The Sound of Brett

idk. i just dk. (c) Jason Fawaz

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:00 +0000

I have about 10 open Firefox and Safari windows. They've been open for days...weeks even. Interesting articles that have popped up thanks to Google Reader and some widgets on my iGoogle page. Yes, all bow to the great Google. Anywho, I haven't had time to read them yet. Clearly I thought, at some point, that they are worth my while. Clearly, I still think they are worth my while, because I have not X'd out of them yet. Here are three of them:

IP Strategies for True Innovation

Copyright Battle Comes Home

Something about the show Glee from Billboard Magazine

Maybe you will find them interesting, too. And maybe one day, being a 1L will stop.

Copy[written], So Don't Copy Me

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:40:00 +0000

http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/5614/Jason%20Derulo-Whatcha%20Say_Imogen%20Heap-Hide%20and%20Seek/

1. Hip Hop sampling Imogen Heap? A recent song, at that. Very interesting. I don't know how I feel about it. I don't think I like it. I like both songs, but I feel awkward/guilty liking a song that straight up rips a hook from a relatively recent song. Its almost creative to the point of being not creative. Kind of like Kid Cudi's Make Her Say (ripping off Lady GaGa's Poker Face). YouTube them if you want to see...or, a good segue into point two, is

2. You can probably both those songs juxaposed at http://www.whosampled.com/
I just discovered this. Haven't checked it out much, but looks like quite the interesting project. The tagline is "exploring and discussing the DNA of music." I like the idea a lot, and I'm sure we can all learn a lot about sampling and its pervasiveness in how we make music today, given how wide and flexible the creative spectrum is now.

i love technology but...

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:16:00 +0000

I just don't know what you can do with a 27 inch computer.

I got the email from Apple today about the new iMacs.

iMac :)

21.5 inches...ok. Big screen. Understandable.

But 27? Isn't that a little much? I really want a 27 inch touch screen though. That would be cool.

It's what you do with it

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:30:00 +0000

I know I said I don't like Twitter. I guess I owe Twitter some clarification, now that I've realized a few things. I still don't like using Twitter. But I actually think it has been quite the helpful service. See, there is enough content on the Internet. There's so much content pumping through the veins of our networks trying to sort through it all would surely give anyone (even Google) a heart attack. While I won't say that we don't need more content -- we do, and the purpose of the internet is just to amass an infinite amount of content -- what we also need is a way to do more. Google's success is based on the static data paradigm that we've been so used to: information is sitting, waiting for us to come find it. But now, enter the real-time data paradigm. Instant Facebook updates and Twitter tweets are the best examples of this: We don't want to just send Google searching through a garbage dump of all the world's information anymore. We want information to be brought to us, in the furtherance of our impatience due to technology.

This has been a long time coming - think of when we didn't have email, instant messaging, and text messaging. How many of you would have an aneurysm if you were without your connectedness. I would. As our attachment to technology grows, the technology advances in a sort of natural selection way: the purposes for which we use the tech most and provide the most benefit to us will survive, and the purposes which are less favored don't advance. We like things instantly. We like things before we ask for them, even. When we send an email, we want a response right after. We're fast-paced. This isn't new. But we're only getting faster. And with that, the static-data paradigm is going to face resistance from the real-time paradigm that is quicker, more direct, and easier to get information out of.

Twitter can be used as real time search, not just a "tell everyone that I'm going to the bathroom" tool. People are pumping their thoughts, information, content through Twitter, and we can see instantly any trend for any subject in any part of the world. Look at the (supercool) Hype Machine for music as an example.

This real-time data search stuff has been looming for awhile now. It's booming and its going to keep booming. It is interesting though, that Twitter as a real time service is more important than Twitter as a social networking tool.

BigContent v. Technology

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:18:00 +0000

This is a very helpful guide/brief history of Big Content v. Technology. Very glad Nate Anderson wrote this.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars

I don't like Twitter

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:21:00 +0000

I don't like Twitter. And when I have time I'm going to write about why I don't like Twitter.

The Big Mean IP Machine

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:15:00 +0000

The World Economic Forum released a list of countries ranked by how strong their IP protection is. The U.S. was number 19, with a ranking of 5.4 (where 7 was strongest and 1 was weakest). The rankings were determined by business leaders polled by the WEF in their respective countries. Its no surprise that business leaders/content owners/the like all want stronger IP protection in the US -- and abroad -- because hey, the Internet/new media (which they all use to their advertising advantages) is (allegedly) destroying the value of content by distributing it all over the universe for free. If the US is ranked weak, well then doesn't that present the idea of stronger IP here in a much more favorable light? Also interesting to note is that the UK, with its copyright term now at life of the author + 90 years (20 years longer than US copyright term), ranks below the US at #21, with a score of 5.3. So it looks like we're about equal in the ranking there -- but the UK has 20 years of copyright protection on us? It seems to boil down to the general ideas of a society; in other words, the US and the EU have different philosophies on what is strong protection. Look at the #2 country on the list: Sweden - home of the defunct-go-not-defunct Pirate Bay torrent hosting service. They think they have the strongest protection there? Something, somehow, somewhere, is skewing the minds of these American business leaders...

Thanks to Ars, as always. The List is here, on IP Watch

Joel Tenenbaum...FYL.

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:23:00 +0000

its old news but...

the RIAA wins again...(thanks to ArsTechnica)

The way this and the Jammie Thomas case played out was not what I expected, to say the least. There were very few correct turns made during these two cases, and although the court system worked as it should...the outcome is just not where it it needs to be at this point in time. Still, the bulk of the value of these outcomes are for publicity related RIAA goals: to get people to stop downloading (for free) and start buying music. It's not as if the RIAA is going to get paid here...

But really...selling music not even the business they want to be in anymore: on iTunes you don't "buy" music...you license it. You license it because you clearly dont own it and you cannot do what you please with it (within your own, arguable, legal rights). When you have a CD...can you rip it to your computer without breaking the law (or should you be able to?) - yes! You don't own the content on the CD but you own the media, and you have individual rights to do things with that media, so long as you dont infringe on the owner of the contents' rights.

The recorded music industry is not doing as bad as they say, and their business model is so convoluted that even when it makes sense it doesnt make sense. CDs are for cars and MP3s are for iPods/personal use, and the industry is not being the friend to the consumer that it needs to be in order to make people WANT to support the industry. I love music, I want to work in entertainment, but how can I, as a consumer, support a business that I know does not favor me as their client?

I will edit this post later. It's a bit of a mess but I wanted to get it up here.

Boo, Mitch Albom

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:58:00 +0000

Mitch Albom:

I normally love your writing, and I normally agree with it. But, after your June 28 column chastising the American public for honoring Michael Jackson, I am disappointed.

Shame on you for turning a tragic event into a opportunity to insult. This is an offensive and unnecessary attack on Michael Jackson, his fans, and his legacy. Give credit where credit is due -- and it is due unquestionably in the case of Jackson. Don't use the sudden (and very recent) death of a true Icon to criticize the American public. You adequately point out that "Death aggrandizes life", but you have to separate his personal life from yours. For his incredible talent and successes, Michael Jackson deserves all the praise he is being dealt. For once, America's got it right, and you've got it wrong. We see him for his creative contributions to the music world and the enormous social impact he had. Spare me the crap about being in debt, veiling his children, changing skin color, and the sexual assault court case -- his legacy is in his art, and that is really all you need to focus on.

And, please, what is so "un-real" about a man wearing lipstick. I thought you were more cultured, accepting, and understanding than that. That remark is purely offensive and nothing else.

Your column on those stupid, irresponsible "parents" taking their kids to see "The Hangover" is redeeming, and much more worthy of your pointing finger.

