The Story of STUFF

Ever wonder how stuff gets to you?
Checkk it outt (Full Video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

A Family’s Fight for Freedom: Lawyers Move to Block RFID Expulsion (Aside)

A Family’s Fight for Freedom: Lawyers Move to Block RFID Expulsion

"Under the “Smart ID” program, all 4,200 students are forced to wear an ID badge with an RFID tracking chip in it at all times to attend school"

"On the district’s Student Locator Project website, it notes that “Northside ISD is harnessing the power of radio frequency identification technology (RFID) to make schools safer, know where our students are while at school, increase revenues, and provide a general purpose ‘smart’ ID card.”

Video on the issue

After reading this, the only benefit I could see by using this would be safety and for attendance purposes. It also seemed that students wear these tags from school to home, but I am not sure of that.
If the school says that these tags are implemented for safety, then parents only should have the request to refuse the RFID tags. I do not think that a school, unless it is private,  should be able to implement these on children against their parent's request. Overall, it should be a personal choice. 
The fact that students can be tracked at home (if I am understanding correctly) is a complete intrusion of privacy. I understand that we are, for the most part, tracked all day. However, I think that subjecting children to this by a party outside of the parent is unethical. Yes, it could pose as a safety devise, but what extent does that serve once a child is inside the school parameters? Walking to and from school could pose a threat, and is the only reason I could see for the implementation of this RFID tag.
I also thought it was comical that, "all students are expected to comply with the Smart ID policy". This was comical in the sense that it is expected that everyone in this new technologically advanced society to simply comply with these implementations. The fact that the school did not consider anyone objecting to an intrusive deployment of these RFID chips is quite interesting in regard of our society. 

Xbox team’s ‘consumer detector’ would dis-Kinect freeloading TV viewers (Aside)

Xbox team’s ‘consumer detector’ would dis-Kinect freeloading TV viewers

"In one scenario, the system would then charge for the television show or movie based on the number of viewers in the room. Or, if the number of viewers exceeds the limits laid out by a particular content license, the system would halt playback unless additional viewing rights were purchased". 

The system could also take into account the age of viewers, limiting playback of mature content to adults, for example. This patent application doesn’t explain how that would work, but a separate Microsoft patent application last year described a system for using sensors to estimate age based on the proportions of their body.

The simple IDEA of this technology is baffling. Neglecting ways of tricking the system and avoidance (which would be inevitable), the fact that you would be watched in your own home, in your personal setting, is wrong. Forget privacy, as even if you are not being watched by a human, you are being detected by a computer who then is telling a human. The first scenario explained has many holes. However, this could possibly lead to people hiding in their own homes to simply watch television. The fact that people should be hiding in their own homes is ridiculous, especially because some money-hungry entity is only after profit. In the second scenario, any technology that measures the dimensions of your body and related that to your age is dumb as those proportions are arbitrary. Consider a little person or a small adult, would they be prevented from watching something that they've paid for, in their own setting, because some computer tells them they can't. If computers start telling us what we can and cannot due, arbitrary or not, can lead to some messed up problems down the line. 
However, I do not seeing this technology being implemented in the slightest bit. The day Xbox uses this technology, is the day everyone switches to the console that doesn't use it. This far surpasses privacy issues and will undoubtedly anger many people, which is a compelling factor against its implication. 

Apple patents technology that could remotely disable protesters' smartphones (Aside)

Apple patents technology that could remotely dosable smartphones

"This means that those with access to the technology could use it for 'preventing wireless devices from communicating with other wireless devices (such as in academic settings), and for forcing certain electronic devices to enter "sleep mode" when entering a sensitive area". 

Video of police pepper-spraying UC Davis students.

This article has many holes. The author did a bad job of explaining what this new technology does exactly. I understand one could implement this technology in a zone where someone does not want service, but does it enter your phone and disable your phone completely? I know that one is able to take a picture or video without service, so how does that render someone from later posting this media? This technology could do, at most, postpone the upload of material from a protest stie. One problem I can see protestors facing are current updates, as with a twitter post. However, I do not see this technology cutting off videos and pictures from protests. I do see, however, this becoming a problem if governments use it against their citizens on a much larger scale. In the case of the Arab Springs and across the middle east, a dis-enabling of videos uploaded across a large region can prove as an effective measure against its citizens's protest. This could have prevented the fast-pace progression of the movement. 
I also do not see Apple's standpoint when they claim, "Apple stresses that the function would be most likely used to prevent copyright theft, such as in cinemas, or to stop phone cameras being used in inappropriate places, like department store changing rooms". If I am interoperating this correctly, this technology must be able to acces one's phone if it disables you from doing these things. In the case of one putting their phone on 'airplane mode', would be able to record the footage and post it later. If this technology disables people from doing this, it must enter the phone and stop this which could pose privacy issues. 
Also, I wonder if cellular providers would be able to dispute this at all? If there was any way for them to deny this technology, I wonder if they would? 

Remix Culture

Answer: What do you think of when you hear "Remix Culture"?
What I think of when I hear "Remix Culture" (before reading the article) is how our culture is being redefined by new technology and innovations.

"Think about how we’re taught in school. A student is not assessed upon what she reads—instead, she is graded upon the things she writes." I think this a good point the Author makes, the fact that we have been taught since day one to use others' work to form our own work.

"It is the method by which we have told stories and how we continue to relate our day-to-day experiences to each other." This is a great point, songs from generations ago have been plagiarized numerous times. However, without those chain of events, we would not have the stories we have today.
A question I pose is first, can people copyright things that have been produced before them? Say, on folktales or songs written long ago? Also, if they were able to do that, reproductions would dwindle and we would loose some of these old stories if people 'owned' them and stopped their production as supported by the text. "to keep it from atrophying and dying".

