Virtual Bodies: An Extension of the Real Self

"The virtual traveler sees and interacts with bodies, not minds, and she must be inclined to deny the traditional hierarchy in which we are minds and merely have bodies." 

(from Remediation: Understanding New Media by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, p.249)

 

 

This statement goes against what most people probably believe about virtual reality. We tend to have an idea that human beings are spirits or souls with bodies, and these bodies are just vessels for our spirits. However, this quote suggests that virtual reality is a different form of reality and that people within the virtual space are just as real as we are in the real world. In the virtual world, we are not interacting with another person's mind or soul, but a different version of that person entirely.

 

Take social media sites, for instance.  Although we don't physically appear on Facebook or Instagram (in the flesh and blood sense) we do appear there in a different way. It may just be words on a page or a few pictures, but those forms of media contain the inner essence of a person. It may be different, but that doesn't necessarily make it fake. As an introverted person, I tend to be much more animated and can express my thoughts more freely through mediums like social media sites (or this blog) than I do in a public place. My shy, quiet, introverted side seen in public isn't a "fake" version of me, nor is the witty or thoughtful version of myself that appears on social media. Both versions are just as real, and at times they may switch places. I may not post anything online for a while (staying quiet or shy), while in the real world I'm being animated and funny and expressive. 

 

Again, people who are interacting with me (whether in real life or in a virtual space) aren't seeing a fake version of me, but a different version of the same person. In this way, the "virtual traveler" is an extension of the physical body traveling through a virtual world.

A Debate About Art and Technology

Since there has been technology there as been a debate about what is art and what is not. For instance, many people argue that electronic music isn't nearly at the same caliber as music created on an instrument like a guitar or piano. One argument suggests that electronic music can't possibly recreate the same sound as an actual guitar, nor is the process of creating the music the same: instead of manipulating your hands into specific positions and training your body to produce the correct sound, you merely press a button in some cases.

As technology becomes more advanced there are more people arguing for and against the use of electronics to create art. However, more people seem to be accepting that digital art is an acceptable kind of art. You may not be painting a portrait with paint and a brush on a canvas, but it can be just as difficult and require as much practice to get a computer program to "paint" the same portrait.

The following videos contain what I would consider various forms of art. The first video is a recording of a concert that involves real and artificial "artists." The singer is actually a hologram, and the vocals were produced electronically. Notice that there are also live musicians on the stage. I would consider this concert a collaboration between a number of artists from different fields. The instrumentalists are certainly artists, as music is an art. The hologram isn't what I would call an artist, but she is definitely a work of art created by computer programmers and engineers who learned how to manipulate computer programs to create visual and audio art.

The second video comes from a movie I am a huge fan of. Final Fantasy: Advent Children is an amazing work of cinematic art, which involved a collaboration between writers (artists), computer programers (artists), voice actors (artists) and probably many more types of artists in charge of types of art I may not even be aware of. The visuals within the movie could compete with the best realism drawers or painters, and undoubtedly it took a lot of skill to learn how to manipulate the programs required to create the movie.

Digital art does not need to be automatically cast aside just because it doesn't produce "organic" or "real" artwork that must be touched with the artist's hand. The definition of art is very broad and includes unrelated things like painting, dancing, and culinary arts. Why should digital art be any different?

Is the Internet Overwhelming or Helpful?

When asked the question "Is the Internet a distracting and dizzying or does it allow our inquiries to be 'free flowing and uninterrupted'?" my first inclination is to say yes, the Internet is often a dizzying place.

Firstly, the Internet is so full of websites and various information that it is easy to get distracted and lost. A simple Google search for "pizza recipes" leads you down a rabbit hole of words and images related to food that may or may not be pizza, and then you find yourself looking at a recipe for cocktails and then...Oooo, look, there's a sale at Shoedazzle.com! You click on the Shoe Dazzle advertisement, browse shoes for a while and then....oh I need a handbag to match my new pair of heels (if I even decide to buy them. I mean, I could find a cheaper pair on Amazon.com.) So you go to Amazon.com and browse shoes for a while, then clothes, then electronics, then movies. You suddenly wonder if there are any good secondhand movies for sale on Craigslist. They will almost certainly be cheaper. Off to Craiglist.com, where you find not only movies, but halfway decent cars for sale in your area, along with a few people desperately looking for a "date" for the night. Well, that's too creepy, but maybe there will be some decent people on Match.com......Wait....what did I go online for in the first place?

The Internet has so much information and resources that you can hypothetically find just about anything you need with a few simple clicks. However, the Internet is full of things just waiting to distract you from all the information you really wanted. Yes, the Internet is a well of nearly limitless knowledge, but there's just so many distractions that is can be overwhelming to many people.

Oh, right! I wanted pizza!