It Doesn't Add Up

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:26:00 +0000

Two big stories on Ars today:

--The Jammie Thomas $2million-the-labels-will-never-see guilty verdict

and

--File-sharring isn't hurting content creation

So the verdict in the Thomas case is grossly inappropriate and much too exorbitant for the actions the law is designed to dissuade. But, the actions, while hurting the music industry, aren't hurting the creation of new works. So, while we have what, according to the Court, is copyright infringement, we don't have said infringement hurting creation, which is what copyright law, codified in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, exists to protect.

Seems a little counterintuative to me...

Disproving Science

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:26:00 +0000

Text message conversation (as if I'd communicate any other way):

Marc: It's baffling how, according to my neuro/bonding class, we shouldn't be close friends (because of distance and propinquity)... but we are. We're defying science

Me: Technology.

Enough said.

Ok I'll add this little bit. That isn't your run-of-the-mill community college psych or bio class (It's taught by her). It's pretty "neat" (Marc's word, not mine. I'm not taking the nerd points here.) to see technology's affect on our social lives manifested.

I'm not getting into all the sciency jargon here, mostly because I don't know it, but I'll leave you to your own devices in thinking about how technology just isn't changing how we communicate, but how it is challenging the science behind everything, and will be forcing a rethinking of, well, everything.

Science is something non-scientists take for granted all the time. It is probably more important than anything else in our lives (especially human bonding), but we, as lay peoples, don't understand a thing about it. Weird how tech will reshape not just how science is practiced (with all those newfangled superfabulous microscopes and xray machines) but its scholarship and pedagogy as well.

Weirder is that we still haven't, as a whole, accepted this fact that technology is pushing us into a totally new Age. As if we haven't seen the impact of technology on business enough already (music industry, publishing industry, journalism industry, movie industry, advertising industry, fill in the blank), we're still playing dumb to the coming techxaflood.

Maybe I just have a problem seeing things in the macro instead of the micro, but if we're planning on getting out of this better off than we were going into it, we need to start looking at the big picture. Because even though tweets are only 160 characters, they have a lot bigger impact than their short and sweet existence implies.

omg text messaging get out

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:51:00 +0000

Yesterday I had a digi-déjà-vu experience. I've talked lots and lots about how tech has infested our lives in so many ways. This is another of those "omg get out of my life technology" experiences.

I have a friend, we used to date. We're best friends, by someone's definition somewhere. But from June 2007-February 2009, we didn't talk. For a number of those months, we weren't even facebook friends, and not on each other's buddy lists. So we were completely digitally disconnected. With "digitally" being superfluous in this situation since we had no forms of communication between us that were not digital. Goes to show just how important technology is in our lives and relationships.

When we reconnected in February, we talked on the phone (old fashioned) and then re-friended each other on Facebook (new school). There was some wall-to-walling, as we happily spent a few days talking and catching up. Some weeks after, our daily communication dwindled down to a few times a week, then less. Unless there was a major issue in one of our lives, we almost never talked (read: IM'd). It was fine.

It was fine because we were living our own lives and the lack of proaction on the other end didn't justify me going out of my way to chit chat more than I did, either. But, after some weeks of no interaction, I get a phone call. Someone's having a problem and needs to talk to me because I'm trustworthy, etc. I am a good friend and I will always be there for someone I care(d) about so much. So we have that conversation, and after, I realize that friendship needs to be on a more two-way street. It shouldn't just be when there are problems or issues. I became indifferent on whether we talked, and I was fine with not having that in my life. Weird, since it used to be the only thing that I wanted back in my life.

I got an instant message a few days ago though with a cell phone number. The previous phone had been disconnected for over a year, so there had been no cell phone to cell phone contact for us (i.e. no text messaging. :gasp:)

With the new phone came an unlimited texting plan, though. And I happen to be a slave to texting. Oddly enough, with the connection established between us via text messaging, I felt like I was letting this person back into my life. I felt an active bond that I had not experienced in a while. I am aware that technology plays an unequivocally integral role in so many facets of my life, but it's dominance over my emotions seems a bit shocking and a bit odd.

As a product of this tech-generation, I am not surprised at technology's role in my life, but I am impressed that it has permeated so greatly into my very being. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, but I know that it is something. Being aware of it, though, should be helpful, and I think it is something that we all need to be mindful of: know just how far you are willing to let technology into your life. It's pulling more strings than you think, and despite how much we value our tech, we can't afford to be puppeted by it.

sometimes i write personal things

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:58:00 +0000

Yesterday I graduated from college. The University of Michigan is one of the finest institutions in the land and I love it dearly. I'm not entirely convinced its the biggest deal in the world, graduating college. I'd say not graduating would probably be more of an issue, but I'm still proud and I will forever be a Michigan Wolverine. Nevertheless, yesterday, I graduated college.

Today, I stood outside with my dog, as I was back at home for a graduation dinner with some family. I stood outside as my dog rolled around the grass, entertaining herself however dogs do. Reflection is so important, especially in times of change...when one door closes and you're left in a room full of open doors, and so I took the opportunity, as I have done in the past, to reflect. I thought back to when I was in middle school. I'd be out with the dog, standing, her slightly more mobile than she is now, still entertaining her canine compulsions. I'd look at the sky, the clearest blue or the murkiest twilight or the starriest nighttime's were the best for introspection. High above, in the infinite abyss of atmosphere, or far away, as far as my limited sight distance could see, there was the world. Out of my world. I would stand, lost in my thoughts, feeling the world move as I remained, legs still, or perhaps taking me up and down our backyard, or over a ledge. My motion was irrelevant, and my eyes focused on another dimension. Here and now did not exist. I left here and now and went to some place I have not visited for quite some time. I just let go, of everything, and I daydreamed. I thought. I lyricized. I didn't ponder, but I entertained myself, like my dog, in my own unique way. I put myself in situations everyone always just conjures up in their dreams. Supreme popularity. Famed entertainer. Lawyer. Lover. Married. Happy. The things I am not, but the things that I want. It, in some respect, is my way of having those things for a few brief moments.

I hated coming back to reality. I still do. I give an attitude to my mom when she's trying to help me out, ignore my friends who are innocently texting or instant messaging me, because I am in a mood, a zone, and the interference, the modulating of the wavelength I'm on, it doesn't feel right. I have to fade in and out of this zone on my own terms on my time. So forgive me, but I'm here now. There, on my level. Lost, thinking.

Reflection is so important because you get in touch with yourself, but snapping out of that mode brings me back to reality, where responsibilities and real life, and all the things that I actually am are important. The daydream fades, sure to return another day, and I bring the dog inside. Maybe a little happier. A little calmer. Maybe more content. But no more sure. Not wiser. Just minutes older.

It is like a rut. And with me it is always a rut. Even changing becomes a rut. Reflection is so important but you must use it. No matter what grand and inspired thoughts make their way into your cerebral cortex, letting them disintegrate, scattered throughout the unconscious, is a waste.

The one thing that I've been consistently told by commencement speakers is to, generally, "think big." Hold on to your dreams because they are you, and you are all you've got. One afternoon, skipping a school dance because you had to take the dog out (or because school dances were never your scene because you were awkward, scared, unknowingly closeted, and preferred the company of yourself) and stand in your front yard contemplating whatever it is deepest within your conscious self isn't going to change you, or, subsequently, the world. But it will help. It will put you on a path. It will give you a ladder to grab hold of. You have to walk down the path, pull yourself up the ladder, but understanding that this journey, is just that, a journey, and realizing that reflection is the most personal of conversations you can have, and knowing that maybe, there is a way to bring those thoughts out from the voids of the mind, is putting action into something passive. And it moves the journey. Being in a rut sucks. Getting out of a rut is hard, and thus sucks more. But knowing where you are, what you're doing -- metaphorical or existentially, of course, not necessarily literally -- and being able to act on that, take it from dream to reality (or, making your dreams come true) is what I'm supposed to be doing. I'm a thinker. A dreamer. Not exactly the most brilliant thinker, or the biggest dreamer. But if I combine them, thinking big isn't so hard. And making those thoughts into something tangible...not right away of course, but in small steps, is possible. the right foot in front of the left on the path, the left hand over the right up the ladder, that is the journey. The end of the path is unknown. The top of the ladder clouded by... the clouds. I guess everyone knows this...or doesn't think about it much. I don't know. I think about it all the time.

