iJustine is my new hero!

When I logged on to iJustine I didn’t believe that it could be entertaining. Watching peoples boring lives? That can’t be any fun. After spending the last 3 and a half hours searching the site I really don’t know what to say. The site is highly entertaining, and kept my attention for hours and end easily. And there were things happening from 11o’clock pm till now at 2:14am (I was aiming to sleep at 2) and are still continuing to keep me flipping through the channels? And during the high peak hours there must be even more to watch. This is some really amazing stuff, I must say! The technology in place is very cool as well. Things I have never seen before such at viddlers and an archive engine that plays like youtube but can be continued from any point in time. I do not know how this is done, but I want in on it! I think I might go make myself a channel! Once I get it up I’ll upload a link for you guys to watch me during the day!

Edit #1

Here is a link to my live channel!

Go to live chat!

I only have sound at the moment, but tomorrow I’ll get a camera!

Edit #2

Can I do this live casting for my final project instead of a paper? Maybe I would want to kill someone if I broadcasted myself all day… Maybe I should find out?

Advertisements

Random Question

Would a female political blogger gain as much as a male political blogger given that they both are just as influential and as widely read?

Same ole’ gender

When reading the Melissa Gregg’s Posting with Passion it occurred to me that the issues raised to “the degree to which gender differences have manifested in the use of this emerging medium” are really old news. Separate spheres and the, maybe coerced, lack of female political involvement are issues that stretch all the way back to the beginnings of our culture’s birth of modern gender during the industrial revolution. While transcoding of this argument into modern means seems to be a worthwhile topic of conversation, it seems to skirt the underlying gender issues that are prevalent not just online but everywhere. Given that the focus of this essay was gender’s expressions through blogging, the argument is not as strong as it could be by pulling in more references to how these issues are mirrored in the nondigital world. Near the end of her essay she does pull one reference to “real life.” She states that it shouldn’t be taken for granted that new media will take on the “hierarchies of access and privilege that exists elsewhere.” The problem is that this is not true, at least when taken in real world context. The people that are participating in this new medium are subject to the “hierarchies of access and privilege” of old world, and they, willingly or unwillingly, bring this bias into the new medium. The bias might not be in the medium itself, but there is no helping what people bring in with them.

Who is Foucault?

    Foucault’s “What is an Author?” calls into question all of our assumptions about authorship. Was the idea of authorship always around? Why do we think of writers as being set apart from the rest of society? All of these questions are raised in Foucault’s essay. The following sections of writing seem to be addressing these problems. Foucault takes the approach of examining the “author functions” in order to see why society wants to classify books through use of the author’s name. He seems to be playing at the idea that authorship and the current author functions are just ideas of the current history and could be replaced at any time.

So what is an author function? Foucault describes many different qualities of the author function. The first of which, that the idea of authorship leads to a desire of transgression and then leads to the persecution of an author. Next, Foucault reveals how the idea of authorship is different when you look at different types of texts, it is not applied equally to all writing. The next trait that Foucault describes gets lost in his rhetoric, but starts by listing many different aspects people consider when thinking about authorship. Foucault describes the fourth and final trait through a metaphor about authorship. He constructs that an author can be an alter ego just as readily as the narrator can be. Foucault follows this with how the idea of the author can apply to more than individual works, but as the author of an entire discipline. He supplements this idea with an example referring to Marx and Freud and how their entire set of ideas and fields are classified according to their name. This idea melts into the historical conclusion of his essay, where he brings up the idea of how the author functions have changed according to the current history. Foucault closes out his statements with how authorship does not mean as much as we think it does, it is part of a larger system which is limiting how we think of things. Foucault then states how these limitation might disappear in the future but it will give rise to new problems, and there will always be more problems.

The Amateur needs time too!

