identity or identities

Apparently I am a little behind the times or something when it comes to this whole 2^nd life stuff. In the first article the lady basically has 3 different online lives, not to mention her actual life. She says each is who she “really is, or really wants to be.” Huh? By my count that’s 4 lives, and I don’t know how it would take four lives to be yourself. I mean it only takes most people one. Now I’m not very familiar with Dungeons and Dragons, but I have played other games where you have “missions” and are someone else I guess you would say, and been quite addicted for a period of time, but I have never thought of myself as actually that person, or anything like that, so to that’s just different.

Also in this LambdaMOO where its fine to be one of four genders, but not to describe yourself by your race is just bizarre. I mean I could care less if someone told me they were white, black, brown, or blue. If they described themselves as a human pickle, I would think they were a douche bag though. Clearly race is an issue, and as much as I hate the topic, its there. Just by having an option of telling your race on a survey or a test or whatever proves it. I mean if race doesn’t matter why should it be there.

Don't we all have different personalities?

Like Rose and Jordan I have also thought about the whole identity but I think that most of us have different personalities depending on who we are together with. I know that it shouldn't be like that, but I doubt that people act the same way when they are together with their parrents and their friends. I know that I don't. So maybe it's not so bad that these people enlarge one of their personalities in an online game IF it wasn't bescause they do it bescause the can't deal with things in real life. I think that is the thing that defines when people are having an unhealty relation to cyberspace. If you need to go to another place because you can't deal with your life and don't feel that you can be your self anywhere else than in a fictive world you definitely in my opinion have a problem and need to get some therapy.
At the same time I also think that it's kind of a good thing that a guy like "Gordon" can meet a girl and kind of have a relationship which probably would never happen in real life, but it will never be the same and it can never replace a relationship in real life! They can type all the dirty word they will, but it will never be sex or intimacy like in real life and that is why their lives will still feel empty no matter how many they get married to in cyberspace because although their brain might be in cyberspace their body will still sit alone in front of a computer somewhere in the world. And bodycontact can't be replaced by words..

(Speaking) the Truth Will Set You Free

Discussing the Internet of today based on the idea’s of the Internet in 1995 and 1997 is an inherently flawed strategy, and so I’m going to purposefully abstain from discussing the first two articles in this response. This is not because I have not read them, because it truth I did read all of the first and most of the second, but rather because I don’t feel as though they provide useful dialogue for today.

Unfortunately, even the last Nakamura article suffers from some problems due its age (even though it was only written 4 years ago). The article says, “Thus, (the Internet) is perceived as a contributor to democracy and equality even though it is not accessible to nearly as many users as are other mass media.” This statement is clearly not true. Although the Internet may not be accessible to quite as many users as television, it is certainly NOT far behind.

I also do not believe that the Internet is becoming more and more alike to traditional media sources in serving the will of the existing broadcasters of media. I think this is especially untrue as time goes on; the Internet is becoming serving the public interest more, not less, as time goes on.

The concept of race in cyberspace is of great interest to me, and I think it is valuable to study and understand more fully. Tely’s response to this concept, and the Whitney conference she described, are also very interesting. I think that such frank discussion has a place in society, both in the real world and in cyberspace. However, I think that there is a stigma that persists about the presence of such talk, especially the talk that is frank and truthful. I certainly witnessed that stigma in action during class on Thursday. A group of students were discussing details of hurricane Katrina, and a professor was very surprised to hear us speak frankly about the matter. In fact, he couldn’t believe he was hearing us say ‘those things’.

Unfortunately, that type of practice from authority figures is becoming all too common in nearly every arena and context. There is room to talk about race and the effects thereof, unless that talk isn’t inherently in support of the actions, beliefs, and values of minority groups. It is difficult, if not impossible, to advance honest and valuable racial discussions if the only criticism that is allowed is the criticism of the majority (read: white people). We are allowed to discuss how the government is supposedly discriminatory or apathetic towards the plight of the minority citizens (such as talk concerning racial discrimination and aggression from police) but we are not allowed to discuss the situations in which the majority of white America is affected unfairly (such as instances of affirmative action or issues of “minority only” pageants and scholarships).

Such a dialogue is NOT wrong! It is appropriate to talk about all aspects of discrimination caused by race, even when that discrimination is in favor of the minority! Actively favoring the minority citizens through programs and policies, even when the infrastructure may indirectly favor majority citizens, does not accomplish the goal of being race-neutral.

I am so tired of it being socially acceptable for a black man to call me ‘honky’ but it being unacceptable for me to call him ‘nigger’. Do not misunderstand, I don’t refer to ANY group of people in actively offensive terms; I just do not believe that it should be acceptable for anyone else to either, regardless of the color of their skin.

In summary, the issue of race in cyberspace (I.A.P.A.I.D.E.K.I) is a very interesting and important topic for scholarly study. The issue of race is central to the concept of self, and until we are truly informed about what self means we can not truly have an accurate dialogue about how the Internet shapes each of us. I urge those reading to carefully consider your words about race. Please do no feel afraid to speak honestly about race regardless of the forum. It is more important for the truth to be shared than it is to worry about being politically correct.

Race in Cyberspace(Interesting Article)

Race in Cyberspace

By Maurice Berger
University of Pennsylvania law professor Lani Guinier recently proposed that racism in the United States might be alleviated by an ongoing national conversation on the issue. She argues that as the debates over affirmative action, quotas, welfare, and crime grow increasingly polarized and destructive, race becomes a "four-letter word."

"We don't live next door to each other," Guinier observes. "We don't go to school together. We don't even watch the same television shows." A half-century after the end of Jim Crow segregation, we are still a nation divided - a country whose people rarely talk to each other about the most explosive political issue of our time.

Guinier's point begs an obvious question: Is it possible for a consensus-building dialog to exist with our vast racial, ethnic, regional, and cultural differences, when even the English we speak varies from community to community? The models for such dialog already exist - the digital revolution provides a viable starting point. With the support and sponsorship of the Whitney Museum of American Art, some people put the medium to the test last summer when they participated in an online conference devoted entirely to race. Echo, a New York-based BBS, facilitated this robust, four-month discussion, a favorable alternative at a time when face-to-face communication is so difficult - geographically, politically, and emotionally.

Though the experience wasn't always pleasant (participants frequently vented, argued, and, in some cases, deserted), talk repeatedly turned to the kind of hot-button issues that rarely come up in polite conversation: money, quotas, resentment, guilt, the "failure" of integration, black separatism, white belligerence, black rage, racial tension, and white moral responsibility for slavery and discrimination.

Debate was honest. White participants expressed resentment at being put in the position of oppressor: "I would be interested in knowing," wrote a male artist, "what kind of power someone like me, who has trouble paying his rent, has, and how that relates to my 'whiteness.'" Others squirmed when confronted head-on with the petty stupidity of establishment thinking: a prominent white cultural critic asserted that most successful black, Latino, and Asian-American artists were "losers" propped up by institutional quotas. One African-American man painfully described how women clutch their purses whenever he comes into view on the street. As in real life, many of the white participants avoided, or entirely ignored, the posts of African Americans.
While the conference at times seemed like a bunch of mostly white people indulging in an abstract-thinking free-for-all, discussion was more often astonishingly naked, real, and instructive, allowing everyone present to better understand the ignorance and fear that fuel our collective racial paranoia and turn us on each other.

The Whitney conference shows us how the unique characteristics of online communication can push the envelope of hard-edged race talk. The word-driven structure of the BBS and chat forums, the anonymity, and the presence of lurkers set a unique stage. Participants don't always know who is listening or speaking - a circumstance that forces some to more carefully consider (and possibly learn from) the discussion. But a danger exists. While people posting in the Whitney conference were surprisingly polite, many others on the Net opt to throw civility to the wind. However, in the context of race, the dreaded flame may teach us something: how else would we hear the irrationalities that pass through others' lips when they think they are speaking in confidence? Distortional, inflammatory, or inexact language - which spurs racist myths and paranoia - often comes across as the bullshit it really is when spelled out onscreen.
But what if such online conversations are not particularly cross-cultural? How do we work around a medium that's vastly white, middle-class, and male? These demographics will no doubt change. But more immediately, the Whitney exchange proved that even one black, Latino, Native American, or Asian-American participant can act as a catalyst for substantive online dialog.

Aside from the bigoted remarks uttered when no people of color are around, white Americans too rarely talk to each other about race. Online or off, this is a real problem, one that screams the need for dialog within the urban and suburban middle-class white communities that have traditionally been most resistant to this discussion - a point repeatedly made by prominent African-American cultural critics. Undoing centuries of ingrained myths and biases will not be easy. But if whites don't first engage in this dialog with one another, we may never get to the national conversation Guinier proposes.

