Satan's Hallow

Hell

MTA Bans Free Speech

Speech

Who Is the Most Articulate President?

Articulate

Raven Star on Baltimore

Raven

UCLA Computer History: Kleinrock Center for Internet Studies

Theatrical release, 6 August 1948
 
Some years before the first transmission was made, in part, in Boelter Hall, another machine made UCLA a center for technological advancement. In the late 1940s UCLA’s College of Engineering received a differential analyzer, also known as a mechanical computer, from General Electric. This analog machine cost $125,000 to make and performed mechanical calculations at an unprecedentedly fast rate. Housed at UCLA, near the center of the film making industry, the mechanical computer even became a movie star when it was displayed in the 1951 science-fiction movie When Worlds Collide.

Unfortunately, UCLA’s mechanical computers eventually became outdated in the 1960s, though it clearly served as a forerunner to what Kleinrock and the others would do later on in that decade. One of the machines was sent to the Smithsonian Institute in 1978, but it will be remembered for mid century technology advancement in Southern California.

Kleinrock

Judging Blacks

Judging

Unit 3

https://d2f1egay8yehza.cloudfront.net/MIT11127/MIT11127T115-V007300_DTH.mp4

Welcome to Unit 3!

It's hard to make a good game; great ideas are only a start. In this unit, we'll talk to several experts about their process for designing learning games, with a special focus on prototyping. 

• Important Design Questions: Prof. Colleen Macklin and Prof. Scott Nicholson tell us about their experiences designing and prototyping games and share the kinds of questions they ask during the process. 
• Lure of the Labyrinth: Design Process: Prof. Eric Klopfer and Scot Osterweil take us through the creation of math-based puzzle game Lure of the Labyrinth. 
• Lure of the Labyrinth: Prototyping & Testing: Scot Osterweil and Dan Roy play Lure of the Labyrinth and explain how they iteratively prototyped and play-tested.
• Reach for the Sun: Objectives & Tradefoffs: Prof. Eric Klopfer and Dan Norton play Reach for the Sun and consider aspects of its development. 

We will be reading excerpts of Moving Learning Games Forward by Eric Klopfer, et al. and those who wish to dive deeper can read "Introduction: The Logic of Backwards Design" by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins. 

Appearances by: Colleen Macklin, Scott Nicholson, Scot Osterweil, Dan Roy, Dan Norton

http://youtu.be/71L-wUBhiWA
Prof. Colleen Macklin, from Parsons The New School for Design, tells us what kinds of questions she asks when designing and prototyping games. As you work on your project, consider asking yourself some of the same questions, including: "What is the most interesting thing my game could convey to players?" and "What is this game going to feel like?."
http://youtu.be/sg0_GX5D_Rw
Prof. Scott Nicholson from Syracuse University discusses his gaming experiences and his thought processes for conceiving and designing games. Note that he tries to a create a simple prototype early in the process so that he can get his game into the hands of players. Remember that you can still get value from making and testing a simple paper prototype, even early in the design process.
http://youtu.be/NLen6hS1lS8
Scot Osterweil and Prof. Eric Klopfer begin their conversation about the creation of Lure of the Labyrinth. First, they talk about the design and prototyping process in general. As you watch the videos in this section, think about your own game and how you might learn from their process and from their ideas. How do the lessons of Labyrinth apply to your game?
http://youtu.be/oktupItPujc
Scot and Eric speak about the project approval process, determining and balancing needs, considering resources, and securing partners.
http://youtu.be/IGeVYhdYLtU
For this activity break, we're going to think about creating a paper prototype for a particular game mechanism, rather than an entire game. First choose a digital game, then choose one mechanism of that game (how players will take turns, how new information is presented, etc.) and think about how you would create a playable paper prototype. Here's an example: I'm interested in testing how game pieces will be introduced for my Tetris-like puzzle game. I could create the paper pieces in the variety of shapes I'm using and then hand one to a player on a schedule, say every 10 seconds. Perhaps you might learn that, like Tetris, you might want to start progressively decreasing that time period. You can either look at an existing digital game or your own project; consider how you would create a paper prototype for one mechanism. You are welcome to share your reflections (and photos if relevant) with your classmates in the forum.
https://voice.adobe.com/a/2qgAX
Scot Osterweil and game designer Dan Roy, who worked on Lure of the Labyrinth, play the Cafeteria Puzzle (in Lure of the Labyrinth) and discuss how paper prototyping helped them figure out aspects of the gameplay.
http://youtu.be/Whnk3ttAy84
Scot and Dan talk about importance of playtesting and the iterative approach they used to test an aspect of the game.
http://youtu.be/Whnk3ttAy84
To test certain puzzles in Lure of the Labyrinth, it was more effective to use a crude digital prototype. Dan explains and also underscores the importance of allowing players to really play your game, rather than just asking them to comment on a demonstration. As you work the project, make sure you play your own game and allow others to play it.
http://youtu.be/6zTaLt1pDrM
Prof. Eric Klopfer talks to Dan Norton at Filament Games about Reach for the Sun, a plant growth learning game. Dan plays and gives the rationale for various design decisions.
http://youtu.be/6zTaLt1pDrM
http://youtu.be/HcrlEVTRJbI

