This is Peter Crowther's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Peter Crowther's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Peter Crowther
Recent Activity
There's presently this dichotomy between centralised networks (Facebook, Twitter) that provide rich cross-linking but require centralised money (advertising money) to maintain, and decentralised networks (Diaspora, blogs) that are paid for by their users but have much poorer linking and search facilities. I'm working on (OK, thinking how to implement) a decentralised platform that allows rich linking, potentially removes single points of failure, provides strong identity guarantees (that two items come from the same account or from different accounts, not who holds those accounts) and where service nodes can be placed anywhere you like, with users storing content across any nodes with which they can negotiate an appropriate legal agreement. Oh, and where users are actively encouraged to use a wide variety of readers, which are explicitly allowed to transform what they display (for example, to remove advertising). Service nodes could, for example, be Raspberry Pi-sized (or one of the wall-socket micro-servers), and hence very affordable. In that environment, advertising is much less advantageous and there is no requirement to have it.
Toggle Commented Oct 15, 2014 on A Social Intelligence Network at Only a Game
1 reply
Earl Grey, please...
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2014 on Warming the Teapot at Only a Game
1 reply
Still here. Posting on Week 1 as I was out of mobile coverage due to holiday, otherwise I'd have seen this!
Toggle Commented Jun 16, 2014 on Week One: Lurkers and Loyalists at Only a Game
1 reply
Yay! I'm still around, but many of your recent pieces are so far away from my areas of competence that I'm simply not equipped to comment.
Toggle Commented May 16, 2014 on I'm Getting the Band Back Together at Only a Game
1 reply
Hmm. You've now got me wanting to look out the source of "do not bite the fan that heeds you". One of Arthur C. Clarke's fans to him after a grumpy comment I *think*.
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2013 on Always Feed the Fans at Only a Game
1 reply
Oh, good. I much preferred the blog when it was somewhere I felt I could join in the discussion rather than admiring the finished works.
Toggle Commented Jan 12, 2013 on Skimming Stones at Only a Game
1 reply
Moore's Law has not been kind to the console. Once upon a time, expensive dedicated hardware was essential in order to obtain any useful performance out of many games. These days, a multi-hundred MIPS processor costs cents in bulk and tens of gigaflops of GPU power costs little more - look at the economics of the Raspberry Pi for a fascinating example. Once you can embed something that's "good enough" for many users for many games as a tiny cost as part of a general-purpose device, whether that's a phone, tablet, TV or smart glasses, the economics change completely.
Toggle Commented Dec 7, 2012 on The Console Wars Are Over at ihobo
1 reply
I'm not planning to enter the competition, but would appreciate it if you'd sign my copy at some point.
1 reply
"moral values intimately entail facts" Sure? My own entailment arrow would be the other way round. But then, maybe I'm just a positivist :-).
Toggle Commented Sep 21, 2012 on Positivist Mythology at Only a Game
1 reply
Yowch! All the best for a swift recovery. Must be catching, by the way. For the first time in... oh... three decades or so? I fell out of bed last night, via a rather sharp drawer edge.
Toggle Commented Aug 29, 2012 on Falling Down the Stairs at Only a Game
1 reply
I suspect if you asked people on each side to define the word "marriage", you would get different definitions. Asking the question "should group X be allowed to marry?" without agreement on the definition of marriage will produce heat, but little light as the two sides aren't answering the same question.
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2012 on Unmarriage at Only a Game
1 reply
As a mere thought experiment that's probably been done: what happens if you add (let's say) a distance measure of "relatedness" or "careness" to the "number" measure of a consequentialist ethics, such that different people can calculate different answers to the same question based on their relationships with the people involved? Certainly this can neatly solve the Repugnant Conclusion if the measure is designed so that any number of low-careness individuals can be outweighed by one high-careness individual. If one assumes that Deep Judge could be built with such a framework, I think some very interesting discussions ensue :-).
Toggle Commented Mar 22, 2012 on The Ultimate Moral Computer? at Only a Game
1 reply
So move to Chorlton Village :-).
Toggle Commented Mar 8, 2012 on Social Media Crisis at Only a Game
1 reply
Amazingly or amusingly, I'm *still* playing and enjoying World of Warcraft five years on, and it's still all about the people and the exploration. Oh, hang on, Brainhex has me tagged as a seeker/socialiser...