I would also like to know how copyright works elsewhere in the world.
Good Quote: "The folk process has been described by Katherine MacDonald (2005) as: “the process by which cultural artifacts are changed, whether minutely or in significant amounts, to form new cultural products” (p. 4). Musicologist Charles Seeger (the father of American folk singer Pete Seeger), used the term to describe not only how these artifacts are changed, but also how cultures are continually renewed and reborn. Our approaching digital culture will be an aural culture, a communal one".

"If we look up ‘musicologist’ we see no author’s name on the main page. It’s true, you can find out who wrote and edited the article, but the main page is not about preserving intellectual property. It is not about venerating the author, nor even giving credit". Try telling that to a record company. Have any record companies commented on these angles and justifications? 

I like the point that this is also a cultural shift, something that has been dont, across the globe, countless amounts of time. 

The biggest effect of this remix culture is that it goes against capitalism. Record companies and huge conglomerates have a hold on this particular industry, and now our culture is shifting. These huge entities, who have made lucrative profits, are trying to hold onto what is being lost because of a cultural shift. I think that the most resistance to this culture shift will come from those entities, rather the public of whom has already accepted this change and is fueling it. 

Syrian internet cut-off (Aside)

Syrian internet cut-off

"In some countries, international access to data and telecommunications services is heavily regulated. There may be only one or two companies who hold official licenses to carry voice and Internet traffic to and from the outside world, and they are required by law to mediate access for everyone else". 
Picture of world and country's risk of cut-off

As the world becomes more industrialized, there will be less and less fear about an internet cut-off or blackout. However, we do have a lot of developing countries where internet does not have as much as a foothold on their way of life. When they are dependent on the internet, as we are here in the United States, is when there will be no threat of a cut-off. However, I would like to know if there was a circumstance where a country cut-off internet for an extended amount of time, if other countries would be able to transmit it via satellites? If this is a possibility, then no countries would run the risk of being cut-off completely for long durations. This would change a lot in the heat of revolution if the internet, throughout Syria for example, could not be controlled by a government within its boundaries. 
The fact that so many countries are inept to an internet blackout means they will always have the resource available, and thus connected in a way that our culture depends on. When secure internet does eventually travel to countries of high-risk blackouts, that simply means the governments of those areas loose power over that resource. This could lead to reform of governments across the globe, aided by the internet as seen in the Middle East.
Overall, it is inevitable that the internet will eventually travel across the globe as our technology improves. However, this can be seen as a good feat as more areas of the world will be heard on this platform, and be able to voice their concerns. Every day we are becoming more reliant on the internet, and receive more information from it (or at least have more information at our disposal). When those countries are able to voice their concerns without a threat of a cut-off, the rest of the world will be (hopefully) able and willing to lend a helping hand.

What is Intellectual property?

What is Intelectual Property?

Industrial Property includes patents for inventions, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications.
Copyright covers literary works (such as novels, poems and plays), films, music, artistic works (e.g., drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures) and architectural design. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and broadcasters in their radio and television programs.

Where are patents and copyrights going in, say, 20 years? We are having problems with them now, will these problems extrapolate? Also, do you think will the penalties get worse?

My personal feelings about intelectual property are a give and take feeling. I see re-creating music as a beneficial and creative means, however those who do that are subject to copyright infringement. I am also an advertising major, and would not find it acceptable for someone to take hard copy, such as print advertising, and re-create that. I feel there is a difference between tangible and non-tangible things that restricts someone from infringing on others' copyrights and intelectual property.

Girl Talk documentary synopsis, A Remix Manifesto

A Remix Manifesto trailer

Digital Divide

Digital Divide
To me, digital divide means a gap of technology fluency. This gap would be between those without technology and those with, and an ever increasing gap that separates the two. I think that those without technology will have a harder time integrating within the industrial wold if they were ever to do so as the gap is so large.

After watching the video, I feel as if the digital divide is very predominant in third-world and developing countries. It is quite a shock that some people have never seen a computer and to see the stark difference as they are integrated within our lives so seamlessly. Having a computer in the village would most certainly help these students learn, but I am not sure to what extent it will serve them in the village if they do not leave. Also, now that they have electricity, I was curious to if they would eventually receive the internet which would open up a completely new world to the village people.

Atlas Speaker Series: The Earth Imagery Industry

early landsets were 80meter resolution, we not have satellites that are .5 meter resolution. 

Accuracy has improved tremendously. Accuracy matters because it wont be useful is not accurate, especially with driving technology. Capacity has also increased to 2.5million squared KM a day (6 times the land surface area of the earth a year). 

"We expect instant gratification' 

You can monitor disaster clean-up and see where people need help around the world. This imagery is shareable

Cost effective to have as many customers as possible.

With resolution constantly getting better and more refined, do you think there will be a problem with privacy? I know Google Earth does not have real-time footage, but people can locate on others very easily and find their location. I am also interested in finding out where the technology will go from here? I was curious to how many satellites are allowed to orbit the Earth, and how one would go about removing them from orbit? Also, does the new data collected daily replace the data that is out-of-date? Walter talked about how there would be a stack of CDs the height of Mt. Everest, but are they adding to that or are they replacing it? I think it would be best if we simply replace it if we have data superior to it.

Why the music industry must change its strategy to reach digital natives, 28 November 2012

My moral standing on downloading music?
Considering I am a college student, you know my answer. Like many other college students, downloaded music is usually done by ripping it off of Youtube videos. If someone is trying to charge one an upwards of $1.99 a song, they can forget about it. However, If I genuinely enjoy an artist's work, I will buy the CD (I've done this with 4-6 artists) rather other tactics.

