In Living Color

More than ever, the Internet is attempting to create a “virtual reality” experience: from simply interacting with someone instantaneously through AIM or a social networking site, to Second Life. Second Life allows people to create an avatar and live, virtually, a second life. While some avatars represent the user and both their physical looks and their lifestyle, the site is actually created so people can live a life they only dreamed of. MTVs “True Life” featured a girl was extremely shy but wanted to be a singer. She used Second Life to put on concerts and gatherings so that she could perform without seeing a “real” audience and getting nervous.

The Internet has yet to offer a virtual reality experience (incorporating all five senses) on a fully public level. However, some have pushed for Digital Scent Technology, which:

“intends to change the interactive entertainment experience. The idea is to scent-enable movies, games, music, animation, or any digital media. Create a more immersive and captivating environment for your audience. Smell reaches out into a new, visceral dimension, transporting viewers, gamers, and music fans into the realm of the senses. Atmosphere, mood, emotion and characters can all be enhanced with scent.” (Learn more about this by clicking here)

I think this is an amazing invention and should be incorporated into computers, game systems, and televisions for daily use. I think that the additional sensation of smell would help advertisers attract costumers. Advertisers already attempt to draw in customers using sight and sound stimulation. Adding scent to a commercial, especially for food would certainly draw in more consumers.

Plato's cave, VR, and South Park

I believe that Plato's cave could be used for all situations and all new technologies, even though that his theory goes so well with Virtual Reality. I am very intrigued by Zeitl's claim of "as prisoners in Plato's cave, we willingly restrict our vision by putting on a helmet that displays only a world of shadow." This is so true! I know even now with basic video games that peoples lives are entirely wrapped up in video games. Look at World of War Craft where thousands of people's lives are entirely taken up in the game, there is even a currency that you can buy on ebay to give your online character more experience. This is the epitemy of Plato's cave, where people sit at there computer for endless hours making a virtual reality character stronger and bigger while there real lives are at a standstill. The best depiction of people living in VR is South Park's episode Make Love not WarCraft

VR and us

Today’s readings covered virtual reality. In particular, Bolter talks about the notion that VR is different from text because it allows us to “experience the world as others do, not to retire from the distractions of the world to discover oneself as a thinking agent”. VR allows us to experience through “identification and empathy” what other people go through. As technology rapidly advances, the lines will blur between the differences in a VR world vs. the real world. When this is possible, our ability to legitimately say, “we walked a mile in another mans shoes” becomes reality. The implications this could have on mutual understanding and prosperity are limitless.

There are also practical, real world applications for VR. Zettl mentions the ability VR has in training pilots or medical students. This technique will enable users to learn unhindered from the worries that come with real world consequences.

The idea that we can escape real world consequences brings up a possible important drawback of virtual reality: Could the lack of responsibility that accompanies the VR realm bleed over into the real world? Some argue that spending to much time in a world without repercussions to actions could cause some users to take this habit into there everyday practices.

This is a debate that has been going on in the videogame industry for years. Numerous lawsuits have appeared that attack creators of videogames, accusing them as the cause behind select youth behavior. Although they claim this link, few if any lawsuits have ever been decided in the favor of the plaintiff simply because there is no conclusive evidence that videogames cause violence. But as technology advances and blurs the lines between reality and pseudo reality, will these lawsuits begin to have relevance? Will the reality experienced in the VR realm be so authentic that users will not be able to tell the difference from what is real and what is not? Time will only tell but if technology continues to advance at the rate it is now, we will all found out soon enough.

Not a fan of Virtual Reality...

