Now this is what I call Team Work!

The Importance of Google Maps in Darfur

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has teamed up with Google Maps to bring visualization to the Crisis in Darfur. The Museums mapping initiatives are intended to collate and provide evidence through digital media and eyewitness testimony in Google Earth "to help inform citizens, governments, and institutions about current and potential genocides and related crimes against humanity". These types of initiatives are essentialy to the spread and understanding of the nature of genocides. Putting events to maps provides users with relatable information, and provides a context in which citizens are forced to face this travesty face-to-face.

The personal testimonies on the Google Map's layers of attacks in Darfur provide a completely personal experience and connection with the horrible occurrences in Darfur. This personal connection can provide users with powerful incentive to create change, or at least spread the word of what exactly is going on overseas.

Lisa Parks of UC Santa Barbara believes there are issues with the interface, as well as criticizes Google for its "involvement in the Crisis in Darfur project and use of it to market and extend its brand name..." Although the corporation's involvement in such a politically charged subject-matter can only be beneficial when trying to spread the word about the crisis, I do agree that Google's involvement will certainly only help their public image. Parks also argues that there is a disconnect between social and political change and showing images and testimonials online. She believes that just displaying digital documentations of the travesties occuring in Darfur isn't enough to ensue political change.

Google's involvement not only shows their interest in improving the lives and situations of others, but I think the company is using it's power and popularity to spread information about a very important issue. An issue that needs to be addressed and dealt with before our world is affected by any more genocides.

-Kate Aronson

US uses taxpayer dollars to purchase/destroy war memoir

The US Pentagon purchased 9,500 copies of a war memoir written by US Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer and subsequently burned them because they were deemed to be “a threat to national security.” The publisher was paid almost $50,000 of taxpayer dollars for printing costs before the book was pulled from the press.

A second, edited version of the book is going to be released; Operation Dark Heart: Spycraft and Special Ops on the Frontlines of Afghanistan, with some portions blocked out.

The New York Times acquired a copy of the book previous to the Pentagon pulling it from the publishers. The Times described the book as “a breezily written, first-person account of Colonel Shaffer’s five months in Afghanistan in 2003.” Wikileaks is said to release a copy soon.

These actions should be met with scrutiny by journalists and American citizens. Is the government trying to cover up unlawful actions taken during war? It definitely wouldn’t be the first time.

-Kate Aronson

Will Free Speech in China Ever Truly Exist?

Rebecca MacKinnon argues that the internet is a tool for political change in China. "Given the right circumstances, online citizens’ media such as blogs may indeed facilitate, amplify, and accelerate these causes. But blogs will not be the cause." She is under the assumption that people acting in large numbers under confident, persuasive leaders will be the cause of political change in China.

Blogging and freedom of speech are important to ensuing political and social change; however, with China owning "the most extensive, technologi-cally sophisticated, and broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world" (OpenNet Initiative 2005), the Chinese government has a lot of control over what type of information it's citizens can see.

Take the example of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. This event began with some intellectuals and students protesting the Chinese political system. The group of protestors eventually grew to be well over what the Chinese government believed was reasonable, and subsequently planned an attack on the protestors. Chinese military began approaching the square from all corners of the city. Protestors ran into the streets to block military tanks and vehicles, but were met with open fire.

The Chinese government reported 241 dead and 7,000 wounded; however, a document in Soviet archives suggested the actual death toll was around 3,000 protestors. The worst part is the the Chinese government tried to erase this massacre from its history.

The country has blocked all access to information about the massacre inside country lines. The government even blocked pages of the Economist which featured an article about the 10-year anniversary of the incident.

Can blogs create social change? Not when the government's technological sophistication mixed with its relentless communism block the majority from conspiring to have a voice. In order for this to change, the political structure of the government has to drastically change. However, communism has been running deep in China's blood fro quite sometime now; I don't see it erupting into anarchy anytime soon.

-Kate

The truth about Wikileaks, according to GAP

In this video: Jesselyn Radack breaks down the truth about Wikileaks and its importance to free speech and the empowerment of American citizens. Radack is Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project. The GAP is a leading advocacy organization for whistleblowers. Be sure to check out her column in The Daily Kos too, where this story was originally posted.

-Kate

Why you should forget your lucky stars and thank Iceland.

tl;dr: On June 16th, 2010 Iceland’s parliament made history by unanimously passing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative. This government initiative, spearheaded by Wikileak’s editors Julian Assange and Daniel Schmitt, will [hopefully] change the way we view freedom of information on the net.

Iceland: Population 320,000.

In September of 2008, the country experienced, per capita, the largest economic meltdown of any western society to date. Before this point, the country was rolling in it; some citizens were making up to 1 million dollars a month. During this surge in Iceland’s economy, the country made some shaky business decisions. Iceland ended up borrowing over 6 times what the country produced in a year, and ended up investing most of it in a little something from the United States called Mortgage-backed securities. (And we all know how that ended up). The downfall of the mortgage market cause Iceland’s economy to fall as well…and hard. Almost overnight, Iceland lost everything, and the Icelandic people began to demand answers.

On July 30th, 2009, Wikileaks released a 209-page document revealing shaky loans and shady insider trading of Iceland’s largest bank, Kaupthing. Kaupthing obviously didn’t like this kind of exposure, so soon after it’s release, the bank tried to hide it’s dirty laundry by filing for an injunction against Iceland’s national broadcaster, RÚV. The injunction was granted just prior to RÚV going on-air to cover the matter of the newly exposed documents on Wikileaks. Needless to say, the Icelandic people were not happy when Kaupthing, a publicly-owned entity, was trying to hide relevant information from its very owners: the public.

Frustrated and tired of their government making decisions for them, the people of Iceland decided to make a change in the transparency of information, and to prevent the recurrence of RÚV’s experience with Kaupthing. So, the founders of Wikileaks got together and wrote up a proposal. By using some of the strongest and most progressive legal language from countries such as Belgium, France and The United States, Assange and Schmitt created guidelines for which information and its messengers can be preserved and protected. And out of this desire, the Icelandic Modern Media Imitative was born. Respectfully known as IMMI (pronounced “emmy”), this initiative was passed unanimously in the Icelandic Parliament. The IMMI is the most progressive set of media laws in the world and will hopefully inspire other countries to take the same steps in protecting information and upholding transparency.