New Technology, New Joys and Sorrows

Recently the laptop I'd been using for about three years died a sudden, unexpected death. My little Dell had been a loyal and efficient piece of technology, and a huge upgrade from the ancient laptop I'd used before it. As it turns out, my laptop hadn't been a particularly good model by computer standards, but to me it was great.

It's a little bizarre how attached we become to our devices. One of my most expensive and most awesome purchases in high school was my iPod Touch, which is more than outdated by today's standards. It glitches from time to time and will likely need to be replaced (which I'm actually looking forward to a lot), but it has been a great, loyal addition to my technology "family."

When my laptop died I immediately started looking for replacements. When I first got a laptop it was considered a privilege, but not at all necessary. It made writing my novels easier, but that wasn't even necessary since I could still write in a notebook with pen. Today, I NEED a laptop for school, trying to get my novels published, job searching, and keeping relationships strong with far-away friends. It's not a luxury to have a laptop anymore, but a necessity.

We become very personally attached to our gadgets. It's exciting to get a new one, and incredibly frustrating and disappointing when they don't work as well as they used to. At the same time, it's a machine that very quickly becomes obsolete and outdated within a few years. While we are being attached to these inanimate objects, we must also remain very distant because they will only last for a couple years at best.

It's a very strange balance in the technologically advanced world we live in.

That's One Smart Room!

In David Weinberger's book "Too Big To Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room is the Room Itself," we find another book the delves into the technology takeover that we call "modern society."

When I first read the phrase "the smartest person in the room is the room itself" in the title of the book, I immediately thought it meant that technology and the Internet have so overwhelmed society with information (so-called "facts") and wannabe "experts" that no person in the room was actually smart at all. I thought this phrase was Weinberger's cheeky way of saying that everyone in the room is so stupid that the room itself (an inanimate object) must contain more knowledge than they do.

As I started to read the book I was relieved that this wasn't going to be another one-sided "Google is making us stupid" argument. Instead, Weinberger explains what he meant on page thirteen of the prologue. The room is a collective network, much like the Internet, that combines all of the knowledge of the people within the room: the lecturer (aka "expert") and everyone present for the lecture, each of whom comes equipped with a lifetime of their own knowledge. The room then becomes a hot spot of knowledge because no single person in the room knows everything, but together they all have access to each others knowledge.

There's a flaw in this thinking, which is very similar to the flaw in the Internet and it's seemingly endless well of information. Everyone in the room may possess knowledge, but do they all possess facts? And if they do, does that make them all experts at something? Who decides what is a fact and what is not?

One of the worst uses of the Internet (or anything presented as "fact") occurs when people read something and automatically think that it is correct. The Internet has definitely made everyone an expert, and yet they may actually be another naive listener in a room with one "expert" sharing the knowledge they consider to be factual.

This doesn't mean that facts don't exist and you need to become a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but everyone should look at different aspects of a "fact" until they find what is true, or perhaps most true. In short, I encourage you to:

Protect Your Future from your Online Past

We've all been cautioned not to post things on our social media sites that may reflect negatively on us. Employers and graduate schools more often than ever before are using social media sites to learn about their prospective employees and students. I think there should definitely be a barrier between your "private" at-home life and your life at work or school, and what you choose to do or share with your friends may not reflect on your work ethic, it's always a good idea to think about what kind of impression you're putting out into the world. What may seem fun and "cool" to show off to your friends may not go over so well to your next boss.

As someone who will soon be graduating college and heading out into the dreaded "real world," this sort of thing is on my mind more now than ever. Here's an article that offers five helpful tips to protect yourself from leaving a bad impression on someone, while taking advantage of the positive aspects of social media: Social Media Tips to Protect Your Future from Your Past. A brief list is below, but if you have the time to read the article, certainly go more in-depth into these tips.

1: Do a personal online audit.

2: If in doubt, delete.

3: Make sure your LinkedIn profile is up-to-date.

4: Start cultivating a more professional side on Facebook, Twitter, and similar platforms.

5: Consider changing your privacy settings.

Reaction to Wearable Devices

Google's Android Wear

I've been aware of wearable devices for a while, and by that I'm mainly talking about the watches that connect to your smartphone via Bluetooth. Last night my roommate was watching a video about Android Wear, which sparked me to really think about what these devices are all about.

Initially, I thought it was a pointless idea to (basically) wear a smartphone on your wrist when you can just as easily take it out of your pocket. It seems that technology has become stagnant; there's not much else we haven't invented, so we keep changing the way it looks and the size of the device or the screen (the whole iPad, iPad Mini thing seems completely silly to me). In this case, we've changed the appearance from phone-like to a watch, but all the same functions are there.