I know virtual reality video games have existed in some form for a while now, but I can't wait to see what kind of games will come out in the future. I can see it now, a virtual reality gaming system with all games in 3D. An interesting idea from Larson is that, "The medium will make "time fly" because it captivates its interactants by involving all five sense allowing the audience to engage in "Virtual participation."' This will, in a sense, create an entire other life. By losing track of time in some kind of VR, it will be as if our real lives are put on pause for our virtual ones. The problem is though, you can't pause real life! If there were some kind of system that was similar to real life, I feel as if it would be much easier to get sucked in than the video games of today. VR also calls our concept of authenticity into question. With a life of fake decisions to make without any real consequences, I can't help to wonder what that would do to real life. In VR you are engaged in all five of the senses but with a computer. This must change the relationships you have with the people and objects in your actual life. Another issue with VR is that you could learn things that might be harmful to society. For example, if VR eventually became some kind of a video game system there would be shooting and killing games (like all systems). With the sense of such reality in VR, wouldn't this be like teaching someone how to kill? Maybe VR should stick to helping people to learn things, or games like flying a plane instead of replacing our face-to-face interactions with each other.
Part of learning in life is making decisions on your own and facing the consequences that comes with these decisions. It's part of growing up! By replacing these experiences with a computer screen it will be really hard to learn anything in life. While I do love video games, I enjoy the experiences of real life more and would not give them up for an illusion that could possibly take away my individuality.

Virtual Reality and Text

The reading for this week focused on different aspects of virtual reality. Chapter 7 specifically focuses on text in multimedia, internet, and the redefinition of the self. Most of virtual reality consists of graphics and a very limited amount of text. According to Bolter, "this new technology of representation is playing a role in the redefinition of self: It reenforces other popular and elite pressures to replace the autonomous ego as a cultural ideal." Moreover, the computer disrupts and destabilizes linear text, which has also been a feature of art throughout the 20th century (Bolter). Bolter explains that the media are means of representation and self-presentation. Thus, they call for a redefinition of the self.
With electronic technology there are two mediums of presentation and representation, namely, writing and visualization. While text in a book is stable and has one voice, electronic writing is unstable and polyvocal. More than one person can comment on electronic writing and make changes as often as he or she would like, Wikipedia is a prime example of this. Virtual reality, uses illusion to convince the viewer that he or she is occupying the same visual space as the objects in view (Bolter). However, virtual reality gives the viewer control of his or her own spatial perspective. VR gives the viewer more power in that the viewer becomes the director, the viewer can choose which direction he or she wants to explore the virtual space. When one goes to watch a movie, you watch the movie from the perspective it was filmed. With virtual reality, the viewer has the ability to pick the direction and perspective to examine the virtual space with. This enables the viewer to learn about different perspectives.
Essentially, one is experiencing the world as others do. The virtual self denies its own identity, and its separateness from others and the world. People learn through identification and empathy.

Virtual reality has the ability to provide people with different perspectives, and learn through identification and empathy. People are active participants of what is going on in the virtual space, and they can choose whichever direction they want to go in. Virtual reality, can be a powerful learning tool, if used in the right way. Hypothetically speaking if medical students used virtual reality to practice their surgeries and procedures on, they would be able to experience the consequences of their actions, without actually harming someone if something did go wrong.

The other two chapters analyzed virtual reality in different ways. Chapter 5 mentioned three dimensional representation, motion and sound, and explained how virtual reality displays use these elements to enhance the presentation of virtual space. Additionally, this chapter explained some of the concerns with virtual reality, including extreme human behavior, lack of accountability, and the question of escaping our environment. Chapter 6 describes virtual reality as the ultimate in intrapersonal communication, and thus capable of further driving Western humanity further inward. The virtual scene allows a person to be on the inside looking around, rather than being on the outside looking in. With virtual reality, the person must decide to look one way or another, and his or her actions determine the potential and subsequent paths ot follow. One concern mentioned is that people begin to think that the drama in virtual reality is drama that resembles life. The distinction between fantasy and reality becomes blurred as participants engage in virtual reality.

Social Networking & Children

At one time or another during our lives, someone has told us that engaging in media (be it television, internet etc) is bad. I found an article about social networking and children from The Washington Post so I thought I'd share. Lacy argues that social networking, involves an extension of one's real identity, instead of creating an identity - and so it may be good for children.

Why Social Networks Are Good for the Kids

Sarah Lacy

TechCrunch.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2009; 7:05 AM

The other day I asked somewhat tongue-in-cheek whether Tom Friedman had ever visited Silicon Valley. Today, I'm wondering if Lady Greenfield has ever used a social networking site.

The professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford and the director of the Royal Institution has the United Kingdom up in a tizzy about the idea that Facebook, Bebo and Twitter are warping their children's minds.