Unit 3 Reading MOVING LEARNING GAMES FORWARD Read the sections "Learning Game Design Principles" and "Examples" (pgs. 28-40). Klopfer, E. et al. 2009. Moving Learning Games Forward: Obstacles, Opportunities, & Openness. Cambridge MA: MIT The Education Arcade. DIVE DEEPER Read "Introduction: The Logic of Backwards Design" for an overview of a widely-used method for curriculum development. Scot references backwards design in u3.v3.s3. McTighe, Jay, and Grant P. Wiggins. 2004. Understanding by Design: Professional Development Workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

http://youtu.be/yOpA9OA-LfY

OK! You’ve laid a foundation for the last few weeks - now it’s time to start making your game. For the next 4 weeks (Unit 3 and Unit 4), you have lots of room to make passes at creating your own learning games! Take a look at the feedback you’ve received, find teammates if you are interested, and start designing and building prototypes of your game. Create paper versions or digital versions, and try to collect feedback on the forums, as well as from your friends and family in real life. Deliverable: A publicly viewable and if possible playable version of your prototype(s) with documentation about the following: target audience learning objectives the "fun" in your topic your reasons for choosing certain game mechanics your experiences developing, testing & revising your prototype When you're designing, don't lose sight of the goal of your game and what you want the learner to get out of it. When you're prototyping, think about the following: What is most important for you to know? With each prototype, you should be trying to figure out a few specific things - is it more fun with more players? Does adding “points” make it more fun? Are these mechanics balanced well? If you change too many things between prototypes, it can be difficult to tell which of your changes are working and which aren’t. How can your classmates play this game? It’s easy if you are working in GameBlox to share your games in the forums, and other digital protoypes may be shareable through sites like Dropbox etc. If want feedback on a paper prototype, consider making a .pdf file that they can print and also make a video so they can understand your prototype as well as possible. Are people learning? We’ll be addressing this question more formally in Units 4 and 5, but for now - what do you think? Are people using the game’s language to describe their moves and decisions? Are players getting a better understanding of your topic as they get better at the game? Ask people what is confusing to them, and see how you can improve it. Remember to take a look at everyone else’s games! Think of this as a really big studio class. A large part of your learning is going to take place not just by watching videos or reading articles, but in your interactions in the forums. Debate, ask questions, and provide constructive feedback! Finally, don’t forget to have fun! There’s a lot to think about in this course, but you’re making games, so enjoy it! Guidance for Peer Feedback Provide feedback to at least three participants whose posts appear below yours. If those participants have already received feedback, look for participants who have not received any. Follow the Peer Review Feedback guidelines and consider the following: Give your overall impressions of the game. Were there aspects of the game that you think worked especially well? How can you help the participant improve his or game? You might suggest a change/addition or ask a question. Does the game seem aligned to the learning objectives? Are there ways the participant might improve alignment? How did the participant's prototype influence your own thinking?

Cambridge Hawk Takes Down Drone

Hawk

Assignment 3.1

OK! You’ve laid a foundation for the last few weeks - now it’s time to start making your game. For the next 4 weeks (Unit 3 and Unit 4), you have lots of room to make passes at creating your own learning games! Take a look at the feedback you’ve received, find teammates if you are interested, and start designing and building prototypes of your game. Create paper versions or digital versions, and try to collect feedback on the forums, as well as from your friends and family in real life.