The motivation to turn my thoughts and dreams into anything other than unintelligible brain activity has steadily been declining. It's more than a bit of a problem, and falling into the rut of laziness and minimalism, while seemingly the easy way out, is probably not any sort of good for me. I have no problem admitting I'm not sure which direction my life will take. I am lost, confused, unsure, and terrified of that. I am aware that I am "journeying." Patience isn't my greatest virtue (probably not one of my virtues at all), and getting to know an answer is all I really want. But, that is impossible, and fruitless. Really, there are three premises that act as my justification mechanism, my circular-reasoning-question-killing-commandments:

1. the only thing that will never change, is that everything will change.

2. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, and Expectation is her bastard child.

3. Nothing ever goes according to plan.

I tell myself these things because they make sense. Just like all people tell themselves things because it helps them to make sense of what is, instinctively and innately and literally nonsensical. Therefore, no it is not perfect, nor the only way to maintain one's sanity, but I think it makes...the most sense. We do what we do, what we need to do; we give it reason and purpose because it fills our voids and validates our existence. Meh.

So, I ramble. I don't speak concisely. And I really don't care because I have a voice. That's another thing I was told this weekend. I have a voice and I need to use it, use it, use it. Be courageous. And if that means being unconventional, then goddamn convention, and while I hope you don't mind, I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm certainly interested in it, though.

I wonder what my conclusion is. I don't know because there never is one. We just keep going. We live and we die. You may want to look for a deeper meaning for this process, or you may just want to start doing. I am circumstantial. I am vulnerable. I am emotional. I am logically illogical. Or maybe it is illogically logical. My life is not governed by some complex principle, some philosophy that is going to shape my thoughts and actions. Maybe some premises, but, on the whole I am still just confused as a small child. Only now I am aware of it. The point is, this is the end. But really, it is only just the beginning. Because we don't know where the end is.

Now I'm going to make like a radio and tune this wavelength back to reality. And try to turn some of my dreams into thoughts, thoughts into actions.

Onward and Digitally-ard

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:13:00 +0000

**any post from this point forward is not intended to be for SWC 200 and is not to be affiliated with me being a student at U-M.**

Ok so I am planning to continue this blog in its not academic sense (even though apparently it wasn't academic enough to begin with...psh). I have no idea what direction it will take, but since I will no longer be covered by the copyright protection afforded to me by the great University of Michigan/17 USC §107, I am going through and removing all the copyrighted content where necessary. If I forget something and you know I can't use it, please just tell me and don't sue me. I'll take it off. Anywho, more posts soon. I'm looking forward to it.

But to start things off, BOO BOOO BOOOOO!!!!!! SCOTUS

Supreme Court Backs F.C.C. on Indecency Rule (NYT)

Now Jack Bauer will never say "fuck." Fuck.

"Even when used as an expletive, the F-Word's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning. Because the FCC's prior safe-harbor-for-single-words approach would likely lead to more widespread use, and in light of technological advances reducing the costs of bleeping offending words, it was rational for the agency to step away from its old regime." - Scalia.

So the supreme court is made up of expert linguists and cultural anthropologist? Because I'm pretty sure that Fuck has evolved from its sexual origin to become more of a universal exclamation of just about any feeling one might experience. That, and its just a fucking word (no sexual connotation implied), which everyone is going to hear at some point in their life, and everyone has a right to say. Fleeting expletives certainly are no good, but accidents happen. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and you can't just say fuck on TV in front of america whenever you want, but do we really need justice scalia to indoctrinate us?

(Hat tip to ArsTechnica)

The Beginning of the End...of the Beginning

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:02:00 +0000

So this is the last official blog post (picture is of what my sister calls, "supersadface for supersadsituations"). It's been quite a run. We've discussed (just keep scrolling down and you'll see) blog philosophy and blog aesthetic, and waxed emotional on how Facebook got a little too close for comfort. From MySpace to interactivity in MyBedroom, looking at the new media from a new media perspective proved to be a lot harder than one would think. I thought being so as in touch with technology as I am and as passionate about new media as I am (I mean, it is destroying my career path [music industry] but I just can't stop loving it), I thought this would be easy. I have all my opinions, but, there is just so much going on here that it is impossible to capture all of the changes and impacts new media is having not just on how we communicate, how we blog, how we interact, but on freaking everything.

Call it what you want: a paradigm shift, a cultural revolution, evolution; it's all the same. We're changing. And change is a really hard thing to deal with, especially when you are so used to things. The thing is, now we are used to things instantly, immediately, and patience is a rare find. All we want is more, more, more, and with all the damned information on the Internet, we can get more, more, more. And now we are overindulged, emotionally unstable (okay, maybe thats just me...but I swear the technology is coming for you next), impatient, socially awkward (okay maybe that's just you...but I'm getting there), transitioning people who kant spel 4 shyt cuz we R 1337 lyk DaT yA HeRd?!one11!~!z/

[people who cannot spell for shit because we are elite like that, have you heard?!one11!~!z/]

What is this world coming to? Lol, I'm not a pessimist when it comes to technology, though. In fact I want to embrace it, I really do. It is where we, collectively, are moving. Which direction no one knows, but its in that general area over yonder, but not too far yonder. Everything is online, in the cloud, available over the air. It's scary sometimes, sure, but, that fear will subside. The vast majority of people have no qualms with putting all their personal information online -- Facebook, linked in, etc. (the respectable sites) and MySpace and the dating sites (arguably less respectable, but I can't judge), and if they do have qualms, they sure are quick to get over them and get on those websites. Our society's idea of privacy is changing, and in nuanced areas the issue of privacy always comes up: health care, RFIDs (in drivers licenses for example), personal info sold to advertisers, gmail reading your email, machines knowing more about you than you do, people having the ability to literally know all about you, from miles, or countries, or continents, away. Scary, yes, but also fascinating. We're at the beginning of the end of the beginning of this transition/paradigm shift/revolution/evolution to an information society -- and you damn well best not try and fight it, n00b muthafuxor. Or you'll get pwned.

I kind of don't see the point in this meta-analysis of new media. There is no secret to it -- it is all about creativity and innovation. But there are no rules for creativity and innovation. The only rules in place that are pushing and pulling at new media are the laws we have governing intellectual property, privacy, communications, advertising, antitrust to an extent.
These laws, though, were not designed with the potential of the Internet/new media in mind. They were designed with the interests of maintaining the old paradigm in mind, because that's what companies (a/k/a the ones with the money) want(ed). My interest of course is in how the intellectual property regime we have (only insofar as copyrights and trademarks go, because patent law scares me) is not suited, or even apropos, for the media and medium that are dominating the markets. Sure we have some non-new media that is still a steady part of our lives - but those medium are evolvig. Take the DVD and on-demand television for example. Even home telephone service (<--this sounds so awesome, by the way) is now a new media event. The point is, our policy foundations are not allowing new media to achieve its full potential. It is not hard to change: just changing IP policy would create a vastly different environment for media. Changing privacy policy would be harder since it legal basis is always being wrestled out. Communications law needs just as much an overhaul as IP, but again, a change in one would help new media regardless of a change in the other.