She warned that social networking sites are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilized, characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity.

I'm not a psychologist, nor am I a parent, so let me start by saying she might be right that these sites are harmful in some cognitive way. But I think she's wrong to assume social networking is devoid of a cohesive narrative and long-term significance. I can see where she's coming from, but like a lot of people who don't actually use these sites, she's missing a fundamental shift from Web 1.0 chat room days to Web 2.0 social networks: Real identity.

We no longer go to the Internet to interact with some shadowy user name where we pretend to be someone we're not. Ok, maybe people on Second Life do. But sites like Facebook and Twitter are more about extending your real identity and relationships online. That's what makes them so addictive: The little endorphin rushes from reconnecting with an old friend, the ability to passively stay in touch with people you care about but don't have the time to call everyday.

Facebook makes me a more considerate friend because I now remember people's birthdays. Over Geni, I stay in touch with my niece who I used to see once a year, but is now helping me map out our family tree. Via Twitter, my parents and in-laws know everything happening in my life so that when I call home, we have substantive conversations, not the awkward, So,..whatcha been up to?? variety. In dozens of cases, these sites have made my real human relationships longer lasting and more substantive. They have actually given me a longer narrative, because it has rekindled friendships with dozens of people with whom I'd lost touch.

Greenfield may well have a point when she argues that the young brain can't handle over-stimulation of fast action and reaction. But isn't that the same argument we've been making about all technology and entertainment for decades now? Indeed, I'm of the MTV generation and all those fast cuts and blaring sounds were supposed to warp my brain long ago. (I know some TechCrunch commenters who would argue it has) Everything has a trade off, and I'd argue the benefits in communications, education and collaboration of the Web far outweigh the negatives, and indeed give us greater benefits than we get from TV or Guitar Hero.

I do share one concern with her: Whether over saturation online leads to a lack of empathy. This is something that is being debated throughout the blogosphere right now. As we all become public personas in our own sphere we're increasingly subject to the same abuse, scrutiny and haters that actual celebrities have to deal with. Such anonymous venom is, after all, why you are reading a post from me on TechCrunch right now.

But I'm hopeful that the direction social networking is headed in is the answer to this, not the problem. As more of our social graphs move online, via Twitter or Facebook, the more the same social pressures of the real world come to bear. Compare anonymous YouTube comments with Twitter comments. Generally, Twitter is more kind and substantive, especially among users who Twitter under their real names. Now compare that to comments on Facebook. Almost all of the comments on someone's photo, video, status are supportive and empathetic, because the site has mimicked real world relationships and with that real world pressures.

My thoughts:

The last part that Lacy mentions - about comments being empathetic - is an important one. Since these websites reflect real world relationships and pressures - it may seem to enhance and improve a child's development. Even though some may argue that social networking websites may lead to less empathy - i think it depends more so on the type of social networking website. Facebook and Twitter use real names - and users comment on each others pictures, videos, and notes - extending the real world connection. While some may see this as a good thing, many argue that over saturation will lead to a lack of empathy. Ultimately, it depends on the user. People use social networking websites to connect with old friends, promote their company, or just make new friends. The purposes for which people use social networking websites will determine whether or not they are benefitting from this type of interaction with others.

Hypertext: the convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology

Roland Barthes describes an ideal textuality that precisely matches that which has come to be called computer hypertext -- text composed of blocks of words (or images) linked electronically by multiple paths, chains, or trails in an open-ended, perpetually unfinished textuality described by the terms link, node, network, web , and path: "In this ideal text," says Barthes,

the networks [réseaux ] are many and interact, without any one of them being able to surpass the rest; this text is a galaxy of signifiers, not a structure of signifieds; it has no beginning; it is reversible; we gain access to it by several entrances, none of which can be authoritatively declared to be the main one; the codes it mobilizes extend as far as the eye can reach, they are indeterminable . . . ; the systems of meaning can take over this absolutely plural text, but their number is never closed, based as it is on the infinity of language" (emphasis in original; 5-6 [English translation]; 11-12 [French]).

Like Barthes, Michel Foucault conceives of text in terms of network and links. In The Archeology of Knowledge , he points out that the "frontiers of a book are never clear-cut," because "it is caught up in a system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences: it is a node within a network . . . [a] network of references" (23).

Like almost all structuralists and poststructuralists, Barthes and Foucault describe text, the world of letters, and the power and status relations they involve in terms shared by the field of computer hypertext. Hypertext , a term coined by Theodor H. Nelson in the 1960s, refers also to a form of electronic text, a radically new information technology, and a mode of publication. "By 'hypertext,' " Nelson explains, "I mean non-sequential writing -- text that branches and allows choices to the reader, best read at an interactive screen. As popularly conceived, this is a series of text chunks connected by links which offer the reader different pathways" (0/2). Hypertext, as the term is used in this work, denotes text composed of blocks of text -- what Barthes terms a lexia -- and the electronic links that join them. Hypermedia simply extends the notion of the text in hypertext by including visual information, sound, animation, and other forms of data. Since hypertext, which links one passage of verbal discourse to images, maps, diagrams, and sound as easily as to another verbal passage, expands the notion of text beyond the solely verbal, I do not distinguish between hypertext and hypermedia. Hypertext denotes an information medium that links verbal and nonverbal information. In this network, I shall use the terms hypermedia and hypertext interchangeably. Electronic links connect lexias "external" to a work -- say, commentary on it by another author or parallel or contrasting texts -- as well as within it and thereby create text that is experienced as nonlinear, or, more properly, as multilinear or multisequential. Although conventional reading habits apply within each lexia, once one leaves the shadowy bounds of any text unit, new rules and new experience apply.

WHAT IS HYPERTEXT??????

Hypertext is text which is not constrained to be linear.

Hypertext is text which contains links to other texts. The term was coined by Ted Nelson around 1965 (see History ).

HyperMedia is a term used for hypertext which is not constrained to be text: it can include graphics, video and sound , for example. Apparently Ted Nelson was the first to use this term too.

Hypertext and HyperMedia are concepts, not products.

Hypertext and my online habits in the past two weeks

Hypertext is "a characteristic product of the late age of print, (and) it is deeply ambiguous." And like "Roland Barthes's notion of text- a dynamic network of ideas, indefinite in its boundaries and mutable over time." Unlike textbooks, hypertext gives a new age of print where there can be numerous web pages posted to a hypertext. Each web page within the hypertext can show you seperate ideas given by the author, through the use of different websites. Not only can each hypertext have many ideas and pages posted within it, but as Roland Barthes's talks about it can be changed throughout time. Where as a textbook can change its text through a series of new editing and publishing, hypertext only needs a push of a button to be changed.

Despite having this mass information within the internet there are many downfalls. My main downfall, that many of my classmates have posted on, is based on the person reading a hypertext and there level of procrastination. With a textbook you don't have many distractions except for the outside world, while with hypertext the internet is a distraction. By having everything and anything online, it is hard not to browse on ebay or music websites before reading an assignment online.

During the past few weeks I have found two new blogging sites I have never seen before. One of these sites is Zooped.com, very similar to myspace where people can sign up a have there own profile pages where they can acquire friends or look for people to follow them. The main difference for me is that the news feed is much more in depth and that zooped.com is a social network specifically used for business, music and personal BLOGGING. its all about blogging

Then I found a site that I fell in love with and I have been using everyday since I joined the site. Its called hypem.com, this site follows all music blogs around the web and based on a certain set of criteria posts the best songs written about on these different sets of blogs. I have already found a lot of music I have never heard of and now im really into it.

Just joined flickr and I love it!!

I just joined this new site most you probably already heard of called Flickr.com. Flickr is an interactive social network connected via the love and passion of photography. What is great about this site is that you can upload a certain a mount of pictures for free and share them with friends all across the world.

Now I know what you are thinking; facebook can do this as well. This is true, but the great thing about flickr is that nearly everything on their website is covered under the creative commons licensing. This type of copyright has multiple variations to it but put simply, the user has the option to put his/her content on Flickr for everyone to use and share. This means you can upload and use it without infringing on copyright law. The crazy thing is that all of people on flickr do choose to put their content up for everyone to use and the majority of the photos on Flickr are AMAZING!!