Deliverable: A publicly viewable and if possible playable version of your prototype(s) with documentation about the following:

• target audience 

The target audience is working adults with the average age about 35 years old. They are students who typically have gone to work all day and have family and personal responsibilities and then attend class between 6 and 10 PM at night. 

• learning objectives

The learning objectives include the idea of learning humanities and culture but in a more interesting and informed manner. By playing a game they are no doubt putting in more time but are much more active in the learning objective is for them to be engaged in their own learning.

• the "fun" in your topic
The fun in the topic is that students will be engaged, will interact more with their peers, and will follow avenues of culture that are unique to the gameplay of the individual student.
• your reasons for choosing certain game mechanics
I am choosing the mechanics of the game to include the five countries represented that closely parallel the actual Renaissance cultural conditions. they start off as more or less equal but as in the Renaissance the countries need to develop their cultural production and diplomatic achievements.
• your experiences developing, testing & revising your prototype

Several points can be made in developing, testing, and revising this prototype. Based on feedback that I received the game needs to be set towards diplomatic and cultural interactions and as a humanities class an emphasis must be placed on those aspects in particular.

When you're designing, don't lose sight of the goal of your game and what you want the learner to get out of it.  When you're prototyping, think about the following: 

I want the students to get out of it more than what they expect. It is not only cultural appreciation but the goal is to understanding how resources must be artfully balanced and allocated towards the winning goal cultures have decided upon.

• What is most important for you to know? With each prototype, you should be trying to figure out a few specific things - is it more fun with more players? Does adding “points” make it more fun? Are these mechanics balanced well? If you change too many things between prototypes, it can be difficult to tell which of your changes are working and which aren’t.

It is most important for me to understand how someone can pick up the game fairly easy to begin but then to actually learn from it as well. I have found through testing that about five is a good number; however, I would like at some point to try the online and connected version of the game. Adding elements does not really contribute given the fact that during the game successes or failures are continuously looped back for the learner to grasp. Yes, the mechanics are soundly conceived.

• How can your classmates play this game? It’s easy if you are working in GameBlox to share your games in the forums, and other digital protoypes may be shareable through sites like Dropbox etc. If want feedback on a paper prototype, consider making a .pdf file that they can print and also make a video so they can understand your prototype as well as possible.

Classmates can play at least some version of the franchise Civilization in fact one responder went to FreeCiv to at least be introduced to the concept of the game. It is an early free and online version of the game.

• Are people learning? We’ll be addressing this question more formally in Units 4 and 5, but for now - what do you think? Are people using the game’s language to describe their moves and decisions? Are players getting a better understanding of your topic as they get better at the game? Ask people what is confusing to them, and see how you can improve it.

Students are learning and having fun with it. In a testing environment several students had just taken a previous course--HUM111--but found my prototype for HUM112 much more engaging and interesting. Yes, they are using the game's language because you find the units produced are referred to and shorthand versions of gameplay introduced into their interaction. The players are better understanding how cultural production develops as they advance in the game which is one of the important learning objectives. The confusions can be cleared up as they game facility in gameplay.

Remember to take a look at everyone else’s games! Think of this as a really big studio class. A large part of your learning is going to take place not just by watching videos or reading articles, but in your interactions in the forums. Debate, ask questions, and provide constructive feedback!

Finally, don’t forget to have fun! There’s a lot to think about in this course, but you’re making games, so enjoy it!

Guidance for Peer Feedback

Provide feedback to at least three participants whose posts appear below yours. If those participants have already received feedback, look for participants who have not received any. Follow the Peer Review Feedback guidelines and consider the following:

• Give your overall impressions of the game. Were there aspects of the game that you think worked especially well? How can you help the participant improve his or game? You might suggest a change/addition or ask a question.
• Does the game seem aligned to the learning objectives? Are there ways the participant might improve alignment?
• How did the participant's prototype influence your own thinking?