- Maurice Berger (berger@echonyc.com) is a senior fellow at the Vera List Center for Art and Politics of the New School for Social Research in New York.

AKA...Asian Hottie!!!

I would first like to address Nakamur's description of LambdaMoo, "Race is not only not a required choice, it is not even on the menu." This is very problematic. The "meatspace" is evolving to be the most diverse it has ever been. In 50 years will we even know what box to check for our race? People are intermarrying and our world is becoming more Global and culturally diverse. On many forms or if you're taking say the ITBS tests you must identify yourself--but in the cyberspace world you just get to leave it out? Or you can be whatever race you have always dreamed about?!

I always say that I wish I was born Asian.(the reason for my title choice--ha ha) I am drawn to more Asian cultural foods and norms and have lots of friends of that nationality, but what Nakamur describes as Orientalized theatricality is in a word--creepy! I also wonder what this does to stererotypes. As people get more and more into "living" in the virtual world and we have white people enacting these other nationalities--are stereotypes going to be affected. Sure, in the meatspace we have a pretty good stereotype of blacks, Asians, etc. But if white people are walking around and pretending to be them how does that reinforce--or possibly break down the stereotypes? Will they still be the same in Cyberspace as they are in the real world?

The discussion of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace is an interesting area to discuss and perhaps we can dialogue in class about it. Say you have a white male that says he's Asian. An Asian male that says he's white in Cyberspace gets in the first guy's face and says derrogatory things based on Asian stereotypes...what kind of implications does that have for society? Another example, a white guy says he's black and then gets callend the N-word--no wonder he doesn't know how to deal with that. He hasn't grown up with that skin color and doesn't know what it's like. But perhaps it gives him a taste of what it's like--although he gets to hear it throught the buffer of a fake persona and a computer screen--thoughts?

Utopian Vision of Cyberspace

While reading Nakamura’s “Race In/For Cyberspace: Identity Tourism and Racial Passing on the Internet,” I began questioning the so-called “utopian” nature of cyberspace. The piece clearly pointed out the racism of the internet, more specifically the racist undertones of the role-playing site LambdaMOO. However, I also began to question the internet’s “utopian vision” as a “promoter of a radically democratic form of discourse.”

Nakamura describes the dog cartoon as portraying the internet as a “social leveler which permits even dogs to express freely themselves in discourse to their masters, who are deceived into thinking that they are their peers, rather than their property.” This may seem true in a general sense, but I don’t see it as entirely accurate. As pointed out in Snow Crash (with some exception to the ‘phone booth’ avatars) and in LambdaMOO, peoples’ “real” identities cannot be revealed. However, Nakamura mentions that there are people who can find out the real identities of those at the website…crackers and hackers. How can the internet be considered “radically democratic” or “utopian” when there are people who invade the privacy and personal freedom of users?

I do not view cyberspace as utopian and see it as paralleling our (America’s) present “democracy.” We are told of our many freedoms in the Constitution, but we are constantly watched and denied unanimity by those who rule. Do the hackers mirror the government in that respect on the internet?

The Internet has Stolen my Identity.

The articles all appealed to me, but for different reasons. I agree, yes, online you can depict yourself in many ways, become who you want to be, i like the opening statement about the dog, who knew dogs could go online! but as far as finding ones self online, or feeling more like yourself, (or the person that they wish they were), i dont buy this. Everything I read about the mudders, was along the lines that they didn't have to be themselves. Alot of the mudders participated in these online mud groups so that they could be "the hero" when in actuality, they hate their job and have to use mudding as a way to get courage to face their boss. I could be all for the mudders of the world if they would stop saying that mudding lets them be who they really are, its complete opposite. A part in the reading that I find disgusting is when a 21 year old college student is interviewed and he defends his violent character by saying that its ok, because rape in the MUD world is better than in real life... I am the only one who finds this concerning?? And also, in the reading where this Taffy person blames another online participant for putting their race in their description really cracks up me. Telling people your race is optional, but you must tell people your gender. If you do however opt to include your race, be prepared for harassment and scrutiny?? This doesn't make sense. Taffy basically blogs about the person who told their race is at fault... Internet says they are trying to unify the participants in these chat rooms, but they are making everyone afraid of who they really are, or ashamed of it. Is that really the message we want to be telling people today?

Hmm... Identity

Like the other few posts I am a little skeptical about this argument that people engaging in MUDs or online simulations may have a better sense of self or have a defined identity. If anything, I think the individuals who engage in these activities do it because they are appealing to them and are a form of entertainment. Perhaps in some cases it acts as an escape, where it is possible to assume the identity of something completely different from themselves. I think there is still something extended from them into these characters. Most the people I have known who play World of Warcraft or Dungeons and Dragons pick things in these games that they like in their personal lives. For example, I had a buddy who was into mid-evil swords, so whenever he played D&D, he would equip himself with one of these swords because that was what he liked. Like Justin, I played an online game in high school occasionally that I wasted numerous hours on, but why I did it was because I thought it was fun and I had friends who also played it. Granted it wasn't a game like WoW or D&D where you create your attributes, but I still didn't find myself being apart of the game or identifying with the computer characters. It was hobby that my friends and I shared.

Ultimately, I think that when people do things like "computer cross dressing" or assume a different race in a game than they are in real life, they are doing it because technology makes it possible for them. It seems like more of experimenting through things that are possible as entertainment or curiosity. I don't know if it really is a new phenomenon to use media as an escape. Before computers and the internet, people deluded themselves to think about the world in terms of how a certain musician or film star presented it. Several people are escaping there lives all the time or at least trying to make them more worthwhile. I think that finding out more about yourself through media happens often, but I think the form of media used is situational and it varies from person to person.

Internet ≠ Reality

Something about the Turkle article that stuck out to me was when she was talking about a girl using an interactive CD-ROM to learn about rafting down the Colorado River and then comparing it to actually rafting down a river and arguing which would be more beneficial. Now, I can’t say that I’ve ever used a CD-ROM to explore different aspects of rafting down a river, but I have been white water rafting in real life, and it was quite an experience, one that I don’t think would be possible to replicate by playing with a computer program. Sure, you would learn some things about rivers and rock formations by using the CD, but how long would you remember that information? Would you ever use it again? Most likely not. The lessons you could learn from actually rafting could improve your life in many different ways. You could learn how to react quickly, think on your feet, get some great exercise, and pick up a great hobby in the process. I think that this could really apply to most things that people do online that they could do in real life as well. Sure, reading all about driving manuals and studying will help you pass your driving test, but actually getting behind the wheel will be the best experience you can get. Playing a game online and making lots of friends may be somewhat helpful, but at some point you’ll have to get out and actually talk to some people, which will help you learn how to interact and socialize with real people. In the end, I suppose that I agree with Turkle when she says that while people think that the Internet and technology like that will be an easy way to solve whatever issue they may have, it’s no substitute for the real thing.

"Mom! Can you buy me this video game? I need to find my identity." WTF?

The Turkle reading about Internet Relay Chatting and MUDs interested me in many ways because I can either kind of relate to what she was saying or I know people who do what she was describing. If you haven’t got the hint yet, I use to be an online computer gamer in the good ol early high school days, but back in those days you bought the game, installed it, and you were good to go. Now games like World of Warcraft you have to pay monthly fees and that’s asking to much for me…either way in a lot of RPG games you get the choice of being a specific breed of character and also decide whether or not you want to be good or bad, or you could create an account and make multiple characters like the one of Turkle’s interviewees about IRC, “One persona is against war, the other like Melrose, and the third is a sex addict.” So they’re really no limits to a person with an account... you can test everything and find what you like or at least a happy median.

What I thought was funny was they keep saying it’s online chatting or it's just the internet I can do/be what I want to…but on Dateline How to Catch a Pederass they use that same excuse of how it was an internet chat room and they weren’t being serious…there’s always people you go that extra, creepy step. Going back to MUDs, she says it’s hard for individuals to participate just a little and this is true with the present day World of Warcraft you pay a monthly fee and if you don’t keep playing you’re wasting money or never going to be able to compete with other online players…I know quite a few WOW players and it’s all one big competition to see who can reach the highest level and it often creates an addictiveness. And in the game mode you use verbiage that is game based only but in the outside chat rooms people talk...well like people.