What does this mean? Because I work in a video production company we are always in need of a great image for a green screen backdrop or for a promo video we might do for a company. In the past, we always were in fear of breaking copyright law by using someone’s photo without authorization. But now with Flicker, you can check under each photo and see what type of CC (Creative Commons license) they have and make sure you are not in violation of copyright infringement. This makes my job a whole lot easier.

Flickr is also great because it is a vast community of people who love photography and will take the time to comment on your work. This is a great way to network with other people and also to get feedback and critiques on your art. Cool stuff.

Ok. Flickr is great. Check it out. It has some really amazing photos some of which I have posted below for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy.

Does online reading "spoil" us?

The way we communicate via written word has evolved. Just like a species that is at the mercy of its environment, so too is text. With the advent of the Internet, written words were thrust into a new environment and the old characteristics that helped it survive in the past were cast away. The survivors left over adapted new ways to deal with this environment and through the process of elimination emerged a new form of an old communication.

One of these new adapted forms of text is hypertext. This type of written word has changed so much, it might even be called a new species of written word. Gibson writes, “Hypertext is not simply more text, or text arranged differently. It is qualitatively different from traditional text and engages us in qualitatively different activities”. For instance, through every hyper link one can not only engage in text but also a plethora of media. One could click on the word “Obama Inauguration” in Wikipedia and be sent to a video of his speech the day he gave it. This creates an entirely different form of communication.

But what does it all mean? Being able to have a vast source of information at the click of a button allows users to browse through an immense amount of information without ever having to leave the comfort of their PC. This information is also available in different media forms that give multiple dimensions to the learning experience. Video, photos and sound create an almost 3D learning environment impossible to replicate in book form.

But above beyond this, the name of the game is speed. We expect all of this information fast and efficiently because of the nature of hypertext. Its very structure promotes speed because knowledge is but a mouse click away. This type of learning experience can be beneficial, but I argue it also has its drawbacks.

Growing up in a generation immersed in online writing and hypertext, I find that we sometimes tend to be “spoiled” with the ease of online reading. Because the hyperlink is always available, we become less patient and are easily distracted, wondering through a vast amount of information without paying much attention to it. This creates in us distaste for anything online that isn’t quick and easy. Paglia writes, “Online articles that sustain reader attention beyond the first page are those… that take the telegraph as their ancestor. Simplification and acceleration are the principles”. This “simplification and acceleration” trains us to intake only the information that is fast and easy. If it is too complex or long, we click back or on another link to satisfy our desire for something less daunting. This form of information intake makes the thought of reading an entire novel sluggish and boring. We therefore intake bit-sized information packets rather then gain a deeper understanding about what we read.

This begs the question, “Is this a good thing”? Although it is hard to make judgments about something that is new and still evolving, I would say the benefits outweigh the cons. Even though reading has spoiled us I do think the availability of such a vast amount of text is overwhelmingly going to help humanity rather then harm it. People are not all “spoiled” when it comes to online reading and for those who still have the proclivity to take in information with patients; online reading becomes a gold mine. Overall, text online opens up a vast amount of possibilities that was previously unavailable and the question of consequence will have to wait until its affects begin to show more clearly.

customized social networking

Social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter are more general, these few websites are based on common interests:

anobii
this site is especially for booklovers. Once registered you can create your own bookshelf, take a peek at what other people have on their bookshevles, and also write comments about the books

italki
this site is for people interested in learning a foreign language. you can choose to teach or to learn and connect with people who are also trying to learn a different language

couchsurfing
from their website: CouchSurfing seeks to internationally network people and places, create educational exchanges, raise collective consciousness, spread tolerance and facilitate cultural understanding.

