On Doing It Wrong

I'm not one to give up on a bad idea if I think I have half a chance of making it work for a while. So it was that today I fixed my dipole with a new questionable strain relief design (click for larger version):

Dipole Strain-Relief for the Construction-Challenged

Yes indeedy. So far it hasn't broken. Reception on 80m isn't awesome but that's probably because it's more of a 10m or 20m dipole and that it's still not all that high. It may come down when it rains or when the wind blows around the branch to which it's attached. Not shown in the above diagram is the 10 loops of coax which form the air-core balun.

Sometime I'll make one properly. Honest. But for the meantime, I'm on HF again! \o/

RD Weekend 2009

A few hours ago I finished the Remembrance Day Contest for this year, working in the VHF phone section. Not that I knew that I would be until yesterday.

It started with a beautiful Saturday. The weather in Hobart was nicer than it has been for months and refusing to stay inside, I went outside to play with antennas. I wasn't certain about the health of my HF dipole, which is constructed largely from a broomstick and gaffer tape, so I took it down for a little TLC.

Some conductivity checks showed that there were still good connections to both of the legs of about 12 metres of 12 gauge, and a short hadn't developed either. Excellent. I put it back up, running the wire into a tree on one side and over some balcony on the other so that it was a bit higher than before. Unfortunately it was running against some metal structure, but when I fired it up it tuned up fine with the tuner and I was receiving VK2, VK3 and VK4 stations fine.

It was about 2PM by now, and listening to the lighthouse stations on 40m I heard mention of the RD Contest. I panicked briefly and checked the date---oops, it was starting in a few hours. I still hadn't learned CW as I'd hoped I would by this point, but I continued to monitor HF until I had the disconcerting experience of the noise floor dropping by about 20dB suddenly.

I wandered outside and sure enough the tree-tied half of my antenna had become well-grounded. By, er, falling onto the ground.

You're doing it wrong.

Oops. Something to work on when the weather improves. I plan to make a more solid mounting platform for both the dipole wires and the coax feed with some strain relief. Rather than, say, nails and tape.

I went on to participate in the contest using 2m and 70cm with my Yaesu VX-6R HT attached alternately to the 70cm yagi and 2m 5/8 vertical visible in the above picture.

Sadly it was fairly quiet on VHF this year. Overall I heard only 10 or so southern VK7 VHF stations, and through less than stellar effort I managed to make 54 contacts over the 24 hours. Those who pulled all nighters such as Danny VK7HDM and Justin VK7TW made approximately 160. With the low number of participating stations the spread of contacts was determined by how late you were willing to stay up and whether you had the hardware to manage all the different modes and bands. (I didn't hear about anyone doing CW, though I'd be willing to give it a shot with an appropriate rig.)

There may not have been many people, but it was fun all the same. I had some good chats with people I hadn't spoken to for a while between the not-so-frenzied number swapping. We agreed that we definitely need to get some F-calls in on the excitement for next year.

As for the commemorative side of the contest---remembering the radio operators who died serving in wartime---lest we forget.

Twitter And Politics Don’t Mix

Twitter received some major news coverage for its fanatical userbase following the recent Iran election. The tone of the media reports is more or less that of wonder. It seems to be a common theme to assume that social networking is completely useless, then make a news story about it when it is useful. Add to the mix the attempts of Iranians trying to inform the rest of the world against the Internet filtering put in place by the Government and there's a convenient David vs Goliath theme. How dramatic.

I think using Twitter to engage in political matters is a dumb idea. There's simply not enough scope in it for intelligent discussion. This evening I got caught in a little argument about free speech and gay rights. After about 4 maximum-size tweets back and forth we realised that we'd mostly missed each other's points. This is not an efficient way to do business.

If you have something intelligent to say about Iran or another political matter you're doing yourself a disservice by trying to express it on Twitter. Get yourself a blog or something---if you're really as interesting and intelligent as you think you are, people will read it and share it.