I agree to the aspects of video games can be addictive based on one’s personality and one might make chat room characters to be someone they’re not (don’t see why you would but it happens), but the comment about, “games are laboratories for construction of identity…” I don’t know about that, if you don’t know yourself yet why are you playing video games and chatting with phony individuals? I think a person has to realize hey I’m a non social person and get shy when walking down a hall so I should start an alias online, or I’m a nice individual with multiple friends and enjoy video games to pass the time…you’re not finding yourself in either of these IRC or MUDs, you know what type of person you are because people (family, friends, co-workers, etc.) have told you or given off vibes towards you. I think no one goes and buys a video game to help them find out who they are…that is insane and quite frankly gay…there I said it…

Identity

I think these articles were written by people that like being who they are. Granted I like being who I am but not everyone does. Maybe an “identity tourist” still believes that the internet is euphoria because they can be who they want to be and not who they are. Why do we continue to judge the people that pretend to be someone else? The people that dream of being a samurai and can actually BE a samurai in Second Life of LambdaMOO probably think of the intercyberweb as being heaven on earth. Maybe, like the postmodernists, I don’t want to have a continuous “self” and maybe I want to be a million different people with no relation to each other. I could be John McCain. If I wanted to be that is. My point is that I don’t always see the harm in wanting to be someone else, maybe the fat kid makes friends without being judged on his size or maybe some days I feel like being a Spanish guitar player. These articles seem judgmental so I guess I am asking who are we to judge?

Identity and Performance

In response to our readings on Identity, the content in the articles posed the intentions of Performance behind virtual identity and how people use online domains, such as Second Life, as means to reinforce a sense of self and self-assurance that cannot be attained in RL (real life). As an ignorant critic, one would assess online living, as opposed to living in the real world, as weird and imaginative compared to the interpersonal realm of sociology. However, the articles addressed how some people use MUDs as therepeutic escapes to fix the entaglements of their past, or present state. The descriptions of the people used as examples to support the readings illustrated that the past has been the sole cause of the present, which then causes the experimentation of online identity to be remedy. In these cases, a "real" mother-daughter relationship, deemed as torn and unattended, is reinforced in the "real" daughter's role as mother and her disconnected relationship with her daughter in the "virtual" world, which enables the "real" daughter to find understanding as a mother to prevent and mend a disconnected relationship that she wishes for with her real mother.
In other cases in the study of virtual identity, we also see the performance behind wanting to understand gender roles by transforming identity online. This is also a way in which people who cannot express gender stereotypical roles in real life, but can use online gender as outlet(s) of self-expression. For example, a man who is raised to be strong and competitive may be perceived wrong if he displayed acts of kindness. Since stereotypology considers different roles for different genders, acts of kindness can be percieved as feminine. Transforming oneself online to become female to express those acts of kindness gives the "by-nature" competitive man self-reinforcement and liberation that real life can limit.
With respect to the unlimitations in virtual life that can help one's limitations in real life, online identity poses the questions of "what online unlimitations go too far or are too wrong in regards to helping the real limitations?" Virtual identity in Tinysex (online sex) allows for one's fantasies to be simulated and pose concern for marriage partners who can attest to the acts done by their spouse as either part-fantasy or adultery. Yet, further research and diagnosis has not been fully imposed, due to the question of "what's at the heart of such acts as virtual-sex affair?" Is infidelity in the head or the body? To complement these questions with the cases of online Identity and Performance in our readings, the virtual-body is the mind of the real body.

Isn't This What You Asked for Epley?

The tentative accord would give the Bush administration just a fraction of the $700 billion it had requested up front, with half the money subject to a congressional veto, congressional aides said. Under the plan, the Treasury secretary would get $250 billion immediately and could have an additional $100 billion if he certified it was needed. The last $350 billion could be blocked by a vote of Congress under the arrangement, designed to give lawmakers a stronger hand in controlling the unprecedented rescue.

By The Numbers...

We talked about this today in class and then I saw this link. Check it out.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/23/what-does-the-bailout-plan-cost-you/?icid=100214839x1210063015x1200581868

Employers use Facebook to catch out staff

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0924/breaking48.htm

Article about employers checking the Facebooks of their employees who called in sick to check if they really are sick or if they're lying

maybe you should clean up your search history?

SomethingAwful posted wonderful selections from the leaked AOL searches I mentioned in class.

narcissistic much?

From Ars Technica:

Narcissists easy to spot on Facebook: if you know how

. . . Facebook, and its brethren, would seem to be a narcissist's dream; these individuals want the world to think as highly of them as they think of themselves, and social networking sites allow a high degree of control over what information about a person gets presented to the public. This ranges from photos and quotes to ostensible measures of popularity, such as the number of connections a person has made. The new study considers many of these in exploring the expression of narcissism on Facebook.

The study relied on 129 college students (the authors are located at the University of Georgia) who voluntarily took a personality test that detected narcissistic tendencies. With the test complete, the students opened their Facebook profile pages; the researchers then removed personal identifying information from the pages. Objective measures of the profile, such as number of friends and groups, and the length of the person's "About Me" section, were made. Researcher assistants then subjectively rated the contents of the "About Me" section and the quote collection, as well as photos associated with the account . . .

I swear it was consensual . . .

A number of your comments this week engaged what I think is the strongest connection between these readings: what makes us consent to ubiquitous surveillance? The safety thing? sure. But we also consent because companies give us free things (cool ads for stuff we want, gigs and gigs of space to store emails) in exchange for our consent to their rifling through our stuff. More subtle, perhaps, is how companies (and, increasingly, the state) persuade us that being watched and recorded all the time is normal. Finally, does it make a difference when we are also persuaded to constantly watch and report on each other?

9-22-08

Surveillance, like countless other things has both pros and cons. In a perfect world where people just do what they should be doing, it probably wouldn’t even be necessary, but lets face it, this is far from a perfect world. Sure it is good to have something to refer to when there is a crime in the streets, or when a 45 year old guy pretends he is 17 and goes over to some 15 year old girls house just to “hang out” (with a dildo, anal lube and condoms with him). But at the same time do we need it to go through our private e-mails or any other of our personal activities? I think not. Granted I believe there is a fine line as to where it should be stopped because some one will always find the loop hole.

No Title (Someone Might Read This)

Surveillance is a beast of many colors. Some of those colors are excellent and reasonable; others aren’t so pretty and hospitable. The key is finding the line and NEVER stepping over it.

Take two separate instances in which identical methods of surveillance can be used in both positive and negative ways. A closed circuit camera is pointed at a public area in which there is a large amount of vandalism. That camera films the perpetrators and the police make an arrest that results in conviction. Few people would argue that this use of surveillance was inappropriate. Okay, for the second instance let’s say that the same camera was mounted in a public place, but was pointed in a way that allowed the user to peer into a person’s bathroom window as well as see potential vandalism. All of a sudden that surveillance camera seems like a less reasonable idea.

The same idea can be applied online, at least to my way of thinking. If the surveillance (of any kind) is directed solely towards an entirely public sphere, I think it’s perfectly acceptable and completely wise and reasonable. However, if that surveillance suddenly encroaches onto ‘private’ areas of the Internet (such as personal e-mail, private or password protected sites, etc.) I no longer think it is reasonable. So where’s the line?

Overall I would love it if I could know who the other person REALLY was. I do not believe that anyone inherently has the right to act like or impersonate someone who they are not. People should represent themselves as they are, not as people they are not. I think that surveillance in the public spheres of the Internet should be encouraged, not treated as inherently evil.

Treat the public Internet just like you would Times Square, if you don’t want someone to see it, don’t do/post it!

Private life vs working life

For me it's important to separate my private life and my working life, when we talk about surveillance. I think that there are positive and negative things about surveillance in a working environment. The positive is that it gives your boss an opportunity of course in association with you to develop your working skills. Like when I worked in a store where we sold cellphones and stuff like that my boss could watch my interaction with costumers and then coach me afterward. The surveillance of the store also gave me some kind of security because I knew that if something happened we would have good pictures of the person. But like most things there is also a negative side to this. I don't have any personal experience with this but last year I wrote a paper about this phenomenon called LEAN. It's kind of a new form of Taylorism which was mentioned in the Robins and Webster text. Basically LEAN is about watching EVERY step of the work process and then eliminate all the waste. This concept was really popular in Denmark a couple of years ago and there was a lot of discussion about what this would do to the workers would everybody be stressed out or would it give them more time to do the things that they found interesting?
These two videos explain LEAN really simple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWZnxTcNQzo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL4bkoBAVZw&feature=related
In my personal life it's a bit different. I agree with the guy who posted something before me about that if you are not doing anything illegal why be afraid about people watching you but at the same time the You Tube video mentioned the possibility of the local policemen watching my private pictures and videos and that's kind of scary.