Traditional vs. Hypertext Classroom

The reading for this week focused on the differences between traditional and hypertext classrooms. Traditional textbook classrooms involve learning through reading a particular text. As mentioned by Gibson, scholars read textbooks to engage in a debate about the information presented, whereas students primarily read textbooks to gain entry into that discipline. Moreover, while the textbooks provides valuable information to the student, the textbook to an extent is authoritative. Thus, traditional classrooms are not very interactive. Generally, communication is one way, flowing from professor to student. Additionally, some textbooks do not encourage self reflection. On the other hand, hypertext allows students to read material, comment on it and even take it a step further by encouraging students to come to their own conclusions about the topic. Hypertext often includes primary sources, providing students a first hand experience of the information, and thus leaving room for self interpretation. According to Gibson, many students may not seem interested in conducting further research to answer their questions, but when a body of literature is at their fingertips, students may readily explore the material. Hypertext connects the material, links to other texts, commentary, criticism, and even to other disciplines, giving the students a variety of options to supplement their learning with.

This class is an example of learning through hypertext. The class blog provides everyone a chance to voice their opinions and thoughts about the reading, while leaving room for comments. Everyone has a different way of examining the reading, and thus blogs about something they found important. The interactivity of this class allows everyone to learn from each other. Moreover, everyone also writes about different social networking websites they come across. As a result, everyone else can explore these websites and draw their own conclusions about them. Even though the last section of the reading explains that it is too early to draw conclusions about the hypertext classroom, by participating in a class that provides us this opportunity, we can better understand how the reading applies to our everyday lives.

The Internet and My Experience--a learning device or a wicked distraction?

Is the Internet a learning device or is it a wicked distraction? I believe this has been debated for quite some time and I feel I should share my opinion with you fellow moose and to everyone else out there in cyberspace!

Ever since I’ve been going to school, computers have been in or around the classrooms. Computers and the Internet have played a key role in my life, and yes, I know, that may sound sad, but it really is not. I first began to use the Internet when I was in 3^rd to 4^th grade; our teachers used to show us educational programs and fun applications that we slowly, but surely became addicted to. It was something new! We were always excited to be able to go in to the computer lab and play around, but it is not like how it is today. The Internet as you all know now is not new. It now plays an integral part in almost every child’s life. The younger generation (pre-teens and early teenagers) is now raised on the Internet. Children as young as 10 and 12 years old have Myspace’s and update them daily. They use the Internet in school to learn, but when they get home (in most cases), it is used as a social networking device. How is it in the classroom nowadays though? I know I bring my computer to mostly every class I have, depending on the teacher’s preference, but I use it to ultimately take notes. Yes, I know I do go on the Internet and fool around, but I use it mainly for the classes I take. I know that is not always the case for everybody though. This is why a tremendous amount of teachers are upset with their students who use computers in class. They feel that the students are not paying attention to them, and who’s to say they are actually wrong. Both parties (students/teachers) have rights to do what they want, so there really is no one to blame, but what we do on the Internet outside of class is where the real controversy begins.

People use the Internet to learn things! Yes, it’s true despite what some believe! From watching tutorial-videos on websites to reading informational blogs, people are learning through the Internet everyday. The Internet, to me, is an endless source of information that never runs out of memory. Why would we, as students and regular people, not use this tool to it’s fullest potential. Of course there are people who only use the Internet for nonsense, but it is a place for everyone and anyone who needs information and even comfort from socializing! The Internet can be both a learning tool and a distraction, and who is to say either or is bad? Sometimes we need to learn and sometimes we need to be distracted! In my opinion, you can only judge whether the Internet is good or bad in certain situations. I’d say the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to the Internet acting as a learning tool, but I do agree it can act as a distraction as well. We just need to use it correctly in order to see it in the right light.

So far, over the course of this class, I have been joining different social networks, but I am looking to do more with the Internet because of it. I may be starting up a social networking/Live-stream Broadcasting network site for musicians with a few of my friends. I will let you know as more develops, but I really want to see how far we as social moose and as new age “cyborgs” [haha] can take it. Be well my fellow moose, and I will see you all on cyberspace…

