So, as I'm inclined to do pretty much every day, I was reading Techmeme a few days ago. I came across this article about the "physical benefits" of playing video games on the Wii system as opposed to on a generically controlled console.
The following statistics were among the only sited by this article:
Project Gotham Racing 3: 125.5 kJ/kg/min
Wii Sports bowling: 190.6 kJ/kg/min
Wii Sports boxing: 198.1 kJ/kg/min
Wii Sports tennis: 202.5 kJ/kg/mi
The study concluded thusly that Wii gaming: "was not of high enough intensity to contribute towards the recommended daily amount of exercise in children... In a typical week, active gaming rather than passive gaming would increase total energy expenditure by less than 2 percent."
I find it very hard to take seriously the results of a study that basis its conclusion on data that suggests that a person playing Wii Sports tennis expends more energy than a person playing Wii Sports boxing.
(For the sake of journalistic impartiality, these videos both were among the top 10 videos found with a YouTube search of "Wii Tennis" and "Wii Bowling," respectively. I also opted to use amateur footage because I thought it would necessarily be less contrived than professional footage made to illustrate how easy the Wii is to use.
I have a Wii. I've played both and it's not even close. To quote Jules (Samuel L Jackson) from Pulp Fiction, "it ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport..."
Well, obviously it's not the same sport. At the end of a typical Wii boxing game I am generally pretty darned tuckered out - and I consider myself to be in better shape than the general population. Wii Tennis, on the other hand, simply involves a flick of the wrist. I can't imagine that minute for minute, the amount of energy expended while playing Wii Tennis even begins to approach that used for Wii Boxing. In short, Wii Tennis requires far less effort than Wii Boxing.
Based on that alone, I question the validity of the study. But even aside from that, even if playing the Wii is only - according to the hard scientific data - slightly better for ones' health than another gaming system, it's still better.
Furthermore, there's the chance that playing a Wii Sport may encourage someone to go outside and play its real counterpart. Before you scoff at this justification, at least stop and think about the fact that emulation is at least an option with Wii Sports. It's not like someone can decide to go out and play Halo in real life.
And Wii gains even more props for actually inquiring whether the gamer would like to take a break to go outside and play. No other system encourages you to do something other than play it.
So while playing Wii is certainly not as healthy as many activities, as far as video games go, it's close to the top.
Though RockBand gives you a pretty sweet workout as well... groupies too...
Monday, December 24, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Last Minute Christmas Present? (Or really late Chanukah present)
As the recent report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project found, most people are narcissistic enough that they would likely love to receive something from this site for Christmas.
Hypocrisy, Thy Name is David Gregory
After all his talk about how the internet is to blame for political polarization and that blogs are effectively polluting the public discourse, David Gregory has the stones to be a part of this pollution:
And again:
Words fail me...
Thanks to Think Progress for the tip(s).
And again:
Words fail me...
Thanks to Think Progress for the tip(s).
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Krugman on Presidential Experience
From TalkLeft.
In response to this article in the Boston Globe, Paul Krugman posted the following on his blog:
I think that Krugman's point that Obama's experiences in the Illinois State Legislature haven't prepared him for the Presidency misses the target. I don't think that the target even existed to begin with.
Of course Obama's experiences in the Illinois State Legislature are dissimilar to what his experiences would be in the White House. This argument loses its credibility because it can be applied to any candidate's previous experience.
Among the democrats, a huge amount of attention has been paid to "experience" and how X candidate is the only one with the requisite experience for the job.
The Presidency is unlike anything else. I'll gladly agree with Krugman on that point. However because there is no experience that can identically simulate the experiences of a President aside from holding the office oneself, candidates are forced to present themselves - and the electorate is forced to evaluate those candidates - on the basis of actual experience.
While this is obviously an imperfect method of evaluation, this process of analogical comparison is the only one we have.
Being a Southern Baptist minister is far less comparable to being the President of the United States, but that doesn't mean that Mike Huckabee's experiences as a Southern Baptist minister wouldn't influence his presidency.
Being held captive for years in a POW camp is (hopefully) not like being the President of the United States but that experience has certainly contributed to who John McCain is and how his presidency would be.