Political matters are complicated beasts and I believe that they are better served by a suitable length of prose so that your readers can under your context, your reasoning and your conclusions fully.

I suspect that a large proportion of the Twitter Iran enthusiasts would find themselves a lot less insightful than they thought about how to deal with the whole situation if they tried to string together a short piece of writing explaining what and why rather than sitting about all day retweeting URLs of things they found interesting.

You don't have to write to be a good thinker, but you do have to communicate your good thoughts effectively if they're going to be any use to anyone. Something more like a blog makes it easier for others to comment (again with a decent length of text) and get some intelligent debate happening.

Once we get some intelligent debate rather than token snippets of support for whichever side you like most, perhaps we can use the Internet to do some politics. And society will be better for it.

Gah, Fanboys

I would like to put an uncomfortable spotlight on those computer geeks who think that they're cool because they use some particular piece of software. I have some authority to talk about those kind of people because I've been one before, but I hope that I've since grown out of such trivial rubbish.

One common example of this in geek circles is LaTeX, the typesetting software distribution. There seems to be a gene in some people that gives them the warm fuzzies as soon as they find a cool piece of software which few others are using, especially if there's some slightly cryptic-looking syntax to prevent others from getting in on the action.

LaTeX is good, yes. It is not, however, a justification for the destruction of all word processors ever created and branding their users as people who work in dumb ways. Nor will it kill you to use a word processor if you have to, or if, heaven forbid, it's more convenient in a given situation. Your pathetic cries of inferiority only cause the attention you yearn for to be directed at somebody else.

Linux is a bigger example. If you like Linux, that's fine by me, whatever your reasons. I use it and love it too. But the moment you tell me that you cannot do your work on a Windows computer, it's not Windows' inferiority that's the problem. It's your inability to adjust, your lack of general technical expertise and your ego trying not to get crushed by the fact that your reputation for only using cool non-mainstream software will be sundered.

So what's acceptable here? I think it's pretty simple:

  • Don't associate yourself with your tools (conversely, don't judge others by their tools)
  • Use the right tool for the job!

We all like to poke fun at companies or their software which we don't like. I'm not complaining about that. A certain amount of banter and bitchiness is healthy and fun. But for goodness' sake, please don't get personal. It is the software which has strengths and weaknesses. Not you. What defines you as an effective computer person is being able to evaluate competing software products or technologies fairly and accurately, and being able to get the most of out each one.

Having done that you can use what you like, but don't come to me for help when you've hamstrung yourself with your own obsessions.

Signing My Way

If you receive an email from me the chances are good that it will have an attachment named signature.asc. This contains a PGP signature, which in combination with my public key can be used to verify that I wrote the email and that it hasn't been changed since I sent it on its way.

Why do I bother and why should you care?

Anyone can send email claiming to be anyone. It's fairly straightforward to write an email assuming somebody else's address and identity. If the recipient knows to only trust a message which has a cryptographic signature certifying that it is valid, fraudulent messages can be ignored or at least confirmed. This problem is reasonably widespread, more for sending spam from reputable-sounding email addresses in the cases that I've seen so far.

In addition, almost all email is sent in plain text. Anybody who runs any computers between you and the recipient of the email can read its entire contents if they want. If you're using a cryptographic system you can also encrypt your message so that only the exact people you want can read it.

It's reasonably obvious that this crytography business is quite a good idea, so why isn't it widely used by everyday internet users? Probably because it isn't yet widely used by everyday internet users. To get in on this, you need to generate a key of your own and run some extra software to do the cryptography for you.