Waging War

Describe the relationship between IT and war as it has existed throughout history and into the present:
The relationship between IT and war is one that can give a side the competitive advantage. IT can change the outcomes of wars, causality rates, and much more which can change the course of history.

Waging War Video:
Technologies exacerbates  technologies; new questions, etc
wrapped up in war, in history
Technology is creating a weapon too
It's our human creativity that differentiates us from other animals
We want to destroy each other
Incredible new capabilities and incredibly new dilemmas

War and Technology text

"Technology is essence a precess of manipulating the material world for human purposes. whether it does good or ill depends not on the technology itself but on what humans choose to do with it"

[Alex Roland] propositions ate these: (1) technology, more than any other outside force, shapes warfare; and conversely  way (not warfare) shapes technology. (2) Military technology is, however,, not deterministic. Rather, (3) technology opens doors. And, finally, (4) these characteristics of military technology are easier to see in the modern period than previously, though they have always been at work.

Q- The text touches on 'vehicles of war'. Are 'vehicles of war' going to be manned by humans in the years to come? or is everything going to be unmanned? If everything is unmanned, what will be the purpose of these un-manned aircraft in combat?

Q- A chariot was considered a modern-day technology for its time. I think about bombers and the atomic bomb, and if they will ever become 'out-of-date' just as the chariot did? What weapons wil replace these already horrifying 'technologies'?

Q- With reference from other readings, will new technologies eliminate the need for large-scale weapons? Could there be some sort of internet or online atomic bomb that could be just as threatening to a country as an atomic bomb, but without the causalities?

Badass Tumbleweeds AND Virtual Realties

http://www.upworthy.com/the-most-badass-tumbleweed-ive-ever-seen?c=ufb1

Simple solution to a dangerous problem



Virtual Reality by Samuel Ebersole

How do you see Virtual reality affecting the world? Do you think that Europeans (for example) choose to adopt advanced forms of virtual reality? Do you think it will augment our perception of reality if the future?

Open Source and FLOSS AND Privacy and Security

http://www.idea.org/blog/2011/07/22/open-source-vs-proprietary-software/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR0rrXMJreM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfXkxkybQ4Q&feature=youtu.be

As some robots are indeed computer systems, do they interoperate everything as code as a computer would?

GNU: free software

"Black box"

Free software: software that respects your freedom
Users need certain freedoms

So is modding (with reference to gaming) the same thing as 'free software'?

"backdoors"; remotely delete books from Kindles

Copyright is used to make programs non-free. Legally "forbidden to copy this"

Does torrenting have any correlation with open sourcing?

Privacy and Security

The Transparency Grenade  article.
"Equipped with a time computer, microphone and powerful wireless antenna, the Transparency Grenade captures netword traffic and audio at the site and securely and anonymously streams it to a dedicated server where it is mined for information  Email fragments, HTML pages, images and voice extracted from this data are then presented on an online, public map, shown at the location of the detonation".

"Meanwhile, civil servants and publicly-owned companies to make decisions behind guarded doors that impact the lives of many, often leaving us feeling powerless to effect change, both in and out of a democratic context".

I feel as if this device can infringe on others' privacy. I completely agree that any decision that is impacting the lives of many should be completely transparent. I would also like to know if this device faces any legal implication if detonated?

I also think the fact that they make all aspects of this device (design, detonations, etc.) transparent and remove much of the "black Box" aspect of it.

Atlas Speaker Series: How has technology changed reading and literature?

http://classcapture.colorado.edu/Mediasite/Play/0eb1e2df64e0468095ce8500f8f06fbb1d?playFrom=238000

Matthew G. Kirschenbaum


'Track changes'

Historians and biographers, "slim pickings"
This is because of the word processor [changes in culture/lifestyle]

Computers become a tool...? They most certainly did.

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

Digital whatnots put those using outdated systems at a disadvantage. Many people use longhand and the use a computer to revise/edit.

What would your eduction be like if we did not have Word and Spellcheck?

Howard Rheingold's Virtual Community

"Social relationships that go beyond the functional use of technology".
I would like examples, please.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC).

"Rheingold recognizes that there is something wrong with [people being frightened by the reintroduction of tribal social relations], but does not delve any deeper into this crucial conceptual problem." Is the fact that it is so open exclusively the reason he does not delve into this question?

"pretending to be somebody else is an apparently inseparable part of virtual communities, a whole new ballgame". What are the conditions that categorizes someone as 'trying to be somebody else'? I do not feel as if I am trying to be someone else online, unless I am missing something, or not aware of what I am specifically doing to do this.

"We are now threatened with the 'selling of democracy'." Capitalocracy as I would like to call it (my term). Where have you seen this? I've seen it in the government, especially in congress, and other places of high status/wealth. I've also seen it in politics... capitalism taken to a new level, eh?

http://www.nationofchange.org/selling-american-democracy-perfect-storm-1342272391

What is the next step for CMC, if there is one?

Out there question: What if climate change changed our way of life and put us in a more, survival-based lifestyle. Would internet usage change? Would it evolve to fit our new lifestyle? What changes do you see to the internet as we know it now, if this were to happen?

Life on the Electronic Frontier: An Interview with Howard Rheingold

Howard Rheingold: "People aren't really interested in interactive entertainment and information so much as the chance to connect with others and form relationships."

Do you consider yourself more interested in forming relationships or with interactive entertainment?

If the Internet was in some way being regulated per hour, would it be as big as it is now if there was a fee levied with its usage?