Looking back on this class, though, I appreciate how I was given the opportunity to produce some works that I probably would not have taken it upon myself to produce on my own. Making a image based blog post and a podcast, while somewhat tedious work, and someone still "academic" rather than "fun", taught me a lot. Not necessarily about what makes a great image-argument or enjoyable podcast, but at least how to make it, how to think about it, and those are experiences that I can use later in life. Simple familiarity with new media is the short first step in learning and understanding new media. One class is not enough to make any one of us any sort of expert. This is most obviously because of the extreme time constraints and other academic restraits we were under, but it is also because none of us in that room were decidedly experts. It was a learning experience for all of us, and I think that being new media neophytes (even I will admit to not being as learned in new media technology as I come off) limited us in our being able to learn and master the new media that we tackled. People don't get "taught" how to blog, people discover it, and while they make "learn" from other bloggers and the blogosphere just by immersing themself in it, working in a new media environment is not something that is yet steadfastly defined. And I think that partly the allure of new media, is that those that choose to immerse themselves in it, and create, innovate, produce, and work in it, are not constrained by too many norms and rules. New media is free expression. Still impressionable, and so able to impress on its consumers.

When we video-conference with Rick Webb (which was good, I'd say. And video- is always better than tele-), I believe he brought up the point that the "next big thing" is not going to be a surprise to us. It's here, we just don't know what exact form will make it blow up into a cultural phenom. New media is still a business, and it is still developing. Marshal McLuhan was way ahead of his time when he wrote about medium. The communicative qualities of new media are still someone anachronistic - they seem too much in the future rather than now. But we are gaining on them. There are so many ways to use new media, but the uptake of such a technology or medium depends on cultural values, behavior psychology, and other interactive forces. There is really no way to predict what is next, but there are a number of venture capitalists who are betting millions that they've got a stake in the next big new media thing. Time, with anything, will tell, but it is important that work and development with new media continues, especially with my generation (and I don't doubt for a second that that will be the case). Even with all the greatness that can come with new media, we can not discount our reaction to it. Of course we've seen how people have begun deleting their facebook accounts or stop using the service as much, because it has become to invasive in their life. Technology, and new media in particular, can hurt if it is not controlled. One of it's very purposes is to be integrated into us, into our life--and while we might not have a tangible privacy concern with that, the social implications it carries are heavy, especially for teenagers and young adults dealing with growing up issues. And issues are not limited to this demographic, new media affects the younger and the older, too. We do need to remember that this technology is what we make it. It is smart, but we must remain in control. The medium is the message, right, but we make the medium. We make the message. We make our impressions of the message. These are important to remember, lest we do succumb media and not only lose our privacy or our intellectual property, but our soul. We use tech. It doesn't use us. A lot of people know this, but a lot do not. This class made me think a lot about that, especially when discussing podcast topics. So many people created something that at least in good part discussed a relationship (either good or bad). This penetration of technology into such decidedly human interaction (I'd say dating is more "humanized" than simple friendship, at least nowadays, but I do see some pretty significant arguments against that claim. Maybe I should qualify dating by saying a serious, committed, involved relationship), is astounding.

So now that this is ending, I am thinking about whether to continue this blog. I recently started writing in a journal, which i prefer because I use my hands and make letters, not my fingers and push buttons. Plus, I can't backspace. It actually has nothing really to do with privacy or publicly revaling myself, and maybe one day I'll type it up on here. Or maybe I'll do both. But I do feel like we now are so content-- so much so we almost need to do this--with putting our thoughts/feelings/lives online to share or be shared with. It's almost too much social. But, hey, maybe people will read this. They'll comment. I'll make...friends? Get advice. Help someone. Learn something. Teach something. Express myself. Nothing wrong with any of that. And, now that this is ending, it opens the doors for new things to begin. New things that will flow directly out of the our old conversations, our old new media, old blog posts, and ideas. It is the beginning of the end of the beginning. Everything in technology, by virtue of innovation, is indebted to something else for its creation. There are never set beginnings and ends. Just transitions between the two. This is a transition, and I hope to continue flowing in the current of new media.

Interactive Legal

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:14:00 +0000

Interactivity is great, especially when it is online. Who doesn't want to help Hannah chose shampoo or digitally enslave some freaky chicken dude?

Interactivity is just a new way creating a buzz. It's main goal is not to sell the product--that's a byproduct. The main goal is to get people talking about it, and drum up some attention. And what's more likely to drum up attention: something that engages you utilizing the latest tech or some picture in a magazine that smells funny or has a pretty person holding something you're not sure if you want/even know what it is?

So, long story short: interactive advertising = good.

But, just as with all nifty new technostuff, interactivity comes with nifty new technoconcerns.

Well, maybe not new or nifty, but concerns nonetheless.

Interactivity means that somewhere, your personal data is being recorded and manipulated so that marketers know what the hell you are doing forcing their chicken to kill itself or have sex. You're IP address is logged, no doubt, but that's not substantial since that happens anytime you log on for anything. But now, you can be watched, tracked, and monitored.

I guess it sounds a lot scarier than it actually is, because, while companies are trying to find out all about you, its machines that are handling all the data, not humans. Although foreseeably, humans would be able to access such data if they were so inclined. And that is the issue: this opens the doors for some extreme privacy issues. What you post online is public, and the courts have continuously upheld this idea, but what you do online within the confines of your own home or within your own legal rights, who should be able to access and disseminate that information? Where is there a right to "privacy" and where is there not? Should facebook really know whether or not I'm coming to the site from myspace and then leaving it for some porn site? I'd rather they not.

Once you start involving people in your marketing plans (i.e. making things interactive), it brings into the picture many more laws and regulations that must be taken into account. Privacy is once of these concerns, but once things move into the interactive internet realm, warranties, intellectual property policies, liabilities, all more legal issues come into play. As an example, "waking up hannah" is intended for Canadian audiences only. I'm the the US and I can access it and use it just like anyone would be able to in Canada. There is also a disclaimer and a link to a privacy policy, which together probably explain that you have already waived most of the rights you have just by clicking play on the video. I've never seen a disclaimer on a magazine ad, or a privacy policy, or the contact info for a D(igital)M(illenium)C(opyright)A(ct) representative (required by law).

It would be interesting to note how Barbarian's legal team might be different from the legal team of an ad agency that mostly focuses on, say, print material (although i wonder if the market for that has already become extinct?), and what sort of issues they face on a daily or per project basis.

An Update and then Some

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:02:00 +0000

It's been about a week and a half since my post about limiting my Facebook access. I figure it would be healthy to review the past 12 days.

The friend who I mentioned at the beginning who deleted her facebook kept her account deactivated for about four or five days. Her motivation for removing the facebook toxin was the same as mine: getting information from people (specifically an ex) who she did not want information about. Seeing someone on Facebook is, as probably ridiculous as it sounds, just like seeing them in real life. After all, if it's not on Facebook, it's probably not true, right (facebook official relationships, for example)?

For the three or four days, she was much happier. And, she was able to focus all of her energy on school work and being productive. She found other websites that she liked, as well.

By the fifth day, she was able to rid herself of the negative energy that Facebook was brining into her life. She reactivated the account and has used it sparingly. Although now it is getting back to the point where she'll be Facebooking instead of homeworking.

I had not deactivated my account, but since that post my Facebook usage has dropped very significantly. I actually blame it a little bit on the new layout...it does not give the user nearly as much information as the old layout(s) did and it does not update quickly enough (because it if did that would be great for me, obviously). So, because there's really nothing to see, I'll scroll around quickly, and close it. If someone wrote on my wall or I received a friend request, I would go on. The most impressive thing, for me at least, was going almost two weeks without checking profiles of people I shouldn't check.

I wouldn't say my life has been made any easier by my decreased facebook usage. I guess I can't say how it would have been different had I been using facebook as much, but I'm sure that reining in my facebook usage and practicing "everything in moderation" can only have a positive effect. Last night I had a relapse and checked a certain someone's profile. It wasn't a big deal, nothing was on there that would have made me particularly upset. However, it was as it we saw each other in real life. And like I said, that's not good right now.

In a conversation with a brilliant Cornell pre-med student, we talked (rather, we texted) about how everything is connected. In science, he told/texted me, everything is related. I agreed with him, but I questioned as to why it was so interesting...why do you want to know the secrets of the universe?

Networks are our everything. From time immemorial the connectedness of people, societies, cultures, living things, nonliving things, countries, businesses, the world, the solar system, the universe, is all about networks. Networks, essentially, are God.

Why do we want to figure out God? If we answer all of our questions about Him, would we not guarentee our demise? Is it not better to leave such questions unanswered? Yes, we've found solstice in the name of God, but we've also fought wars, built countries, and seen terrorism and hate in His name. In the name of Networks, we've given up our privacy, our elusiveness, our personal bubble is gone because anyone in the world with an Airport or a Cat5 ethernet cord can plug right into you and download your soul.

Why do we want to figure out networks? People thrive on answering questions. The unknown is one of the greatest attractions for humans. But it is also unknown for a reason. The more we known, the more dangerous we become. And if we do get to the heart of the matter: God, or Networks, that will be dangerous.

Facebook, and social networking as a whole, has evolved into a God-like complex. It grants us too much information, and sheds light on the unknown. There is a point where we are better off staying where we are, because if we "move forward" will only take us to the end.

Okay, so apparently this turned a simple update into an admittedly weird diatribe against Facebook. Take it as a bit of a metaphor and not a direct attack on Mark and Co. The last half is more about (online social) networking in general than about Facebook in particular. But, I'm trying to make the point that new media in the form of networking (while it can be amazing, I know) is also juggernauting down a path we might not like to go down...

You Did What?

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:38:00 +0000

So I get a text message from my friend. "deleted my facebook"

WTFYOUDIDWHAT?!

I kind of freaked out a little, and of course had to check to make sure she was telling the truth.

I really didn't get it at first. I'm always a little bit shocked when people tell me they don't have Facebook or AIM or are never online. It's so the norm that someone who isn't an avid user of (all of) these social technologies better have a damn good excuse as to why they are being so rebellious. It's like the new version of the sixties counterculture is making yourself unavailable to modern communication technology.

Or is it?

My friend got rid of her Facebook account because "it doesn't let me avoid people." So true. The problem with our technology is not that it allows us such easy access to one another...it's that it allows us too much easy access to one another.

Sure there are some pretty good privacy options. But what about when you need a break? What about when you don't want to see someone you are no longer friends with? Defriending is a social taboo; taking such drastic action is just being immature. But logging on is basically being forced to encounter updates and wall posts and pictures and lifestreams of a person who makes you throw up a little in your mouth every time you see them is just not okay for me.

The fact is, it is so hard for us to turn off the access to this goldmine of information. There is so much information-- so easily accessible--we really don't even have to do that much to get to it. It doesn't involve anything sneaky (although Facebook stalking is certainly an art form) and it doesn't involve anything that should make you feel guilty. But it does. It's added stress, and sometimes the costs of such valuable and relied-upon technologies are not outweighed by their benefits.

I'm thinking about giving up my Facebook. I couldn't do it though. When I want an outlet, it is there (although I should probably be more tactful in posting status updates.) While some of the best advice I have ever gotten is to "cut out the fat" -- i.e. just get rid of the things in your life that are causing you problems, it is so difficult. I can't stop checking Facebook. It's just too easy. I'm just too used to it. Hell, it sounds like I'm trying to get myself off cigarettes. It's ridiculous. But I don't know what to do. Should I get rid of my Facebook? Would it make me a happier person? I wonder...

As it turns out, this seemingly extreme action of removing oneself from the Facebook world is more common than I thought. And many people share my sentiments about the website that we all once lusted for in high school (because that was when Facebook was only for college students). It would be good for me to focus more on real life...not the Facebook real life, but the real real life. Going outside. Getting to know myself. Spend time on things that are more important, like studying rather than figuring out who my ex is now getting with. Facebook is self-mutilating, and it needs to stop.

"I deleted my Facebook"

~~"YOU DID WHAT?!"~~ "I'm so proud of you!"

Image from Facebook

[Addendum]
Because my laptop+browser+Blogger do not get along, I can't post comments. I wanted to post this in response to the people who left me comments below:

"These comments are all great. thanks a lot!

Vinal: good point about "hide" functions of facebook. I think I've taken advantage of it once. I feel like it's a big of a cop-out, just like defriending someone is, but I don't know. I think with the new layout and engine behind it, facebook will give you more of the people go you looking for and less of the people you don't. So maybe it knows....

and the balance between new media life and real life is becoming increasingly blurred. So much so I'd argue that for some people, they are almost mutually inclusive. This is probably not a great thing.

Allison: I agree with everything you said. But yes, we always end up going back. I guess it's not a bad thing, so long as we've learned how to control ourselves haha. Thanks for the luck :)"

Plan Shman

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:36:00 +0000

*No links this entry. and no pictures or videos. Just good ol' fashioned writing.*

Hi, Blog. Welcome back to me. It's good to see you again, especially after a rough weekend, you know, with the breakup and all.

Despite that looming feeling that something wasn't right in the relationship, I thought we could work through it. I always said, "if we're having issues you need to tell me what's on your mind. Especially after some of the things you let slip. Because I want it to work out, and I like you."

"I like you, too" was the response.

Well either someone is a great actor, or someone is really confused. And the whole having the break up talk while I'm blackout drunk was NOT part of the plan. Even if I may have kind of sort of maybe initiated the conversation by trying to drag out whether or not things were okay between us. Still...not part of the plan. At all.

I remember before we met and starting the whole dating thing I didn't want a relationship at all. In fact, I even told all my friends after we starting seeing each other pretty frequently that it's not going farther than just casually dating or whatever. It wasn't exclusive, and we hadn't even talked about anything.

But that went on for two months...and by two months it was time to talk. Someone wanted more, but I wanted to keep things open. That was the plan. A week later I wanted a relationship, but lo and behold, those feelings weren't mutual anymore. Fine.
And then a few days later, a relationship was born. Talk about going against the plans.

In total, we we unofficial for 3 months and official for about 3 weeks. I never planned on anything that happened in the course of that 4 month time span.

Which I suppose makes perfect sense.

Nothing ever goes according to plan; it seems that is just the way of the world. This, naturally, is true for new media technology as well. I know, me tying my life drama into new media academia is a bit of a stretch, but the metaphor is constant. New technologies are invented, and unfathomable uses for said technologies become fathomed. No one ever expects certain things to become fads. Take Facebook, and Twitter for examples. Social networking has spiraled almost out of control. With the micro-details of everyones personal life flying through the Internet free as birds (my details, obviously, included) there's been so many developments that no one could have predicted upon the introduction of such technologies.

We all know that things will change. But knowing how they will change is the variable. It is the challenge that we have to deal with, and maybe even part of the fun. But just like everything in life, change is complicated. Especially with relationships, and especially with how new media technology is impacting our everyday lives. Our technologies are practically as day-to-day as our relationships are, and the drama that follows is just as natural.

But, in this time, the best advice is that, we can't control what happens, we can only control our reaction to it. The music industry is struggling to learn these lessons, from how it has acted in the past decade in response to MP3s and file sharing and new media technology that involves digital music.

Hard work and good intentions will go far, and some general intelligent oversight will go a long way -- in relationships and in developing a new technology--but nothing protects us from what we don't know.

Does that mean eventually we will succumb to our technological advancements and that machines will finally rule the world? I don't think so. But it means that, while we will probably end up okay, we're always going to be developing, advancing, expanding, and learning. Maybe it is the big picture we need to focus on, and just keep on taking new and unforeseen innovations and making the best of them. Controlling our reactions instead of trying to control what we can't control. That is the only way we won't fall victim to our "plans."

JUDGED!

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:54:00 +0000

The Internet is filled with good websites, bad websites, and ugly websites.

While we mostly deal with good, or at least bearable websites, the digital abyss is fraught with those-site-that-shall-not-be-named. They have pop-ups, incredibly long load times, broken links, things that look like links but aren't, things that should be links but aren't, bad page design, bad grammar (ok, I forgive them for that one...sort of), poor implementation of flash or other fancy code, or maybe they are just completely useless. The list of annoyances could go one for a solid blog post or more.

So, before I highlight what my quintessential bad website it, let me first explain an ideal website:

I will admit, I love Google (I'm not linking to it because that might insult you).
It's simple, intuitive, and acts as a true portal to the internet, which is something any good site does effectively. In terms of content, architecture, and design, one cannot beat "The Google." This might be a shocking choice from someone with lots of web experience such as myself, but I feel like the old mantra of 'keep it simple, stupid' reigns here. Websites, even advanced sites, need to be natural and intuitive--something that is such a challenge for anyone that works with the Web that you can go to grad school and get a masters in it.

Google is a search engine. It searches. Very well, in fact. It also does other stuff, and you don't even need to ask it. Want directions, type an address. Want to do math, type an equation. Need a conversation, it does that, too. All from the search box. And, on top of the practically countless other services Google offers (to be honest I don't even know half of the services that Google offers people). Google has enough money and enough brain power to be the best. More power to it.

So, not much can compare to Google in terms of site functionality--at least while on the site. I'd argue that a service like StumbleUpon is most worthwhile when you are not on the homepage. But, there are certainly sites that fare far less than even the worst of Google's creations (yes. Google has failed.)

The very worst site, all things considered, in my time as a Web user, is...drum-roll please...

Your MySpace page.

Now, MySpace as a site and as a service has come a long way in recent months (if only because FaceBook has forced it to keep up), and currently it is a lot more user friendly with a modern user interface (UI) for building sites than it used to be. Nevertheless, whether you be some 17 year old girl, a band, a brand, an executive--I'm sorry but your MySpace leaves something to be desired.

Yes, there are the occasionally well-designed pages using flash and CSS, which totally rework the traditional MySpace layout and allow advanced users to basically create their own website from scratch. But excluding those rarities, the typical MySpace pages, while providing some information, really don't scratch the surface of being useful--except when it comes to me previewing a band's music.

Too often, pages (even professional ones) take for-ev-er to load. The music player is faulty. Something you coded in the page is making my browser hang (thanks). You made the mouse icon different, there are falling stars as the background, or I can't read the text or see the links because every color is clashing. Possibly more important is that fact that on your page, you either 1. give me way too much information about you or 2. not enough information about you. And those surveys...I'm not even going to say anything.

Here's a brief update. I was going to take a screen shot of Tom Anderson's MySpace (he's the creator of the site). And I realized, this isn't that bad--this really shows us someone's personality. I then realized that for the vast majority of people, using MySpace to showcase one's personality would be like me painting a picture to showcase mine. It is a bit of a dull example, but my personality painting would look godawful and probably give you an even worse impression of myself.

Alas, I have a MySpace. But in my defense I use it to connect with bands and do "research" because MySpace is the most popular site on the Internet. But that's all. I think FaceBook and LinkedIn are more professional, higher quality, easier, safer, more user friendly, more feature-full, and generally better websites. Those sites provide information that I want and that I need in a clear and standard fashion.

While individual customization is key in creating for new media, it can't get out of control like it does with MySpace. It's always a hassle when I have to go to a MySpace page, and I dread doing it. Too bad Google's social networking site never caught on...

How Many Words Do These Pictures Speak?

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:35:00 +0000

Well..., the BIBLE!

It says a lot of things...

Yeah, it says that.

Maybe taking it literally isn't the best approach...

Why? Because:

This is a problem. It makes it so people are

This is not fair. No matter what your values are. It even says so in the Bible.

In America, it is required of all citizens to

Because civil rights are our most important rights. Our God-given rights.

And taking them away is hate.

And,

After all,

Because you think LGBT people are 2nd class citizens. It's not true.
And it's not nice.

Do I even need the next picture?

All these pictures (c) their owners. Found via Flickr searches. Used without expressed permission for academic purposes under Fair Use guidelines.

I don't want to distract your attention from the purpose of this: to convey a position using images, so here is a link to my reaction to this assignment.

Blog Blog Blog Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:39:00 +0000

The world loves blogs. While blogs may be "new media", the obsession with blogs en mass by the masses is easy to explain. Perez Hilton's blog is nothing but a liposuct-ed digital tabloid. It's a picture a la Perez, and some brief words putting it in context. That's it, plus some ads, and of course, the requisite comments. Scott Schuman's The Sartorialist is just a photo blog of people who look good, with sections for where he's been featured in the press, a bio, and yes, the comments. ArsTechnica is a news site that incorporates what I would consider blogs in its coverage of all things technological. It's a site that has a lot going on: journals, reports, reviews, news, forums, the ability to comment, and more. Although it seems like the mass media (and new media is fast becoming the new mass media) is so decidedly liberal (and people think thats a bad thing), Hotair.com is a place where everyone can get their conservative fix (but its just for laughs...). Hotair is a collection of blogs, videos, news stories, and whathaveyou. It's the republican equivalent of a bad episode of the Colbert Report*.

Anyway, these four blogs are all diverse personalities in the blogosphere. Despite their differences, though, they are all blogs, and naturally share some fundamental characteristics. The comments, the short-form (on average) article, a more lax user interface that conveys "this is cool and you want to be here" instead of "8am organic chemistry" (or, for those that like orgo, "8am creative writing"). This description is common of the natural habitat for blogs. Sure, there are blogs that are more in-depth and professional, but ultimately, they exist to open a new line of communication between writer and reader, thinker and lost soul, you and me and whoever in between†.
Where blogs differ, however, is important to discuss because that is where they succeed in catering to their audience and attracting (and maintaining) their niche. The blogosphere is aptly named--as widespread and encompassing as our atmosphere--and to be seen by the naked eye something must exhibit qualities different from the other things in the area.With all these blogs floating around, each successful blog positively must have its own appeal to certain sets of people.
Most of what we've been talking about in this class is aesthetics. Why put an image here, or there. The use of color, the focus on text. Is there too much or too little going on on the page? I suppose innately blogging depends on aesthetics in order to secure its readership, but the purpose of blogs is not an aesthetic one. While aesthetics or art may be a subject of a blog, the act of blogging itself is not, firstly, an experiment in aesthetics. That comes after the writing, after the image, and after the hyperlinking. Only then should a blogger be concerned with perfecting the image his or her blog projects. Unless of course the blog is about what looks pretty.

I went on a tangent, but with all that said, I can analyze the four aforementioned blogs in the context of blogging.

