowing Encouraging kids to game

Following on from my previous post, I'd like to explain exactly why I don't let my children play videogames... I encourage it!

Most mums have the idea that playing video games is wrong, and a complete waste of time, and they will even lie to other mums about how much time they let their kids play them. Often, other mums will amiably admit (when prompted by me) that games aren't 'all bad' and that surely children need to have some down-time, and that yes, they might even learn something, for example fine motor skills and problem solving. And of course it is socially relevant as it gives them a shared experience to talk about with their peers. However, I can tell they're secretly disapproving and probably suspect that I'm merely rationalizing my lazy parenting.

Jane McGonigal's TED talk is just one of the many examples of real researchers who support that gaming is in fact a great activity for people to engage in. I have previously read in Grand Theft Childhood, how the idea that gaming promotes violence and anti-social behaviour, is based on bad science and biased research. In fact, the authors' preliminary findings show that gaming is an excellent way for (especially boys) to make friends. The violence does not desensitize children and they do not have trouble distinguishing it from real-life violence and harm. And they do learn perseverance and problem solving.

McGonigal takes works out a similar theme in the kind of detail that I really love. I'm going to paraphrase some of her talk, but please do watch the real thing too! She explains how gamers have four superpowers:
1. urgent optimism: they believe that they can do the tasks they are given, and that they can do them right now. In the game world, they are continually entrusted with tasks that are tailored to their 'level' and that are, invariably, achievable.
2. social fabric: in the gaming world, there are literally thousands of people around at any given time, who are happy to work together with you as a team to achieve the lofty goals you've been set.
3. blissful productivity: gamers don't sit around doing nothing. They are constantly running from quest to quest, gathering skill points and achievements.
4. epic meaning: the tasks gamers complete are epic. Generally, they are saving the world. It's very motivating!

If they spend 2 hours a day gaming, they will have clocked more than 10 000 hours of gameplay between the ages of 6 and 21. Once you've done 10 000 hours of anything, it makes you an expert, a virtuoso. Which means we have a whole generation of superhero gamers. Of course, they only have their superpowers in the virtual world, and that is a problem. The real world doesn't have the kind of reward structure and epic meaning... or does it?

Aside from McGonigal's own company Social Chocolate that launches games with the express purpose of solving the real world's problems, there are plenty of real-world examples of how gaming is a perfect way to view the world.
There's diets based on gaming (point scoring, competition, bragging rights...). In my own parenting experience, we have often used the reward structure inherent in gaming, as well as the epic dimensions to encourage the children to do well in the real world.

When Bambam started school, he struggled with learning to read. It seems like a daunting and insurmountable task and every single day, it seemed he was no closer to achieving the goal. In the real world, one might just give up. But if you view it like a game, it's very different! In World of Warcraft, you can acquire a skill, for example metalworking. When you first learn it, you can make a few simple objects. Each time you do it, you earn a skill point. When you've got enough skill points, you level up. It's a gradual process with a goal that is clearly achievable. We started approaching learning to read in this way. Rather than coming home every day not having learned to 'read', Bambam came home having earned 1 skill point by learning one new lettersound. He knew that once he had enough skill points, he would be able to level up from the pink sticker books to the red sticker books. He became blissfully productive, and optimistic about his ability to complete the epic task of learning to read.

This is just one example, but it convinces me that I'm doing the right thing by encouraging my children to game.

Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world | Video on TED.com

Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world | Video on TED.com

If anyone has any doubt whether they should let their kids play videogames... Jane McGonigal makes the case that we should be making them play more games. Gaming gives gamers four superpowers: urgent optimism, social fabric, blissful productivity, and epic meaning. Exactly the skills we need to save the world. Really.

Star Wars violence okay for kids

I've been asked whether it's okay to let little kids watch movies such as Star Wars, because they're quite scary and violent.

Bambam played Lego Star Wars on the Xbox before we watched the Star Wars movies with him. We felt it would give him some more background to the levels he was playing. The good part about that is that he felt fairly 'empowered' watching the scary bits, because he had already 'done' those levels in the game. The violence also seems less when you associate it with cartoon Lego violence. We've done the same with Lego Harry Potter and are now watching the Harry Potter movies. They're quite scary too, actually!