How often, if at all, do you meet people initially online, and proceed to meet with them face-to-face thereafter (other than online dating sites)?. I feel as if the internet is, in itself, its own community that doesn't mingle too much with reality too often. would you agree with that?

"The community is not inside the computer. The community is between the people".

"Some people feel that the computer is going to make us more isolated". Have you seen this happen? Before the internet, people actually had to communicate verbally. Now, we can sit in front of a computer and communicate which has removed that face-to-face communication.

London: "You can't talk back to [the TV]". With the Internet, you can indeed talk back to the TV via Twitter, just as you would on the Internet.

How many hours a day do you think you spend on the Internet?
Personally, I spend most of my time on the Internet doing homework (for this HW too), communication with people (as opposed to calling them), and for entertainment. I also stream/download movies from the Internet that I then could play on the Television too which inedibly adds more time you spend on the internet.

 If Rheingold says, "'Web years' as being about a month". Where/what does he base that off of?

What will the internet look like in, say, 10 years down the line?

Google Fiber: http://fiber.google.com/about/
"Google Fiber starts with a connection speed 100 times faster than today's broadband. Instant downloads. Crystal clear high definition TV. And endless possibilities. It's not cable. And it's not just Internet. It's Google Fiber"
Does this prove Google is going to take over the world? I think yes.

The Wikileaks Documentary -- Full Version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvmfOaZ34Pk

"blow the whistle on abusive power"

2006 they hoped the general public would review the documents. Media have the only resources to do this.

Chaos Computer Club is the oldest hacker club.

PRQ provides access to the material Wikileaks provides to the public

No geo geographic boundaries; Multinational trading company dumped toxic wast in ivory coast. they then proceeded to 'gag' company secreet order to 'gag' all of the press reporting on this issue.

Sara Palin is bypassing us transparency law and Wikileaks publishes her emails

"Site is a threat of national security" to the United States

Island in the middle of the North Atlantic

October 2008, Iceland's bank collapse was due to carelessness, secretes, etc and they attacked Wikileaks. All of the regulators were lax in their duties, bankers were lying.

The proposal for Iceland to be the haven for journalism. Wilkileaks was the push that made this happen. The proposal was adopted unanimously within parliament. They have a vision to improve society.

Leaked helicopter video:
"c'mon, let us shot"
[A father driving his kids to school catches sight of the injured man and stops to help him]
"engage"
[when the ground troops arrive, they see that there are children in the car]
"it's their fault for bringing their kids into battle"
[the children survived the attack]

NYT, WSJ to review this material [the leaked US documents]

Some criticism arose that Wikileaks picked the biggest leaks to dwell on.

Pentagon Papers' Ellsberg on Wikileaks Whistleblowers
http://fora.tv/2010/09/29/The_Bomb_Daniel_Ellsberg#Whistleblowers_Ellsberg_on_Manning_and_WikiLeaks

What Do the H-Bomb and the Internet Have in Common? Paul Baran, by Cade Metz (aside)

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/09/what-do-the-h-bomb-and-the-internet-have-in-common-paul-baran/

"Paul Baran set out to build a means of communication that could survive a nuclear war. And he ended up inventing the fundamental networking techniques that underpin the internet."

"Paul Baran’s research marked a fundamental turning point in the way networks were built. And they’re still built that way."

It is very interesting that the internet was originally devised as a war tool and evolved into something that is completely and utterly integrated within our everyday lives. From past readings, it is clear that some form of the internet we have now was being conjured in the minds of people for hundreds of years. Luckily, we have lived to see the day that the internet was able to sustain itself with the technology we have now. Paul Baran's work set the framing that we still use today, which is amazing in and of itself. It is also very interesting to see that this system is still nuke-proof for both the government and everyone who has access to the internet. We can transmit information just as easily as the government, which leads me to ponder the next government invention that may make it into the public's hands. 
The statement, "Baran cooked up a system that could divide communications into tiny pieces and use distributed network “nodes” to pass these pieces around. If one node was knocked out, the others could pick up the slack" made me think that these 'nodes' have been taken place by humans. We individually send a large magnitude of information around, and if one individual were to be cut off from sending information, other people would make up for their slack. This can be seen through revolutions where the initiator is taken out, but many people make up their lack of contribution. Having the internet in the hands of the public, this may have been the intention of the government; having us send information to one another to keep us informed on a day-to-day basis. It makes sense to have people sending people information, rather the government sending information to the people. 

Twitterland: the radical terrain of social media, by Malcolm Harris (aside)

http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-208/feature-malcolm-harris/

@destructuremal: https://twitter.com/destructuremal

Also, while I was on Twitter searching '@destructuremal', i ran into this: http://mashable.com/2012/10/28/hurricane-sandy-internet/

Question: do you think that re-tweeting may some day be acknowledged as an endorsement? This could cause a lot of legal issues. 

"Figuring out how to walk through a city made of words is about relearning how to talk" There is much truth to this, as I had to twist my information in new ways to adhere to Twitter's platform. 