My Ordinary Moments

This was a class assignment, and sort of a self-portrait of my outrageously ordinary moments.

Bonnaroo is Love!

I went to Bonnaroo. It was wonderful. More on that in a moment. Look at this video I made on my way to the festival.



Whoo! I'm actually really proud of how this video turned out. Not to mention Josh is hilarious. It's funny because I based another project of mine from something he had written in the past; it's almost like he's my muse. I wonder if someone could get paid for that. hmm.

Anyway, Bonnaroo was amazing. The first night we saw 6 concerts in 3 hours. It was overwhelming, but awesome. The second night I saw my all-time favorite band, THE FLAMING LIPS. And literally fell in love with Wayne Coyne. He is old, but still has it. His stage presence is strong and confident, and his creative energy runs rampant through his audience. His eclectic uses of video and audio equipment provide a strange, cerebral experience for the concert as well. Not to mention, The Flaming Lips' version of Dark Side of the Moon is pretty incredibly done.

I was close to 5 rows back, and I touched his foot when he got in the hamster ball. It was really cool. The rest of the weekend we sat around a lot and basked in the sun. One of the concerts we went to was none other than THE Stevie Wonder, who, surprisingly, put on a really incredible show. Laura and I went with our self-proclaimed theme and danced like old ladies in between naps. The last day we snuck out early and went to a waterfall near Manchester, TN. All in all, the whole weekend was just magnificent.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to it. I love you all.

Storytelling is important for the proliferation of societies!

Kate Aronson
Storytelling for New Media
Adam Brackin
April 27, 2010

KatesEpicStory

Stories have been shared since humans muttered their first syllables. It is the method by which we communicate our feelings, our perceptions and our experiences. Story telling is essential for the development of concepts, religions, even societies as a whole. Storytelling is often fun, collaborative and inspiring. Upon initialization of my own storytelling process, these were the attributes I wanted to implement in the development of my own project. In addition to a collaborative effort, I wanted to employ a strategy using social media and emergent properties. Thus, I fell upon the concept of KatesEpicStory.

During the brainstorming process I knew it would be in the story’s best interest to implement a plan using social media. Because of the sheer numbers of users on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, I thought the project would be easier to advertise and execute if it were on a medium users were already comfortable with. I also knew I wanted interactivity within my in order to make the process more entertaining for users. My first iteration included a pre-made story, which would be hyped up using real-world elements such as t-shirts and flyers. After the initial hype, I would slowly release parts of the story via microblogging platforms such as Twitter and Facebook status updates. I eventually threw this idea out because I foresaw users not sticking around; I knew it didn’t have enough interactivity to keep the attention span of my cohorts. I then came upon a plan which used a well-balanced mixture of social media, interactivity, and emergent properties. I wanted to hone in on the creativity of the masses, so I devised a course of action to utilize each of these elements, and I called this method KatesEpicStory.

I chose the name KatesEpicStory because I wanted it to be distinctive enough to remember, yet something familiar enough so that people would participate. I chose to eliminate the spaces in the title as the quality of distinction. This also made branding the story easier because website URLs and Twitter handles do not have spaces. I used my name in the title as something familiar, because I knew my friends would trust what I was asking them to do something constructive. I wanted to use epic in the name because that is exactly the direction I wanted the story to go, and luckily, that is the exact direction it went.

Understanding the importance of visual literacy, I wanted to choose a graphic which would be eye-catching and easy to remember. I wasn’t sure what to use, but I stumbled upon a funny and slightly ambiguous drawing of a man in a suit with a plastic bag over his head. I liked the color scheme and thought it would be a good branding tool for my story. The artist was David Creighton-Pester, a graphic designer based out of Hamilton, New Zealand. After efforts of contacting him for permission to use his graphic turned out to be unsuccessful, I chose to use the graphic anyways, but sited the source on the side of the image. I was satisfied with the graphic, but I added a purple background and text which read “KatesEpicStory” in order to brand my story further. I even made the graphic my personal profile picture on Facebook to both create hype and allow users to make the connection between the story and the brand. It worked, because the storytelling process was more successful than I had originally predicted.

KatesEpicStory consists of a short introduction from which users could add their own variations of what came next in the story. The effort was a general success; 21 people added to the story, and it ended up being an interestingly messy collaboration. The story itself was all over the board. The main character’s name was Sammy, and the story began with him in his room, cleaning up a pile of dirty clothes. The story then turns to Sammy falling downward, cascading into a world of pigs. This world was equipped with a Scientologist Kraken, a hot-air balloon, Sammy’s junkie father, and an elephant named Brainy Jim. The story came to a literary pause when Sammy was awoken from his dream, so I continued the story by adding a chapter two. This chapter didn’t get as many entries as the first chapter, but it allowed the story to end in a logically entertaining manner. Overall, this story was absolutely a pleasure to read, and through this experience I have learned that collaborative creativity is a positively useful tool.

As a whole, this project was quite a cool experience. It has shown me that anyone can tell a story, and that tapping into the creativity of the masses is easy, and allows users to feel part of something that is bigger than them. The overall purpose of the project was fulfilled in my eyes, mainly because of the engaging response of users. It turned out to be a success because I used platforms such as Facebook that were familiar to the people I wanted to participate. I also advertised on Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger with hyperlinks to the story, so it would be easy to access. I chose a graphic, which was funny and slightly ambiguous, so that people could gain interest in and remember the story. I was surprised at how little I had to advertise the process in order for it to gain momentum. The secret was to make it easy for users to link to the story, read, and add their own input. Overall, this was really interesting, and I would like to see how I can implement creative collaboration in the future with other media.

Question: Music may be art, but it is also big business. To what degree do you think independent artists actually have a shot at "making it" today?