Let's look on the bright side though. After watching Android Wear's promotional video on YouTube (see below), I noticed a few things that might be useful about the watch. Say you're out in public and don't want to look like you're glued to your phone like so many other people these days. This way you can more subtly check the weather or social media notifications. Or maybe you're out for a bike ride or jog and don't have pockets to put your phone in. The watch is conveniently strapped to your wrist (but aren't there phone holders for that...? Oh well.)

I'm curious to know what other people think about wearable technology. Thoughts? Comments? Questions? (Not that I'm an expert and can answer your questions, but we can be confused together).

Toddler Saves Mother Using Technology

Young children using technology has become more and more common these days. There are iPad apps created just for young children to play with and learn with (the one that attaches to a potty training chair is especially bizarre to me).

A friend of mine, who babysits toddlers, has often handed her cell phone over to them as a toy to keep them occupied. This often results in many nonsense texts and "prank" calls being sent to many of her contacts, but she doesn't seem to mind.

Many critics, myself included, think it's strange and unnecessary for young children to be so tech-savvy. Whatever happened to giving children a book to read, or regular toys to play with, or taking them outside to enjoy nature?

However, as the world we're living in becomes more reliant on technology, it may be a good thing to teach them the basics of technological literacy at a young age (as long as they can still have an appreciation for the world around them --- in real life). I recently heard a story on Yahoo.com about a two year-old boy who got help for his injured mother using FaceTime. His mother had been badly bitten by a dog and needed immediate help. Her two older children (four year-olds), were too terrified to call for help. Her son, Bentley, not only brought her a towel to stop the bleeding, but called his mother's friend using FaceTime. The friend called 9-1-1 and when help arrived, Bentley was waiting at the door for them.

Not only is this child incredibly brave and smart for a two-year-old, his knowledge of FaceTime and his mother's smartphone got her the help she needed. Maybe it's not so bad for young children to know how to use technology after all.

Watch the full story here:
"Toddler's FaceTime Saves Mom"

Improv Everywhere: Frozen Grand Central

Improv Everywhere is a NYC-based group with one goal: to cause scenes.

They're easily one of my favorite groups to follow as they do funny and completely harmless pranks. The word "prank" is often associated with harmful activities at the expense of someone else, and sometimes they are either emotionally or physically painful. However, Improv Everywhere is a group of pranksters who actually aim to make people feel good by presenting them with absurd situations in unexpected places. Most people respond with smiles, laughter, and more than a little confusion. What more could you ask for?

Here's a very popular, and yet very simple, prank (or "mission" as they're called) that happened in 2008. It is currently the Improv Everywhere video with the highest number of views on YouTube at well over 34,000,000. Enjoy!

)

The Online Dating Taboo

Many dating sites promise to help users find their perfect mate, and for every user with a profile on a dating site there seems to be two people looking down on them and laughing about the "absurd" idea of making a real connection with someone on a computer.

Online dating, though more common than it was maybe five or ten years ago, is still considered a taboo subject, and users often feel embarrassed to admit to even looking at an online dating site, let alone be a member of one. They often stammer, "Uh...well I-I was just browsing, ya' know, for laughs" or another unnecessary excuse. It is often considered a place where "losers" and shy introverts go as a last resort, after meeting people at school or in bars has failed. To say "I use an online dating site" is an opportunity to be teased and looked down upon by others because that must mean that you are less sociable and possibly less attractive than people who have no problem meeting potential significant others in person.

With that said, I'm going to make a confession: I am a user of an online dating site.

I first signed up to Plenty of Fish in 2011 after a difficult breakup with a college boyfriend (who I met in person in high school) and transferred to a new college. For the last three years I've used it on an off, sometimes hiding my profile for months at a time when I grew tired of conversations that went nowhere or men blatantly asking if I wanted a no-strings-attached hookup. Part of my decision to sign up stemmed from the fact that I am a shy introvert who has a hard time speaking up in class or engaging in small talk with strangers. Most crowded public places are exhausting to an introvert like me, which most extroverts just can't seem to understand. My loudest voice is my writing. I find it easier to express myself through writing, so making conversation on a dating site is easy (when the guy I'm talking to is also good at expressing himself through writing).

I've been on dates with three different guys who I met online. The decision to meet in person is not something I take lightly. Dozens, maybe hundreds of guys, have expressed interest in me over the years, but it takes a lot of emailing, texting, and, eventually, phone conversations to earn enough trust for me to meet them. In 2011, I got in a committed relationship with one of these men, and we were together for several months. Three years later we remain good friends and I have a good relationship with his family, even though they all live on the other side of the United States. I even flew out to stay with them last year, and it was one of the most exciting and fun experiences of my life.

So why does online dating have such a comical and negative reputation? Sure, there's no guarantee that the person on the other end of the keyboard is who they claim to be. It is very easy to lie in writing and to hide embarrassing aspects of your body in pictures. But really, there's no guarantee that the person you meet in the bar is who they claim to be either. The key words here are honesty and trust. As important as it is to protect yourself in the quest for love, it is just as important to be honest with each other and to give trust to the other person. Whether that is in person or online doesn't matter.