Bad Boy, Bad Boy, Whatcha Gonna Do?

Monitoring what people do on the internet is fine by me and should be fine by everyone unless you’re doing something illegal…then Chris Hansen will get ya! I kind of find it ironic these days that people don’t like the idea of being surveillance on the web yet people post person videos, web pages, and all the bells and whistles to get noticed on the web by complete strangers. All the reality shows on TV today suggest to people that letting your thoughts be known to the world is the new crack and everyone is doing it so set up the camera, start filming, and try to get your own show like Tila…but keep in mind you should probably get fake boobs. Monitoring people on the web is a great idea in my mind because if that person who lies on their dating profile, or makes an avatar (to pee on people virtually) will be watched more closely…that’s comforting to know in my mind. If people are told up front that you’re being watched in the web I think a lot of people would veer away from doing something bad…almost like a neighborhood night watch sign, or DARE. People being able to get information about me and scan my emails seems a little overboard but they gotta do what they gotta do to keep peterasses inline then so be it. THE SAYING WAS I WANNA BE LIKE MIKE…YA KNOW JORDAN…NOT GARY GLITTER…

Surveillance

The Harvard interactive case study really opened my eyes to all the online things that people have access to. I realize that this was discussed in the first class period when Epley did a little slide show of all the people he could find infor about on the internet. But now I realize one little things that isn't my facebook or myspace account that could get me into trouble in a few months when I start looking for a job. That is the petition I signed for People of Faith for Stem Cell Research. Now I am starting to just wonder if something like this really will affect my chance of being able to get a job. Obviously this shows that I am bias in some way and that I took a stand on that bias. Can news reporters be allowed to take a stand on an issue whether they believe it should be okay or not? That is something I will have to find out about I suppose. I do know that if you work for the government you aren't allowed to go to any rallys or parties supporting a certain presidential candidate. I have a friend who works for the court system in New Hampshire and she is a huge Obama fan but can't show her support since her paycheck comes from the State of New Hampshire. The other thing that just drives me nuts about this is that anyone can be googled and it is almost impossible to not find at least one thing about everyone. It's like technology is taking over the trust we should have for people unless they betray us and give us a reason not to trust them. I know I have looked up plenty of people on iowa courts dot com because they seem nice but there is something that isn't quite right about them. The internet is giving everyone a chance to find out "dirt" about anyone they want to. The video from youtube gave a good showing of all the different types of surveillance that the government can and does do. It is quite mind blowing that the government can tap into your phone lines if they suspect you of dirty business or using biometric passports to fin terrorists. One form of surveillance that I do agree with is closed circut surveillance systems in stores and parking lots. I think that these are a good for the public not bad. How many crimes have been solved with the help of a parking lot surveillance system? I would say its a pretty good number because without them they would never know what kind of car drove away with a kidnapped girl in it. Or what color and type of car hit a woman and killed her in the early morning hours. Saying that all types of surveillance is no good isn't a fair statement since some surveillance is necessary to be safe in the public with all the crazy people out there today. Televison shows that have surveillance systems 24 hours a day so people can always see whats going on, such as Big Brother kind of creep me out. I mean who wants someone watching them all the time?! Obviously the people that sign up for that show really don't care or want attention like that. I personally think it's totally unnecessary some of the surveillance that goes on and also the google obsessed nation that we have become. Come on now can't we just trust someone like we used to?

Not so fast...surveillance could be a good thing!

The word surveillance seems to invoke this dark feeling that one has done something wrong...but after reading the Robins and Webster article I actually tried to look at the good side of things. Ultimately, I feel that we have relatively little control and surveillance is just going to pervade our lives more and more--so why not look at the benefits.

On p. 102 of the article, Robins and Webster talk about how it can be to retailers advantage to target us better..suc as,"recording data from supermarket check-out scanners" and consumer details from credit cards. I really thought this was invasive...until I checked my e-mail the other day. I know that Epley mentioned in class that they scan things like your G-mail account for certain identifiers...I went to print the e-mail with directions to a department tailgater and when I printed it I noticed all the ads on the side of the page.

There were ads for special tailgater grills and supplies that I might need. I found that that was kind of neat b/c if I needed anything I could just click to the right of my e-mail. The reason we should look at this as more of a pro than a con is because of who is looking. Is someone sitting there poring over my private e-mails--no. It is merely a computer scanning for key words and suggesting and being helpful to me and my needs.

I would also like to relate this back to what we discussed in class. I know that some of you think it creepy for a big company to have all that information about us in their computer. But if I am kidnapped I darn sure want them to be able to access it. They are not sitting around looking at the information, but if something goes bad--they can access it--much like global tracking in cell phones or programs like On-Star. I also know that many find this invasive. However, if I am stranded or somebody is out to get me I think it is comforting to know that they could locate you and come find you.

Right now, with the aid of a satellite, the government could zoom into your house and watch you eating dinner with your family, watching TV, etc.--that is if they wanted to had reason to. But they are not going to take the time to do that just for fun. But they can use the same technology to zoom in on terrorists and keep you and your family safe.

The lesson is--if you are not doing anything wrong then you don't really need to worry about it:) Just like when you are going into a public place, just assume that whatever you are doing is being watched and have that mentality when you log on.

BELOW is an excerpt from an article about interesting advances in technology and surveillance in the retail sector.(I posted the excerpt instead of a link b/ maybe someone will actually read it that way:)
RFID: Tracking everything, everywhere by Katherine Albrecht, CASPIAN Founder
Excerpted from:
Albrecht, Katherine."Supermarket Cards: The Tip of the Retail Surveillance Iceberg." Denver University Law Review, Summer 2002, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp. 534-539 and 558-565.

Expect big changes
"In 5-10 years, whole new ways of doing things will emerge and gradually become commonplace. Expect big changes." 1 - MIT's Auto-ID Center, 2002
Supermarket cards and retail surveillance devices are merely the opening volley of the marketers' war against consumers. If consumers fail to oppose these practices now, our long-term prospects may look like something from a dystopian science fiction novel.

A new consumer goods tracking system called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is poised to enter all of our lives, with profound implications for consumer privacy. RFID couples radio frequency (RF) identification technology with highly miniaturized computers that enable products to be identified and tracked at any point along the supply chain. 2
The system could be applied to almost any physical item, from ballpoint pens to toothpaste, which would carry their own unique information in the form of an embedded chip.3 The chip sends out an identification signal allowing it to communicate with reader devices and other products embedded with similar chips. 4Analysts envision a time when the system will be used to identify and track every item produced on the planet. 5
A number for every item on the planet

RFID employs a numbering scheme called EPC (for "electronic product code") which can provide a unique ID for any physical object in the world. 6 The EPC is intended to replace the UPC bar code used on products today. 7

Unlike the bar code, however, the EPC goes beyond identifying product categories--it actually assigns a unique number to every single item that rolls off a manufacturing line. 8 For example, each pack of cigarettes, individual can of soda, light bulb or package of razor blades produced would be uniquely identifiable through its own EPC number. 9
Once assigned, this number is transmitted by a radio frequency ID tag (RFID) in or on the product. 10 These tiny tags, predicted by some to cost less than 1 cent each by 2004, 11 are "somewhere between the size of a grain of sand and a speck of dust." 12 They are to be built directly into food, clothes, drugs, or auto-parts during the manufacturing process. 13
Receiver or reader devices are used to pick up the signal transmitted by the RFID tag. Proponents envision a pervasive global network of millions of receivers along the entire supply chain -- in airports, seaports, highways, distribution centers, warehouses, retail stores, and in the home. 14 This would allow for seamless, continuous identification and tracking of physical items as they move from one place to another, 15 enabling companies to determine the whereabouts of all their products at all times. 16

Steven Van Fleet, an executive at International Paper, looks forward to the prospect. "We'll put a radio frequency ID tag on everything that moves in the North American supply chain," he enthused recently. 17
The ultimate goal is for RFID to create a "physically linked world" 18 in which every item on the planet is numbered, identified, catalogued, and tracked. And the technology exists to make this a reality. Described as "a political rather than a technological problem," creating a global system "would . . . involve negotiation between, and consensus among, different countries." 19 Supporters are aiming for worldwide acceptance of the technologies needed to build the infrastructure within the next few years. 20

The implications of RFID
"Theft will be drastically reduced because items will report when they are stolen, their smart tags also serving as a homing device toward their exact location." 21 - MIT's Auto-ID Center

Since the Auto-ID Center's founding at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1999, it has moved forward at remarkable speed. The center has attracted funding from some of the largest consumer goods manufacturers in the world, and even counts the Department of Defense among its sponsors. 22 In a mid-2001 pilot test with Gillette, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, and Wal-Mart, the center wired the entire city of Tulsa, Oklahoma with radio-frequency equipment to verify its ability to track RFID equipped packages.