Toggle Commented Mar 8, 2012 on What Are You Playing? at ihobo
1 reply
Necro-comment - sorry! "Sometimes people cheat, but in order to cheat you must already have acknowledged that there were rules that could be broken." Mmm. I'll point to relativism again. Who asserts that the person has cheated? Can a person who believes that they're playing a game to different rules than another legitimately believe they haven't cheated when the second player believes they have?
Toggle Commented Jan 25, 2012 on Life Amidst Moral Chaos at Only a Game
1 reply
The large rights holders are leeches and can, as far as I'm concerned... how to put this politely... go and die in a fire. That said, I quite appreciate the small fractions of a cent Albireo gets for each listen to a track over a legal streaming medium. Between that and online track and album purchases, we've racked up... ooh... tens of dollars. Total, not each. It's still fun.
Toggle Commented Jan 25, 2012 on Common Errors about Music Piracy at Only a Game
1 reply
I'm puzzled. Why do you think that studios will feel they have to support multiple input schemes on one title if they can guarantee that the console ships with their controller of choice?
Toggle Commented Jan 12, 2012 on Sony and Microsoft's Controller Crisis at ihobo
1 reply
That's unfortunate, as it sounds like Parfit's definition has some nuances that (for example) my working definition doesn't have explicitly. Rational has to be rational-to-the-individual due to perception, but I'm interested to know how Parfit would class an act performed because "the voices in my head made me do it".
Toggle Commented Dec 18, 2011 on Are Smokers Rational? at Only a Game
1 reply
I'd rather allow co-ops and let them grow as necessary, but that's me!
Toggle Commented Dec 18, 2011 on Financial Games: The Ethics of Money at Only a Game
1 reply
Sounds like one might need a pretty good definition of "rational" to stack this up against. I assume Parfit has a suitably wordy one?
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2011 on Are Smokers Rational? at Only a Game
1 reply
Chris, have you just reinvented co-ops?
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2011 on Financial Games: The Ethics of Money at Only a Game
1 reply
I give as counterexamples the Magic: the gathering cards in Unglued, and the SJG "Momentous Unmasking" T-shirt produced for Munchkin. Both of these contain rules that are sufficiently funny that I laugh as I read them.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2011 on No Tears for Mario at ihobo
1 reply
Yes, I feel that's a much better title. "Feel" as in a feeling of relief at the idea of the book having that title rather than "Myths of..."; it hasn't got as far as conscious consideration yet!
Toggle Commented Sep 1, 2011 on Myths vs. Mythology? at Only a Game
1 reply
A survey / criticism of what's already out there approach interests me, though a survey needs more references. Evolution is a controversial subject, and I feel you need to be able to indicate your sources for what are otherwise your assertions so that those people who might otherwise bristle at an assertion can refer to its source. From what I've read so far, I don't believe Myths of Evolution is a critical work, however. It is, instead, your own take on evolution, viewed through the glasses of your own prejudices on at least communication, storytelling and science - and no doubt other areas. This is no bad thing - the fresh viewpoint provides a useful challenge in the field - but I confess to reading through it with the eye of someone who writes journal papers and thinking "how would Chris defend that point against challenge?" again and again. If that's not an issue for you, that's fine. For me, the essays are relatively simple to follow. They would be simpler with pointers to the material being referenced, so that I could read up on areas where I felt my own knowledge was incomplete. I suspect very few people will have read as widely as you around the differing views on the subject, and it seems an incredible waste for me, as a consumer of your work, to be unable to access that reading where I find it useful. I've learned at least two things from reading these essays: - There are more divergent views on evolution than I thought; - Chris Bateman has his own views, quite strongly held, that shine through his descriptions of others' viewpoints. I strongly dislike "Revealing the Nature of Life" as a subtitle based on the essays I have seen so far. What new revelation on the nature of life (as opposed to our perception of the nature of life) does the book contain? I much prefer your original title. The new one feels to me like it should be in a yellow multi-pointed star embossed on a lurid paperback cover of a book sitting on the shelf in a motorway service station or in Waterstone's 3-for-2 pile, which probably isn't the message you wish to convey. Just my £0.02; as you know, I come at these ideas from a very different angle to yours, and I may well be right at one edge of your intended audience.
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2011 on Feedback Request: Myths of Evolution at Only a Game
1 reply
“Why is the universe orderly and intelligible?” ... because if it were unordered or unintelligible, we could not be having this discussion. Therefore it must be. Thank you Reverend Bayes. Not convinced this is a question that science cannot answer. Why do you feel it is?
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2011 on The Borders of Science at Only a Game
1 reply