Virtual Reality Can Feel Just as Annoying as Real Life

I've gotten to the point sometimes when I'm playing Sonic the Hedgehog where I don't feel my body anymore. I'm concentrating so hard on the screen and what I'm trying to I forget what time it is. When I die in a stupid manner (like falling on some spikes) I'm seriously annoyed...as annoyed as I'd be when my twin decides wake me up just to show me some sentence in a book that is totally hilarious (but not at 2 am).

I've been completely immersed in the Sonic world and as a result detached from real life. It’s happened to me with books and movies too. There are different levels of immersion, and to be honest the better I think the game is the more immersed in it I will get. On some games, like Second Life, you can even create your own avatar. Does that aid immersion?

From some avatars my friends have shown me I've also seen that avatars don't even have to look like us or be in any way a true representation of our real selves. It all seems like harmless fun and if you want to be a huge Viking then go ahead. But what about when online trust issues converge with real life?

If your married in real life but have an 'affair' with someone on Second Life is that really cheating? I've read numerous articles where people have gotten divorced over such actions, and one article where a man found our he was getting divorced by his wife updating her facebook status. People have also been accused of bigamy

on facebook. Cyberspace seems to already be blurring the lines between real life and virtual reality, so I can only imagine the potential that 3D and virtual reality simulators where you will be physically immersed will have. I should hope this blurring is mostly positive for example giving people confined to wheelchairs a new chance to 'walk' around again. Again we will have to wait and see.

Rage Against the Machine

I've been a human now for 22 years and its had its ups and downs. I know I'm a human because on numerous occasions I have been able to pass facebook's CAPTCHA test on most of these occasions. Online that seems to be the only way to check if the user is a bot or a human (bots cant read things that are not linear). Online we create our own identities, but so can chatterbots like Eliza who pretends to be a psychiatrist. She cannot sustain what we would consider intellengent conversation as the speed of the conversation is slow, and she cant follow the conversation when the topic changes drastically. Is she intellegent all the same?

Of Machine and Men

Of Machine and Men

I have a heartbeat and I breath but what if I had machines that could do those things for me?  What if my entire body was made out of metal and my mind could be connected into a collective counciousness like a network. Would I still be human? Would I still be living? Would we just become beings that process information like a CPU? ...Plus would I really want to know what everyone is thinking all the time when I find facebook updates annoying at times.

The cyborg was born out of science fiction and has long captivated us. For practical reasons certain ideas have been used such as being able to replace a limb with an artificial one. We can repair ourselves to a certain degree but don’t have the capacity to copy enough cells to grow a new limb (though stem cell research may one day lead us there). But why grow a new limb if we can replace it with an indestructible one made of some form of metal? Why shouldn’t we use technology to better our bodies if were given the chance. How do we control these new limbs?

The question of control is a big one. If we were all mentally connected who would be in charge? There have always been authority figures to be admired or feared in societies, so who would set the rules and enforce them? Would it be the case where one person rules over all like a dictatorship or would we all take some resposability in enforcing the rules such as in an idealistic socalist democracy?

If we look at artificial life what could happen when the machines become self aware? Are we heading towards a matrix style situation where they control us. It could possibly happen if they become smarter than us which they would have the potential to do as they can process information a lot faster. Would they become god like and use us as we used to use them? I have a lot more questions then answers when it comes to artificial life and cyborgs than answers. Im not ashamed to say Im a bit of a paranoid person and find it all a bit creepy, but I guess ill just have to wait and see.

Copyright or Copyleft?

Copyleft or Copyright?

In Rip a remix Manifesto by Brett Gaylor we get too look into the ever present problem of copyright in terms of digital media. We all know file sharing sites like napster that have been closed down or some sites like Newsleecher who are in legal disputes with TV studios and media companies. With more and more people choosing to watch TV shows online, even illegally downloading them using torrents, does it have a majorly damaging impact on the industry? In terms of music downloading will the artists suffer if we choose not to pay for their albums?