Though many RFID proponents appear focused on inventory and supply chain efficiency, others are developing financial and consumer applications that, if adopted, will have chilling effects on consumers' ability to escape the oppressive surveillance of manufacturers, retailers, and marketers. Of course, government and law enforcement will be quick to use the technology to keep tabs on citizens, as well.

The European Central Bank is quietly working to embed RFID tags in the fibers of Euro banknotes by 2005. 24 The tag would allow money to carry its own history by recording information about where it has been, thus giving governments and law enforcement agencies a means to literally "follow the money" in every transaction. 25 If and when RFID devices are embedded in banknotes, the anonymity that cash affords in consumer transactions will be eliminated.

Hitachi Europe wants to supply the tags. The company has developed a smart tag chip that--at just 0.3mm square and as thin as a human hair -- can easily fit inside of a banknote. 26 Mass-production of the new chip will start within a year.

Consumer marketing applications will decimate privacy
"Radio frequency is another technology that supermarkets are already using in a number of places throughout the store. We now envision a day where consumers will walk into a store, select products whose packages are embedded with small radio frequency UPC codes, and exit the store without ever going through a checkout line or signing their name on a dotted line." 28 - Jacki Snyder, Manager of Electronic Payments for Supervalu (Supermarkets), Inc., and Chair, Food Marketing Institute Electronic Payments Committee

RFID would expand marketers' ability to monitor individuals' behavior to undreamt of extremes. With corporate sponsors like Wal-Mart, Target, the Food Marketing Institute, Home Depot, and British supermarket chain Tesco, as well as some of the world's largest consumer goods manufacturers including Proctor and Gamble, Phillip Morris, and Coca Cola 29 it may not be long before RFID-based surveillance tags begin appearing in every store-bought item in a consumer's home.
According to a video tour of the "Home of the Future" and "Store of the Future" sponsored by Proctor and Gamble, applications could include shopping carts that automatically bill consumers' accounts (cards would no longer be needed to link purchases to individuals), refrigerators that report their contents to the supermarket for re-ordering, and interactive televisions that select commercials based on the contents of a home's refrigerator.

Now that shopper cards have whetted their appetite for data, marketers are no longer content to know who buys what, when, where, and how. As incredible as it may seem, they are now planning ways to monitor consumers' use of products within their very homes. RFID tags coupled with indoor receivers installed in shelves, floors, and doorways, 31 could provide a degree of omniscience about consumer behavior that staggers the imagination.

Consider the following statements by John Stermer, Senior Vice President of eBusiness Market Development at ACNielsen:
"[After bar codes] [t]he next 'big thing' [was] [f]requent shopper cards. While these did a better job of linking consumers and their purchases, loyalty cards were severely limited...consider the usage, consumer demographic, psychographic and economic blind spots of tracking data.... [S]omething more integrated and holistic was needed to provide a ubiquitous understanding of on- and off-line consumer purchase behavior, attitudes and product usage. The answer: RFID (radio frequency identification) technology.... In an industry first, RFID enables the linking of all this product information with a specific consumer identified by key demographic and psychographic markers....Where once we collected purchase information, now we can correlate multiple points of consumer product purchase with consumption specifics such as the how, when and who of product use."

Marketers aren't the only ones who want to watch what you do in your home. Enter again the health surveillance connection. Some have suggested that pill bottles in medicine cabinets be tagged with RFID devices to allow doctors to remotely monitor patient compliance with prescriptions.

While developers claim that RFID technology will create "order and balance" in a chaotic world, 34 even the center's executive director, Kevin Ashton, acknowledges there's a "Brave New World" feel to the technology. 35 He admits, for example, that people might balk at the thought of police using RFID to scan the contents of a car's trunk without needing to open it. 36 The Center's co-director, Sanjay E. Sarma, has already begun planning strategies to counter the public backlash he expects the system will encounter. 37

Big Brother

Everyone's paranoia of the government watching them keeps coming up every generation. The difference for the present is the power the internet plays in this. Organizations now have the power to not only catch something in the act with cameras, but you have data that can be searched through that happened several months ago. It seems to me that when it comes to the internet, people just think its all fair game and rules don't apply. I don't want to jump into a argument over piracy and ethics, but do people feel like they are stealing when they are doing it or is it just something they can easily do? From the perspective of the reading material, do you think about who might be able to see that they are doing on the internet?

I think people generally liked to be watched, but only in so far as it doesn't invade their personal space. It seems what each article struggles with is how this personal space is becoming smaller. Government surveillance is not a clearly defined issue because it is not certain what exactly it is capable of and what they ultimately use it for. It can be argued either way to if it is beneficial or not, but as the video stressed, the power that it offers could have potential to be something different.

Reality TV and voyeurism are incredibly interesting to look into because they can give some insight into our nature. Like I said before, people generally want to be watched, they want to be in the spotlight. The truth is they won't be on a reality TV show, because they are generally not "real" but they offer people the opportunity to look into other people's lives. The internet offers new forms of voyeurism through web cams that people can broadcast themselves to others, youtube, etc. where people can put themselves out there for others to watch. The difference here is that it is still somewhat controlled by the producer. There is a secretive, anonymous quality to voyeurism, but once the government steps in, it changes things.

surveillance culture

Being part of today's communication technology generation, it is easy for one to discern that we are becoming a "surveillance culture" (Cameron). Robins and Webster state how we are experiencing "a second Industrial Revolution," in the sense that technology is shaping the way we produce and market among consumers using the industry we have established. The way surveillance applies to our industry and corporate ventures is through the use of "effective computer communications systems to handle financial transactions, directives and co-ordination." Robins and Webster state how "Information is the key to economic growth and productivity." The way our information is controlled and managed that breeds economic growth is seen through our advertising in our technologies such as the internet, radio, couriers, and TV -- all accessible anymore to people throughout the world. Other accessible forms of surveillance include satellites, street/store cameras, airport security systems, radar guns, and police scanners.
That accessibility is also a reason why our culture is a "surveillance culture," and how mediums distribute the information of politicians and celebrities. Yet, when Reality TV entered the picture, according to our readings, it opened the door to the extent that people could conduct their own reality online and make non-celebrity information to be accessible. Reality TV shows how a person who is not considered a candidate for entertainment industry, can become a popular character on the reality show since part of an audience can identify with that person. Youtube and Metacafe come to mind, that offer ways people can disclose themselves through video to a larger audience, therefore supporting economic surveillance and monitoring.
The article "We Googled You" shows how our younger generation are more concerned with self-image and information popularity as opposed to a much older generation that is less concerned. The online video from this case study expressed how some people who google a potential dating partner and do not have information from their search are more turned off. It seems that if you aren't online, you don't fit in. I think it also fits the notion that people want to survey you and watch you, because of the conditioning of online profiles, blogging, and personal video among the younger generation.

Surveillance

The video we watched for this week made a good point about all the kinds of surveillance systems that are in place. It makes you wonder how much good actually comes out of all this, and I would be willing to bet that the answer would be “not much”. The whole idea of my information being stored on a computer somewhere and someone being able to pull up that information whenever does not sit well with me. Do we really need someone recording all of my movements? All of this closed circuit television system talk just gives off a 1984 vibe. There is a lot of surveillance going on, but it really just seems so unnecessary. The CCTV systems are supposed to be there to deter people from committing crimes, but I’m sure that if the would-be criminal really wants to go through with the act, I’m sure that a couple cameras aren’t going to stop them. They will either just go through with it anyway, or wait for an opportunity to commit the crime when they will be able to without being seen. I’m sure that the money and time being put toward all of the surveillance could be put to better use, maybe in training for police, or getting more officers out on the street. I’m sure the cop car driving by would be a much better deterrent than a couple of cameras.

Watching the Watcher

I like the image of someone being watched while watching others. What I don't know is who we are afraid of? Are we afraid that the government is watching us, tracking our every move and waiting for terrorist activity? Or are we scared of the advertising companies finding out what we like and using it to market those things to us. Point taken that I don't want my Google record scanned for porn or my e-mails linking me to a drug ring in case I decide to run for president. But what about the times they keep us safe? I like my spyware even if it is designed by the evil corporation, it keeps my computer from crashing when I waste my time with illegal downloads. I'm not sure where the line is between too much and just fine, but I am sure that some of the surveillance is OK by me. My problem with my e-mails being scanned is that it seems unnecessary. There are ways to get to know me without sneaking through my diary. This is a step that will most likely cause more trouble than its worth. What ever happened to good old fashioned surveys?