Perez Hilton's blog, which to be unfamiliar with you must surely have been living under a rock and/or born yesterday, is a celebrity gossip, photo and text based blog. You can easily spot your friends and colleagues reading Perez because of its trademark pink background and its paparazzi style pictures adorned with Perez's special white touch. The focus on Perez's post is the image. The text acts to contextualize the image and briefly offer Perez's take on the story. It is humorous, satirical, and borderline defamatory.
I'll digress here and write a little on the issue of intellectual property and how it applies to something like Perez's project, since I have an interest in IP. Perez uses (and adds to) pictures that are often taken by paparazzi or professional photographers (yes, I separated them). Sometimes they come from news articles. Perez uses these images, which he does not own, and puts a humorous, yet understandably (from the point of view of the celebrity being featured) negative light on them. Celebrities, because of their celebrity status, are not subject to the same protections from demation that lay citizens are. For them, it becomes much more of a tast to prove defamation in a court of law. Additionally, Perez's use of the images could arguable fall under fair use: he is making a derivative work (a new image, in effect, <<(someone just farted in my African Culture class. fyi)>>, because he uses his digital white marker to add to the original image and thus creates his own, new, work), and he is making a parody. Of course, he is profiting from his work, so to use the original pictures, he must license them. He can't use and profit from them without paying, since he does not own them. If he was not making a profit and his blog was not as famous as it is, he would probably be able to skid by without paying to license the images. Anyway, don't go starting your own Perez-type blog without the right legal counsel.

Perez is many people's guilty pleasure, I feel like. They won't admit to liking, let alone reading, this blog. But we all know we've checked it out. It's great for celebrity and entertainment news, plus its damn entertaining. It is simple and to the point. It requires barely any cognitive ability to use and enjoy (you could just look at the pictures and laugh), and for whatever reason, America is beyond obsessed with living vicariously through celebrities. So it is no suprise that Perez is successful. His mixture of personality (the pink, and subsequently, Perez's personality as revealved through personal appearances), the humor, the celebrity gossip, and the simplicity of his blog is perfectly crafted for success.
His commenters are people with seemingly nothing better to do than "argue" about Britney Spears, but to each their own. That's the beauty of blogging, that oft-mentioned line of communication that is now open between...anyone and everyone who cares enough to put forth their two-cents.
<>

Much different in topic and design from Perez is the blog The Sartorialist. I must admit, at first I read that word as "satiralist" and thought it was some blog satirizing news or whatnot. I was wrong. And, shocked to learn it was a fashion blog. Then I looked up the definition of sartorial and everything made sense.
This blog is purley photo based, has a nice clean white background, clear navigation on the left pane and a bit more on the right (the typical archives, calander, etc). It has no crazy ads like on Perez and it comes off as a much more professional type blog. Which makes sense. The author is not making fun of people who look odd, he's actually going for the people who look good and noteworthy. Its fashion for fashion's sake, and that's it. Simple black text, and commenters who stay on topic, proffering their own views on the fashion highlighted in the picture. The post topics are not eye-grabbing or catchy alliterations, they just note where and maybe what the photographer was shooting. Everything here sharply contrasts with Perez's blog, and I'd venture to say the readership is somewhat different, as well. Although I wouldnt be too surprised if there was a bit of crossover between the two blogs: people like celeb gossip and people like some good fashion sense. I could see the female twenty-something office professional having a dedicated interest in both blogs. So I guess that nulls my point. But brings up another interesting point: how to such strikingly different blogs capture the same audience? I guess that is a stupid question: the two blogs are two different products, totally. So, someone can like Ice Mountain water and Coke. both beverages, but so different. I should take this part out, it makes me look stupid. But I won't.

Moving right along, ArsTechnica is a favorite site of mine. It deals with all things tech, from games, to windows and mac, to science, to tech policy (my primary interest). The posts are mostly blog-like, meaning they are not terribly long, feature heavy linking, and after are written with a more relaxed tone. Sometimes there will be reviews or longer journal-type articles with a more "professional" or academic feel to them, though. Ars is a site bustling with information. I find myself only intereted in the front page articles and rarely ever venture anywhere else within the site. It has much more going on than the Sartorialist does, but it is not merely a blog. It has ads and features, much like you are reading a newspaper or magazine online. It is respected in the field of tech-journalism, just as the Sartorialist is respected in fashion. And yes, Perez is enshrined in...pop culture. The writing quality and comment quality is high on Ars. The commenters often stay on subject and add their own relevent views to what the author may have missed, or they take a new spin on something. I find it is always good to look at these sorts of comments because they give the intereted reader a broader perspective and it helps take away the inherent flaws in reporting, including some bias. For anyone intersted in anything remotely tech-related, you probably already know of Ars. But if you don't, you should absoluetly check it out.

Lastly, Hotair.com. I am going to try really hard not to hate on this site as much as I'd like to, given my crazy liberal perspective on everything. This site confuses me, as do most conservatives. They talk about how the liberals dominate everything and then they combat it with something not serious. This site loves that it brings humor into the picture. But good lord if you want to combant the liberal sway you keep complaining about then please do something convicing. If you are going to make bad jokes...give up. Liberal jokes are funny. Ann Colter is the devil. Common knowledge unless you really hit your head hard when you fell off the wagon. Conservative humor is whiny. Yes, the rightys all complain that all the liberals do is whine whine whine. Sure. But we arent joking around. When you joke, you whine. It's different. They are different. sigh.

So, hotair.com is this aggregation of news and such that somehow takes a rightward view of things. Their headlines right now include: "Most Tech Savvy White House evah Can't Figure Out E-mail" Hell, it is "eva" not "evah". Clearly, conservative journalists are outtah touch. Ok, so their headlines are funny because I like making fun of them. The articles are relevant. It's the same stuff being put up on CNN and the Times and local news stations. They just take it and make it look like America is stupid. Oh wait.

The site is laid out rather well I think. Its got its popular links at the time (linking to real news stories from other outlets), headlines in the middle (hotair original content), which are backed up with images. And on the right pane are ads and links. The articles I guess are written in legible english without too many grammatical errors. These are pluses. The commenters seem to be convervatives who are agreeing with the content. I imagine the readership is mostly conservative, and by mostly I mean like 99%. The other 1% are people like me who are looking for entertainment/doing homework. I actually, though, wouldnt be opposted to checking this site out more. It's good to make fun of, and its not exactly fox news. I hope. Not yet, at least. And yeah, I am always willing to hear another perspective on things. Even if all it does is bolster my own opinions.

So. Lots of blogs in the big blogosphere. They do what they need to do to survive, and the ones that do do it well. Survival of the bloggest. Lame. Lame. Lame joke. I need to publish this now and get to class.

*Forgive my bias.
†Forgive my rhyme

Academic Blogs. Gross.

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:15:00 +0000

Well maybe they are not as bad as they sound.

The "academic" blogs we had to look at were varied in subject, formation, and performance. One was some crazy bug lady's thoughts, another the weekly thoughts of a political science professor, and yet another about "the ARTistry of ARThistory ocasionally done ARTfully". Some are formed around a single person's ideas, other are collaborative efforts; and some are response's to other articles while others are original topics. A few are WordPress, some are Bloggers, and other's are different services. Some have pictures and others more 100% text based. Some look academic and others look like hobbies.

For purposes of this assignment, I will analyze A Walk in the Word, Bug Girl's Blog, and Crooked Timber. I find them to be relatively distinct from one another, and equally interesting--at least interesting enough for me to critique them.

A Walk in the Word is about linguistics. I find it terribly boring. Sorry. Aesthetically, though, the blog itself is pretty. It's easy to read and incorporates short text entries coupled with pictures where appropriate. I would consider it an academic blog simply because some of the posts are technical and get at things from a linguistic standpoint instead of a a more lay standpoint. I would also consider it more of an interest blog given the nature of the posts. They are short, written in a friendly tone, and often the subject matter is fit for those not necessarily learning about linguistic stuffs but just people who have an interest in words.