If we are going to answer this question properly, we must first explore what the term "making it" actually entails. It could really mean a variety of things, ranging anywhere from making it to the top 40 charts or winning a Grammy to selling out your first venue or showing up on a college radio station. If it were my band, I would probably just be happy with the latter two options, but the positions of the authors of the book would say otherwise.

First, I will touch on my opinion on the matter. Ever since 10th grade, I have been listening to music that generally can't be heard on the radio; "indie" music, if you will. Now, this "indie" music in my opinion has always risen above the quality of music that I find on the top-40 radio stations, as it is safe to say that the usual top-40 stuff sounds alike. From my personal experience of only listening to "indie" music, I would have to say that yes, independent artists do have a chance at getting big, it just may not be the usual direction as, say a top-40 artist would take.

Take the band The Flaming Lips for example. The group formed in 1983, releasing their debut album in 1986. The band is still together, and just released two full-length albums in 2009 (Embryonic, and a cover album of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon). Their song "Do You Realize??" was also unanimously voted as the official rock song of Oklahoma (due to the band's formation and residency in OK City). With all of this sucess, during the Flaming Lips' history, I have yet to hear any of their singles on any top-40 radio station. The band has also been awarded only three Grammys during their 27 year history. Yet, does this define them as unsuccessful? In my opinion, it does not.

The Flaming Lips would have sided with Chuck Salter in his argument that there is a way behind the power of the record company promoters. Salter and John Legend agree that there are ways to get around the music conglomerates; especially with the rise of Web 2.0 and the extended use of social networking, music and media blogs, and digital transfer of music files. Boehlert argues that radio has become ridden with cookie-cutter music, and that this problem is due to record promoters influencing radio's choice of music.

I agree with Boehlert, the radio has become overwhelmed with music that is no longer creative; it all sounds the same, with the same catchy beat that's fun to dance to. If what he says is accurate, that the indie promoters of the music world are bringing the industry down, then I say, artists who actually want to make music for the sake of music (think, The Mountain Goats, Neutral Milk Hotel), then by all means, find another way to pay the bills. Don't rely on the potential of "making it big" (think, Brittany Spears, U2) by intelligently using the internet.

Radiohead for example, is another extremely well-respected band who has been together since 1985. They have won three Grammys for "Best Alternative Album", and even sold their last album In Rainbows via digital media outlets, allowing customers to set their own price. The band sold three million copies of their album, all without a record label (on the digital media). Radiohead's front man Thom Yorke told Time, "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'Fuck you' to this decaying business model."

Even Yorke agrees that the music is more about the business than the music. In conclusion, you asked if independent musicians can make it big within the music market today. My simple answer: yes, they surely can, but it will take much patience, and a strategic utilization of internet and information resources.

Delicious Recipe: Mayonnaise-free tuna salad

(The Secret ingredient is honey)

As I was preparing to make tuna salad in my college apartment, I realized my mayonnaise had long since expired, and since eggs and oil are nothing to mess with once gone bad, I decided to play it safe and toss the stuff. With no mayo around the apartment, I had to turn to something else. What follows is that something else. Read carefully and please feel free to try this at home! It's an awesome low-fat version of our favorite comfort food.

1 small can tuna fish
2 hard-boiled eggs
1/8 cup chopped bread and butter pickles (or pickle relish to taste)
1 tablespoon guava jelly (or pineapple, or peach; any light-colored jellies that do not have too-strong of a taste)
1 tablespoon applesauce
1 teaspoon honey

Mix together; enjoy! This is a cheap, healthy option for a light and quick meal! Don't be afraid to enjoy this on bagel chips or my personal favorite, sweet potato chips.

Is mobile technology

Is mobile technology fucking with society?

Let me elaborate. I'm sitting at a trendy coffee shop in Houston, and as I look around I see quiet readers, college kids getting their caffiene fix, people watchers, and in the day and age - the inevitible; techies wrapped up in their mobile devices. It seems like everywhere I look kids' conversaion and socilizing is being I interrupted by the use of their iPhones. When did this become okay? Just the other day I was spending long-lost time with old high school friends in a rather quiet and intimate environment. Of course we each had our phones at our sides the whole time, and whenever they went off, I woul only be rude tothe sender not to answer. But what about us? It seems as though my conversations keep becomming interrupted by communication on the outside. I mean even right now, I'm sitting with my friend Lindsay, trying to play a game of backgammon, but instead I'm writing this blog, and she is texting a friends named reuy asking for boy advice. Are conversations becomming limited to only what can fit into an text bubble? And whatever can command our attention just long enough to respond? Where are our social skills headed with this kind of interaction? Are our wal social circles turning from something tangible to something a bit more...technological?

Stuff Hipsters Like

So I was at a Radio UTD dance party the other day, and like any other college radio station, Radio UTD has its fair share of hipsters. At said dance party, I noticed that these quote-unquote hipsters had a few things in common. So, I took the liberty of compiling a list of things you can do that would make you seen and be scene. Here's the list.

1. coffee
2. pointy shoes
3. apathy
4. other hipsters
5. Pitchfork Media
6. skinny jeans
7. wayfarers
8. satchels
9. plaid
10. American Apparel
11. vegetarianism/veganism
12. v-neck shirts
13. nose rings/septum piercings
14. thrift stores
15. sticking it to the man
16. obscure references to English literature
17. irony
18. paisley
19. going green
20. not liking other people's music
21. Ayn Rand
22. cut-off jeans
23. photography
24. plain-colored clothing
25. distinguished looking shoes
26. funny-looking haircuts
27. thick-rimmed glasses
28. vests
29. live music
30. elicit drug use
31. looking disheveled
32. music festivals
33. male cardigans
34. Members Only
35. the 80's
36. partying together
37. homo-erotic references
38. cheap liquor
39. Polaroid instant cameras
40. themed parties
41. NPR
42. Moleskines
43. mustaches
44. long hair
45. bleans
46. Pabst Blue Ribbon
47. nicotine
48. high-tops
49. sitting in circles
50. cloves
51. Tom's Shoes
52. cheap clothes
53. clothes that look cheap but are expensive
54. dance parties
55. pretending they are different than other hipsters
56. vintage
57. faux-vintagel
58. obscurely-themed parties
59. ironic / strange tattoos
60. their own music tastes
61. novels
62. Helvetica
63. hair straighteners
64. swooping bangs
65. poorly attended parties
66. scarves
67. The Mountain Goats
68. black music that actual black people don't listen to
69. ironic detachment
70. puppies
71. not working out
72. Neutral Milk Hotel
73. the proliferation of individuality
74. Barack Obama
75. integrating the internet into social situations
76. Hanukkah