Society is becoming more and more technologically literate, and as we rely on the Internet for communication with friends, family, and our peers it isn't fair to say that you can't create a viable relationship with a person entirely online. I don't think virtual communication will completely replace face-to-face communication (at least, I certainly hope it won't), but I do hope that we can drop the taboo placed on online dating and replace it with more honesty and respect amongst members of the online dating community.

It Takes a Village to Find a Phone

An interesting story was brought to my attention in chapter 1 of Clay Shirky's book Here Comes Everybody, and it is a story that is becoming much more common than when the event happened.

Here's a quick overview: In 2006, a woman named Ivanna left her cellphone, a Sidekick, in the backseat of a taxi. Ivanna found out that her phone -- which contained important information regarding her wedding plans -- ended up in the hands of a young girl named Sasha. When Sasha refused to return the cell phone, what followed was amazing and uncommon in 2006. Ivanna's friend Evan set up a website and filled the Internet with the story of the stolen Sidekick, catching the attention of thousands of people who quickly rushed to support Ivanna in getting her cell phone back. The attention gained from Evan's efforts eventually convinced the NYPD to change the nature of the situation from "lost phone" to "stolen phone" and intervene, eventually returning Ivanna's phone to her. The full story can be found here: Evanwashere.com/StolenSidekick

In 2006 it wasn't quite as common for the world to be connected via the Internet, nor was this type of support from strangers common. Now we see images on Facebook every day claiming that if the picture of an injured child can get a certain number of "likes" then doctors will miraculously heal the child. These photos often have thousands of "likes", even if it's a complete hoax. (From my understanding, it pretty much always is).

On page 21 of Shirky's book, he states something that really expresses what is happening today with Internet connectedness: "And as we would expect, when desire is high and costs have collapsed, the number of such groups is skyrocketing, and the kinds of effects they are having on the world is spreading." Because of technology and the Internet, we no longer have to go door to door with a petition to get a large group of people to rally to a cause. It no longer takes a lot of money to start an organization and get more donations or to sell products. Instead, these sorts of things can be done on a website or a Facebook group at almost no cost whatsoever, and they often have even greater results.

This can be a great thing, but it can also be tremendously damaging. For instance, Ivanna got her cell phone back, but at the same time Sasha was being scrutinized by thousands of strangers, and often discussions about race and the military came into play. (Sasha is Hispanic and her brother Luis was in the Military Police). People often threatened violence towards Sasha and her family, and some of them found out where she lived. This type of behavior can easily get out of hand, and the Internet is often seen as a mask that keeps users anonymous so they can get away with such things.

The story of the stolen Sidekick is yet another example of how technology is neutral, but can easily be used for good or for bad. It is hard to say just yet which usage is more common.

Technology: The Death of Comic Strips?

Ever since I was a little girl, I've read the comic strips (or "the funnies" as my grandma called them) in the daily newspaper. My grandma used to read them to my brother and me, and even today I read the comics when I have access to a newspaper. In the last 22+ years, I've essentially grown up with the characters in the comics. Some have been retired and replaced by new comics, others have stood the test of time and are still being printed, such as Garfield, and Peanuts. But what happens when newspapers are gradually being replaced with technology? Specifically, the Internet.

As more and more people are turning to the Internet for news, printed newspapers are being put out of business because, frankly, nobody wants to buy them. This has had many negative consequences, and comic strips and their writers have been greatly affected. A new documentary called Stripped is exploring this situation, and the implications it is having on comic strip writers and artists.

There are many comic strips that are solely on the Internet, such as The Oatmeal. Some of these writers love that they can essentially do whatever they want by publishing on the Internet, but what will the older generation of writers and artists do when newspapers become extinct? Will they have to adapt to the new technology, or will they have to go extinct as well? Will they have to face the truth that their livelihood and the beautiful medium of hand-drawn comics is obsolete, or will there always be a place for printed comics, even if it isn't in newspapers? Perhaps this documentary will shed some light on the situation, even if we don't have an answer just yet.

The last "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip ended on a bittersweet note.

HTML Practice with a Table

Today I will practice integrating a table into my blog using HTML codes. This post is utter nonsense (aside from how serious I am about chocolate. I never kid about chocolate). This will be a new and exciting experience for me since I will write this post entirely in HTML code. Pretty nifty, eh?