Islamist Nazi Strategy to Shut Down Debate

Strategies

Islamic Iran Seizes 34 American Sailors

Ranson

Defending Marriage by Judicial Watch

Defending Marriage

In a little less than two weeks, on April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the extraordinary notion that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a state to license or recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex.  Your Judicial Watch is participating in this historic legal battle.  The bold intervention of federal judges in remaking marriage is a challenge to self-government.  That the U.S. Constitution would suddenly require states to change their marriage laws to keep up with the changing tastes of liberal elites is the antithesis of federalism and undermines the rule of law.  (You can track the legal arguments and numerous briefs filed here.)

Earlier this month, we filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the rights of the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan (James Obergefell, et al. v. Richard Hodges, et al.(No. 14-556, -562, -571, -574)).  Our brief makes the case for judicial restraint with respect to marriage.  In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit reversed district court rulings that would have imposed same-sex marriage on those four states. This ruling, which is quite sensible, is at odds with judicial activist rulings from other circuit courts that redefined marriage in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho and Nevada.  So now the Supreme Court may resolve the conflicts and rule, astonishingly, whether the American people can maintain the definition of marriage that goes back thousands of years. 

In our brief, our legal team argues "the role of defining marriage and implementing laws in regard to it has always been primarily the province of the States," and that the courts have continually reaffirmed that tradition. Reversing that trend would only create legal and political confusion:

Interference with the States' sovereign sphere and ultimately, with the right of their citizens to engage in the democratic process, is contrary to our system of government and will result in dangerous constitutional conflicts.

JW also argues that denying recognition of out-of state marriages that conflict with state law is not a constitutional violation.  Specifically, the courts have traditionally recognized marriage as an issue residing within the states' sovereign sphere of authority:

While it is in within the federal government's power to intervene in the sphere of marital relations, this Court has made it very clear that those interventions are to be infrequent, deferential to State authority, and always with the balance of federalism in mind.

We also remind the Supreme Court that history matters, and that a practice going back to the beginnings of our nation deserves respect under the First Amendment:

Marriage has, by definition, been the province of the States and has been traditionally defined as one man and one woman. This has been the case since the nation's founding. There is no evidence that defining marriage in that way was viewed as discriminatory or in violation of any constitutional rights or principles. Segments of society have begun to take a different perspective but this is hardly a sufficient reason to cast aside this "unique history" consistent with "centuries of national practice." 463 U.S. at 790. "[I]t is not necessary to define the precise boundary of the Establishment Clause where history shows that the specific practice is permitted. Any test the Court adopts must acknowledge a practice that was accepted by the Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change." Town of Greece at 1819. "From the founding of the Republic to 2003, every State defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, meaning the Fourteenth Amendment permits, though it does not require, States to define in that way." DeBoer, 772 F.3d 388, 404; see also Town of Greece, 134 S. Ct. at 1818-1820.

Finally, we warn that requiring the recognition of out-of-state marriages conflicting with state law will inevitably lead to constitutional conflicts and lead to harmful consequences:

[F]orcing States to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages that conflict with state law would ostensibly open the door to forcing States to recognize all out-of-state marriages that conflict with state law regardless of the conflict. This would completely remove the States from the marital relations sphere or at the very least, make state laws worthless.

The bottom line is we need to get away from results-oriented jurisprudence that substitutes judicial activism and a political agenda for constitutional safeguards and responsible adjudication.

The Supreme Court should resist the temptation to impose its moral values on marriage through raw judicial power, as it did with abortion through Roe v. Wade.

The judicial branch is being asked to undertake a power grab unmoored from the Constitution, history, self-government, and judicial restraint. 

Simply put, under our republican form of government, the Supreme Court has no power to invalidate laws protecting traditional marriage under the United States Constitution. 

Resist the Police State

Resist

America's Comeback on Energy

America

Islamist Song, Remington

American

Rips Homeless Man's Sign

Man Rips Up Homeless Man's Sign

BLM Thugs vs. Oathkeepers

BLM Thugs

Massive Nepal Earthquake

Earthquake

British Admiral: Islamist Island Raids

“The Western world needs to have more self belief in its own values, it has to hold its nerve, and we have to rediscover a lot of self-reliance”.

Islamist

Hillary Claims 1st Amendment Religious Liberty Must End For Women

1st Amendment