Andrejevic's text on reality television struck me most out of this week's readings mostly because of this statement:

"Viewers and consumers are invited to subject themselves to forms of interactivity that monitor their behavior with the promise that this interactivity offers an outlet for creative self-expression."

This statement got me to thinking. Has reality television played a part in what I see as the objectification of the human race? Obviously, according to Andrejevic, people are nowadays sacrificing their privacy in order to express themselves creatively through "big brother" technologies such as webcams and some reality TV shows. There is no denying, in my opinion, that people are seen less as humans and more as objects/commodities in this day and age, but have these technologies been the cause of it or were these technologies the result of a society that was already drifting in that direction? Or is it a mix? I see it as a mix.

I believe history has shown that society has tended to put a dollar-value to human life or devalued it down to the state of an object at least since the days of slavery. Whether it be slavery, genocide, or even child labor, people have disregarded others as the beautiful beings that they are by actions such as, but not limited to, these. History has also shown that people have become enlightened and have revolted against these injustices.

Although slavery, genocide, and child labor still exist (but to a lesser extent), I believe that there are modern-day forms of what I see as actions that reflect a disregard for human life. And the root of this mindset is the objectification of humans.

With that historical perspective in mind, I will add that I believe reality TV has opened another outlet for people to see their fellow humans in this corrupt perspective. It takes the form of fuel rather than fire.

Guilty Pleasures

People participate in surveillances of the world in longing for the approval and satisfaction from their peers; Youtube for example. Its a competition. you rate videos edited by other youtubers. Some people may think that this is just a form of professional critisicm, but lets be honest, some of that stuff is just nasty. but not only is it a competition, reality is addicting. i like the quote from the fox network's entertainment director about "real" reality shows, "ratings crack-a cheap addictive short lived high". I agree with Andrejevic when he explains that now its necessarily short lived anymore. Reality shows are everywhere. These reality shows are also a competition. Take the worn out actors of today's society. For example, Scott Baeo. He starred in his own reality show about him being at the age of 40 and unmarried. this was totally a career move to get him back in the eyes of producers and directors. His agent probably convinced him that the show would boost his ratings as an actor, and a great move for his career, when actually, it made me hate him as a person. It proved to me that he is a talentless asshole. As sucky as a person that I feel he is... I watched the show!! The producers were brilliant in this matter!
The no namers with a crap ton of money contact MTV to do a series show about their "real lives", a day in the life of a Laguna Beach resident. Lame plot, but i will admit, addictive. For some pathetic reason I find myself being mesmerized by the lives of the hills stars! (sorry Ryleah) Creators of reality TV=brilliant. Taking the "real"lives of every day people, exploiting their money or addictions to drugs for that matter (MTV True Life), or washed out Hollywood stars and making it ADDICTIVE, genius. We all compare ourselves to everyone else, whether we will admit it or not, I think thats why reality shows bring in so many viewers and these shows are EVERYWHERE. "My life may suck, but at least I didnt get publicly hummilated on national TV when Flava Flav of all men in this world, decided not to give me a clock so I could remain on his show to hopefully someday be the provider of his 30 kids with all different baby mamas!" ...could always be worse...

Voyerism

The readings and short clip that were assigned for this next blog under normal circumstances wouldn't interest me as much. But last week I viewed a film called Zeitgeist, which explores government manipulation and control specifically by means of electronic media. In "the long history of the information revolution" there were many arguments that I found to be relevant to the voyeurism argument. In my opinion the authors are hitting the nail directly on the head; the technological revolution, which was a public forum, has no become of corporate entity that produces propaganda in order to keep its subordinates afraid. I don't believe ever again will developing technology be viewed as historical developments but rather as a gateway for the introduction of a new matrix which with simply further political and cultural ideologies. With that being said, Andrejevic work simply furthers this notion. We are living in a society that embraces voyeurism and thoroughly enjoys the invasion of privacy. (Exemplified by reality TV), should we not be surprised that our government is any different? Though our government's goals are so skewed that it would be easier to look for Jimmy Hoffa then to tackle the problems of our current "policed" state. The next article though not as extreme, still shows the effects of what ill call TIP (technological invasion of privacy), can have on an individual. Privacy even on a local level is non-existence, which brings me to the final clip "Big Brother". I whole heartedly agree that the monitoring of civilians by a government body shouldn't just be considered immoral; we should be scared for our lives. With increasing technological surveillance not only do we lose our freedoms, we are also loosing the ability to speak out against a rising totalitarian government. In summation I’ll conclude my post by examining 9/11 in the format of a commercial. The government wants complete power in observation over its citizens? Well you have to persuade the masses that it’s in their best interest. Firstly you must gain the attention of the audience (the world trade center attack), secondly you must hold their attention (chasing Osama & Hussein in the Middle East), and next you have to create a need for the product (Threat of domestic terrorism). Next you have to introduce a product that can solve the problem (the Patriot Act). Finally you have to use an advertising appeal to sustain the generated feeling (in case an emotional appeal through televised speeches). The use of manipulation by introducing fear into the masses is terrorism, and our government has championed this philosophy for years. High time we open our eyes and get educated, or else we are going to get the proverbial shaft by our leaders.

Snow Crash

tephenson's novel snow crash is a modern day LSD trip. How he manages to incorporate elements of our modern world, with his predicted future world and the Metaverse is unfathomable to me. The two worlds that are represented in this futuristic depiction are disturbing and unconventional, but may not be a complete fabrication. The concept of "thrashers" eluding police by simply running two blocks across "White column" community lines is an exaggeration. Yet when compared to today’s world, I don’t believe it is completely false. Look at areas of Los Angeles that once upon a time were massive chunks of prime real estate have since been divided into smaller sub-communities that seek to shut certain social classes out of their world. An interesting correlation to Stephenson's reality is the Metaverse. The perception given from Hiro's testimony is that it is a place where you can be anything you want to be. Well this is partly true, but only because he has superior computing skills. This allowed him to get on the ground floor of the Metaverse and stake himself a claim in the software. This alternate reality is open to anyone (people who can afford it that is), but it still is defined by competing social classes. The Black Sun is a perfect example; Hiro's status allows him to walk into the club untouched, while thousands sit like minions awaiting their next order. In snow crash there are still social lines drawn in reality and as well as other competing definitions of reality. In this case Metaverse may have alternate impacts on people’s lives. These can different impacts can be seen in the relationship of YT and Hiro. Hiro has an escape to his magical world where as YT has to deal with the reality of spending the night in the Clink. In closing even I believe that no matter what reality you are in, whether it is a dream world, virtual reality, or present reality there will always be distinct classes that have a hierarchal order. Now what exactly that order will be based upon is unbeknownst to me, but I think Stephenson has a comfortable grip on it: Technology and the possession of the almighty dollar.

Hey--it's like Facebook and online dating...except for animals!

Interesting...

Online dating is a real zoo for real animals

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26623133

Also interesting...

Software teaches helicopters new tricks

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26567526

snowcrashandcyberpunk

When I read the Wikipedia article on cyberpunk, and the definition said it was often centered on a conflict among hackers, artificial intelligences, and mega corporations, I knew this was exactly what I had been reading in Snow Crash.

As messed up as this fictional world in which Snow Crash takes place, it did get me thinking what if. A lot of the time this book got me thinking of almost a Batman/Spiderman cross, with Hiro being like two different people and all. But I really thought that it was more the same than different, I mean is there really such a thing as a bad ass pizza delivery boy? Also I know this is in a changed world, but the Mafia taking over pizza delivery, I think not.

Coinicidence…I Think Not!

After reading the first 111 pages of Snow Crash and becoming addicted to the random swear words throughout it I feel the need to look the lyrics to Brad Paisley’s song “Online.” It starts off…I work down at the Pizza Pit and I drive an old Hyundai…hmm a lot like the actual guy in the novel before he goes all Metaverse.

The kid/dude is living a dream world where he’d like to be in a mafia and get rid of competitors when involving the distribution of pizza. The character Hiro gets racists towards the middle when he feels the need to kill a manager who is Abkhazia…which Wikipedia says is a country…who knew? Anyway that part creeped me out a little bit, but I think the whole reading and the Brad Paisley song have things in common with kids wanting to be something they’re not on the web. You know hoe many email accounts a person can have? And that later means a whole lotta Facebook accounts as well. It’s so easy to lie on networking programs and the thought of someone saving your pictures on their account and acting like they are you because you didn’t block your photos from randoms…creepy ladies and gents.