  1. Generate a key. This will have two halves -- a public key and a private key. It will also have a password. You keep the private part and the password completely secret, but you need both of them to make it work.
  2. Publish the public key to the world. Give it to your friends. Upload it to a public keyserver. They can use this to send you encrypted mail or to verify your email signatures.
  3. Sign your friends' keys to indicate that you, the holder of your key, have decided that the person who owns the other key is who they say they are. Hopefully they'll do the same for you, and this builds the "web of trust" -- if you trust your friend's key, and they trust someone else's, you can probably trust it too. If ten of your friends trust another key you can be even more certain that it's trustworthy. (It's worth knowing that there are formal requirements set down for trusting someone's key -- don't sign a stranger's key!)

What you need is GnuPG, a free and open source PGP implementation. You can download it for Windows or for Mac. Installation on Linux is as normal with your package manager. Then you need some integration for your mail client. If you're using Thunderbird try Enigmail.

It's not that hard and it's probably the most trustworthy way of verifying communications on the 'net that we have. Let's solve this chicken-and-egg problem early so we have something to fall back on if and when identity theft, fraud and spam make the current situation untenable.

My key id: 0x6F3A5B84 <http://arctanx.id.au/tk-pub-key.txt> Please feel free to use it.

It’s All About The Keyboard

The reason I favour some console applications over their graphical equivalents is that they're designed to be easy to use with a keyboard. A little while ago I wrote about a day I spent trying to perform my usual online and music-listening tasks using console applications, just for fun. These days I spend my time in KDE4 and have my graphical web browser back so that I can keep up with xkcd. I'm still using cmus to play my music and irssi is going to remain my IRC client of choice for some time.

There are practical reasons why one might be restricted to console apps---connecting remotely with no X forwarding, or perhaps being on a romantic computing date with a hopelessly ancient terminal. There are also reasons why one might need a mouse. Graphics or audio editing, games, some website layouts and many other applications call for the more analogue-ish input of a mouse.

Where does this leave software in the middle? Mail clients, web browsers, chat clients, file/directory browsers, PIM and calendar software are all types of application which could feasibly have a keyboard or mouse-based interface. Increasingly, applications are adding features which specifically require you to use the mouse. I come up against this all the time but to pick an easy example (all platforms are guilty here), OS X Finder only lets you move files by dragging with the mouse. Cut and paste was evidently too complicated for their target audience.

I'm a keyboard nut, so having to reach for my three-buttoned friend annoys me when I know that a little more work in the software would allow me to do the same thing more quickly with a quick jump from the home keys.

In my opinion graphical applications should have good support for both keyboard and mouse. I today finally caught up with Vimperator which is an addon for Firefox to make virtually all browsing functionality available directly from the keyboard using vim-like syntax. Firefox provides a good opportunity to try out different interface types with its interface being so heavily customisable using Javascript. With Vimperator, Firefox behaves exactly how I would like. I can still use a mouse when needed, and I can also do things quickly from the keyboard when my hands are there.

It took a third-party effort to get this functionality in place. Sadly I doubt that many application developers are going to put this level of thought into the keyboard interface. It is worthwhile adding that a keyboard interface is required for proper accessibility for some physically-disabled users.

I like modern software. Really. Am I so backwards to prefer pressing buttons which remain stationary on my desk?

Making iTunes Suck Less With Firefly

Friends of mine know that I have much to complain about where iTunes is concerned. To summarise what is a long rant (which I may someday write), the problems are poor support for file formats---Ogg Vorbis and FLAC in particular---and various UI issues. Getting a better music-playing program running on OS X is a secondary task in which I haven't yet succeeded. So let's think about how to bandaid some of iTunes' problems.

Today I'm going to present a possible solution to the first complaint: poor file format support. The accepted way to extend your OS X machine to play (oddball?) formats like FLAC seems to be to install the Xiph components for Quicktime. In my experience, this will usually convince Quicktime to play most things. Getting iTunes to look at the songs and store them in your library is another matter entirely. The best success I ever had with this method was getting about 1/3 of my considerable collection of FLACs to import.