Chocolate Rankings

Type	Ranking	Flavor	Reasons
Milk Chocolate	#1	Delicious; sweet; melty awesomeness	You can't go wrong with milk chocolate. Put in milk, on fruit, on your hand, or just eat a bar of it. Either way, you're winning.
Dark Chocolate	#2	Sweet; bitter; tall, dark & handsome.	It's healthier than milk chocolate, adds depth of flavor and a little bitterness to your day. Loses some points for not being as addictive as milk chocolate, and he's bitter about that. Nobody likes a sore loser.
White Chocolate	#3	Confused; too sweet; not chocolatey; ewww.	What ARE you? Can we even call this chocolate? More like milk chocolate's awkward albino cousin who went to the prom with milk chocolate because her mom bribed her. Boooo!!

Twitch Plays Pokemon...With 80,000 Other People

 A new level of chaos was introduced to me by my roommate last night. We've all played a video game intended for just one player. Perhaps you've even gotten creative and tried to play with two people at the controls (my brother and I once played on the same Guitar Hero guitar for a song. Awkward, yes. But definitely do-able). However, can you fathom thousands of people controlling the same player? As it turns out, this is happening as we speak.

About a week ago the game was started, and using crowd sourcing a single game of Pokemon Red is currently being controlled by thousands of people by entering commands into a chat window. (Don't ask me how any of this works; I know nothing about crowd sourcing or anything that makes this possible. It's all magic to me). It was started as a social experiment, I'm told, with users voting to implement anarchy or democracy. That means that either everyone will enter commands as they want (anarchy, which is currently happening) or democracy will be put into place and a select few will enter commands.

 Surprisingly, these 80,000 or so players have actually gotten about halfway through the game in a week. If you watch the game being played for a few seconds you'll quickly understand why that's so amazing. After watching Red bonk into walls for a while, try to use random items at the wrong time, and get through battle after tedious battle I was astounded that any progress had been made. I was also astounded that I was even watching the madness, especially after my roommate told me that a religion had formed because of this.

Yes, a religion. With a Pidgeot-Jesus, a holy Helix Fossil, and an evil "false prophet" Flareon being kept in the PC by a gatekeeper Drowsee.

I don't understand it. I don't want to understand it. But I am certainly amazed at what technology has managed to do with the game, and the attention of thousands of viewers and players who are so heavily invested in the success of the game that they genuinely feel upset when things go badly. Like when Hitmonlee was released. I imagine it was quite sad....

Digital Literacy and Cynthia Selfe: Good & Bad Technology

Recently I've been reading Cynthia Selfe's book Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention, a book that's almost too old to be completely relevant to us (it was published in 1999), and yet there are many aspects of this book that are spot-on...and many that are not.

Selfe says that "technological literacy refers to a complex set of socially and culturally situated values, practices, and skills involved in operating linguistically within the context of electronic environments, including reading, writing, and communicating." Even in 1999, when computers were not as prevalent as they are today, Selfe recognized the importance of being able to not only use computers, but to be able to effectively communicate with them. Today, computers are all around us and we are constantly in the presence of technology, whether we realize it or not.

Selfe frequently quotes other people in her book, and many of them are not on the side of technology. Like Plato, they not only scoffed the usefulness of new technology, but claimed that it would have terrible negative affects on society. Selfe refers to Barry Sanders's A is for Ox on page 33, who had some very harsh criticisms about technology, claiming that "the computer has helped to erase the inner core of the human being--conspiring, that is, in the obliteration...of stories and storytelling--it has hastened the destruction of the family."

It's very true that computers have negative consequences when used improperly, but Sanders goes way too far to claim that computers have "hastened the destruction of the family." Computers can be praised for helping keep family ties and friendships strong, and no better example comes to mind than my own use of Facebook to keep track of people who no longer live anywhere near me. About three years ago I was dating a solider who deployed to Afghanistan for a year. He often couldn't use a phone for a while and written letters take a long time to travel that far, but by logging onto Facebook his family, friends, and I could quickly see that he'd left a status or responded to something. Even if the communication wasn't directly aimed at someone, we all knew that he was at least alive. For the entire time he was gone I relied on technology to keep in contact with him and to know he was safe.

Computers don't have the capacity to "conspire" as Sanders claimed. Computers don't care what you use them for, and they can't do much without human input. Technology is completely neutral; it is what humans do with it that determines if it is being used for good or bad.

Technology That Helps the Blind See

 
For as long as there have been blind people, there has been technology invented for the sole purpose of helping them live easier lives. The types of technology range from collapsible canes, to voice recognition features on smartphones. I have a blind grandmother and I can still remember the day she showed me her "talking watch" for the very first time. She simply pressed a button and the watch vocalized what time it was. As a young child in the 1990s, my mind was blown.