"As long as people repeat it, the rumor becomes a self-fulfilling story" 



Punishing Twitter users is currently a very arbitrary way of using the legal system. Seen in this case, and cases where governments have used Twitter to trick people, Twitter can be used in tricky ways to skew the truth and change the outcomes of events. as stated in the article, "The law doesn't know how to treat Twitter, at least in part because we don't know all the ways to use it yet". We've only seen some of what people can use Twitter to do, and we will soon see more as people become more familiar with the platform and become more tricky. As seen with Malcom Harris, he used social media to get a large gathering for the Occupy event, which also got him a trial. He them proceeded to use social media to manipulate the situation, which goes to show that using Twitter to incriminate someone is hard to do. 
Another issue brought up by Harris is what will happen as social media becomes more predominant in our lives and the privacy that follows? Will our 'tweets' be used against us in the court of law or be used to incriminate us? The fact that Twitter can hand over your tweets with a subpoena can subject you to many things. However, one can also manipulate the situation as Harris did, which deems you safe. In order for tweets to be substancial use to law enforcement, Twitter would have to change their practices with registration on the platform. I do not see this happening anytime soon as this could anger some people and significantly reduce usage. Twitter can also take the route of a postal-style governance where everyones' tweets would be protected and only a warrant could be used to gain those tweets. However, like the subpoena, it could be very arbitrary means of incrimination if Twitter didn't change its registration.   

Founders of Diaspora, Intended as the Anti-Facebook, Move On, by Jenna Wortham (aside)

Do people actually want to be in control of their social media usage? People love to complain, and Facebook gives them an opportunity to complain about their privacy settings, the changing interfaces, and them selling your personal information. We live in an age, unlike the 60s and 70s, that people want change but do not proceed to seek it out. This is evident through the Occupy Wall Street protests as no one took charge to successfully organize the events, and society didn't care enough to follow through although many people (at first) supported it. Protests are done online these days, but not when it comes to our social media, as our online form of protests use these sites like Facebook. We then have ourselves in a predicament, we can't protest Facebook using Facebook and no one wants to give it up. Google's attempt at a social media site, Google Plus, is not nearly as used as Facebook. In all reality, the founders of Diaspora were not only competing with Facebook, they were also competing with; Google, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Pintrest, Instigram, etc. This may  account for their lack of success, especially because they are competing with some of the biggest entities in this country.
The concept of a crowd-funded online service does not sound appealing because it would inevitably mean money out of my pocket, or as much advertising (if not more) than Facebook. While I do not agree with Facebook's practices, I still use it as it is easier to go with the flow than against it. I use it to keep up with family/friends, enable good communication to large groups of people that I am apart of, advertise for the volunteer organization I am apart of, and post relevant information about all of these things so people are up-to-date with the information I am sending. This entity is integrated within our society so much that going against the grain would put you out on your own, or with few other people, which is where no one wants to be. Protesting this site would mean cutting yourself off from many things you have worked hard for.
I can appreciate that some people decided that they wanted something different, and did something about it. However, contending with Facebook is not a realistic goal. If they perceived this goal as it was, they should (and may be doing now) keep Diaspora only for people that do not want to use Facebook as a means of social networking. If this was a product that people actually wanted, it would catch on in a viral way, and promote itself via word of mouth (they may want to change the name to something more appealing too). Like I said, I can appreciate someone contending Facebook, but in this case Goliath is coming out on top.

Has Viral Gone Viral? by Nick Bilton

"When Michael Jackson died last year, it took only minutes for traffic to spike
worldwide on NYTimes.com"  That is shocking


Marshall McLuhan, the famous media professor and theorist: "These new media have made our world into a single unit. The world is now like a continually sounding tribal drum, where everybody gets the message all the time."

In the passage Bilton states, "Today, it seems that everyone can do it". This can not be true. He is neglecting to account for the nearly 60% (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) without internet. What does this mean for those people that do not internet access yet? will it be to fast for them when they finally do adopt it, if they do?


"Chatroulette's viral growth, aided by social media, suggests that the already speedy clock of Internet time is running faster than ever". With the background knowledge of Chatroulette becoming very popular, and its decline in popularity in the past few years, do you think these 'virals' are going to come and go at an increasing rate? Since my use of the internet, I've seen viral videos take weeks to gain popularity, and most recently, I've seen viral videos gain popularity over night.

We've seen Facebook, Twitter, AOL messenger, and many other social media sites. Do you think that another social media platform will arise in the near future? Personally, I do not see where it fits, but do you see where something may?

ATLAS Speaker Series: The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

ATLAS Speaker Series: The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem:

http://classcapture.colorado.edu/Mediasite/Play/fb8c8177d42743eeb0b695bc1f6da6441d?playFrom=28000

"They're scared shitless"

"Dancing with what you are afraid of"

Skill 1: don't be afraid, dace
"If you have nothing to loose, you have nothing to gain"

3 components to start a business: Passion, best in the world at, massive market capability.

Be intellectually honest, it'll help you bring in resources that you can't do. Trust people, find a partner, find a mentor.

Problems with communication: you must communicate to your consumers well.

Overall, this lecture made me realize that being an entrepreneur can be less risky than it sounds. One particular point she brought up was that in order to sustain a good idea and a good company, one must practice good communication. We discussed good communication in class, and the problems associated with a lack of, or bad communication. If the interporator cannot interoperate the message of the sender, communication is useless. This can bring down a business very easily as you cannot operate any business without some sort of communication. The speaker also states that you must communicate with your consumer as well. This is very important because just as interpersonal communication within a business, communication about a business can be just as crucial. If a business cannot communicate what their products' benefit is, the essence of a product, or what the business stands for, it will tear down the business itself.
Communication is important when starting an entrepreneurial business, and so is finding a massve market capability. This day and age, finding that market capability is easier than ever. With the internet at our fingertips, you can market to anyone with internet access which sets your boundaries further and further with more and more people gaining access to the internet. The speaker didn't go into depth on how to find that market capability, but I can guess that with the utilization of such technology, finding that market capability shouldn't be a problem.