But when it’s all said and done the kid/delivery boy who thinks he’s Hiro or in the Paisley song you’re out in Hollywood, 6 foot 5 and I look damn good…you’re really not. Lets try to be successful in the real world and stop trying to be Tila Tequila…

I deleted my Myspace by the way…watch this…doubt this kid ever does LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3a-ajsVVus

The book Snow Crash tells the story of a metaverse patrolling, sword wielding Hiro. (Sounds vaguely similar to another character on primetime TV who carries a sword, alters the universe, and is named Hiro...) The pizza delivery guy of the future is a dork in reality, and aspires to be more in the Metaverse.

I think that, as this book portrays, too many people fall into the trap of thinking that it is possible to be two different people. One person who leads a 'normal' life, and another who is completely different online, or in the Metaverse. People falsely believe that a person can have some alternative life online just because they can claim they are a 6'1 Brazilian swimsuit model, or a 12 year old girl. Just because you can change your avatar to look like a preteen Britney Spears or a built football player doesn't change you! All it does is make you a liar. People can pretend all they want, but that doesn't make them what they pretend to be.

This book blurs the line between the experiences of Hiro in reality and his experiences in the Metaverse. However, there truly is no line. A person is a person, and that doesn't change just because they log on or log off.

Is second life like really like the metaverse??

As most of you I was really surprised about this book. At the beginning it's was easy so seperate the reality and the metaverse, but the more pages I turned the more confused I became. But most of all I began to think about how much second life is similar to the metaverse that the book is about. I've never tried one of these secondlife-games I'm not even sure that I can refer to it as a game, but if any of you have any experience with it, I would like to hear about it. I've been playing a lot of Sims and to me it sounds like Sims with multiple players..
I can't remember who wrote it but I can only agree with that person about the fact that this Hero guy sounds like he has some problems in his real life and therefore have to live his life through the metaverse a thing that I think people who uses their computer way to much has in commen.
When I went to elementry school the girls that spend to most time in front of the computer was also the girls that had the biggest problems at home...

Cyberpunk and Snow Crash

This weeks readings were quite interesting to me and I really did enjoy them..surprise! The book Snow Crash starts the story of a pizza delivery guy. I was very confused at the beginning since as a reader it just starts talking about weird things like "The Deliverator." It took a while but the more pages I read the more I started to kind of understand what was going on. The book is set in a future that we could really be near. The protagonist Hiro is a true life nerd but wishes to be more in his metaverse. He says that he works for a place that is run by the mafia which is quite interesting because I can't say that in my wildest dreams I would have ever said that the mafia runs pizza joints. It's weird to think that people do get totally lost in this whole make believe life that they can have for themselves though. It intreguies me to think that maybe if I wanted to I could be a totally different person in a different universe (i.e. the internet) I could. I personally find it a little scary because of the fact that I would never want to be so convinced that I was someone else that I became that person. This makes me think about the whole "Clark Rockefeller" guy that kidnapped his own child and now claims to be someone he really isn't. Whether he is truely insane and can't remember his real self or if he is just a really good liar no one will ever know. I watched an interview with him and he was so set on being a Rockefeller that when he was asked questions about his true identity of Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter he simply didn't know what they were talking about. Isn't it scary to think that someday this could happen to everyone. People could get so confused about who they really are with all this metaverse stuff that the whole world could eventually never have a "real" person around.

I think this reading really did do a good job of showing what a cyberpunk is. In the cyberpunk reading it says "classic cyberpunk characters were marginalized, alienated loners who lived on the edge of society..." This sounds exactly like how Hiro was described in the reading. I hope that some day our lives don't all revolve around a metaverse...but I guess only time and technology will tell.

Metaverse's Daemon's, and Hypercard's....oh my!

Ok, first I must just say that I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that Stephenson referred to minivans as "bimbo boxes"--it just made me laugh. Now, onto more important and relevant matters.

I found this book overall to be one that although was set in the future, is not really that far away and brings up some points for discussion.

First, one point that I think is already an issue. On p. 10 the pizza guy actually gets ticked b/c communication can be piped into the car and he gets annoyed that the owner wants to come talk face to face like he is "some kind of ox cart driver."

The guy would rather use a technological mode of communication than face-to-face. I would argue with the use of e-mail and texting that that has already occurred. People(myself included) use it as a barrier and a way to actually avoid face-to-face interaction.

Also problematic to me is when he discusses on p. 64 the interaction of business men in the Metaverse. They dress up their avatars and actually conduct meetings. This gives a whole new meaning to commuting or a Global Virtual Team! They "consider it as good as face-to-face" yet they "more or less ignore what is being said-a lot gets lost in translation, after all." He later goes on to say that they pay attention to nonverbals--but yikes. Do we want the businessmen of tomorrow conducting important deals through a computer generated avatar. They don't even pay attention to what is being said--yet it is as good as face-to-face---what?! Does anyone else think this could be a breakdown in our commerce system if this is the future of business?

I actually think this alternative universe, Metaverse, sounds kind of cool, but I just wonder about the psychological ramifications...if you can do whatever you want in there--how does that affect life in Reality?

I would also like to discuss the hazy meanign of of the word library on p. 22. He says that everything got put into maching readable form.With the emergence of everything going online--do you ever think the library as we know it will disappear? Is reading a book that was sent to you on your Iphone and then you read it really the same experience?

This might be a stretch, but do you think that in essence Facebook has become a bit like the Metaverse? Let me explain.

On p. 24 "Hiro spent a lot of time in the Metaverse. it beats the s...t out of the U-Stor-It." I know that most of us wouldn't ever think we were as far gone as the people that create avatars and live in Second Life are, but when we get on Facebook we can portray whatever person we want to be. Even the pictures we upload can tell something about ourselves and the "life" we want to portray in the cyber world. Example...I can upload pics of me at my aunt and uncle's million dollar lake home that looks like I'm livin' it up..but in reality I have no apartment and live with my other aunt and uncle in CR and am completely stressed out trying to finish my Master's and look for a job so I can rent an apartment...but to anyone else it looks like I just get to spend the time of my life in luxury. I thought I'd ffer an example from my own real vs. virtual life and how maybe that isn't so far of a stretch from what Stephenson was discussing.

"Cyberpunk" and Snow Crash

Cyberpunk is sort of a love it or hate it thing for many people, but I think Snow Crash is a good example of being "dorky" in your presentation, but having a really great sense of humor in the prose. I think some of the reasons this book works is because the happenings are so absurd, but there is some satirical workings behind it all.

The premise is like some other media coined "cyberpunk" where there are dead-beat characters living as every man or woman for themselves in a hostile and crazy environment. I'll echo the other comments that the claims about a future as portrayed in the novel are not completely far off (Online dating, avatars, virtual reality). The internet is going in directions that lead toward virtual reality and there are already some examples for many with Second Life, World of Warcraft, forums, etc. that allow people to portray themselves to others in a different and more favorable way than they can in real-life.

There may be certain ideas you can take from this work of literature, but I think a big part of cyberpunk is about reacting to the new technologies in the late 80's and early 90's. Computers and the internet was boasting radically changing social functions of society. Naturally, people will respond to a radical claim radically, so cyberpunk feels like a sort bizarre look on what might happen by taking elements of the present and putting a twist on it. I think Stephenson is doing something similar in trying to propose some "what if's" about our government and how are society is functioning. Could we have something like a Metaverse and will everything become corporations? I guess that's something we have to let hackers find out in the future.

