(((>DigitalWisdom<)))

What is blogging

Published on 2 Jun 2006 at 9:56 pm. 3 Comments.
Filed under Digital & Social.

The word ‘weblog’ was coined by Jorn Barger, owner of the Robot Wisdom weblog. You can learn more about the meaning of the word by visiting his weblog.
But is there a formal definition of what it means to blog? Why is it that people like to blog. There must be a reason why one would want to share personal experiences with the entire planet.
They can be seen as a simple one way or two way communication device, however there are certain narrative properties about blogs that give them a form that could be compared to or associated to a general fictional narrative form. I guess the most obvious properties are the date and time stamp, the archives section and the fact that most users refer to their previous entries (or more specifically they further their blog by referring to their previous entries).
The question is, I guess, if ‘users’ create blogs because they need to define themselves for themselves (for. ex. they use their blogs to get more familiar with their own character, perhaps in a subconscious way by reading their own posts) or if they need to define themselves and present that to an ‘online’ community (perhaps to feel a sense of belonging or a sense of purpose). Many users claim that their blogs are personal journals and truthful reflections. However, I think there are many elements that can be excluded or included and exaggerated or downplayed when ‘we’ write about ‘ourselves’. Assuming that the users want to be honest is not a proof of their ability to write truthful blog entries. I mean they know that their descriptions of ‘themselves’ will be read and that has to influence their subconscious mind and how they go about representing themselves. Perhaps all they do is change that first word that comes to their mind or they become aware of the importance of the structure of their sentences, punctuation, etc. and that changes the meaning of their original thought, therefore it changes the reader’s perception of who they are. What kind of effect the writers of blogs want to create, if any. I wonder.
And what if blog entries could be presented in a nonlinear fashion? Would they make sense? Would they be more realistic representations of their owners? Would they form a textual character? I suppose such characters would be hard to ‘read’ and blogs would have less ‘obvious’ meaning, therefore they wouldn’t entertain the readers. But can they be a realistic representation of ‘us’ if they need to be understood by everyone.
Perhaps blogs are our first (unintended and unrefined) attempt to bond with other human beings in a technological manner. We post ourselves, like we would a sign, into the cyber space and wait for other users to acknowledge our presence?

Taste your life » Blog Archive » Chocolate recipe choclate lovers – 600 chocolate candy recipies

Published on 1 Jun 2006 at 4:28 pm. 79 Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

Taste your life » Blog Archive » Chocolate recipe choclate lovers – 600 chocolate candy recipies

I love chocolate. Thank you. lol.

Juicy Day » Blog Archive » My On-line Documentary

Published on 1 Jun 2006 at 4:17 pm. No Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

Juicy Day » Blog Archive » My On-line Documentary

I guess it becomes much easier to know what kind of info you need and how to present it once you determine your main theme.

I always wonder if it’s better to collect information first and then try to determine a structure or if it’s better to have a particular structure or format in mind and then collect relevant info. I guess if you start with a particular structure that can prevent you from collecting a wide range of information thus your project can become focused on one point and ignore other important themes.

Published on 1 Jun 2006 at 4:08 pm. No Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

I guess it becomes much easier to know what kind of info you need and how to present it once you determine your main theme.

(((>DigitalWisdom<))) › Create New Post — WordPress

Published on 1 Jun 2006 at 4:06 pm. No Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

(((>DigitalWisdom<))) › Create New Post — WordPress

I guess it becomes much easier to know what kind of info you need and how to present it once you determine your main theme.

Electronic junk and NETIQUETTE

Published on 30 May 2006 at 8:33 pm. 3 Comments.
Filed under Uncategorized.

�

You know I’ve been thinking about ‘online’ junk. I mean there is no way to regulate what’s out there. Yes there are network administrators, system administrators, up load download administrators, transfer protocols, and millions of other gadgets, software, etc. But are they affective.

I received three or four thousand spam messages (emails) in less than a month (and they started coming in 12 hours after I registered with the technorati and bloglines). And I should consider myself ‘lucky. And this is so frustrating. Can we control this?

The biggest problem, I think, is that the companies (the ones who enable people to create free accounts and the ones that charge for their services) are suffering from their own business. I mean people sign up and create accounts that they don’t use or they use them for illegal activities etc. thus the registered users generate more data/info/tasks/sites/protocols, etc, for the company that provides their accounts to maintain, thus affecting the performance of their own services. I think the problem is that most users have no idea how their actions affect other users or what their accounts do or how they work. And the ones who do know, well, they manipulate them in order to benefit from such actions.

I think that there are a number of problems that need to be addressed at a , well, lets say a primary school level. I mean we need to promote ‘NETIQUETTE’ and create responsible users. I guess we are in the early stages of this new digital/technological/media revolution. So I guess the consequences are not all that clear. I think that we need to develop more clear means of defining and illustrating how particular actions (performed in the cyber world) translate themselves into the physical world. I guess it’s till early for us to except to have ‘responsible’ digital users. I mean most people say ‘ah it’s out there’ or ‘they can’t see me or hear me, who cares I can say or do anything. Not quite true. But like I said, I guess we are not that aware of the physical consequences (well I guess the IT people are) therefore it’s hard for us to feel responsible. And we need to change this. Any ideas. Lol.

A functional ‘$100 laptop’ is here

Published on 28 May 2006 at 4:17 am. No Comments.
Filed under Digital & Social, Literature, Screenwriting, Special effects, TV, Uncategorized.

�

A functional ‘$100 laptop’ is here.

What does this say about technology.

Take a look. Here.

An observation from the past few weeks

Published on 28 May 2006 at 3:16 am. 1 Comment.
Filed under Digital & Social.

�

I think that there is a problem related to the way in which we negotiate ‘the’ difference between virtual communities and communities that come from the real world. Hmm. Well there is a problem in my mind lol.
Virtual communities seem to have more relevance in an academic field or any field that depends on somewhat ‘abstract’ terms. That is, communities seem to function better if their elements originate in the cyberspace and are non physical to begin with (for ex. a community about language, among university lectures or a community about video games for online gamers) and they don’t seem to function all that well if one attempts to translate objects (communities) form ‘the real world’ into the cyberspace.
I mean virtual communities do have their value as a mean of communication, however there is a number of properties about ‘the real world’ communities that cannot be represented/expressed when they go online. I guess the problem arises from the fact that physical objects are surrounded by other physical objects (buildings, streets, traffic, location) thus adding to the their role, their purpose and their meaning. And when objects, institutions, buildings, social protocols, events that occur within such physical constructs are translated into the cyberspace some of their values and meanings (signifier and signified, semantics I guess) are changed and they seem irrelevant or less effective when communicating a particular idea. Especially when attempting to construct a particular role for that online community to play in the cyberspace and in the real world.
I guess the problem is how to define the difference (differences) between an online community and a community from the real world. What are the elements of that ‘difference’?

Do we say what we don’t mean (because of ‘the technology’ that we use to communicate our ideas)

Published on 28 May 2006 at 2:31 am. 10 Comments.
Filed under Digital & Social.

�

I really hate it when people say that ‘technology’ is going to ‘improve’ our ability to communicate. What does that mean. ‘Globalization’ and ‘coming together’, they drive me crazy.�
I mean despite this seemingly limitless number of ways through which to communicate and form meaningful professional and non professional relationships and the opportunity to understand our ‘individualities’ (in ‘terms’ of elements that are common to all human beings and which result from particular psychological states, fear, hatred, love) we choose to communicate on a more impersonal level which includes social, cultura and political elements. Such elements prevent technology from being anything else than an extension of our ‘public’ individualities ( I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the term ‘public’ vs. ‘private’ personality. )
For example so many people say that they feel ‘alone’ if there is no one else in a particular chat room or on a particular website. I mean the despite the fact that it exists in our homes and our pockets, technology, for some strange reason doesn’t make us feel ‘individual’. Therefore it’s not going to revolutionize ‘what we communicate’ (hatred, fear, emotions, etc.), only how we communicate it. ‘Our’ fear of ‘them’ (the good old ‘us’ vs. ‘them’) and our need to belong to a particular group (party, religious group, neighbourhood, class) will not be erased by new technologies and it will not be replaced by it. Why should it be.
While ‘technological progress’ is a normal occurrence, its ability to shape our sense of reality is seriously underestimated. The danger is in our belief that our technological evolution can ‘sustain’ humanity without any interference from the social and
psychological or other cultural sciences. I think that technology as an entity is not able to find a correct way to integrate itself into our society, neither as a whole nor as a fragment. And there is no ‘magical’ and ‘obvious’ way through which to make it ‘the’ tool with which a particular social change can be achieved.