I was recently doing research on blindness and discovered Tommy Edison, a blind film critic on YouTube. There is a lot of things this charming man can do without the aid of technology, but I was really amazed by a particular iPhone app he demonstrated that allows blind people to identify objects as easily as sighted people do. "Tap Tap See" works by identifying specific items that the user has taken a photo of, all the way down to the brand name and color. Tommy demonstrates by first taking a picture of a twenty dollar bill, and the phone correctly tells him what denomination the bill is. Being taken advantage of while purchasing things is pretty common to blind people, unfortunately. Since there is no way to identify a one dollar bill from a fifty dollar bill based on touch or smell alone, they must rely on the honesty of strangers, which isn't always very reliable.

The app correctly identifies a white Adidas sock and a can of Healthy Choice chicken noodle soup. This app is one example of technology that can help blind people live alone and not have to question what type of food they're eating, what they're wearing, which CD or DVD they've picked up, and many other things that sighted people don't even think about when they're going about daily life. This is yet another example of technology at its finest: helping people's lives be easier.

HTML Code: Challenge Accepted

Perhaps you, reader, have never looked at HTML code before. I mean really looked at it and tried to decipher the long lines of gobbledegook and symbols that appear meaningless to the untrained eye. If that is the case, then you are like me, a person who has a fairly good understanding of computers as long as the information is in fully-formed English sentences. So when I first looked at this:

my first reaction was this:

and my second reaction was to curl up in a ball and cry, realizing that I was expected to make sense of all those lines of letters and symbols.

I wiped away my tears and picked up the assigned textbook, Sams Teach Yourself HTML, CSS and JavaScript by Julie C. Meloni, and prayed that the information would be given to me in language a non-techie could understand. Within a few minutes I began to make sense of things, and after many careful types on Notepad I created my first successful HTML code. Ironically, I can't figure out how to get the code to translate onto this blog.

Perhaps I'll go cry in the corner again...

Or! I'll rise to the challenge and try to figure out the crazy world of HTML to make my blog do cool and interesting things! I've seen examples where other people have used HTML code to insert cool graphics and effects into their blogs, which may not be entirely necessary for me. I mean, I have pretty much all of the tools I need to do what I intend to do on this blog without typing it in HTML code, don't I? If all else fails, I can hopefully pass my class and add "Experience using HTML codes" to me resume. That's got to count for something, right?

Brummett and Rhetoric in Terms of Technology & Social Media

In 1979, Barry Brummett wrote an article called "Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric," a dense article that basically suggested that there is a relationship between how people communicate and what they know. The way in which a message is transmitted from one person to another is crucial to the understanding of the knowledge, or the misunderstanding of that knowledge. I'm summarizing a LOT here since the article is kind of hard to understand if you aren't familiar with the terminology.

One of his meanings really stood out for me in terms of technology and media: the ontological meaning of rhetoric. Large words and "scholarly" writing don't impress me when I need to have a dictionary on hand in order to understand just what the heck the author is telling me, so I'll give a "dumbed-down" version of what Brummett was telling his audience for my sake as well as the sake of my readers. Basically, Brummett said that conversation changes what we know about the world. The example used in class makes the most sense: the debate about Pluto. Pluto, the big rock floating out in space, never changed. It's always been the same good ol' Pluto. However, it was people who discussed and argued with each other and decided that Pluto shouldn't be a planet anymore.

So what does this have to do with technology? For one thing, there's a huge difference between watching a full-length documentary about, let's say, sharks and the ocean and reading this meme:

Yes, this is meant to be funny and is in no way close to the truth, but who knows, there might be someone gullible enough to believe that. Some of the people I see on the Internet lead me to believe that there is. Exhibit A:

(Yes, dogs do have brains. That's how they, you know, survive and function as living creatures.)

 

I digress.

 

Technology doesn't always cause misunderstandings and suppress the passage of information from one person to another. In some ways, taking advantage of a certain medium can efficiently pass information in ways that other mediums couldn't. Twitter users, the really experienced ones, can efficiently communicate an idea in 140 characters. If you aren't very good at using Twitter, it can be difficult to say everything the way you'd like to in such a small amount of space and make it have an impact. Instagram is another medium that often proves that a picture can be worth a thousand words. The things that people post on social media shows exactly what their reality is, and it is through media and discussion that can change just what you know about the people and the world around you.

Benefits of the Internet Cat Sensation

It all started with a simple, poorly spelled question:

and an Internet sensation was born. Lolcats entertained millions of viewers across the world with their poor use of the English language and silly antics, but what started as mere entertainment has since created a useful niche for animals everywhere. I've mentioned in previous posts how the Internet can have negative affects on society, but this medium can have many benefits, one of which we can thank our furry friends for.

 

Lil Bub, Pudge, Tartar Sauce (better known as The Grumpy Cat), Colonel Meow, Nala, Hamilton the Hipster Cat, and Oskar the Blind Cat are among many felines who have become famous via the Internet. Several of these cats were either found as strays or rescued from shelters, and some of them were considered "unadoptable" because of physical deformations. Lil Bub is perhaps the most notable of these cases.