When discussing Web 2.0 and the cult of the amateur, Wikipedia is a hot topic of conversation. Comparisons of printed encyclopedias are immediately drawn, in order to show the short comings of Wikipedia. These comparisons really are meaningless when you think of the time printed encyclopedias had to develop and compare that to Wikipedia. This new form needs time too! Time to grow and learn. This is a very ambitious project of collaboration, and being the first of its kind need time to iron out the kinks. In time the true beauty of the amateur will show, blossoming into a encyclopedia that is unrivaled in size and of competing quality. Since this transformation is already starting to take place and Web 2.0 is to ingrained in our society to turn back, it is time for the professionals to jump ship on the old way of thinking and join in the collaboration. Once the true professionals have added their voice, how could there ever be any competition for Wikipedia?

A big game of telephone?

The novel “A Million Penguins” was written by crowdsourcing as part of the Assignment Zero experiment. This book was brought to completion, but it seems like a big game of telephone to me, complete with misinterpretations and off topic remarks. If you don’t believe me try searching for bananaman who, no matter the point of the story, would add bananas to the scene. Any collaborator could edit or rewrite another’s work, as well as, say anything that they would like. This seemed to be the goal of the project, by allowing anyone and everyone to add something to the story, but it seems to be a broken method for creating any work that people outside the project would consider legitimate literature. Maybe a story that had a limited number of contributers that had to work within close confines of each other could create a collaborative work the would really shine? I don’t know, but what I do know is that there is a strong need for change in their ideas and presentation of the project, a need for a closer community, and maybe the creation of niches for people to fall into in order to get a real sense of the people they are working with. I know that the point is crowdsourcing, but as they showed with their site redesign, community is everything. Things need to be pulled together in tighter communities in order to create stronger works, maybe even greater than the caliber that we would expect from traditional methods. Or maybe this wouldn’t work at all… It is time for Assignment Zero 2.0

If you’re wondering why my last post was poor…

it was because Bjork stole my attention. She absolutely rocked Austin City Limits this weekend. M.I.A., Ghostland Observatory, Regina Spektor, and My Morning Jacket all were pretty badass as well. Bjork even blew up a speaker by rocking so hard! Just watch some of her performance and see for yourself…

The police, policing themselves.

This news story containing information about police shootings in Florida, further demonstrates the idea of the panopticon. These police were being subject to a horrible situation where they could have been shot at any moment, and even under these conditions the police had to “behave themselves.” This situation shows how deeply the policing of ourselves has moved, by showing cops that were in a life or death situation and still showing restraint. This is further developed by the idea that they were all trying to use restraint and they had to resort to killing the suspect anyway. These police were effectively policing themselves just like the rest of America. So whos actually watching us?

Cops Gone Wild!

Do cops have the right do invade in our rights if they don’t like our answers? It seems they think so! Brett Darrow, the kid in the following videos, DOES egg the cops on in some way, but that does not in any way excuse their actions! If our rights were being protected by our civil servants like they should be, an answer of, “ I don’t wish to discuss my personal life with you officer.” would not have raised any suspicions. We need to be aware that our rights might be infringed upon by peace officers, and know exactly what our rights are according to the law. You never know when you’ll meet a cop gone wild. Always stand up for your rights, it’s our duty as Americans to make sure our freedom is still intact and if not change the situation. Kudos to you Brett, even if you do seem like a teen aged brat, you are the true patriot! BRING DOWN THE MAN!

This ISN’T Illegal?! Thanks CNN…

News blogs have the freedom that the mainstream media are lacking. CNN’s report on the cracked iPhone does not once mention the legality of the matter. George Hotz, a New Jersey teen, has cracked the iPhone so it will work on cellular providers other than AT&T. Both CNN and the James Logan Courier reported on the story, however CNN missed crucial details in their report. When I read the CNN report first and the only question on my mind was, “Is this LEGAL?” I knew there was something missing from their details. The Courier’s story, which was much more informative, included the legality of the issue, as well as, links to the details of how the crack was performed. This strange difference between the two reports must be attributed to CNN being a mainstream media outlet, while The Courier is a news blog. It seems like CNN shied away from the legality of the issue like they were scared to mention the hack was perfectly legal and able to be carried out with minimal equipment. The only reason I can find that they would leave these details out is because they did not want to or were not able to put the information in the story. The Courier’s details were the types of things that people like me want to know, and since they had the freedom and ability to report these details it puts them far beyond the reporting power of CNN, on this issue at least. But isn’t there a blog for everything?

« Older entries