Let's fix things up with a little bit of Firefly. No, not the unbelievably awesome Joss Whedon show (blast you, Fox!) but the also rather awesome Firefly Media Server, formerly known as mt-daapd. I last played with this project a couple of years ago and it took some tinkering to make it work. There's been a bit of work done since then and now the latest build is in the Debian stable repository, so it's dead simple to set this up now.

"Debian? Isn't this a problem with iTunes on OS X?" you might be wondering to yourself now. Yes. You're right. Allow me to present the recipe for this particular solution:

iTunes Make Support Go-Go

Ingredients

  • One computer running Mac OS X with iTunes
  • One computer running Debian Linux
  • Your music in any of normal formats: MP3, OGG, FLAC, WMA, etc. stored on the Linux computer
  • Firefly Media Server
  • A LAN connecting to the two computers
  1. Install the package with aptitude install mt-daapd
  2. Edit /etc/mt-daapd.conf and set admin_pw to an admin password, mp3_dir to where your music is (with a trailing slash) and add any file extensions to the list of those it will serve. In my case, I had to add wma. You can also change the name of your server if you like.
  3. /etc/init.d/mt-daapd start
  4. Head to iTunes on the mac and notice either the name you set or "Firefly ..." appears in the shared libraries list.
  5. Play your music. Observe how you can play songs in all formats regardless of whether iTunes supports them directly.

The magic at work here is that Firefly will use ffmpeg to transcode any songs not natively supported by iTunes on the fly to uncompressed wave format.

One extra advantage is that you no longer need to use all the hard drive space on your mac, which can be handy if it's a laptop. One disadvantage is that you can only listen to your music when you're on the same LAN as the Linux box. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you paid the Mac tax and expected them to support your open formats properly. *sigh*

(serves as many as your Firefly server has the bandwidth to serve)

Text. Why Not?

A day or two ago I reinstalled Debian on my PC, removing in the process a mostly broken installation of Ubuntu 9 (no, it came like that). In the interest of avoiding the problems usually associated with Linux on the desktop I declined to install an X server.

This afternoon I fired it up and tried to use it to get my stuff done, and these are the results.

Web Browsing - Elinks is remarkably robust console web browser. The only issues I've had with it involve occasional full stops getting stuck on the display while scrolling, and on some systems it's disagreeable with encoding special characters for my terminal. The good bits are the tabbed browsing, CSS support, frames support and general ability to cope with websites which were definitely not designed with console users in mind.

Planning to keep on top of my usual routine I hit up Twitter and Facebook. Neither worked, which was unsurprising because both use lots of Javascript. It occurred to me to try their mobile versions, which are specially stripped down to work well on mobile phones: success!

Both Facebook mobile and Twitter mobile work perfectly in elinks, and I spent the afternoon following both using that method.

Online Chat - My mainstay of online communication, IRC, is already irssi in a screen session on another machine entirely so this was no problem to continue to use. For my instant messaging services I called upon finch, the console user interface to libpurple/pidgin. A quick read of the manpage revealed the important keyboard shortcuts and soon I was happily chatting to folk on MSN. Another success.

Music - Playing my music is something which causes me enough issues on my Macbook. iTunes is ridiculously limited with its file format support (yes I know about Xiph, I've tried it, it doesn't work properly) and has a rigid UI which disagrees with a fellow who favours the keyboard.

So here I am in keyboard-bound console Linux land -- what shall I use, but of course the excellent cmus? This marvellous program supports a bunch of formats as it comes packaged on Debian, including all of those in which my music is encoded: ogg, flac, mp3, wav and wma.

cmus is possibly the best music player I've ever used. Even as good as Amarok 1. It might not have the (slightly dodgy anyway) lyric-retrieving bling but it works reliably, has easy on-the-fly queuing, playlist support, customisable columns, easy to use incremental search, is fully controllably remotely using sockets, and plugs straight into ALSA. Beautiful.

Conclusion - Well that's all lovely but I still can't read my webcomics. It was also too hard to navigate the wordpress administrative interface to make this blog post in elinks. So I'm back on my mac (but cmus is still playing my music in the background!) The most interesting conclusion I've made is that we can expect a renaissance of text-based browsing for those harebrained enough, making use of the cut-down "mobile" pages offered by the popular websites.

Get in there and enjoy it.

Social Networking: An Analysis Of Hypocrisy

It would be fair to claim that I've been a little hypocritical in my darting around the issues regarding Facebook in the last year or two. This is highlighted by the analysis of my behaviour (!) in Jack Scott's article about why he doesn't use Facebook. My article discusses some issues identified by Jack so I would recommend reading his first.

The thrust of Jack's article is that Facebook is a bad thing and he quotes me providing a number of reasons why this is so. Just in the last couple of weeks I have returned to Facebook, which makes me look a little silly so by writing this I hope to justify myself.

Before I leap into my current opinion it is useful to describe my history with social networking. Near the start of 2007 I joined Facebook for the first time having held off on both it and MySpace for a year or two longer than most of my tech-savvy friends. I didn't have any special reason for avoiding the sites, except that they were closed networks, they appeared to be spreading like social virii and that some of the Myspace profile page colours made me want to tear my eyes out. It was simply an opinion, and by no means a strong one; just a vague understanding gleaned from reading factoids and opinions on the Internet.

I had joined MySpace a little while before, but by that time it was already dying with the hordes moving quickly to Facebook. Facebook of the day had a number of user interface issues which stemmed mainly from its similarity to MySpace. Even though I didn't like the interface, this probably helped them get steal as many users from MySpace as they did.

The emphasis was on individual users' profile pages, which were heavily customisable. You could activate various widgets and arrange them as you liked. The focus of each user's page was the "Wall" where you can leave messages for each other. Beyond that there were thousands upon thousands of gimmicky applications in which you play card games, dress up snowmen or give your friends eggs which hatch into cute animals. These were entirely pointless but they insisted upon cluttering up their users' profile pages and provided some advertising revenue.

Having quickly given up on MySpace I continued to play with Facebook over the next year or so. It was over this time that I learned about some of the implications of social networking. I caught up with a large number of people whom I hadn't seen for a while, some superficially, some not. I also saw people's changing relationship status being broadcast to world, incriminating photos and even had my own boss send me a friend request.

In January 2008 I was attending linux.conf.au in Melbourne, which was a fine congregation of geeks. I found myself in a discussion with some of them about the relative merits and problems, but mostly the problems, of Facebook. On a whim I decided that Facebook was not that important to me and a waste of time so I moved to where there was wireless access and deleted my profile on the spot.

By this time I was more aware of the social, privacy and technical issues in social networking and I was forced to spend some time thinking about them. Some of my friends pressed me for reasons why I no longer had a Facebook account. "Because I felt like it" wasn't a satisfying answer for either them or me, so I did a proper evaluation in my head of what my position was. By the time Jack asked me for my opinion, about which he wrote in his article, I had my thoughts organised and was able to give him a concise summary.

Even though I had convinced myself of the validity of the problems I identified, I wasn't entirely convinced of their severity, or whether they were insurmountable. Talking to Jack about it only increased my doubt.

A scant couple of weeks later I was back on Facebook. I was going to do it properly this time.

Today, I have approximately 100 friends identified. I know exactly who all of them are and would happily sit down and have a chat over coffee with any one of them. My privacy settings are strapped moderately tight---only friends can see my profile, and only friends or friends-of-friends can see photos with me labelled. I mostly use it to post bad jokes on my wall, the same as I do in person, and also to see what other people are up to.

Sometime in my year off they fixed the user interface. Now the main page when you log on is an aggregation of all your friends' walls. That's it, nice and clean. If you click on a user you get a page with their wall, and a tab lets you access their profile information. You have to look in a little sidebar for their applications, those irritating perversions which used to get in your way and eat your bandwidth. Mostly people don't even use them any more. In my opinion it is now actually convenient to use for its intended purpose.

So what was the stimulus that made me finally sign up again? It was an invitation to a friend's birthday party. He had organised the event on Facebook, as this was by far the most convenient way for him to contact the vast majority of his friends. He had gone out of his way to send a special extra invitation to my email address.

I felt a little embarrassed about that. He didn't say that it was inconvenient and there was certainly nothing to stop me attending given the information which was included in the email. As I put it to Jack, I felt like a "pain in the butt" making my friends go out of their way to include me while I was indulging my moralistic, perhaps paranoid views. Having reflected on it a little more it wasn't so much that I actually felt like I was causing annoyance. It was more that I felt like I no longer had a good reason why. So I threw my unproved assertions to the wind and here I am today.

Now that I've made my experiences clear I would like to present my Middle Path. A compromise, if you like, that allows me to use Facebook in good conscience while remaining aware of the problems.

Facebook is a public space. It is incredibly easy to forget this when you're swapping photos with your friends, chatting about things you did that day, and basically hanging out with the same people you do in real life.

On the other hand you'd better be prepared for anyone at all, including your family or even employers (potential employers too) to see anything you see or put on Facebook. There are two ways that this could eventuate.

Generally your more personal information is restricted to those you have marked as friends. If your friends are a hundred people, you can bet that sometimes someone who is not one of your friends will end up on a computer logged on as one of them. On my wall aggregation it's a weekly event to see posts made using drunk friends' accounts. All good fun, but it illustrates the point that your information being restricted to just people you know is a fallacy.

From a more technical perspective, you don't have any control over the information you submit to Facebook. Assume the worst. Crackers might steal all the friendship network data, all the photos and publish anything anywhere. Facebook might make mistakes of their own with your data and show it to the wrong people.

If you understand these risks I believe that you can exist happily and safely in the Facebook world if you're measured in how you use it. If you don't post photos or anything about you, you're not giving up anything. But there is a certain minimum commitment. One inherent set of data in your account is the list of people you care about most, the people you know best: your friends, family and whoever else makes it into your friend list.

You can lock your privacy settings down so that people can't see who your friends are, but if we're assuming the worst, remembering that you aren't in control of this information, you're stuck with giving up who your friends are if you want to be on Facebook.

In my case, I decided that I could live with that. I'm pretty certain that I don't have any private investigators snooping around trying to work out who my friends are, but I have no doubt that there are bots working to collect all the friendship information before we realise that it might be sensitive. However, when all is said and done, I am not a hermit, and it would take minimal observation of me in person to work out who my friends are. So I am happy to consciously commit to giving up that aspect of my life to the public world, even on the Internet.

Once you have taken that step the rest is up to you. If you're not happy for any person at all to see something on your wall, don't post it there. From a technical, logical perspective, that's all there is to it. Why is it not that easy?

I mentioned before that it is easy to forget that Facebook is public. You can be lulled into a false sense of security when you're interacting with people you trust. I have had a personal website for a number of years which has contained a variety of content and when I publish anything on there I know that it's there forever for anyone to see. The Internet Archive drives the point home with their Wayback Machine. It lets you see what a website used to be, going back many years in some cases. Facebook is the same but because it's not just you---you're just there mucking around with your friends---it is forgivable, if unwise, to forget that you're in public eye, even indirectly.

A feature of social networking sites seems to be that people like to inflate their list of friends. I have received a large number of friend requests from people I haven't seen for years, some as far back as primary school. The first time I used Facebook I was almost dazed by the number of people I could talk to again. I didn't have time to catch up with them before, so of course I didn't have time to catch up with them on Facebook either. The nett result was more irrelevant garbage getting in the way of the people with whom I was still actively interacting. Now, the second time, I have rejected requests from people I barely know.

A common complaint about Facebook is that it uses up a lot of time. This is a simple problem which applies to every other toy in the history of mankind. If necessary restrict yourself to looking at it only once or twice a day, or whatever it takes to rein in your rampant online socialising. Facebook is not a drug, but it's possible to get addicted. That's a reason to get a grip on yourself and go outside and enjoy the fresh air, not a problem with Facebook itself. Don't shoot the instant messenger, as it were.

There is one more almost silly reason why I thought I ought to get a Facebook account: to establish my name. It seems rather pretentious to say so, but as the site continues to grow larger, the risk was increasing that somebody who knows me would create a profile in my (unique) name. Whether as a joke or in malice, there's a good chance that the account would successfully make friends with people I know. That's something I simply don't want to have to deal with. I'm there now, so that's not a problem any more.

Overall I believe that I now understand the risks well enough to use Facebook without causing regrets for myself later. My fear now is for those who don't think about it: the people who will share around all kinds of photos, feeling safe, not realising that they may be compromised years later. Some users will become famous someday and their information from social networking sites will become hot property. Statistically that won't happen to most people, but there are other less public situations where someone might want to find information about you which you would rather keep to yourself.

I have intentionally said nothing about the quality of communication that occurs on Facebook. One of Jack's anecdotes is that he appreciated receiving a phone call much more than receiving a quick typed noted on Facebook. I strongly believe that people should meet in person, speak on the phone, write letters and have more binding communication than small snippets flung across the Internet. However, many people my age are using Facebook to communicate so it's my interest here to work out how to deal with it, rather than hope to make sweeping changes to the way the world works.

I also don't believe that Facebook should be a complete substitute for anything. If you are organising a major event, please don't make it centred on Facebook. A website is a good central point, with a group on Facebook to complement it.

If you've read this far, both Jack's article and mine, hopefully you now understand our perspectives on the issues and can use them decide what social networking means for you.

If you're friends with me feel free to come find me on Facebook. If not, either arrange to meet me in person or go away. Have a nice day.

Twilight Imperium

Yesterday a subset of Maclab was summoned to play Twilight Imperium, one of Zen's many board games. It's ideally a 6-player game (though an 8-player expansion is available) and is definitely an all-day event. We started playing at about noon and barely finished by 6PM.

the-game-custodianUnder the watchful eyes of Zen and Peter, the only two who had played before, the galaxy was semi-randomly generated and our fleets and technologies organised.

It would be a mistake to try to explain the complicated mechanics of the game in a little blog post, so I won't.

In a nutshell, you don't win by wiping out all the other people, which would take far too long. Instead your overall aim is to gain "victory points" which you do primarily by fulfilling "public objectives" which anyone and everyone is able to complete, and your own "secret objectives" which are worth more victory points but are more difficult. You try to keep your secret objectives to yourself so that others don't stop you from achieving them.

There is a detailed tech tree to give you all kinds of marvellous advantages, an inter-player trade system, a system of political influence and various laws which can be enacted.

Space battles are an orderly affair with all outcomes decided by rolling 10-sided dice, but technologies can give your ships an edge. They might also let you build a War Sun or two, which are extremely powerful. I built two of them and used them to crush Mr Ford. Unfortunately for me, attacking another player's fleet is not worth any victory points itself, but it can be fun.

The game progressed slowly through the day. Quite slowly:

  • Just after we started (12:38 PM)near-the-beginning
  • 1:52 PM 1-52-pm
  • 2:30 PM
    2-30-pm
  • 4:00 PM
    4-00-pm
  • The winning board (5:45 PM)
    5-45-pm-winning-board

The action is not so much what happens on the board, but the excited discussions and arguments about what laws are acceptable, who is allowed to take what planets without risking retaliation and trying to convince other players to play their cards in a way useful to you.

Being undistracted from the goal of achieving many victory points, Zen emerged the winner and we packed up the many, many pieces carefully into little plastic bags.

Now we just need to play again having learned how it works. Thanks folks for a good game and day. :)

mr-ford-with-unitsfleming-in-battlepeter-lyle

in-gamehovothe-table