I realize that my argument is approaching hyperbole so I'll simply return to my original point.
Being a Governor is unlike being the President. Being a Senator is unlike being the President. Being a House Representative is unlike being the President.
Being the President is like being the President.
Because none of the candidates - on either side - have been President of the United States, none of them have perfectly applicable experience of which to boast. As such, we must evaluate them on the basis of what their experience have been and how we believe those experiences have prepared them for the presidency.
Analogies are almost always imperfect, but they remain the best way of comparing two dissimilar things.
Krugman should realize that.
In response to this article in the Boston Globe, Paul Krugman posted the following on his blog:
"This story gives a lot of context to the debate over health reform now. Obama clearly sees himself playing the same role as president that he did as a state legislator — as a broker among groups, including the insurance industry, as someone who can find a compromise solution that’s acceptable to a wide range of opinion.
My thoughts: being president isn’t at all like being a state legislator, Illinois Republicans aren’t like the national Republican party, 2009 won’t be 2003, and the insurance industry’s opposition to national health reform — which must, if it is to mean anything, strike deep at the industry’s fundamental business — will be much harsher than its opposition to a basically quite mild state-level reform effort.
The point is that if national health reform is going to happen, it will be as the result of a no-holds-barred fight of an entirely different order from what Obama saw in Illinois. The president’s role will have to be far more confrontational, involve far more twisting of arms and rallying of the public against the special interests, than Obama’s role as a state legislator in the Illinois case. And it will take place against a backdrop of fierce attacks not just from the industry but from Republicans who fear, rightly, that any kind of reform will move the country in a more liberal direction.
My worries about Obama are that he doesn’t seem to understand this — that he thinks that in 2009, as president, he can broker a national health care reform the same way that as a state legislator, in 2003, he brokered a deal that mollified the insurance industry. That’s a recipe for getting nowhere."
I think that Krugman's point that Obama's experiences in the Illinois State Legislature haven't prepared him for the Presidency misses the target. I don't think that the target even existed to begin with.
Of course Obama's experiences in the Illinois State Legislature are dissimilar to what his experiences would be in the White House. This argument loses its credibility because it can be applied to any candidate's previous experience.
Among the democrats, a huge amount of attention has been paid to "experience" and how X candidate is the only one with the requisite experience for the job.
The Presidency is unlike anything else. I'll gladly agree with Krugman on that point. However because there is no experience that can identically simulate the experiences of a President aside from holding the office oneself, candidates are forced to present themselves - and the electorate is forced to evaluate those candidates - on the basis of actual experience.
While this is obviously an imperfect method of evaluation, this process of analogical comparison is the only one we have.
Being a Southern Baptist minister is far less comparable to being the President of the United States, but that doesn't mean that Mike Huckabee's experiences as a Southern Baptist minister wouldn't influence his presidency.
Being held captive for years in a POW camp is (hopefully) not like being the President of the United States but that experience has certainly contributed to who John McCain is and how his presidency would be.
I realize that my argument is approaching hyperbole so I'll simply return to my original point.
Being a Governor is unlike being the President. Being a Senator is unlike being the President. Being a House Representative is unlike being the President.
Being the President is like being the President.
Because none of the candidates - on either side - have been President of the United States, none of them have perfectly applicable experience of which to boast. As such, we must evaluate them on the basis of what their experience have been and how we believe those experiences have prepared them for the presidency.
Analogies are almost always imperfect, but they remain the best way of comparing two dissimilar things.
Krugman should realize that.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Internet: The Cause of Polar Politics?
At a National Press Club event a couple of weeks ago, NBC White House correspondent David Gregory argued that blogs and the internet were to blame for the polarization of today’s political arena. He specifically pointed to the phenomenon of "people try[ing] to divine or assign [the press's] motives" for asking certain questions at White House press briefings.
First, let me make it clear that I don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with the press being subjected to high levels of public scrutiny. Just as political institutions within a democracy ought be transparent, so too should the media that reports on them. While I agree that a journalist's job, first and foremost, is to obtain and disseminate news rather than pursue a private agenda, I am aware that any substantive report will reveal something of the reporter's predisposition. Whether it is a blatant indication of prejudice or a subtle nuance indicated by who the reporter chooses to interview or the use or omission of certain adjectives, there is almost always something to be divined.