Born the runt of a feral litter, Lil Bub has a number of genetic anomalies including an extreme case of dwarfism, a short lower jaw, no teeth, and extra toes on each of her paws. Fortunately she lives a very happy and healthy life and has used her unusual appearance and cuteness to raise money for animals in need. According to her website (Lilbub.com), Lil Bub has raised over $60,000 for charities through her online store and meet-and-greets at animal shelters across the country. She encourages pet adoption, spreads the importance of spaying and neutering your pets, and serves as a reminder that being different is a good thing.

 

Grumpy Cat and Pudge (pictured above) are also cats who use their fame to help animals in need. Proceeds from the sale of their merchandise goes to animal shelters. Many of these cats have banned together for the sake of charity (see below):

It's really quite amazing what the Internet can do to help those in need. Not only have these cats all found loving homes, but they've encouraged others to donate money, time, and love to a good cause: the overall wellbeing of cats everywhere. Does that make anyone else feel warm and fuzzy on the inside? If nothing else, these animals have provided millions of people with a much needed laugh or an "aww" after a long day. I encourage everyone to adopt from a shelter, or at the very least volunteer at a local humane society. The animals will thank you.

R.I.P Colonel Meow



 

There is a Time for Technology, Just Not All the Time

I've said in previous blog posts that I have differing opinions on the use of technology, and many of my negative opinions come from the way I was raised: mostly without a lot of "new" technology (i.e, the Internet, cell phones, and social media) in a very rural town without a whole lot going for it. While I believe there are many good uses to technology, I'd like to take a moment to vent about some of the things that bother me about new technology and how it has changed our culture. Hopefully I'll get enough of it out of my system so I won't spend my entire blog complaining like an old man about "those darn kids and their celluar phones!"

A good example of this comes from an advertisement I watched for Pocket, an online and mobile app that allows users to save websites for later viewing. The video can be found here, although I had some trouble getting Vimeo to work correctly: Pocket on Vimeo. If that doesn't work, perhaps it can be accessed straight from their website here: Get Pocket. There are a lot of good intentions behind this app, namely convenience. If I find something interesting or important on the Internet and would like to quickly access it later, I can do so using Pocket. However, something that stood out the most was that the woman in the video (who is very busy and often needs to save online articles to read later) struck me as someone who was hooked on the Internet and didn't quite seem to have her priorities straight. For instance, in one scene she and two other people are standing in line at a coffee shop or bakery of some sort. All three of them are glued to their mobile devices, seemingly oblivious to anything around them. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them missed their order because Instagram was so riveting at the time. Some might call waiting in line a perfect opportunity to browse the Internet, so I'll try to give them the benefit of the doubt. (I, as a shy introvert, would probably never engage a stranger in conversation while standing in line, but I try to make a point to be a little more aware of my surroundings while in public).

Later in the video the woman walks her dog to a park, all the while telling the audience the benefits of using Pocket in the hectic world we live in. She then proceeds to sit down at a bench, throw a ball for her dog to chase, and continue catching up on her Internet reading via smartphone. By this point I found myself yelling at the computer screen, "WHY AREN'T YOU PLAYING WITH YOUR DOG??!!" 

This is what annoys me most about society's overuse of technology. Instead of enjoying a beautiful day at the park and socializing with her dog (and perhaps other dog owners) the woman chose to sit on a bench and catch up on reading that could probably be saved for later after the sun had gone down, her dog was happily napping someplace, or perhaps a rain storm had rolled in. Why do we find it so necessary to be glued to technology instead of interacting with the world around us? I'm not the most sociable party animal in the world, but I hate when I find myself in a situation like this one: 

So...does anyone want to chat, or drink...or anything?

 If left unchecked, this reliance on technology can definitely have negative consequences. Sure, not chatting to your friends at a party isn't exactly going to have a huge political or environmental backlash, but the reliance on the media to do our thinking certainly will. One of my favorite heavy metal musicians/artist/activist/all-around badass Otep Shamaya says it very well in her song "Smash the Control Machine":

(If heavy metal isn't quite your style the lyrics can be found here: Otep: Smash the Control Machine )There are plenty of political and social issues addressed in this song, but the lyrics that really seemed relevant were: "So we live our digital lives On multiple screens And we forget that The blood of the workers Grease the machines."

The idea here is that we should stop giving so much power to the media to the point that our lives become nothing but "work, buy, consume, die" when there is so much more going on around us, whether that be important political and social issues, or something as simple as taking your dog for a walk or having an uninterrupted conversation with a friend or relative.

I've used enough of your time though, dear reader. Turn off the Internet for a while and take your dog (or roommate) for a walk. I'm sure Fido (or Frank) will thank you.

Has the Media Worked Us Over?