With thousands of mash up videos already existing on YouTube can moderators keep up and remove them all? Once removed you only have to look as far as YouTomb to find the videos that have been removed. It’s an MIT site that promotes creative freedom and believes that once something has entered the public domain it can be used by others as they wish. In terms of right and wrong we have a big grey area here to address.

In regards to the music industry most artists don’t make their money from album sales. They get a small fraction of it but the majority of the funds go to the record label that has either given them a loan to produce and album, or a deal where in their album sales and downloads go completely to the label. Artists make their money from touring and performing which is after all what they what they have always done. Is it wrong to illegally download an album? Personally I don’t know, but what I do know is that if I to pay for all the music I use on my radio show I would be flat broke. You can’t honestly tell me it costs near enough 8.00GBP to make a CD.

With people receiving massive fines and sometimes even prison sentences for illegal downloads you really have to wonder if THAT is right. Some organizations such as Creative Commons are trying to stop this from happening to people by issuing licences to sample. They have taken issue with ‘intellectual property’ (copyrighting of ideas) and are seen as a copyleft movement. I believe in creative freedom and find it a shame that the only legal defence some people have for using a piece of music in a movie or documentary is ‘fair use’. I also think that ‘intellectual property’ does more harm than good. How can you patent an idea? If money is the only reason you want to keep a certain idea from other people using it and possibly developing it and making it better, then you should be just as guilty as the people who are ‘ripping your idea off’. On this issue I stand with the copyleft movement. Where do you stand?  

Web 2.0

Welcome to web 2.0 where all users can interact with each other in a virtual community. Without it there would be no wiki, no blogs, no YouTube and no social networking sites. The term was coined by Tim O’Reilly in a conference in 2004. It makes it sound like there is a new version of the World Wide Web in town, but is that true?  The technology hasn’t really changed so this term has been challenged by lots of different people.  Most noticeably by Tim Berners-Lee who invented the World Wide Web which he states is not different from Web 2.0. They both essentially have the same functions.

So is it just a buzz word that marketing teams love to throw about? It’s gotten to the sad state where companies can buy likes on Facebook and friends, so why not re-brand an already existing product that’s popular (the world wide web) and claim it as their own? Companies can have twitter accounts and web pages that are updated often so their presence is felt online. The only thing web 2.0 can pride itself on is that it is more accessible in terms of design.  It offers an interactive design that can link sites to each other easier (mash ups).

With this much user generated content what does it mean for the ownership of data? Anything we publish online becomes part of a public domain, and seems to be fair gain for anyone to use. That would be fine but were all human and will make mistakes. For example Facebook is full of political comment that clearly displays to the rest of the users that you have actually completely misunderstood the current political situation. People seem so keen to join in that YouTube is full of pointless videos and MySpace has become a playground for people trying to get their music out there ( ‘cuz the bands gonna make it man!’). There are people who have become internet celebrities but they are few and far in between. I’ll be honest with you I’m not really holding my breath for Web 3.0. Im too skeptical and cynical for all this.

It’s Not You…It’s Me (And My Trust Issues)

Whenever there’s an argument at the dinner table or a debate between friends I seem to find myself getting sent to computer to find out who is right. I have to confess the first web site I go to is Wikipedia. All the information I need is right there and organized for me, but is it verified? Can I trust this source? My old roommate in Malta is banned from making wiki entries due to some unflattering and untrue information we uploaded about the current president. In his defence it was super funny.  However even knowing that this is easily done it’s still the first site I’ll go to.

Some wiki entries have sources linked at the bottom of the page, and sometimes an article will have a warning at the top of the page warning you that some information in the article is not sourced. Wiki is made up completely of user generated content, and with that being the case it can never really be a trusted source. Shame.