Secondly, I would like to address the claim that blogs and the internet are to be blamed for political polarization.
In his book, Marketing to the Social Web, Larry Weber writes that, "You might have noticed that consumer opinion on the Web tends to split widely over books, movies, music, indeed, most products. Look at the Amazon book reviews; they tend be written by people who either absolutely loved the book or loathed it. Someone who is simply indifferent won’t bother to say anything. It's people who have an interest one way or the other who are going to take the time and energy to voice their opinions -- that’s evidence of community." The expression of political opinion mirrors that of consumer opinion.
To modify the old adage: if you don’t have anything nice or naughty to say, you're unlikely to say anything at all. As a result, people who take the time to participate in blogs, forums and other forms of social media are by and large people who possess strong opinions.
Rather than ask why the internet and blogosphere are polarized, a more fundamental question is to ask why the polarization of politics has been blamed on the internet and blogs.
Politics – especially during an election year (and really, what year isn’t an election year these days?) – is inherently polar. Each party is trying to distinguish itself from its rivals, as is each candidate. Even after the voters on both ends of the political spectrum have made up their minds to vote for whichever candidate wins their party’s nomination, politics becomes a game of those nominees subsequently picking wedge issues and positions. These positions slowly but inexorably chip voters off of the block of undecided voters in the middle, and add them to each candidate's flock. Ultimately - one side wins and the other side loses.
People’s views are forced into this binary function in part because they must vote one way or the other. It should not come as a surprise that this electoral dichotomy is reflected in the political discourse that addresses it.
Unlike the internet, this is hardly a modern development. Political polarization and factionalism were identified by our founding fathers more than 200 years ago. In Federalist 10, James Madison –as Publius – wrote "…a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
This is a fair description of practically any established online community. Looking back, the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was just as polar a debate as can be found on any modern political message board or blog. While the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was waged between elite members of American colonial society with quills, parchment and printing presses – the modern debate is far more egalitarian, accessible to anyone with a keyboard and an opinion. Although the medium for the debate and the debaters themselves have changed, the underlying sentiment has not.
It is true that far more consideration went into the writings of Publius and Brutus than a typical blog post. The ease and speed with which anyone can become a pundit is both a boon and a bane because it allows for vehement expression without one of the quill era's crucial hurdles: forced deliberation prior to distribution. Two-hundred years ago, the very labor-intensity of writing and disseminating a message necessitated that the content be thoroughly vetted for worth before it was published.
This is an inescapable byproduct of technological advancement. The printing press allowed things to be widely published far more easily than they could as hand-copied documents. The advent of television decreased journalistic deliberation even further. The internet’s enabling of nearly real-time discussion of events is simply the next step in the evolution of media.
Just as faction was both loathed and lauded within The Federalist Papers, so too does it play a positive and a negative role in the modern political process. By allowing freedom so that faction can be made to combat faction, the universal accessibility of the internet can facilitate the balance of these seemingly diametric views. These opinions exist whether or not they are expressed and cannot fairly be attributed to any particular medium.
Simply because the internet and blogs are the battlefield doesn't mean that they are to blame for the battle.
While it is easy to focus on the harshest and most extreme comments on any issue, the internet provides a forum for airing and discussing these difference in order to find common ground. In this sense, the internet is a far more powerful uniter than it is a divider.
Ultimately, the polarization of politics predates the internet by eons. While the internet – like all new technology - adds new dimensions to existing problems, it almost invariably provides new solutions as well. David Gregory’s comments focus myopically on the former element of the puzzle and attempt to scapegoat the internet for one of the most basic proclivities of mankind: having and desiring to share opinion.
David, don’t shoot the messenger.
First, let me make it clear that I don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with the press being subjected to high levels of public scrutiny. Just as political institutions within a democracy ought be transparent, so too should the media that reports on them. While I agree that a journalist's job, first and foremost, is to obtain and disseminate news rather than pursue a private agenda, I am aware that any substantive report will reveal something of the reporter's predisposition. Whether it is a blatant indication of prejudice or a subtle nuance indicated by who the reporter chooses to interview or the use or omission of certain adjectives, there is almost always something to be divined.