In his book The Medium is the Massage, Marshall McLuhan claims that "all media work us over completely" (p. 26). Since the book was originally published in 1967, he couldn't have been talking about social media, like Facebook or Twitter. Instead, when he referred to media he was talking more about any way in which messages are transferred to the public, whether via phone, billboard advertisement, radio, television, etc. Was McLuhan's statement correct?

Let's first think about what he meant by "work us over." According to Merriam-Webster dictionary's website (Merriam-Webster.com/work over), "work over" can be defined as follows: 1)  "to subject to thorough examination, study, or treatment"; 2) "to do over" (as in "rework"); 3 ) "to beat up or manhandle with thoroughness." I don't think the second definition is applicable, but what about the other two? Does all media subject us to thorough examination or study? I think modern social media certainly does, since it allows us to broadcast our everyday lives to the world, if we so choose. By thoroughly filling out a Facebook account, a user allows the world access to everything about them: their picture, their favorite books and TV shows, where they were born, currently live, and have travelled to, all the way down to their mundane daily activities. Many users tend to give a play-by-play of their everyday lives (much to the annoyance of their friends and acquaintances. Yes, I'm sure that cereal was delicious this morning. Oh, is it raining where you are? Tell me how that makes you feel. But I digress). Social media like Facebook make it incredibly easy for a "Facebook stalker" to thoroughly examine and study who we are as an individual. In that sense, yes we have been "worked over."

This brings me to another point brought up by McLuhan. On page 63 of The Medium is the Massage, McLuhan states that, "We now live in a global village...a simultaneous happening." At the time he was talking about the human race's connectedness via technology like the railroad and telephone, but his ideas are more relevant now than ever. We live in a time where the individual can be connected to people all over the world via phones and the Internet. As I write this blog it is highly possible that someone on the other side of the world is also writing a blog post, perhaps one also about the media. What's even more amazing is that we could actually end up reading each others blogs at some point, connecting our words and ideas in a way that, once upon a time, was only possible by a face-to-face conversation. The ways in which we as a race are connected are truly astounding, and not always negative like "Facebook stalking" or the third definition of work over ("to beat up or manhandle with thoroughness"). It is because of technology like the Internet and telephone that I can stay in touch with people who live on the other side of the United States, or even in other countries. It may not be as satisfying as seeing them in person, but to stay connected in some way is a great and beautiful thing.

Technology: A Help or a Hinderance?

Nicholas Carr posed an interesting question in his article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", which, in a nutshell, concluded that mankind's lack of attention span for lengthy reading is partially caused by Internet surfing and skimming articles rather than reading them entirely. He has many good points, especially considering the fast-paced world we live in where many people want things instantly and become irritated when technology doesn't immediately do our bidding (I'm guilty of this myself). But can we fully blame a decreasing attention span or stupidity on the Internet entirely?

Others say that new technology has been blamed for centuries, and wrongly so. For instance, Mike Masnick posed a similar question in his article "Did Pencils Make Us Dumber?". As it turns out, the fear of new technology making people stupid has gone back as far a Plato's time. He criticized the act of writing because it would make our memories weak. After all, why remember things when we can write them down and look at them later? Plato also believed that writing was less interactive than talking to other people, and social interaction would deteriorate.

Where do I stand in the midst of all this? It's hard to say. I don't believe that technology has made us stupid, as long as we learn not to believe everything that we read on the Internet as fact without taking the time to do more research and get our facts straight. There are many, many benefits to technology. New technology has allowed lives to be saved in hospitals, and for us to stay in contact with people who live thousands of miles away. The simple act of writing a letter to someone, thanks to that evil written word Plato was so afraid of, has allowed people to stay in touch with others long before we started posting nearly every aspect of our lives on social media websites.

What I personally believe is that technology has hindered people's ability to live everyday life without being connected to some sort of electronic gadget. I grew up in a tiny village and lived without a cell phone or Internet until I was a senior in high school, and that was my personal preference. As a child, if I wanted to be entertained I read a book, or went outside and played (yes, I did watch TV. I didn't completely grow up in the Stone Age). Today I cringe every time I see a young child with an iPhone, and I constantly wonder what happened to all the children in my hometown when I go home and walk the streets. When I was young there was always children and teenagers outside having fun and causing mischief with each other. Instead, the streets are barren. What happened?? Mankind's increasing reliance on technology could easily be our social downfall. Even I find myself spending too much time on Facebook when I'd much prefer to be spending time with my friends in person, so I'm not saying I'm any better than the people I seem to be scoffing.

So has Google and pencils made us less intelligent? I think no, if anything they have just given us better mediums to share our ideas and to learn things about the world. My main concern with the advance of technology is how much farther it will push us away from each other. In truth, I'd prefer to have this conversation aloud with another person but, for now, I'll just post this to the Internet at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite.