Details on the gootube deal...

Long, but interesting read. Posted by anonymous source, but it definately points out a valid strategy.

First, google buys youtube.

500 mil of purchase goes to settling lawsuits (50m per media giant).
Within the 50 mil, google requires 2 things:
1. Media giants look the other way for 6 months while google fixes a copyright infringment scheme for youtube - this includes a middleground so that youtube can still offer copyright material (since that IS the real reason why video sites grow so quickly).
2. Media giants create lawsuits for youtube competitors (and by now, this has already taken place)

Causes:
Cause from #1: Youtube flurishes for another 6 months (paraphrase: "Every day that youtube can avoid copyrights is another day youtube grows")
Cause from #2: Youtube competitors will not grow in popularity, nor will they recieve venture capital.

End result:
Youtube will grow, all else will fail. Google is happy. Youtube FTW.

From Jawed of YouTube

Killer apps section
14:11 wikipedia
It really was proof of social collaboration. You don't necessarily get chaos with everyone involved, you can get good things.

18:00 del.icio.us
Creditted with introduction of tagging.

in short:
Used earnings at paypal to create video sharing website. Didn't work initially, but they noticed that they had to keep ppl there. Redesigned for that and it worked. Fastest growing website to date.

Nintendo's Game Sanity patent

Nintendo actually patents “Sanity system for video game”.

Law Blog comments: "A game system whereby a game character’s sanity level is affected by different occurrences. Game play is affected (for example, by the character not responding to the player’s commands, by the character having hallucinations, etc.) as the character’s sanity level decreases. In-game effects include (and we're not making this up) 'enormous roar that emits from a tiny rodent (mouse or rat)' and 'faint maniacal laughter (that gets louder and louder as the character draws deeper into insanity)'."

Bridges between AI and Design

Listening to a GDC Radio podcast of "AI and Design: How AI Enables Designers" by Brian Reynolds from Big Huge Games. Talks about how designing AI influences game design concepts.

First notion: start somewhere, even if it's just x = rnd(3). Then you can at least get feedback for next iteration:
"AI was dumb because he did X when he should do Y"
Then it's easy to go from there.

Examples of AI influence design:
In Civ, player's able to make and break treaties at will with no influence to other factions. Soln is to make a reputation guage - this affects design.

In Colonization (?) he talks of being able to make a treaty, and walk your troops in without computer noticing. It had no way of knowing. Design element soln: you can't put your troops within 2 squares of opponents.

Only halfway done.

Pacman inspired by pizza

True or false: Pacman was inspired by pizza with a missing slice
(I put false)

You’ve been bluf’d: The videogame Pac-Man, initially called Puck Man, was developed primarily by Namco employee Toru Iwatani. After receiving inspiration from a pizza with one slice missing, game designer Iwatani spent approximately seventeen months on a game that revolved around eating.

Clint Hocking about interactive media

(Lecture at Futureplay)

He suggests that games can be places along 3 axis... we're currently focused on two:

Technology axis (group responsible: programmers)
This goes from data to resources
Either you rely on precomputed info or runtime. Think Myst vs some tiny game that creates textures on the fly

Representational axis (group responsible: creative team/artists)
Abstract vs simulation
Pong is abstract, it could represent anything. A game, or even a conversation. Rockstar's Table Tennis can't be argued to be anything else. It's a simulation.

His new concept:
The game "Call of Duty" is used as an example. You can play it, and think it's "fun". Well, the game designer has said it was inspired by the movie "Saving Private Ryan". It was of course a good movie, but when you get out of the movie do you say "wow, that was a fun movie!" ...? No, you don't - so he claims fun is not the right word.

"The solution I proposed was to stop talking about fun and start talking about an 'axis of meaning' that has at one end 'distraction' and at the other end 'engagement'."

Think Saving Private Ryan vs Snakes on a Plane, Final Fantasy vs Final Fight. Goes on to say distraction isn't bad, it's still enjoyment.

Continues to say that we're stuck as niche programmers making games to a niche group (18-35 male). Similar to other articles I've seen that talks about how the console wars are too focused on the core demographic.

Einstein's relativity

Was watching an old documentary about Einstein while riding BART today... (there aren't too many videos I can choose from online that I can convert to put onto my portable video player)

So here's what I learned:

Einstein accepted the fact that speed of light was a constant, so how could two observers see the same speed? well if speed = d/t, and d and speed are const, than time must be a variable.

Also, this means that time is not absolute - ie: if an observer sees two lightning strikes around him, vs a moving observer at the same point - they will not agree on the time of those lightning strikes (since one was moving).

Also, since E = mc^2, then mass has energy and energy has mass. The sun sends out 4.5 pounds of light at us per day.