Time to Socialize Social Media (aside)

The introduction to this article reminded me to a video I saw, Who Moved My Cheese. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDNhEYpBPbY). I refer to this video as people are not accustomed to change (as well as everyday change and practical life adaptations).

The general population is not accustomed to change, which could explain their resistance to the idea of a "government-run" social media space. You also must consider that a "government-run" social media space may sound off-putting because many people do not have enough trust in our government to uphold those responsibilities. However, if that space was handled like the USPS and advertised as that, it may change consumers' minds. As touched on in this article and in A Deep Dive into Facebook and Datalogix, Facebook uses you to increase their profit and knows a lot about you, "Including your facial characteristics". "The postal Service may not collect or maintain information describing how individuals exercise their rights protected by the First Amendment". This would change Facebook's actions entirely and would keep your personal and confidential information, personal and confidential.

Currently, "law enforcement only needs a subpoena (a writ ordering a person to attend a court) to make companies turn over electronic documents". This means what you say on Facebook can be used as incriminating evidence much easier than it would if Facebook was government-run. In a (postal-style) government-run Facebook, the FBI must be administered a warrant before they can read your information.

When viewing the contrast, you must remember that, "The Postal Service bears a responsibility to the American people, social media companies only bear a responsibility to their shareholders/investors". You must also consider that if companies' objective is to maximize profit, this could mean exploiting you as an individual.

Inevitably, it is up to the consumer to make the decision, or if they care, on how they are being tracked. Some may think, with the aid of social media, that 'Big Brother' is now aided by 'Big Sister' too, 'Big Sister' being social media. Your information is accessible to a wide variety of entities, some of which you do not know. Changing to a more structured and confidential social media space may be what is best for the overall population's privacy and protection, but they must be willing to accept change.

A Deep Dive into Facebook and Datalogix: What's Actually Getting Shared and How You Can Opt Out (aside)

I always knew that Facebook monitored what I (and the public) did on its site, but I did not know that they monotor, track, relay information, and group me into categories so other marketing companies can target me through my online behavior.
For some people, this is an intrusion on their privacy. For others, they may not care or think the personalized advertisements are beneficial. However, you must consider this in an evolutional viewpoint, and what will come next with information-gathering tactics.

Facebook was obvious, but what I did not see coming was the fact that loyalty card programs, "create a long data trail of our everyday purchases". Personally, I do not see this as too bad of an action if they are not selling my personal information. Used constructively, the inforamtion they retrieve from me could serve my lifestyle better. This is seen in the case of the CDC tracking down cases of salmonella, or if they informed me when I can get a regularly-bought product for a cheaper price. As long as these companies keep my personal information confidential, and do not sell it, I am ok with that.

After reading this passage, I was curious as to who/what companies partake in these data-tracking loyalty rewards programs?

I also would like to know how Target knows how to target (pun intended) expecting mothers before they showed signs of pregnancy, and their means of doing that? This could be both a good thing as you could inform these mothers-to-be, as well as an intrusion of privacy.

Is this information gathering and privacy intrusion an issue among other developed countries, or just here in capitalist-America?

I also decided to opt-out of the Datalogix information gathering, mainly because I want to see if there is a noticeable change with my online experience. I also am not comfortable with either Facebook or Datalogix profiting from my behavior as I am somewhat annoyed at how far capitalism has reached into the cracks of society (with regards to following and tracking my online behavior)

Opt out link: https://www.datalogix.com/privacy/

From the World Brain to the World Wide Web (Aside)

The centralized source of information, as the passage states, "is an evolutionary development in the dissemination of information". After reading this passage, it makes sense that our next step from the printing press would be an even faster paced 'information disseminator'.
H. G. Wells was on the right track when he was devising the 'World Brain', however, he was before his time. His idea of the World Brain, as explained, is very similar to what I believe to be Wikipedia.
A statement about Well's, "Wells perceived that the world was drifting into war. He believed this was because of the sheer ignorance of ordinary people, that allowed them to be duped into voting for fascist governments" Is something that I took to be very believable. I see that, myself, that as one becomes more informed, their rational thought and logic skills direct them into directions other than war. With that, I wonder if we will ever have a society that is fully informed and educated. I say that because we have this 'World Brain' at our finger tips and we do not use it to its full potential. We also see some of our society become dumber with this influx of technology that is also used to convey information. Time will tell.
Vannevar Bush was alike Wells as he too was before his time. He did however devise the Mexex 'memory extender' that foreshadowed the World Wide Web. Thankfully for Bush, he lived in the post-war era and was able to, "reflect on the role of science and technology in the post-war world". He also realized that a pressing problem would be the dissemination of information. He then was able to build a machinal machine that was "rendered for 1945 technology" which was similar to Well's idea.
Progressing from that, we find ourselves talking about J. C. R. Licklider. He fortunately had the opportunity to dabble with technology that neither Wells or bush had. He successfully helped engineer the first man-computer symbiosis  that inevitably led to the personal computer. With this man-computer symbiosis, information was able to be disseminated at a much faster pace between exuberant amounts of individuals. Both Well's and Bush's dreams were created because of this invention, but not before their demise.

While reading this passage, it lead me to think:
We have moved further from print information more as we involve technology within our lives and information records. What if, some day, we put all of our information on the 'cloud'- which is inevitably the next evolutionary development from the internet. We stray from publishing information in hard copy (or very few for that matter) and our information resides on this TAZ or this intangible place. Our civilization as we know it then perishes (similar to ancient civilizations), and this 'could' or network is no longer accessible. All of our records and information will perish as well, as my logic suggests, correct? Do you think this is a practical idea and if it would actually happen?