the Internet and learning

According to Paglia, "The computer has literally reshaped the brain of those who grew up with it, just as television and rock music reshaped the brains of my baby-boom generation..." I 100% agree with this statement. We grew up with computers and now they are more important than ever... important enough for a class about them! Every part of our future is going to be effected by the technology that we embrace and develop. If the Web is ever-expanding then by the time we're 30 it is hard to imagine what could be possible. It can literally hold a never ending amount of information about anything and everything. This means that we have knowledge at the palm of our hands. With one click of a mouse we can learn about anything we want. This convergence of the Internet as an Encyclopedia can truly bring together anybody with a computer. Anything we are interested in learning about can also be discussed with people all around the world. We can get the perspective of a colleague, friend, professor, someone from another country, anyone with Internet access, etc.
With the vast amount of information that the Internet holds, it only makes sense for it to be used more and more in classrooms around the world. With hypertext linking one to many different sites about the same information anything can be covered. Gibson suggests, "It contains more, covering the ground that could be covered by hundreds of books in a single hypermedia package." Students no longer have to go to the library and look through many different books looking for specific information. We can now just type something into a search engine and find information a million times easier. Of course there is always the question of figuring out if a website is legitimate. In my Digital Media and Cyberculture class we learned that there are five different criteria for evaluating websites. You have to look for: accuracy, authority, coverage, currency, and objectivity.
Gibson also goes into detail the idea of the Internet vs. traditional textbooks. I believe that this is a tricky discussion. While the benefits of using the Internet in the classroom can be obvious, there are also many negative effects. Without a normal textbook filled with simple words on a page, I think that it is more difficult for students to soak in the information that they need to know. Even though textbooks don't engage students in self-reflection and are not always given an opportunity to question what they are reading, it is much easier to concentrate on a textbook. I definitely think when I am highlighting something it gives me more of a reason to try to understand what I am reading. When it comes to the Internet, distraction and procrastination is a lot easier. In fact, just before writing this entry or whenever I struggle to think of what I want to write next, I'll head over to Facebook. Sometimes I'll be on for just a minute, other times I'll just get sucked in and could be on for as long as half an hour! I also feel as if it is so much harder to read something online. If I have a big reading assignment on E-Res I'll always print it out because I feel as if I need control over what I read.
There of course are benefits to hypertexts as well. Users are able to become authors and linkers. They can respond to the text and question the author by becoming authors themselves. For the first time, students can have some sense of control in the classroom. Who knows how the classroom will change once we graduate, but I'm sure it will definitely be geared more towards the Internet.

Listening to: The Beatles- Penny Lane

As i was reading the reading for class, i came across the name Jay David Bolter. just thinking about it, text has taken a road for change over the last few years. no longer do people have to wait for newspapers to come out in the morning about news that happened the previous day. If need be, you can read about it online, on webzines for example, which publish information and stories constantly.

HYPERTEXT>>>

"Web 2.0" Continued

Although this is in response to my article from NY1 News about Web 2.0, I want to dedicate a post to what I have Stumbled Upon. After reading the article on NY1, on the bottom of the article I came across a line of icons I can click. As a result of this class, 3 of the 5 icons were familiar. The icons exist so you can have direct access to post the Web 2.0 article directly to the designated site. The icon lead you to the site for delicious.The second was a link for digg.The fourth was for facebook.The third and fifth icon I was unfamiliar with so I'll share my explorations of them with my fellow Social Mooses now :) :


StumbleUpon is a free service that helps you discover and share websites with others who have similar interests. The more you use our service, the more likely it is that you’ll “Stumble” across pages you like.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mixx works very similarly to Stumbled Upon.Basically, you input what you're interested in and Mixx prepares and delivers the top-rated content for you from that category, specific group, or tag.

"Web 2.0" Is Constantly Under Revision

One morning, I've come across a clip on channel NY1 news about Twitter with an awards ceremony involved. NY1 News added how Twitter has expanded and how popular it has become. So I've decided to look up if they might have an article about it on the NY1 website. Upon putting "Twitter" into the search engine I can across the following interesting article especially for our class:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"09/18/2008 12:43 PM

"Web 2.0" Is Constantly Under Revision
By: Adam Balkin

"Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, these are typically the types of sites that one thinks of when they hear the phrase "Web 2.0." Though, as you'll find at the first annual Web 2.0 Expo in N.Y., the official definition for what is “Web 2.0,” it is constantly under revision. NY1’s Adam Balkin filed the following report.