Bug Girl's Blog was fun to read at first. Her posts are mostly about bugs, but apparently she is from Michigan so sometimes they are about local issues, which are always more prevalent than non-local issues, or bugs. BugGirl incorporates text, pictures, at least one video, a Flikr stream, a bunch of useful links, and even a copyright notice. I can see how people would like reading this. It is a bit cluttered, but thats not unlike a lot of the blogs I see. At least there are no ads. In terms of calling this an academic blog, at first I did not really see it. Upon further reading and looking at the About BugGirl section, I saw why this was in fact an academic blog. I appreciate its more casual tone and I am sure it is relatively successful in its niche (it has over 300,000 hits).

Crooked Timber is the most "academic" out of the three I talk about, but maybe only from an aesthetic view. The color scheme is somber: black borders, white background, black text, and orange links. It deals in academia, but the tone is not always professionally academic. Sometimes it is jocular or laid-back. And the comments follow in a similar tone, too. This blog is written by a list of noted contributors, who claim to be academics. I will not argue with them on that. But I feel like it is a place for those in academia to relax a bit and write for them, not for some Journal.

Ultimately, I probably will not be checking out any academic blogs any time soon. But I can see how they are a nice addition to the academic community--providing an "academic" forum but with a more relaxed atmosphere that is kind of like a playground for scholars and academics. Everyone is still respectful and respected, but the mood in reading these blogs is not as 'scholarly' as reading anything from Nature. More power to these blogs.

Above image (c) its author. I make no claims to ownership of image, and image is used solely for scholarly purposes believed by me to be fair use. Image can be found here

In Response to Sullivan...

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:29:00 +0000

I am writing my reactions to this article by Andrew Sullivan (who I believe is an excellent writer and thinker) as I read it. Just as bloggers blog in real-time, mostly without the standard reviewing process, I want to do the same.

Sullivan says, "And with that level of timeliness, the provisionality of every word is even more pressing—and the risk of error or the thrill of prescience that much greater." In the past when I've tried to blog I found myself too worried about my writing: was it good enough, would people like it, are my jokes funny? I would hesitate before posting, reading and re-re-re-reading what I wrote, caught up in petty grammar issues and editorial decisions. Even now I am constantly going back and reading what I'm writing, making changes here and there. And I'm sure when I am done writing this, I will go through my standard editing process. Which is great for term papers, but not ideal for blogging. But that is something I want to work at. I want to be able to write freely and expressively without being scared that what I'm writing isn't ready to be shown to people. "For bloggers, the deadline is always now." And thats what makes it exciting (to write, at least. There's a lot of boring stuff out there...).

I guess what I just wrote was the whole point of the first page of the article. I really agree with this, so far, and knowing that I can relate to Sullivan and other bloggers is always nice.

Despite all the literary good that comes from the new and exciting art that is blogging, Sullivan laments that the average blog reader is more vicious than the copy editors and publishers. While the Internet is the most powerful technology we have at our disposal and while it has allowed for our society to really progress in virtually (pun?) all fields, the open doors it has created for the world and anyone who wants to read and write anything are not necessarily the kind of doors you want to leave open all the time. Allowing the world population to expose itself is a great, novel idea, and the concept is the basis for the success of the social computing phenomenon, the awesomeness that encompasses the idea is not free from the less-than-awesome. Call me Negative Nancy or whatever you like, but sometimes its better if any old Joe the Plumber doesn't get on his blog and spew his thoughts to all humanity. People, generally, are stupid. I am all in favor of free speech, but really the Internet just highlights how much is wrong with our species. Certainly, a bunch of it is entertaining -even the stupid stuff. I suppose I digress, though...

The advice Matt Drudge gives Sullivan is so true: A blog is "a broadcast, not a publication. If it stops moving, it dies. If it stops paddling, it sinks." The quick nature of blogging (and micro blogging) and the instantaneous back-and-fourth conversations that arise depend on constant interaction. Hopefully, that interaction is intelligible, and, except where appropriate, does not contain words like "GURLLZ" and punctuation like "!!!!1111!!one!!1z".

By the end of the second page, it is like Sullivan is giving blogs more credibility than newspapers, despite blogs' ad hoc nature and the newspapers diligent source-checking and fact-finding. Because of technology, Sullivan posits, blogs' ability to link to the depths of the Internet subject them to more intense criticism and force them to be durable and of quality information. I had never entertained the idea before that blogs might be a more credible source of news than my newspaper or CNN.com, but now I see that maybe blogs are more worthy of my trust than I thought. Still, it is a bit of a stretch for me to get my mind around a website being on par with or perhaps more credible than an institution such as the New York Times. But I guess that's the future.

"To blog is therefore to let go of your writing in a way, to hold it at arm’s length, open it to scrutiny, allow it to float in the ether for a while, and to let others [...] pivot you toward relative truth." Sullivan's discussion on the philosophy of blogging, a phrase which I am sure will be shortened to philog, is interesting. Authors create environments which foster discussion and the sharing of information. I agree with Sullivan's ideas here, yet I think sometimes it would be good for a blog not to just be a vehicle for "adding context and nuance and complexity to an idea" but maybe a way to get things done. An educational vehicle, but one that will have visible results. People read books, history, stories, what have you, and it motivates them and moves them and those items have the power to change the world because they can change people. Blogs can change the world, and they can change people, but in different ways. I would like to see if blogs can provoke people the same way that reading an influential novel might do so. When (I think its safe to exclude "if") that day will come is soon, if not already.

The philog depends on writer's writing only in the moment. The beauty in blogging, and what sets it apart from other literary and journalistic endeavors is that, as Sullivan correctly tells, blogs have personality. I always, as I assume most people do, consider the tone of an author when reading. I try and hear their voice in my head, or at least, make up how I'd like their voice to sound. I normally create voices that sound nothing like the author's actual voice, but the point is you need to give the words a sound so that you are not just looking at weird symbols on a page or on a screen, but you are comprehending what those symbols mean in their context. I think this realization, that blogging is personal, is unknown by those that don't blog. That may seem obvious or at least just sensical, but even for someone like me who is very technologically advanced, getting into this blogging business has been more difficult that I would have liked. Maybe that says something about my personality, but I think that when Sullivan (or Andrew, to the readers of his blog) talks about this out it is one of the most important points he makes in the article.
He goes on to talk about the "frienship" between reader and author. Because I'm not a steady blogger yet, I can't relate to this feeling. Instinctivly I question it, but I know that if I were more of a blogger I would probably agree with how Sullivan describes this relationship.

I connect a lot with what Sullivan is saying at the beginning of the last page. Blogs as a "human brand" and their "open source market of thinking" are postmodern ideas, as he says. And they are, with their inherent disconnect from the traditional hierarchical model of information usage. The Internet and social networking and communicating not necessarily digitally, but in an online, back-and-forth, multimedia, linkage swamp will always be "postmodern." Right now "new media" in our current colloquial sense of understanding is still new. But it is becoming just "media", even if our vernacular does not change to reflect this right away. And what is "postmodern" in nature is, literally, modern.

The conclusions that Sullivan comes to in this article are valuable and progressive. His favorable outlook and embrace of blogging and the new media as powerful, profitable, and "golden" is something that my generation understands but the baby boomers sometimes fail to completely grasp. His message here is incredibly important for anyone who is unsure, scared, or otherwise weary of what the Internet and New Media has to offer us. This is the future, and it is good.

So now I am going to post this. I'm not going to have "bloggers block." I'll give it a once-over for grammar, but other than that, I'm a blogger now.

mail to blogger test

noreply@blogger.com (Brett) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:29:00 +0000

mail to blogger test