I would also like to know what the next 'big' step in the evolutionary dissemination of information is from the Internet. The Internet is a huge development in and of itself, and I can only anticipate what comes next.

The Emerging Role of Social Media in Political and Regime Change By Rita Safranek

"[Social relationships are constructed and how communication is
produced, mediated, and received] and state power becomes more porous and  there is  less control". Do you think this is true for the United States? Is there any chance something similar would happen here as it did in Egypt?


When you think of events such as the timinin square protests, Kent state, and other historical movements/protests, do you think social media would have altered the direction of these movements?  Civilian deaths would have made it to the public faster, would this prevent the governments from killing them then?

Following my last question, on a slightly different note, refer to the quote: "The Red Shirt uprising in Thailand in 2010 followed a similar but quicker path: Protestors savvy with social media occupied downtown Bangkok until the Thai government dispersed the protestors, killing dozens” (Shirky)". In this case, social media did not prevent the government from killing their own civilians. Why do you think social media did not succeed in both preventing this, and spreading the word that this happened?

If social media were to change something within this nation, what do you think it would change/influence first, if at all? (Legalization of marijuana, Gay rights, equal pay, etc). Do you think social media is practical in promoting these changes?

Netart 2009, VisitorsStudio. Netart 2008 – Conch, Netart 2004 – Ping Melody, Netart 2007 – Feraltrade

Netart 2009
Where do you [professor] see Visitors Studios going in the next few years? Is there any consideration to adapting for Wii controllers or other game consoles? Also, outside of play, is Visitors Studious used for other purposes?


Netart 2008
Can you explain web 2.0 and your (or others's) interpretation of it?

"when the last flicker comes from the last flay screen, we will understand that code is a chant to exorcize the machine, leaving the ghost (and us!) free to move on to something else"  With that, what could be the 'something else'? Attached is a video that I think 'something else' could resemble in the future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cf7IL_eZ38

Netart 2004
Since 2004, has Gridcosm expanded at all? From the looks of it, I cannot tell if they have or have not. Do you think there is any possibility that Gridcosm may expand into film, or is the platform not meant for that?

Netare 2007
What was the criteria for "Embodied praxis"? Can you explain how the Feral trade works exactly and why they received the grand prize for this topic?

US: Hackers in Iran responsible for cyberattacks

http://news.yahoo.com/us-hackers-iran-responsible-cyberattacks-072429280--finance.html

Cybernetics in History by Norbert Wiener

"commands are subject to disorganization in transit" This quote, along with the message from both texts for today's reading, brings me to the conclusion that messages are interoperated in many different ways. I was wondering, and essentially asking, if machines ever take on characteristics of humans, or vice versa, will communication change? Will our communication become interoperated all the same with litter alterations? What would this mean for the world in which we live?


"When a message consisting of the interception of a beam of light [in an automatic photoelectric door opener] is sent to an apparatus, this message actuates the door, opens it..." With that, what other devices are sending us messages? Most take for granted that this machine receiving a message and responding, but what other examples are you aware of that take a message from us weather or not they respond?

Riding off of the previous question, what are your thoughts on machines taking messages from us and responding to them in real life situations? In other terms, are you insensitive to the fact we may have machines doing more complicated tasks than opening a door, such as actively caring for a human?

Some Tentative Axioms of Communication

Quotes for thought:
"Communication as a system, then, is not to be understood on a simple model of action and reaction, however complexly stated. As a system, it is to be comprehended on the transactional level" ~Birdwhistell



In all reality, the 'silence treatment' in not actually a silent treatment in terms of sending a message. Would you agree with that? Explain your stance.

In the case of pets, they understand analogic communication according to the authors. However, when your dog sits when you say 'sit' or 'bark', are they interporating the analogic communication or are they understanding what those words represent? Explain your justification.

Describe a 'sick' relationship with someone or something where there is a constant struggle with the content aspect of communication becoming less and less important.   Do you believe there can be a 'healthy' relationship where communication becomes less and less important?

In the case of language barriers, what characteristics the authors' mentioned would differ?

My Personal Network

Information and attention feeds, a day in the life of Mitch.

The day I chose to log my media input/output was  7 October 2012.
Upon waking, I was immediately exposed to an input of media. I was sleeping on the couch of a friend's house, and the television was on with the daily news. From there, I woke my portable laptop and opened my web browser to check my email. I sent responses to emails I had received from the previous day among a variety of things, both exhibiting a media input and output. Facebook was also another site I visited before I showered and started my day, and there I 'Liked" and "shared" some information there. I also clicked on a few links with Youtube videos attached and watched them.

Following my morning media exposure, was the media exposure I encountered with my volunteer position on campus. As any large group on campus, we have a facebook and twitter account of which I solely managed until today. The forst thing I did in the office was "tweet" and post to Facebook, information regarding our cause (medical related). While on Facebook, I also "Liked" and "shared" information on behalf of my affiliated organization. I was both experiencing a media input as well as a media output. I then composed an email addressed to the officers and presidents of the organization with the Twitter and Facebook login and password information. I explained to them how we must stray from posting possibly offensive material as well stick to posting material related to our cause. Here, I was feeding my co-workers information and will soon be receiving information they have posted online.

From volunteering, I then left for work. Im my walk to Pearl Street, I did not check my phone as I enjoy the lack of technology occasionally. Upon arriving to work, I checked Foursquare to see if my boss was there. I experienced an input of media information, and subsequently contributed to a media outflow to a co-worker via text with my location whereabouts. While at work, I frequently checked my phone for messages, as well as the occasional facebook check-up. My phone alers me when I receive an email of a Facebook notification, and thus prompts me to check it.  This happened a few times until my phone died from lack of charge, around 7pm.