“Basically, you're talking about sites that instead of publishing your stuff to the web, invite people to participate in the web. We've got about 5,000 developers, designers, internet entrepreneurs, marketers who come together to figure out what's next for ‘Web 2.0,’” said organizer of Web 2.0 Expo Jennifer Pahlka. “It's the people who are building sites like MySpace and Facebook who are mostly here.”

Friendster.com, the social networking site that helped started this whole “2.0 movement” is also constantly under revision. Its vision now, help to prevent you from having to jump from one place to the next, having to constantly start from scratch on the latest hottest spot online to connect with friends.

“It's going to be more convenient to keep in touch with people to share content, to discover content from other people you may know, and to kind of participate in multiple networks at once without physically being logged in to every single one, every minute of the day,” said Jeff Robert of Friendster.com.

But really what this conference focuses on is taking what people like about using “Web 2.0” technologies on their own time and letting them use those same technologies to be more productive at the office.

“We're seeing companies coming to us to build a social networking strategy within their internal networks that make these young people feel comfortable with their usability and with their executions and actions everyday,” said Jerry Sheer of Sparta Social Networks. “Social networking, in a large company, specifically, is about people connecting to other people who are not in their cube, in their work environment, and in a satellite office.”

And considering a new study by Hitwise, an Internet tracking company, found that social networks have surpassed porn, as the most popular spots online now, it makes sense that big companies are also hoping internal social networks will help employees feel more like part of a community while at the office, rather than just another cog in a giant wheel."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a student of CBA graduating class of 2009, I found it very interesting that large companies are now inquiring about social networks within the company. I see that as a very bright idea. The employees will no longer be limited to sharing insights with those within proximity of their cubicle.Ideas and possibly innovations will start to surface as employees converse and share ideas with each other, which will ultimately benefit the company. I see this as completely beneficial and I think it should be started as soon as possible. Personally, being a member of Twitter and LinkdIn, I spend a lot of time looking of individuals who have similar professional backgrounds to converse with. I can just imagine what a large company that sets up a network for professionals in the same field to collaborate!

Facebook TOS Response

I signed into Twitter today and came across Professor State's link of an article about Facebook's TOS (Terms of Service). If you didn't happen to come across it on Twitter I'll repost it here on our blog( I hope you don't mind, Professor :] ).

"Facebook's New Terms Of Service: "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever."
By Chris Walters, 6:14 PM on Sun Feb 15 2009,

Facebook's terms of service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not anymore.

Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later.* Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want.


You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

That language is the same as in the old TOS, but there was an important couple of lines at the end of that section that have been removed:


You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

Furthermore, the "Termination" section near the end of the TOS states:


The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.

Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now.

(Note that as several readers have pointed out, this seems to be subject to your privacy settings, so anything you've protected from full public view doesn't seem to be usable in other ways regardless.)

Oh, you also agree to arbitration, naturally. Have fun with that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: Several Facebook groups have formed to protest the new TOS:
"People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS)"
"FACEBOOK OWNS YOU: Protest the New Changes to the TOS!"
"Those against Facebook's new TOS!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 2: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a response on the Facebook blog. A crude summary: "trust us, we're not doing this to profit from you, it's so we are legally protected as we enable you to share content with other users and services." His point, I think, is that there are interesting issues of ownership and rights clearance when you're dealing with content shared in a social network:

Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them-like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on-to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 3: I just found this clarification posted earlier this afternoon on The Industry Standard. It was emailed to them by a Facebook representative and seems to confirm that your privacy settings trump all else:

We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account."


I've read people's responses to this post and they completely varied. Some people jokingly (?!) say that they just want to use the photos you posted on facebook against you 20 years from now. I personally don't know how to feel about it. I can't seem to see in year 2100, Facebook intentionally desiring to use the pictures I posted when I was twenty-years-old.Open of the responses from a user OrtensiaCadmium posted the following logical explaination: "That's fairly common language in terms for various sites such as Facebook. While it gives Facebook some far-reaching and scary possibilities, the basic idea is that things you upload may end up residing on servers outside of Facebook's direct control. These broad rights make it so that you can't sue Facebook for some cached content on some other server, but yes, it also means they can sell your photos or use them in advertising with no recompense to you." I must agree with OrtensiaCadmium however I might become a little cautious with what I say. It never hurt anybody, right?