Self-explanatory enough. If you're actually reading this and you have more stuff hipsters like that you would like to see on this list, comment below, or else. Or else what, you ask? Or else there will be no comment by you. Also, stuff hipsters like will be publishing a book in 2013. Keep an open eye. DON'T BLINK UNTIL 2013.

Passion Pit Needs No Lessons on Manners

Passion Pit
Manners
Rating: 8.5/10
RIYL: Phoenix, Cut Copy, Daft Punk, LCD Soundsystem, Deerhoof

Experts say that fashion trends come in waves. I say the same goes for music. Let’s give a quick recap of the last 30 years in music:
The 1970’s were swept away with several sub-genres of rock, such as psychadelic, surf, progressive, garage, blues, and roots. The mid-seventies also saw a rise in a genre that defined much of the culture in that decade: Disco.

Scenes such as Studio 54 rose out of the dust during the 1980’s. Saturday Night Fever and Flashdance were brought to the screen, and the Man in the Moon with the Cocaine Spoon carried people through grueling nights of grooving.

The 80’s and 90’s gave way to dance, glam rock, pop, and electronica. Raves were the rage as people still chose to dance through the night. Even through today, these genres still find their home in the stereo speakers of the youth.
All of this leads to now. Dance, pop, and electronica influences from back in the day are coming back in full swing, with a bit of a contemporary twist. A whirlwind example: the surprisingly young Passion Pit.

The band unofficially formed in 2007 when lead vocalist Michael Angelakos composed songs as a Valentines gift for his then-girlfriend. This creation gained popularity where Angelakos was attending college and eventually evolved into Passion Pit’s first EP Chuck of Change. The band released Manners on May 19th earlier this year. Since its release, Manners has gained momentum in its popularity and respect from the masses.

This album is one of the best American electronica/dance albums of the year. With its tingling melodies mashed with unfastened beats and sexy boyish vocals, Passion Pit has successfully pieced together an extremely danceable, yet quite respectable first full-feature album.

Tracks worth checking out include “Little Secrets”, “Moths Wings”, “The Reeling”, “Folds in Your Hands”, and of course, the single “Sleepyhead” where everything is going to the beat.


Video: The Reeling

when indie music is no longer indie

I was watching the Texas/Nebraska game, and two supposedly "indie" (or what I considered indie) songs came on the television.

Art for Art's sake?

When you enter "Frank Yang" into the search bar of YouTube, the site returns amateur videos of hardcore workout sessions. But don't be quick to judge. View more videos posted by YouTube user digitalairair, and you are opened to the expressive, artistic, fucked up world of Frank Yang and his quote-unquote art.

The first Frank Yang video I experienced was a compilation of shots of Yang destroying his room wearing nothing but his mother's tiny underwear. With his brother on the bed screaming "how long is this going to take clean up?!" he tears up his belongings with rage and disgust. These action shots included scene cuts of Yang vomiting, reading out of a dream journal about eating out his mom's pussy, playing the fiddle, and masturbating. The first thing that came to my mind was: What. The. Fuck. It was like watching a car accident; it hurt to watch, but I just couldn't look away. Immersing myself in this video was like watching a psychotic rage party at the local mental hospital. Was this even real?

The video was aptly titled Entropy aka Ultimate Workout. On a sidebar next to the video, an artist statement is given. It explains the origins of the video are that for years he has been fighting entropy by "by meticulously cleaning, maintaining, and organizing fruitless material objects in a habitual manner." In addition to wrestling entropy, he eloquently concludes that we define who we are by the objects we keep, and that his ragefest and video was his way of putting an end to his personal consumerism.

But my question was, was all of this really necessary? Yang concludes "If nothing else, the result of this disturbing anarchic served as a kind of wake-up call, as it raised interesting questions about the nature of my identity and my relationship to the world I made." Whatever makes you feel better, dude. He categorizes his video under comedy. I'm pretty sure that's the only funny thing about it.

Danger Mouse vs Girl Talk

The Grey Album was a mash-up album made by DJ Danger Mouse released in 2004. The album features a cappella samples of Jay-Z's Black Album and mixes it with dozens of unauthorized samples taken from The Beatles' LP The Beatles(more commonly known as the White Album). Danger Mouse released limited copies of his work to a few outlets of the internet. The album quickly gained popularity and the amount of attention caught the ears of EMI, the copyright holder of The Beatles. The body quickly ordered the DJ to stop production of the album. The funny thing is, only the copyright holders of the Beatles' works were upset about the mash. Jay-Z's a cappella album was also copyrighted material; however, it was produced with the implicit purpose of creating mashups. Below is a video the song "Encore" featuring samples from "Savoy Truffle" and "Glass Onion".



The mashup is beautifully done. So much so it creates a brand new song; with its own personality and sound. So if Danger Mouse got in so much trouble, what about Girl Talk?

Girl Talk is a DJ artist specializing in mixing and mashups. However, GT uses dozens of samples from copyrighted material. New York Times Magazine called Girl Talk's music "a lawsuit waiting to happen." Below is a video of Girl Talk's "Once Again".



The funny thing about this video is just that: the video clips used to make this video mash are also copyrighted material. So how does Girl Talk get away with what he does? Assembling of songs from other recordings has been done since the beginning of recorded and published music. Most recently, mashups have been featured in and have featured rap and hip-hop songs. Much of Girl Talk's work consists of hip-hop samples. Not to mention, Jay-Z really didn't get that upset when Danger Mouse sampled his work. So, the conlcusion looks to be, if you want to make a mash-up, use mostly hip-hop samples, and stray far away from anything Beatles.