Once my phone died, I focused my attention to keeping the store clean until I eventually closed up and left to come back home and finish my homework. My attention varied across an array of platforms throughout the day, both inputs and outputs. After logging my media inputs and outputs makes me realize how much time is invested in social media in particular and media inputs that are difficult to avoid.

Goldhaber, The Attention Economy and the Net

Goldhaber, The Attention Economy and the Net

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440


Quote for thought: "If the web and the Net can be viewed as spaces in which we will increasingly live our lives, the economic laws we will live under have to be natural to this new space. These laws turn out to be quite different from what the old economics teaches, or what rubrics such as "the information age" suggests. What counts most is what is most scarce now, namely attention. The attention economy brings with it its own kind of wealth, its own class divisions- stars vs. fans- and its own form or property, all of which make it incompatible with the industrial money-market based economy it bids fair to replace. Success will come to this who best accommodate to this new reality". 
Quote for thought: "If I leave the room after this talk, I would be extremely unlikely to be able to recognize a particular one of you three months from now, though you might be able to recognize me".


Personal question: Are there articles you have read that take the standpoint of a information economy to which we are moving?

Do you agree with this statement? "When you say 'how are you?' for instance, you don't really want to know, as a fule, but if whomever you're talking with chooses to say how he or she is, it is more to get attention from you than to convey information'.
                   As a side note, I completely agree with this statement 

Do you feel as if the author's bridge from his explanations to why he believes we are working towards an attention-based economy is legitimate?

Is paying attention to yourself, via gardening or obtaining resources in any other fashion, a form of illusory (based on illusion) attention? Is this justified enough that the author should include this in examples leading us towards the notion we are moving towards an attention economy?

"Obtaining attention is obtaining a kind of enduring wealth, a form of wealth that puts you in a preferred position to get anything this new economy offers". Some people do not desire attention, and would rather stay to themselves. With that, are those individuals in this new economic system going to be worthless and have not value associated to them?

The Net & The Web by Hakim Bey

TAZ: Temporary Autonomous Zone

Quote for thought: "So the net has a horizontal or non-hierarchal aspect as well", "The TAZ has a temporary but actual location in time and a temporary but actual location in space"

"The present form of the unofficial web are still... rather primitive". As the 'web' constitutes a large part of our lives, as it matures, what does this mean for our use of the 'web' and for our lives all together?

"The web can provide a kind of substitute for some of this duration and locale--it can inform the TAZ, from its inception, with cast amounts of compacted time and space which have been "subtilized" as data". [If I interoperated this correctly] What does this mean for actual time and space in the future? Will humans be able to experience a location in a different time without actually being there (virtual reality)? -> do you think humans will venture into this type of technology eventually (such as Tron) as the author suggests?

Would you describe yourself as a (1) Fifth estate/Neo-Paleolithic individual who is against the Net, or (2) the Cyberpunk utopianists who see the NEt as a step forward in evolution? Why?

Is the 'Net' as chaotic and crazy as the author suggests? Based on the passage (If you can remember), what elements of the 'Net' being this chaotic (or becoming this chaotic system)  system did you not agree with?

It seems as if (from my interoperation) that the author gives the TAZ a personality. Do you think the TAZ is more of a individual with humanoid characteristics (as it seems from the passage), or something with completely arbitrary characteristics, if any at all?

The Ethics of digital Direct Action, By Gabriella Coleman

The Ethics of digital Direct Action, By Gabriella Coleman

What is your interpretation of the Guy Fawkes mask being worn by the Anonymous participant holding a sign that states "Free Bradley Manning"? (Bradley Edward Manning is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed classified material to the whistle blower website WikiLeaks

Steven Chabinsky from the FBI stated, in response to a justification for the crackdown, "We want to send a message that chaos on the internet is unacceptable". Do you think this is a practical statement? Why so/not?

Do you think the group Anonymous provides transparency within out system or creates nothing more than chaos? They don;t have a clearly defined mission, but they have exposed head turning information.

Our Weirdness if Free By Gabriella Coleman

Our Weirdness if Free

By Gabriella Coleman

With regards to the ethics around cyber hacking, do you think it’s justified that the Anonymous group, or any other hacker group, reveals confidential information about illegal or immoral actions other people are doing? In other words, is preforming an illegal action via hacking to reveal illegal actions elsewhere, ok?

Will the group Anonymous centime to exist in the future? As stated in Cyberdeterence and Cyber War by Libicki, cyber space will only become more secure as hacking routes are unavailable. Do you think they will find a way regardless, based on the fact that cyberspace is not a physical place, but indeed an abstract place with (what seems like) endless possibilities?

If lulz-oriented actions do somehow, “pull the carpet from under us” (with regards to destroying the Internet without warning), what would happen? Chaos would erupt, but what would that mean for the economy, national security, and every-day life? 

Cyberdeterrance and Cyber War, By Martin C. Libicki

Cyberdeterrance and Cyber War

By Martin C. Libicki

“As systems become more hardened, societies become less vulnerable and are likely to become more, rather than less, resistant to further coercion”. With this, do you think there will be a day that cyber attacks will be non-existent? If the system is that robust, will we rely on it even further in the future?

As Professor Hopkins stated in class, a lot of our lives revolve around the Internet; bank accounts, personal documents, confidential information. As the passage suggests, we have by no means established a completely secure system. What would happen to society if, instead of terrorist attacks, there were a cyber attack that targeted the public’s, say, bank accounts and confidential information?

Ethically, what is your view on cyber war? How does it compare to war involving citizens, risking their lives? Will cyber war replace human-defensive tactics?