Let’s be honest though wiki isn’t the only thing online that can’t be trusted. If we look back to my previous blog entry and think about how people can choose to represent themselves online it comes as no surprise that we can just as easily make stuff up. In BBCs Scientific Focus magazine they published an article about how half of the updates on Facebook are untrue or at least a twisted version of the truth. Some updates are so put together it’s as if they are done for an audience (I should really just tell them to start their own blog).

Real life and cyberspace seem to be merging with people being able to update their location, nicknames becoming user handles and I’ve even heard some people say ‘lol’ rather than just laughing. Will our online public identities merge with our real life ones? What does that mean for our privacy? I think people appreciate privacy more now than ever, and can choose to join in the rising culture of telling everyone everything all the time. Personally I’m just going to sit back and watching it from a comfortable distance.

We Are Who We Are...Aren't We?

Online we can be who we want. We can choose the represent ourselves as we wish. It might be an accurate representation or an idealized version of our selves. Some dogs I know actually have Facebook accounts.  When we go online what do ‘we’ become? Are we just lines of information, a bodiless consciousness and do we still have to behave within societies rules?

There are different platforms online that we can use to represent ourselves, and if we wanted to we could become different people on each platform. With the majority of students having a Facebook page as their homepage it’s become a platform for individual expression. Before its existence people were using yahoo geocities to represent themselves. It did require some basic programing knowledge to set up, but now you can create a homepage without ever having to see or write any algorithms. They are still there but in the background so to speak.

Essentially you’re displaying the same information about yourself. From political views though to what music you like. We can use our homepages however to mislead people if we wished, so does that raise any trust issues? I have to admit to censoring certain aspects of my life on my own Facebook page. Untagging myself in unflattering pictures or trying to hide the evidence of a night out. It’s all because I’m very aware that if for example a prospective employer decides to Google me I don’t want to be seen as irresponsible. Am I misrepresenting myself? On Facebook you’re in an online community built up of your friends, but if you haven’t fixed your security settings then your information can be seen by anyone at any time. Also because we are choosing who we want to be a part of our online community are we being more discriminate? I’ve heard the term ‘Facebook snob’ used before but still think people have a right to choose who they allow to see their information and how they represent themselves.   

Online you can assume any character such as a fictional character or even a famous person. How do you really know who you’re interacting with, and if you have a conversation on a forum does that mean you would get along in real life? Not necessarily and we have all heard horror stories of people meeting online and discovering they weren’t who they said they were, or even a new modern problem of cyber stalking. You can find peoples CVs online with their contact details and addresses. Are we giving out too much information about ourselves?  

My Reality is Better Than Yours

In my friends world he’s a six foot tall warlock with lots of weapons that he carries around all day, and he can’t be messed with. In reality he’s a shorty like me and doesn’t walk around with a sword because he’d probably be arrested. Is he a paranoid schizophrenic with impressive delusions? No he’s a gamer who made himself an online avatar to interact within a web based game. He exists in this cyberspace as a very different character. Online we can become anything we want and behave in ways that in the real world would make no sense.

Cyberspace can be seen as a different platform of information and representation than reality. William Gibson is a science fiction writer who tried to define cyberspace. In his view it’s a space where consciousness lives without bodies and a space made out of information. In the real world there cannot be a divide between mind and body but it is something cyberspace can offer. Does that mean we can live forever online? Will my blog still be accessible in 20 years? Maybe but as with yahoo geocities it could well be closed down or maybe it will just become lost in amongst all the other information that will come to exist online. Who decides what information gets deleted and what gets archived? Will it be the web sites owners that decide or the governments?

John Perry Barlow wrote ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace' in which he idealizes cyberspace to be a free thinking space that does not discriminate.  However is that true? I think that even online there is an element of selection involved. You can choose what forums or games you want to participate in. In the case of my friend mentioned above whenever he tells people he players World of Warcraft it seems sometimes people will label him as ‘one of those’ and politely switch topic. Even other gamers such as the Call of Duty crowed like to differentiate themselves from WOW players. Barlow’s ideas on cyberspace are lovely but in the real world it seems people will still always find a way to segregate.  With technology increasingly becoming a part of everyday life such as augmented reality (superimposed reality) bus stops in Sweden or a city tour of Copenhagen done half virtually, with our language and writing changing in regards to text talk will it divide us more? I don’t believe it will as we can all use cyberspace as an information tool, but who knows really.