Response Numero Three

"In some cyberpunk writing, much of the action takes place online, in cyberspace, blurring the border between actual and virtual reality" (Wikipedia). As illustrated in the book Snow Crash the Metaverse is a simulated world, much like the virtual reality depicted in the Matrix movies.
The plot in the Snow Crash reading reminded me of the plot in the Matrix - which also falls into the cyberpunk genre - and just how a virtual reality is utilized just as much as the actual world. The thing about a virtual space is that its hard to distinguish the real world from the simulated world. In fact, I had to go back and read a couple paragraphs to see if I as the reader was in reality or the Metaverse.
The cyberpunk article also explained how the "post industrial dystopia" world of cyberpunk genre include its good guys and its bad guys. The thing about the postmodern future of a cyberpunk story is that its heroes embody skills in hacking, a knowledgeable skill that can be considered criminal in our society today. Hiro has skills in hacking and also sword-fighting. Most skills in Snow Crash that are virtual are encoded, while they can also be REAL skills. Of course, much of the mentality in cyberpunk society is "survival of the fittest," not knowing who to trust but yourself. So, having attainable skills and encoded skills are essential in order to protect one's self against a uniformed, virtual space capable of controlling the activities within one's environment.
While reading our assigned readings, I noted a couple of things that can apply to our present-day experience with communication technologies. For one, our society has somewhat reached a cyberpunk state, in that its become technologically advanced and that the power technology has is determined by what POWER we want our technologies to behold. For instance, in Snow Crash, its almost as if the total power and control coded into the Metaverse world conceived the virtual space to become its own species, a species that protagonists such as Hiro and Y.T. strive to fight against to save themselves from danger and threat. Of course, that virtual power and control is at the expense of how much human power and control is invested in the space. Another observation is that the internet is somewhat of a pre-requisite to a reality that is hard to distinguish from true reality. The internet has become a place where everybody who is online exists with others who are online. Profiles, avatars, and PayPal accounts portray characters who exist at the control of the online-user. Since our society is capable of buying and selling "online," some retail sites now allow PayPal users to pay for items online, all within the comfort of one's home and never having to step foot outside to go to the store.
It would be cool if someone wrote a cyberpunk book that illustrated virtual-ghosts, like those people who have a low-profile online and utilize the internet without one's knowledge of their online existence.

Snow Crash

I have to admit that I enjoyed reading the first thirteen pages of the novel Snow Crash a lot more than I thought I would going into it. I noticed that the Metaverse closely resembled the Internet that we use today, in that people connect to it to get away from problems in their real life and things like that, and that they can create avatars or different kinds of profiles of themselves that don’t necessarily have to be anything like what they are in real life. For a lot of people that is how they get by or overcome fears that they have. I remember there was a segment on some show on MTV about this girl who would write her own songs, but wasn’t able to perform them in front of people because she had stage fright. Her solution was to perform her songs for people through her avatar on Second Life, in front of other people’s avatars, rather than her actually playing her songs in front of other real people. Another little thing that I found interesting was that the main character’s name was Hiro (Hero) Protagonist. Lastly, reading about “cyberpunk” on Wikipedia made me rethink about some things that I hadn’t realized would be considered cyberpunk, like movies such as The Matrix and Minority Report. I had no idea that the whole technological future/sci-fi stuff had it’s own genre, but if it is anything like Snow Crash, I think I would enjoy some of it.

Cyberpunk and Snow Crash

I think Snow Crash not only portrayed the world of cyberpunk, but the corrupt nature of the society that Neal Stephenson believes is dawning.

The protagonist of the story, aptly named Hiro Protagonist, is a pizza delivery man in "Reality." The pizza company he works for, CosaNostra Pizza, is run by the mafia and swears by the '30-minutes or it's free' rule. CosaNostra tends to get its employees as a result of them owing the mafia 'a favor.' Workers live in fear while on the job because their lives are in danger if they do not deliver their pizzas on time. I believe this can be considered a microcosm of the government that is in place today, a government that fuels itself on fear. Stephenson could be hinting that if this type of rule continues, everything including pizza companies could be run in that fashion.

Another distinct part of this future society that Stephenson portrays is the over-capitalistic state of it. Privatization goes to the extreme as jails and even law enforcement take the form of private companies. I believe this is Stephenson's warning of the greedy nature of capitalism.

Something that I thought was funny and also related to an article that we went through during Tara's presentation concerned the avatars that people picked or could construct for the Metaverse. Some didn't take their avatar very seriously and took the form of random things like dongs. However, some people were very concerned about the appearance of their avatar because they dated within the Metaverse. Things similar to this may even exist, but I can see avatar dating becoming something that happens in the future. Unlike the millenial thinker, however, I don't believe it will be a common, everyday occurrence.

I wanna be a Hacker!!

Snow Crash, an interesting Novel, to say the least. Poor dorky pizza delivery boy in Reality, super cool ninja sword man wearing long black trench coat in the Metaverse. Who wouldn't want to live in Virtual Reality. I was reminded of Batman and his oober cool bat mobile when the Deliverator was "risking" his life to deliver his pizza on time in the beginning of the story. He was doing every day things but would somehow switch over to this fantasy world to make his life easier to cope with. It baffled me how the littlest of things could become something huge and completely different in his VR world. This entire world is created by the imagination. You can be whatever you want to be and fight crimes with the baddest of evils ( the government/corporations). Hackers are the protagonists fighting injustices; saving the universe one swipe of the sword at a time.
Basically saying, those who cant fit into the norm socially, create their own lives and social networks through VR. Im sorry, but I could not help but laugh while reading this book. It did open my eyes to the many uses of the "Cyber World" today, take for example books, music, movies, and video games. Take for example, The Matrix. This was completely based from cyberpunk relations. Focusing on high tech and low life. Neo, living a secret life as a hacker under "Neo". He wishes to learn the answer to the question, "What is the Matrix?" Cryptic messages appearing on his computer monitor and an encounter with several sinister agents in order to give normalcy to innocent people.

I loved this weeks readings, I wish I were a nerdy computer hacker.

Content Aware Image Resizing

Here's a link to that video I talked about in class. It's pretty amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIFCV2spKtg

Totally Relevant Facebook Example

You're fired. Goodbye.

http://www.switched.com/2008/09/10/most-embarrassing-online-mishaps-2

Neal Stephensen=Nathan Eple (there is no 'y')

The metaverse. Cool. This guy has nerd written all over him. The kind of nerd that gets picked on so much in high school he locks himself in his room with a computer and stack of Japanamation comics every weekend. Maybe even convinces himself he is a ninja? "Cyberpunk" or glorified nerd? What I did like about the novel is the difference between the Metaverse and Reality. Capital R. At any given moment you may be in one or the other or both, like when he plugs into the cigarette lighter of the car. How to tell the difference if Hiro is in the Metaverse or Reality-if he is a broke loser it is definitely Reality. If he is a popular sword-carrying ninja it is the Metaverse. It is also interesting that everything in Reality is Incorporated, especially the government. Stephensen has taken millennial thinking to a whole new super paranoid level where in the future there is nothing but corporations and mafias and the governments keep track of your every move. Now even the Metaverse is being threatened by drug corruption and a foreshadowed apocalypse. You can call him a cyberpunk but I will call him a nerd.

Wow! Reading the Gillespie article in particular really reinforced my opinion on not being such a fan of politics. Building bridges and surfing the internet or watching TV are activities that I would generally not associate with politics (unless you’re watching those ever-so-popular bashing the other party political commercials) but it seems that anything can and is turned into a political statement. It’s just too much to consider, so I like to keep political issues to the basics, like foreign policy, the economy, and things that are important. I don’t care where bridges are built, or what people look at on the web.

In Sterne’s article, the story about the student relying on the university for her computer and Web uses made me think of some of my own experiences. While I have my own computer, I often use the university’s for printing. I have also noticed that during the end of the semester, or any other time you really need the computer for that matter, they are all full.

Why are american people so afraid of the Internet (facebook)?

After reading the articles, the posts and having been in the US for about three weeks, I'm beginning to see this paternt in what students and teachers say about the Internet and especially Facebook. Lots of you are afraid of what Facebook can do to your life and your future. I don't know if is just because I have only knew Facebook for some months, but I don't really see all the problems that a lot of you see. Yes you can get addicted to it, yes your employer can find out about things about you and yes if you write in your status that your are away from your house the next days, weeks, months somebody could rob your house, but seriously about the addiction; no matter what you do in life if you do it to much it's not a good thing. And if you just think a bit about what you post on your profile, than it shouldn't be that much of a problem if an employer finds you.. I would really like to hear from you, what you are so afraid of since I don't really understand it.

I think that most girls in their first year of college can relate to the part in Sternes article when he talks about the girl racing around campus to check her email and to chat with her friends... all relying on the use of the university's computer systems. I know I did. I think its crazy how our social and educational life is so depicted from the availability of the Internet and the computers. This really made me examine my life. How much I am online, what I am doing, if its worthy of my time, especially when I am online "creeping" on people on facebook, which I can really be doing something better with me time. These things all came to my mind from reading this article. Then when cultural studies is trying to be defined again, this just brought back painful memories from my lit class, when we spent many a class times defining cultural studies and I became more and more confused each day. I still dont have an entire grasping on the definition from this article, I basically learned that the environment plays a roll in on the display and meaning of cultural studies. He talks about the chapter which is entitled, "Cultural Studies Does the Internet" and explains that now a days, culturals studies is basically the Internet and how its role has consumed our lives. I like this part because it doesnt go into the method, but its real meaning and relation to things that I can relate to. That to me is what is the most common form of media studies today, the Internet.