http://blogs.abcnews.com/aheadofthecurve/2009/02/expressing-cond.html
Someone mentioned how the news uses twitter as a daily source, but I was surprised how the major news networks also use it for references during disasters. Instead of the old fashioned way of interviewing people at the scene, it seems as though it is easier to rip opinions off of twitter to write a story...
-Heidi Felder
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
news category?
It is evident that the cyberspace world is giving a huge impact to all age groups and societies, but I didn't think an eyewitness section for cyberspace would be made so soon: http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/cynews.shtml
In the near future the daily news on tv might have a report section for cyberspace also?
-Heidi Felder
In the near future the daily news on tv might have a report section for cyberspace also?
-Heidi Felder
Flickeur
Yesterday's presentation of the art sites and how social networking sites has influenced (or kind of revolutionized the art industry) reminded me of this program I came across called Flickeur. Basically, all it does is randomly generate pictures together using Flickr as it's source. There is no discrimination of what pictures show up since everything is random. It's really hard to explain, but taking a look at the site and watching it for a while will help it make sense. One thing that I can say about it is that I can't look at it for too long since I get mesmerized (and really creeped out).
The images that come up form into its own story and--from what I gather--that is the main message of this piece. I believe that there is an exhibit somewhere in the world with this program/site playing.
The artist that constructed this has other pieces using Flickr that you should also check out too, if you're interested. It's all in the link.
The images that come up form into its own story and--from what I gather--that is the main message of this piece. I believe that there is an exhibit somewhere in the world with this program/site playing.
The artist that constructed this has other pieces using Flickr that you should also check out too, if you're interested. It's all in the link.
lolcat haz bibelz 4 j00.
I don't know if anyone has ever posted about this before, but in discussion on Monday, there was a mention of the Bible being translated into some sort of text shorthand? Well, that totally reminded me of the lolcat bibel.
I stumbled across it long ago, through a friend that has an unhealthy obsession with lolcats. It's a work in progress, but definitely something that a lot of people are willign to waste their time on--whether to actually contribute, or just to read it. It's really amazing actually, with guides on hwo to speak lolcat, and so forth.
Check it out.
I stumbled across it long ago, through a friend that has an unhealthy obsession with lolcats. It's a work in progress, but definitely something that a lot of people are willign to waste their time on--whether to actually contribute, or just to read it. It's really amazing actually, with guides on hwo to speak lolcat, and so forth.
Check it out.
SFnet.org
This is the site I mentioned during our presentation in class. Of all the documentation I've come across during my research, SFnet.org is the MOST interesting. It is extremely well documented. Press articles (local, national, and international, and brochure ads) as well as correspondence letters from large corporations are all available for viewing on the website. It is very interesting. The original regular members of SFnet from 1991 still keep in touch. To me, the line between cyber reality and reality is blurred even at the earlier stages of cyberspace. If you guys are ever bored check it out! SFnet.org.
Status Updates Reveal Too Much
Everyone knows that whatever is posted on the Internet is available for the world to see. When it comes to video or photo comments, wall posts, and status updates however, this realization is somehow forgotten. We know that other people can see these comments or updates, and most of the time we try to be witty or funny, but we always forget that anything textual can be easily misunderstood. In New York, one police officer was practically put on trial for what he posted on the internet. His comments may have been innocent, but they did not do him any favors in the courtroom.
According to this New York Times article, Officer Ettienne is partly to blame for the acquittal of a man who was charged with gun possession. The defense used Ettienne's status updates from Myspace and Facebook as well as a few video comments to portray the officer as aggressive and even corrupt. In the end, the actual man on trial got away with a misdemeanor, and Ettienne left with some common sense.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this article is that just one word on the Internet can define someone, and in this case, determine the outcome of a court trial. I don't know if this officer is corrupt or not, but the fact that he was feeling "devious" or that he made a joke about the movie "Training Day" does not mean that he beat up a man and then planted a gun on him to get away with it. Ettienne makes a good point in the article, stating that "you have your Internet persona, and you have what you actually do on the street." You can be anyone and say anything on the Internet, but apparently, you have to be careful about what "mood" you display on Myspace. This cop may in fact be aggressive and corrupt, but can we really determine that from a few words on some social networking sites? I don't think so.
According to this New York Times article, Officer Ettienne is partly to blame for the acquittal of a man who was charged with gun possession. The defense used Ettienne's status updates from Myspace and Facebook as well as a few video comments to portray the officer as aggressive and even corrupt. In the end, the actual man on trial got away with a misdemeanor, and Ettienne left with some common sense.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this article is that just one word on the Internet can define someone, and in this case, determine the outcome of a court trial. I don't know if this officer is corrupt or not, but the fact that he was feeling "devious" or that he made a joke about the movie "Training Day" does not mean that he beat up a man and then planted a gun on him to get away with it. Ettienne makes a good point in the article, stating that "you have your Internet persona, and you have what you actually do on the street." You can be anyone and say anything on the Internet, but apparently, you have to be careful about what "mood" you display on Myspace. This cop may in fact be aggressive and corrupt, but can we really determine that from a few words on some social networking sites? I don't think so.
youtube is blocking videos... for $
Youtube has decided to block thousands of music videos from UK users despite pleas from the Performance Rights Society. I had never thought of it, but after reading this article, I've realized how much of a business all this cyber entertainment networks are. I never cared too much for the business aspect and thought that it was free for every one. However, since google purchased youtube in 2006 for 1.65 billion dollars, pressure to create more revenue on youtube has led it to do such actions like blocking music videos.
In my opinion, such monopolization of these websites will lead to their downfall. (Just look at myspace's decline after being bought out by Fox). This just proves that the desire to profit will eventually lead to an unappealing website, full of advertisements and no more good music videos. However, I guess I can understand when youtube claims it must adopt a "sustainable business model". In theory, if youtube plays music videos and lots of people watch them, then youtube makes a lot of money, enough to share with the PRS and its song writers. However, youtube can't afford to lose money on not-so-successful videos, videos I'm sure others would enjoy. This is where I feel money compromises the "morals" (if the website has any) of the website. I don't buy the idea that they need to have a "sustainable business model", they are already making a lot of money. At least, they should allow people to stream videos they want. When companies create great websites, and artists create great music, its logical to work together, symbiotically to do great things. Music would be accessible to so much more people. Its just sad money has to lead to both's downfall.
In my opinion, such monopolization of these websites will lead to their downfall. (Just look at myspace's decline after being bought out by Fox). This just proves that the desire to profit will eventually lead to an unappealing website, full of advertisements and no more good music videos. However, I guess I can understand when youtube claims it must adopt a "sustainable business model". In theory, if youtube plays music videos and lots of people watch them, then youtube makes a lot of money, enough to share with the PRS and its song writers. However, youtube can't afford to lose money on not-so-successful videos, videos I'm sure others would enjoy. This is where I feel money compromises the "morals" (if the website has any) of the website. I don't buy the idea that they need to have a "sustainable business model", they are already making a lot of money. At least, they should allow people to stream videos they want. When companies create great websites, and artists create great music, its logical to work together, symbiotically to do great things. Music would be accessible to so much more people. Its just sad money has to lead to both's downfall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)