Have You heard?

It is a ripe Rhode Island morning. Three-Fourths of the Griffin men are present at the kitchen table. Dog and writer/actor Brian begin to read the Quahog Informant. Peter, father and head-of-the-household asks Brian to view said periodical. As Peter flips through the Informant he confusingly grunts into the paper. Peter inquisitively asks about the absence of an important piece, which he had thought to be missing from his periodical.

Concerned, Brian asked Peter for further explanation. Peter claims:

“Well there seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece; a headline regarding mass awareness of a certain avian variety.”

Inquisitively, Brian wonders what Peter is talking about, Stewie, Peter’s baby, then quickly warns Brian to not be so inquisitive. Suddenly, Peter jumps up from his chair and with an animated glaze in his eyes, starts metrically pumping his arms up-and-down. As Brian stares questioningly in Peter’s direction, Peter begins to clarify that,

“Oh, well a bird-bird-bird. B-bird’s is the word. Brian! Don’t you know about the bird? Well Peter’s gonna tell you about the bird! Oh, well a bird-bird-bird. B-bird’s is the word. Surfi-“

Suddenly, in the midst of his explanation, Peter starts to experience what seems like a seizure. He cannot speak clearly, and muscle spasms are overtaking his regular bodily movements. Peter suddenly falls to the floor, shakes and vocalizes uncontrollably. After a few moments, he takes a deep breath, and falls lifeless onto the tile floor. As drool is foaming out of the side of his mouth, Brian rushes over to help. Flabbergasted, Brian asks if Peter is all right. In the middle of his inquiry, Peter wakes up to finish his explanation.

“Bah-pa-pa Ooh-mow-mow, Bah-pa Ooh-mow-mow, Bah-pa-pa Ooh-mow-mow, Bah-pa Ooh-mow-mow, Bah-pa-pa Ooh-mow-mow, Bah-pa Ooh-mow-mow, Bah-pa Ooh-mow-mow!”

As Brian stares blankly at Peter rhythmically pumping his arms up-and-down, Stewie pulls a revolver from his baby jumper and proceeds to put the barrel in his mouth. Although he did not succeed in taking his life, these actions show that songs that are repetitive in nature can ultimately cause an individual to want to inflict bodily harm on himself or others.



(Parry, I chose to focus on a scene from Family Guy instead of a movie. I hope you can understand:)

Who does Facebook own?

You? Me? My dog?

Okay, Facebook doesn't technically own any of us. If we want to get philosophical, we can say nobody really owns anything. We can even look at the meaning of ownership, and what it really means to own or be owned. But don't worry, we won't delve that deep into our metaphysical reality.

As it stands currently, under the current privacy policy, Facebook calls itself "...not just a website ... It is also a service for sharing your information on Facebook-enhanced applications and websites." Facebook gives its users the power to control how the information is shared through the application settings. And, at first glance, this could mean that the users own the information presented on the website; however, some think this isn't the case.

As of February 4th, 2009, Facebook installed a new Terms of Service. In this new TOS, Facebook removed the guarantee that any deleted content will be deleted forever. Or, in the words of Chris Walters of The Consumerist, "[Facebook] Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever." Shortly after the release of those TOS were released to the public, users became upset and Facebook chose to revert back to its old TOS. As it stands currently, Facbook insists that "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings." I believe this is the way it should be.

I see Facebook as a platform to socialize, upload and share memories and experiences through digital content. Whatever users post should be seen as users' property both in a legal sense and ethical sense. If this trust between platform and user is breached, it could mean the end (or the steep decline) of Facebook's popularity.

Where the Hell is Jeff Mangum?

Neutral Milk Hotel is generally highly regarded in the music world. Pitchfork, one of the most critical music publication even rated their best-known album In the Aeroplane Over the Sea a 10; and Pitchfork never rates anything above an 8.5. Ever.

Honey is as Delicious as Wikipedia is Informative

I've always believed honey has medicinal properties. I've sipped honey when I suffered a sore throat, I have rubbed honey into burns, and of course, I have dripped honey over my English muffins. My love for this serum inspired me to read up all about honey, on Wikipedia of course. I poked through Wikipedia's entry on honey, and I saw nothing about its medicinal traits, so I decided to add it in, so that others could share in this useful knowledge.

Under the Hitsory, Culture and Folklore section, I added that "Some cultures believe honey has many practical health uses. It was used as an ointment for rashes and burns, and used to help soothe sore throats when no other medicinal practices were available." I personally agree with this statement, and I wish other to try it as well, unless their allergies don't allow them to!

Update: Even a week and a half after updating the page, my entry has not been edited. I am surprised by this because although I feel this is useful information, I have no legitimate citations to back up my cause. However, my entry is quite minimal, and under a wiki page that probably isn't visited so often, so I can see how it has gone unnoticed.

Update #2: Even after a month and a half (and my confession via this blog) my wikipedia entry still hasn't been edited or deleted! Cool!

Twitter: Simple or for the Simple?

Twitter, a simplistic microblogging/social networking site, focuses its 140-character posts around the simple question "what are you doing?". It makes sense, really. We ask this question frequently; when you call a buddy, it's generally one of the first questions asked.

What's the point of this Twitter you speak of? On the surface, it seems as though it is a quick and easy way to let your friends know what you're doing. What if I don't care what they are doing?

WP: NPOV

As we've learned in class, Wikipedia participants are generally quite adamant on sticking to the rules of the game. Wikipedia as a collective prides itself on sticking to certain principles, one of which is always taking the neutral point of view; another is using the "wiki process of consensus" used as the decision-making process for all posted content. With this understanding, I took to a controversial Wiki page to check out the discussion to see exactly how this works in action.