Interface in Your Face

Every day I check the news on my phone, check my emails, check twitter to see if my bus will be delayed, check Facebook to see what my friends abroad are up to, if it’s after payday I might make a trip to the ATM and then head to the self-service machines at Tesco’s for some lunch. All this different information is relayed to me by a screen which I can manipulate to give me the information that I’m looking for.  Everyday people are interacting with different user interfaces. Even people who don’t consider themselves very ‘technologically wise’ (like my mom) are using these machines without much trouble. Why is that?

The user interface is one of the most useful tools that can be manipulated for information. If we look at web design there have been major advancements with Web 2.0. You no longer need to understand any programing to have your own site, and most interfaces will follow similar principles. For example most actions can be undone if you make a mistake, icons that look and behave in a similar way become easy to recognize on any site and users know how to manipulate a screen with touch or with a mouse.  Without an interface how would we be able to check our emails? Would we even have come to invent it and use it as widely as we do? I doubt it. The jobs of these various designs are to communicate messages and that’s exactly what they do.

If we take a quick look at the BBCs web page on our computers and then the same site on our mobile phones there are noticeable differences. Your mobile will have shorter story synopsises, less browsing options and less advertising. However the layout of the web site is similar with the logo appearing at the top, and the headline stories directly below. It’s also noticeable that on the phone your courser will change check you click a link which might have been incorporated into the design as you don’t have a mouse. We have come to expect our web pages to be laid out in ways that are familiar to us so we can use the interface quickly to get what we’re looking for. Scandinavian designers have always been talking about how simplicity is the key. I believe it’s the same principle when it comes to interface design. If it’s not easy to use then what’s the point? People will just look for the information somewhere else.

Citizen journalism

The readers of mainstream media are now participating in the authoring of the content. They can decide what news is rather than relying on institutions like the BBC to tell them what news is. Though blogging and social networking the model of how news is delivered has changed. News has generally been delivered in a one-to-many communication model. Even in the 1770s individuals with strong options would publish pamphlets or broadsides as they were afraid of going through the usual channels to get certain types of information out to the public. Thomas Paine wrote a popular pamphlet called Common Sense in 1776 in support of the American Revolution. He ended the pamphlet with 'written by and Englishman' to try and drive the point home.

Most broadcast news is still delivered though the model of one-to-many communication, but there are instances where a sensational story has first been posted or broadcasted on the internet and from there made it to mainstream news. This new model can be referred to as the 'bottom up' approach rather than a 'top down' story. In short people are deciding what they think should be in the news. This could lead to a change in what journalists have called news values, which were guidelines that helped them organize news stories and decide what could make the front page tomorrow. Now on skynews and euronews there are short segments where they broadcast YouTube videos that have gotten the most hits that day. Does that necessarily mean the content is news? Personally I’m not sure. However sites like twitter can be very useful tools when looking for information. If you’re working for a newspaper in Luton you can hash tag Luton and see what people are blogging about it, which may lead you to a great story. 

Technology has not only changed the way news is delivered but it can make the news more interactive though ‘newsgames’. Sites like newsgrounds have realized that games stimulate people by using interactive models to represent a story. It can keep people informed and entertained which will make it more memorable story. Technology impacts the way news is delivered and consumed. It is also very useful for finding information and new stories. If we look at the Chilean Minors story technology was also used to communicate with the trapped men and assess their health. For the most part I think incorporating technology into the journalistic field is a step in the right direction. Does this mean anyone can become a journalist? To me it does and why shouldn’t people publish a story they have discovered and researched?