Secondly, I would like to address the claim that blogs and the internet are to be blamed for political polarization.
In his book, Marketing to the Social Web, Larry Weber writes that, "You might have noticed that consumer opinion on the Web tends to split widely over books, movies, music, indeed, most products. Look at the Amazon book reviews; they tend be written by people who either absolutely loved the book or loathed it. Someone who is simply indifferent won’t bother to say anything. It's people who have an interest one way or the other who are going to take the time and energy to voice their opinions -- that’s evidence of community." The expression of political opinion mirrors that of consumer opinion.
To modify the old adage: if you don’t have anything nice or naughty to say, you're unlikely to say anything at all. As a result, people who take the time to participate in blogs, forums and other forms of social media are by and large people who possess strong opinions.
Rather than ask why the internet and blogosphere are polarized, a more fundamental question is to ask why the polarization of politics has been blamed on the internet and blogs.
Politics – especially during an election year (and really, what year isn’t an election year these days?) – is inherently polar. Each party is trying to distinguish itself from its rivals, as is each candidate. Even after the voters on both ends of the political spectrum have made up their minds to vote for whichever candidate wins their party’s nomination, politics becomes a game of those nominees subsequently picking wedge issues and positions. These positions slowly but inexorably chip voters off of the block of undecided voters in the middle, and add them to each candidate's flock. Ultimately - one side wins and the other side loses.
People’s views are forced into this binary function in part because they must vote one way or the other. It should not come as a surprise that this electoral dichotomy is reflected in the political discourse that addresses it.
Unlike the internet, this is hardly a modern development. Political polarization and factionalism were identified by our founding fathers more than 200 years ago. In Federalist 10, James Madison –as Publius – wrote "…a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
This is a fair description of practically any established online community. Looking back, the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was just as polar a debate as can be found on any modern political message board or blog. While the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was waged between elite members of American colonial society with quills, parchment and printing presses – the modern debate is far more egalitarian, accessible to anyone with a keyboard and an opinion. Although the medium for the debate and the debaters themselves have changed, the underlying sentiment has not.
It is true that far more consideration went into the writings of Publius and Brutus than a typical blog post. The ease and speed with which anyone can become a pundit is both a boon and a bane because it allows for vehement expression without one of the quill era's crucial hurdles: forced deliberation prior to distribution. Two-hundred years ago, the very labor-intensity of writing and disseminating a message necessitated that the content be thoroughly vetted for worth before it was published.
This is an inescapable byproduct of technological advancement. The printing press allowed things to be widely published far more easily than they could as hand-copied documents. The advent of television decreased journalistic deliberation even further. The internet’s enabling of nearly real-time discussion of events is simply the next step in the evolution of media.
Just as faction was both loathed and lauded within The Federalist Papers, so too does it play a positive and a negative role in the modern political process. By allowing freedom so that faction can be made to combat faction, the universal accessibility of the internet can facilitate the balance of these seemingly diametric views. These opinions exist whether or not they are expressed and cannot fairly be attributed to any particular medium.
Simply because the internet and blogs are the battlefield doesn't mean that they are to blame for the battle.
While it is easy to focus on the harshest and most extreme comments on any issue, the internet provides a forum for airing and discussing these difference in order to find common ground. In this sense, the internet is a far more powerful uniter than it is a divider.
Ultimately, the polarization of politics predates the internet by eons. While the internet – like all new technology - adds new dimensions to existing problems, it almost invariably provides new solutions as well. David Gregory’s comments focus myopically on the former element of the puzzle and attempt to scapegoat the internet for one of the most basic proclivities of mankind: having and desiring to share opinion.
David, don’t shoot the messenger.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
I Will be Retiring Shortly...
Because I am now independently wealthy. Check out the email I just got:
I'm out. If you need me, I'll be at an elegant villa somewhere, sipping wine and showering beautiful women with diamonds and hundred dollar bills...
I'm out. If you need me, I'll be at an elegant villa somewhere, sipping wine and showering beautiful women with diamonds and hundred dollar bills...
Pomonkeying Around
Students of Pomona College - next door to my alma mater of Claremont McKenna College - protested the possibility of a speech from Alberto Gonzales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)