I came upon The Holocaust because it is generally an emotionally-charged topic, and some hold differing opinions about the subject. As I scrolled through the discussion page, one discussion in particular caught my eye. Abie the Fish Peddler suggested the page be moved to "Shoah", a Hebrew term denoting the Holocaust. Because most of the discussion was about the meaning of these terms, lets give some background. The term "holocaust" was originally derived from a Greek word meaning "a sacrificial offering to the gods". It eventually grew to denote massive sacrifices and massacres. During WWII, the term was used as it is understood today, to describe the atrocities of Nazi soldiers. The term "Shoah" is biblical in nature, meaning "calamity". It became the standard Hebrew term for the word holocaust since the early 1940s. This term is preferred by many Jews because of the theological reference to a Greek pagan custom.

The argument was based around the opinion that Shoah has a specific relationship to the Holocaust, and the term holocaust is broader in scope. The discussion was quite lengthy, partly because the user had good arguments for wanting to redirect the page. However, after much analysis, the consensus decided to keep the page as the Holocaust, merely because the term is better known in English speaking countries (Shoah is only used in some Jewish groups). I felt this was a fair assessment and I was honestly impressed with the amount of discussion it took to reach a conclusion.


(Parry, read the comment!! He found my blog!)

Twitter: Simple, or for the Simple?

How can a company be so popular and still have no discernible revenue? Social networking and communication was revolutionized by the birth of Twitter. It's so simple, its a wonder why nobody came up with it before. Twitter asks its users the question, "What are you doing?" and limits their responses to a mere 140 characters. The engine is completely free to the public; users can even download their logo in three different formats, practically welcoming surfers to take, edit, and share their image. According to their website, Twitter has about 30 employees, and 25 open positions at their corporate office. If Twitter is used so frequently, and is so well liked why isn't the company banking? To answer this question for myself, I went directly to Twitter.

As I began clicking around the website, I came to the About Us section, which posed frequently asked questions. To my surprise, here was the very question I came asking myself: "How do you make money from Twitter?" Twitter's response:

Twitter has many appealing opportunities for generating revenue but we are holding off on implementation for now because we don't want to distract ourselves from the more important work at hand which is to create a compelling service and great user experience for millions of people around the world. While our business model is in a research phase, we spend more money than we make.

Interesting enough. Their desire for "not wanting to distract themselves from more important work" puts Twitter in an almost heroic light. Since the boom of the internet, more and more websites have been turning to advertising for vast amount of revenue. So why is Twitter not buying into all of this? I think Twitter is waiting until they gain even more popularity so that they can sell space on their website, or even a portion of their website like Facebook did back in 2007.

And what is this "research phase" their business model is in? Isn't it obvious how to make money off the internet? Websites and search engines have been doing it for years. I think by "research" they really mean they are waiting to see where people take Twitter as a social utility. They are waiting to see how much popularity the engine can gain and how much speed it picks up amongst internet users, for both of these factors enormously affect the most practical type of advertising to implement.

Maybe what Twitter is doing isn't so bad. When Facebook sold a tiny bit (1.6%) of their website to Microsoft for a mere $250 million, the total value of Facebook was estimated to be $15 billion, keeping the interest of advertisers and software companies buzzing about what Facebook was going to do next. If Twitter plans to follow the same model, it could be pan out to be a grossly lucrative decision.

Why did Danger Mouse get in so much trouble and Girl Talk is free to throw mix-tapes dance parties?

Free worked for for sometime, but the economic model of free doesn't hold as much weight if most porducts fit the bill. As soon as you know it, free will start to be the demand of the consumer. the money will go to the companies which provide the product and as soon as you know it, the corporations have the control.

Is the Internet Still Making Us Stupid?

Nicolas Carr argues that the internet is diminishing our intelligence. He states that our use of the internet fails to foster analytical reading skills. Even Scott Karp, a blogger of online media states that he no longer reads books. Carr deduces that internet causes "our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged."

In the article, Carr also describes a time when Friedrich Nietzsche was getting old and his vision was failing; it hurt badly to continuously stare at a page while writing, and he was afraid he may have to give it up for good. Nietzsche then bought a typewriter. As soon as he mastered the art of typing, he was able to do so with his eyes closed, and thus his vision was not strained. However, one of Nietzsche's colleagues noticed a change in his writing style. Carr states that Nietzsche's "already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.” Here, Carr is trying to make the point that the typewriter had something to do with his change in writing style. But what if it was merely due to Nietzsche just becoming old and crotchety?

Carr also argues, “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world,” he wrote, “it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.” But weren't we who came up with artificial intelligence in the first place? Technology alone has feathered into something today which nobody could predict 50 years ago.

As deduced from Carr's arguments, he is arguing that the internet has a tendency to take away from our reading and writing skills. This may very well be the case, but are reading and writing skills the only reflection of intelligence? In an article featured in Discover magazine, author Carl Zimmer provides a counter argument to Nicholas Carr; that the internet (and other forms of communicative media) are actually increasing our neurons' functionality. Zimmer cites linguist David Crystal's new book Txtng: The Gr8 Db8:

In his new book, Txtng: The Gr8 Db8, the English linguist David Crystal demonstrates that many of the dire warnings about texting are little more than urban legends. Texting doesn’t lead to bad spelling, he finds. In fact, Crystal writes, “texting actually improves your literacy, as it gives you more practice in reading and writing.”

The internet should really just be seen at as a tool, not a black hole which sucks away our intelligence. It increases our productivity, our social networking options and abilities, it allow us for further access to both information and opinions of objective parties, it gives us maps, definitions, recopies, you name it, its probably available on the web. In my opinion, Carr's argument is null and void. Merely because the information is convenient, doesn't mean it has to make us stupid or uninterested.

Thank God for Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, recently made commented on FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's announcement concerning a free and open internet. Genachowski's stance on the issue of Net Neutrality favors the FCC's limitation of Internet Service Providers. He believes that the power of controlling who sees what on the internet should not be in the hands of the service providers, but in the FCC's. Pelosi wants to preserve the openness and freedom of what is the internet; she defines her position of the Net Neutrality bill to the House as in accordance with Genachowski's.

