mid-term

The game of chicken
(also referred to as playing chicken) is a "game" in which two players engage in an activity that will result in serious harm unless one of them backs down. It is commonly applied to the use of motor vehicles whereby each drives a vehicle of some sort towards the other, and the first to swerve loses and is humiliated as the "chicken” or both “die” The principle of the game is to create pressure until one person backs down. Because the "loss" of swerving is so trivial compared to the crash that occurs if nobody swerves, the reasonable strategy would seem to be to swerve before a crash is likely. Yet, knowing this, if one believes one's opponent to be reasonable, one may well decide not to swerve at all, in the belief that he will be reasonable and decide to swerve, leaving the other player the winner.

A reason NOT to want to Win : U Could Get Dead!!!!

2 Steering Wheels | Pulsing LED Feed-back | Auditory Tones | Vibration

see blogs → sean salmon | diane thomas

The game of chicken (also referred to as playing chicken) is a "game" in which two players engage in an activity that will result in serious harm unless one of them backs down. It is commonly applied to the use of motor vehicles whereby each drives a vehicle of some sort towards the other, and the first to swerve loses and is humiliated as the "chicken. In practice, this sort of game, if played at all, is most likely to be played amongst adolescents or aggressive young men, though it more often involves less severe risk, say two people might ride at each-other on bicycles. The principle of the game is to create pressure until one person backs down. Because the "loss" of swerving is so trivial compared to the crash that occurs if nobody swerves, the reasonable strategy would seem to be to swerve before a crash is likely. Yet, knowing this, if one believes one's opponent to be reasonable, one may well decide not to swerve at all, in the belief that he will be reasonable and decide to swerve, leaving the other player the winner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_race

Also see:
Chicken and game theory
Chicken and the prisoner's dilemma


also from wikipedia…a reason NOT to want to win:
















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinkmanship
Brinkmanship refers to the policy or practice, especially in international politics and foreign policy, of pushing a dangerous situation to the brink of disaster (to the limits of safety) in order to achieve the most advantageous outcome by forcing the opposition to make concessions. This might be achieved through diplomatic maneuvers by creating the impression that one is willing to use extreme methods rather than concede. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear force was often used as such a deterrent. The fact that strikes do occur in real life is a sober reminder of the risks of nuclear brinkmanship.

And
Game Theory
“…strategic situations where players choose different actions in an attempt to maximize their returns.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory


Representation of games (gives me a head-ache)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Representation_of_games


Some Chicken Networked game thoughts:

"chicken" = go fastest and don’t die
2 cars race from opposite directions on a narrow road
At the crucial moment you:
a) hog the road--
make the other guy swerve
b) give way
swerve

-------or----------

both drivers swerve
1.) both drivers are safe
who covered more distance?
2.)drivers swerve into each other
both drivers die!

How do you win?
Don’t Swerve! OR don’t Die
How many plays do you get to accumulate points?
--If drivers are dead do they get another turn?

Forfeit winner: If each car swerves.
Cover more distance in less time.
When is distance determined?
At the point where to 2 “cars” meet

Or 2 drivers Lose!
wreck = death--- for both drivers.

How important is winning? …if you don’t die…

speed counts: accelerometer?
how do you tell who didn't swerve? Tilt sensor
if you wreak--nobody swerved. Tilt sensor
you both are dead!
you don't want to die!


speed = mph/distance
accelerometer

you have a steering wheel.
you can steer straight/ right/left
you can bank a turn ==traction and speed


mph= distance / time

LED—blinking feed-back


Audio tones

Engine noise
Own and approaching other
Crashing metal
Tires on asphalt
Radio

vibration

From

Sent

To

Cc

Bcc

Subject

O XPort... before we addressed any other pins for a sensor, Theresa and I got both our Xports communicating with her server. I'm a little confused about the direction information is flowing through...we're connecting our microchip to "telbel", Theresa's server, that in written into both our codes. And at the moment, the php code lives only in her folder--But! my XPort is addressed to my IP address at ITP. '***************************************************************** '* Name : xport_hello.pbp * '* Author : Patrick Dwyer * '* Notice : Copyright (c) 2006 * '* : Licensed under G* '* Date : 2/14/2006 * '* Version : 1.0 * '* Notes : * '* : * '***************************************************************** ' We are using a 20Mhz oscillator DEFINE OSC 20 ' We communicate with the XPort using 9600 8N1 serial true9600 con 84 ' Our serial communication pins tx var PORTC.6 rx var PORTC.7 ' Our blinking pin for status messages statusPin var PORTC.4 'potPin var PORTC.2 OUTPUT statusPin 'output potpin ' Used to read response from the XPort inByte var byte ' Track whether or not we are connected to the remote server connected var bit connected = 0 '' Turn on our LED so we know that the startup sequence is going 'high statusPin '' Wait for the XPort to boot up 'pause 5000 '' Turn off the status LED while operating 'LOW statusPin '' Just so we know that we're ready, we'll quickly blink the status LED counter var byte counter = 0 while counter < counter =" counter" connected =" 1" connected =" 1" counter =" 0" counter =" counter" msg2="Polo"> 0 serin2 rx, true9600, [inByte] wend ' now we're disconnected: connected = 0 ' turn off LED, since GET request is complete: low statusPin return

thoughts on readings: wk1 wk2

Well, my notes are pretty slim. I enjoy our class discussions but when I
open the readings, I think---I hate this stuff! I don't get it --and have nothing to say
about it. That's confusing to me...brings up that momentary panic--what
am i doing here?!!--not the class-- ITP! Panic subsides...

But I think I have remained pretty naive about the direction of technology. --And
about what people are interested in.

To me, the work is thinly disguised noise-- and sometimes fancy commercials, as in ____. "Calm technology" yet still delivers an invitation to distractibility.

So far, I am only able imagine designing intimate devices solely to inspire a question in the
user's mind--one that they will hopefully answer for themselves.

Is it necessary to think larger? Get more attention?

Our class discussions are really useful to me: in general, most seem to have thought further about this sort of design than I have, so interacting in that conversation is at least a start!