He was surprisingly good at understanding the emotional journey of Anikin into Darth Vader. We, as parents, welcomed the depth of this development compared to kids' shows actually aimed at this age bracket where 'baddies' are just bad for no reason. At least Darth Vader/Anikin is a complex person. (As a movie critic, I'd describe all this differently, but I'm talking child-rearing here). I think it actually helps him deal with the real world, in which nobody thinks or believes that they are the 'baddy'. People do things for complex reasons, including bad things, and Star Wars helped make Bambam aware of that. He often tries to discover what might drive other children to do 'naughty' things, and has also become more critical of his own motives at times.

Watching Star Wars with children has a bunch of other advantages as well. There is a lot of merchandise you can buy which can help in getting kids interested in games or activities they might not otherwise do. For example: we have Star Wars Guess Who and Star Wars Battleships game. I'm pretty sure Bambam wouldn't touch such sedate strategy board games if they weren't so excitingly branded.

Star Wars also has some pretty strong female characters. Padme Amidala can fall a bit flat at times. They tried to write her as a strong independent woman, but she seems overly reliant on the men around her, both politically and emotionally. Now Leia, with her great blaster aim, her snappy comebacks at the amourous Han Solo and the threatening Darth Vader: that's a real strong woman. She's in charge! I've seen Pebbles' princess role play turn a lot more active and empowered since watching Star Wars. Instead of dressing up and waiting in the tower to be rescued, her 'princesses' now run around shooting blasters and ordering robots about. And then there's Ahsoka, who's a female Jedi/Padawan.

Another aspect of Star Wars that is fairly interesting from a parenting point of view are the robot characters. Kirk Jr may have inherited Asperger traits from Kirk, my hubby. He tends to identify with objects more than people. For example, watching Harry Potter, he imagined being the Golden Snitch and allowing Harry to catch him so Griffindor could win. By contrast, Bambam wished to be one of the Quidditch team members who carry a cudgel to hit the ball (and perhaps other players) with. In Star Wars, Kirk Jr identifies with R2D2, which still allows for quite broad imaginative play and interaction with other children. All of which is good.

So, yes, I think watching Star Wars, and playing Star Wars games is a good thing to do with kids. Like anything, you should do it with them and then, if there is any issue with scariness or anything else, you'll be there to spot it, guide and explain.

Pope approves condom use?!

I was just looking through the paper for some inspiration for my daily blog post, and discovered the Pope has just approved the use of condoms to prevent the spread of infections.
About time!
It always seemed like such an obvious moral argument to me.

The Church, being Catholic, upholds the ideal of only procreational sex and that only within wedlock. However, the Catholic Church also believes in the reality that people are flawed and don't always do what they are expected to. They call humans sinful. In any case they admit that extramarital sex does occur. What else are confession and forgiveness for?

A person not using a condom would commit the moral sin of adultery - causing emotional hurt and moral corruption - and add to it the more physical sin of exposing their partner(s) to potentially lethal infections. Clearly, it is arithmetically better to commit just the one sin and mitigate it by doing it responsibly?

And there is a difference between the two sins as well. I would say that the emotional harm and moral corruption are limited in scope and reversible. That sin can be corrected. However, the physical infection is at present medically incurable and thereby not reversible by any measure of repentance or conversion (unless you count on miracles - but even if you believe in those, they will never cure millions but only individuals). Also, the physical infection may be passed on to innocents like babies or the unwitting spouse of an infected cheater. Doctrine states that God has given you a body and the duty to look after it, and using a condom when 'the spirit is weak' at least leaves 'the flesh' intact so the person can live on and perhaps even strengthen their spirit.

Although I am quite romantically partial to the idea of marriage and faithfulness, I'm not saying I agree with the Church on their definitions of sins and morals. I just find it so simple to defend the use of condoms entirely in accordance with their own doctrines and beliefs, that I've always been surprised with their view on safe sex.

Perhaps there's hope yet.