The bill would prevent internet service providers from acting as "traffic cops" on the net. The purpose of the bill was not to control and regulate the internet, but rather lay down rules to keep online engagement fair and equal for all users.

Sadly, on September 27, the bill was rejected by congressional leaders. The 269-152 vote fell largely along party lines. Ultimately, it was the Republican party which provided the majority of the distaste for the bill.

This video explains that informational media has taken a turn from social to privatized. Newsprint, radio, and even television were somewhat interactive in their beginnings. A printing press was moderately priced for their day (~$40,000 in our time), people could broadcast anything via the radio, and television used to be free to anyone with an antennae. All of these personal freedoms and opportunities for free speech have been stripped away from us by our governing bodies. Now we have the internet; a melting pot of ideas and opportunities, and we are being threatened with the removal of this as well? Why does anybody have to control the internet? Why do we have to turn such an awesome tool into a capitalistic money-generating source of revenue for ISP's?

The internet has become such an integral part of our lives to change is or charge for it may disrupt the good thing we have going.

The Internet is a Democracy, NOT an oligarchy

A democratic government is defined my Wikipedia as a form government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state. As an American, we are supposedly living in a democratic structure of government, and the internet being a facet of our society, should theoretically be democratic as well. As is stands now, the internet isn't really comparable to any form of government, except for maybe anarchy. Users are allowed to access anything, change and personalize websites, connect to one another, etc.; the internet is pretty much free game. But situations which have risen recently could be the demise of free-range internet.

Internet Service Providers such as AT&T, Comcast, etc, are threatening to charge users tiered serves packages where certain users would have to pay more in order to get full access, and users who would choose not to pay the added fees would either get limited or no access. This could ultimately cause discriminatory practices, possibly a decline of speech and expression on the web, and would put the power in the hands of the conglomerates who would be cashing in. A filtered internet is like stifling a child's creativity. It has already been one of the most useful and innovative tools in the past 15 years. If public access were to be diminished by the ISP's, the internet as we know it today would take a turn for the worse.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recently made the announcement that he will do whatever it takes to preserve free and open internet. He states:

"The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.

Or we could take steps to preserve a free and open Internet, helping to ensure a future of opportunity, prosperity, and the vibrant flow of information and ideas.

I believe we must choose to safeguard the openness that has made the Internet a stunning success. That is why today, I delivered a speech announcing that the FCC will be the smart cop on the beat when it comes to preserving a free and open Internet.

In particular, I proposed that the FCC adopt two new rules to help achieve this."

With these rules, Genachowski hopes to not allow broadband providers to discriminate against any content on the internet and encourage broadband providers to be transparent about their practices. On the FCC's website about a free and open internet, Genachowski states that although this goal seems easy, the steps taken to reach the goal are not so clear.

I completely side with Genachowski and the FCC. Internet Service Providers should have no say in who gets to view which website. If I had a choice, I believe the internet should stay a free anarchy, or maybe somewhere closer to democracy (with an unbiased body governing). It should by no means be controlled by the very people that are profiting. This is where corruption comes into play. The internet is by the people for the people, not an oligarchy to be controlled by a few ISP's.

Groupthink in the Internet and Politics

Groupthink was a term coined by William H. Whyte in 1952 in Fortune Magazine and studied by Yale Psychologist Irving L. Janis. It is a term used to describe a type of behavior exhibited by a group of individuals who reach a consensus without adequate evaluation and analyzation of the problem. Individuals in groups generally do this to avoid conflict; however, groupthink discourages individuals to bring up ideas outside of the comfort level of consensus thought. This cohesive nature causes individuals to loose aspects of creativity, individuality and uniqueness; thus, this may cause groups to make quick and dirty decisions for fear of not doing so may disrupt the group's homogeneous equilibrium.

The internet can be utilized to decrease these aspect of groupthink, especially in politics. The sheer amount of communicative abilities and opportunities on the internet are innumerable. In the past, without this ease of communication, rumors could be started by one group and spread until it turns into a group consensus, potentially ruining a campaign or particular platform and individual subscribes to. The internet can be used to reach individual members of a group and fight any inconsistencies and errors in communication any party may be partaking in. Barak Obama used the Net to fight rumors he was Muslim and to organize and facilitate fundraisers for his campaign.

The cool thing about the internet is that campaigns like Obama's can reach out to individuals and it will seem as though the campaign is making an effort to connect with that individual on a more personal level (more so than, say receiving an ad in the mail). This can help the campaigns recruit individuals who may not otherwise get involved with politics. It can also eliminate the potential of groupthink. Most of the communicating we do on the internet involves our identity in one way or another, but a lot of it doesn't have to. This is where the concept of groupthink is completely thrown out. Who would hesitate sharing an opinion when there is no group equilibrium to offset? The elimination of group think can aid a democracy. It gives individuals more voice and it can allow politicians to gain access to the opinions of their constituents.

Article 1: Examiner.com
Article 2: CNN.com

THE INTERNET IS KILLING MY CHILDREN

Not really, but according to Matthew Moore's article in Telegraph there are fifty things (and counting) that are being killed by the internet. While reading this article, a few things came to mind that weren't mentioned in the article.

The internet is killing print periodicals. Moore mentioned something of the sort when he pointed out "hard-core pornography on the web has put an end to one of the most dreaded rites of passage for teenage boys..." He has a good point here. Not to mention, the convenience, and plethora of information available on the internet has decreased our need for news periodicals and has ultimately caused a decline in the popularity of print media.

YouTube and other video media (and probably illegal) websites conveniently allow internet junkies to watch movies and television shows. This has ultimately cause a downfall in television viewership (I don't even have a TV). Moore presses on a branch of this issue when he makes the argument that nobody watches television together anymore; "on-demand television allows relatives and colleagues to watch the same programs at different times... undermining ... the shared experience."

Moore doesn't press on this much in his article, but I realize that the internet has taken away the need to meet face-to-face. Social networking sites and tools such as Facebook and AIM allow users to communicate with one another without the physical presences of each party. Even in work places, Email, Webinars and even the occasional use of Twitter and Second Life have increased the amount of communication while decreasing the amount of human interaction. What psychologists need to look into is the toll this could be taking on our emotional psyche. Just a thought.

Lastly, the internet, as well as advancements in hard-drive space and graphics rendering shot down the first and ultimate RPG games ... Snake and Oregon Trail. Where did these classics go? and Why aren't we still playing them?

Okay, that last paragraph was a bit of a vent-ful rant. But really, the internet isn't quite killing our children. It is however changing the way things work with communication, socializing, information sharing, etc.

Social Media in the News

My personal career goals include the fields of marketing and advertising. Social media can be an important tool in these realms of business. These articles display up-and-coming marketing techniques which can be used with Web 2.0 and social networking sites.

This Lansing State Journal article highlights the importance of using social media as a tool for marketing. However, many realms of social media are new to companies who are set in their old ways of marketing techniques; they are just now experimenting with new ways to reach their audience.

This article (brought to you by building43) provides a breakdown of SEOmoz's (a marketing, consulting, and company optimization firm) top 30 social media sites, and illustrates approaches corporations can take to improve their marketing strategies in a world run by Web 2.0.

This article begins by tracking the importance of having a presence on the internet. Because the internet is so full of various websites, having a website merely to advertise is pointless; the chance of gaining popularity with that particular location in the web will be minuscule. Therefore, social media seems to be the next logical step for getting a company's name out into the eye of the public.

12 Annoying Facebookers

In his article, Keen made many arguments highlighting his distaste for uneducated and opinionated communicators who generally have little credibility on the subject of which they are speaking of. This concept can be equated to a kind of Social Darwinism: Survival of the loudest and most opinionated. Keen argues that the internet is full of these types, tainting the credibility and tastefulness of the internet.

Brandon Griggs from CNN highlights these annoying types of people. He states there are twelve to be exact, and he hones in on the social network site that is Facebook. He states that a recent study of Twitter found that 40% of tweets are pointless babble, and that Facebook, although different in design, it is similar in idea and is comparably obnoxious. The article simply lists Griggs perspectives of the 12 most annoying types of Facebookers.

Keen's argument is legitimate; I completely agree that there are at least thousands of asinine comments and communications on the internet that occur daily, but I disagree that there is a problem with experts not expressing quality work. Yeah Twitter and Facebook is infiltrated with these lame communications, but it doesn't take away from the experts' credibility as a whole. It should be up to the user to find credible information for themselves. The great thing about the internet is that you don't have to look at something you don't want to look at. If the user believes a certain type correspondence is irrelevant and pointless, then open up a new tab and set your browser to a source which you think is worth your time.

Griggs argument makes sense, yeah. But 1) how can you lump the 250 million users of Facebook into 12 simple categories of annoyance? and 2) His whole article sounds as though it is one long complaint. Which only further proves Keen's point. Not to mention, I found this article on what I think is a credible website; CNN.com. Which goes to say that even legitimate websites are jumping on this democratic Web 2.0 bandwagon (bandwidth?).

This goes to show us that the internet really is turning into an open-ended form of expression. The expression may be asinine, it may be interesting, it may even be awe-inspiring; either way, users like the spotlight and see it as an opportunity to share what is on their mind. Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing, it just makes it more difficult to decipher what is worth the reader's time and what simply a waste.

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/20/annoying.facebook.updaters/index.html

Google Dumbing us down or Dumbing us up?

What do you think? Is the internet dumbing us down? Carr argues that the simplicity and ease of information gathering via Google (and every other search engine available) is causing us to remember less. He is arguing that attention spans are significantly shrinking due to this ease of surfing the net for quick information. Keen argues that this ease of access can encourage plaigarism, "cut-and-paste" techniques of students, and above all, these actions can and will discourage the forming of personal opinion, nad of deep understanding of materials. Google argues that "information is a resource that can processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers." Which can be true, if the individual makes the effort to become a more productive thinker. But sometimes, this isn't the case. In class we exemplified YouTube comments. most of these blurbs are sparse, shallow thoughts that were probably not thoroughly thought-out before placing it in public. One can argue that these people have these shallow (dumb?) opinions because they don't look into the deeper meanings and origins of what they are reading or viewing.
I don't believe that Google is necessarily making us dumb, it merely makes it easier to skim over important information and become ill-informed. Also, the ease of access (especially with iPhones/internet everywhere) makes it less important for the consumer to actually remember the information presented. In both cases, it is up to the individual to research, remember, or reconcile the information which he or she has encountered.

Community or Idiocracy?

Sitting down to read for forty minutes was quite a freeing experience. I noticed yesterday that my extensive use of the internet has honed my speed reading and information-skimming skills; which, is beneficial in some cases, but it has not helped my skills for comprehensive reading. I imagined this reading would take me far more than forty minutes, but it was quite an interesting read, so it didn't take as long as expected . And although I immersed myself in this publication, I probably got out of it as much as I would have if i had just skimmed over the writing. The deep reading was relaxing, and pretty enlightening, but it was not what I expected to get out of it. I guess you can only soak in so much.

The article itself was quite interesting. I gathered that his point came to the face that Web 2.0 was a collaborative effort, of everyone who participated (quite like the FOO Camp). But Keen makes the argument that the collaborators are uninformed non-intellects. He is worried about the loss of legitimate and informed opinions being replaced with shallow misrepresentations of the truth. I believe that these people exist, the absent-minded, "I-only-have-an-opinion-because-I-can-post-it-on-my-blog", uneducated and inexperienced collaborators. In fact, they not only exist, but Keen is right in the sense that they run rampant through the digiscape of the interwebs. I believe it is up to the consumer to make educated, objective decisions of whose opinion to consider seriously and whose to throw away.

I actually like the collaborative effort that is Web 2.0. yeah some people are idiots and write about what they don't know, but other people provide insight and interesting ideas that we wouldn't otherwise have without this convenient collaboration. I guess just use discretion as to whose thoughts you may think about, and whose you write off.