There goes ‘reality’———TV

Published on 27 May 2006 at 9:54 pm. 1 Comment.
Filed under TV.

How does the film industry affect the TV industry and what we see on TV.

There are many technical changes. For example the screen size and its effects on the production techniques, that is, TV films and documentaries becoming similar to theatrical releases; requiring larger studios, more complex sets, increasingly complex camera motion and geometry within that studio space, etc. And there are viewers’ perceptions of what the actual box needs to be. Larger, brighter, more loud?
Or is this what the media corporations who are in charge of various advertising campaigns/productions want us to think.
How does, or should TV explore ‘reality’ (everyday life) and not ‘cinematography’?
Will it continue to explore reality?
I wonder about a number of effects that particular sci fi films and other hi tech gadgets are exerting on the actual TV box design. Its design is becoming increasingly complicated and increasingly expensive and increasingly dependant on other non TV related services (multimedia platforms and networks) . It seems to be promoting its ability to move away from ‘the real world’ and enter the world of the cyberspace and wireless networking. Its normal for it to become more sophisticated and included in a broader digital community, however what about its purpose? Does it have anything do with reality?�
This is a strange period for the good old TV. Its primary purpose was to provide live action, up to date information, direct and straight forward news. (according to Jarvie and a number of other sociologist who investigated its purpose and effects in the 1950 to 1980 period). Our current perception (of what the box needs to do) seems to be moving away from the notion that it needs to entertain and educate by what is ‘real’. The idea that ‘there doesn’t “seem” to be enough “interesting” content in the real world, so we have to invent “a new reality” ’ indicates our ability/inability to perceive and empathize with the very world that surrounds us???
Big brother, social games, quiz shows that promise a fortune. Hmmm. Perhaps the (only) kind of ‘reality’ that we can accept is an illusion of reality. A ‘film-like’ concept indeed.
Needless to say, this very need to ‘invent’ a more entertaining form of ‘reality’ should raise some serious questions about technology’s ability to communicate meaningful feelings. Or is it ‘us’ who refuse to watch that very ‘real’ representation of reality.Either way, the reality doesn’t seem to be an option.
I mean the ‘big brother’ show offers a better, more ‘tasteful’ viewing experience than your seven o’clock news. I mean cmon, it’s become such a ‘postmodern’ concept. A whole bunch of academics (from this uni) stay up to watch the damn thing.Hmm. A personal choice? An academic inquiry?
Damn man. I say Damn.Who wants to see a sharp close up of a shark attack victim and his leg. Or a messy car accident. But there are more examples, outrageous documentaries showing mass executions, accidental recordings of beatings, rape, murder, car crashes, or any number of combinations. But would you sit down and watch that for a few hours. Or on a regular basis. Nah. So can production companies benefit from such materials, nah. Hmm. So at the end of the day… who cares what’s goin’ down. Right.And so my friends THERE goes reality……..but there is no one THERE to see it.Reality TV you say.

Coming soon…!!!???

Published on 27 May 2006 at 6:16 am. No Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

World.Wide.Wanderer » Blog Archive » Lyon and Nice

Published on 11 May 2006 at 4:15 pm. No Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

World.Wide.Wanderer » Blog Archive » Lyon and Nice

Oh my did you eat all that food. LOL. I guess you were hungry.

Joe’s Blog » Blog Archive » What are common to digital and traditional photography?

Published on 11 May 2006 at 4:07 pm. 80 Comments.
Filed under Film.

Joe’s Blog » Blog Archive » What are common to digital and traditional photography?

I don’t know if that’s true. Do we really need to be that close. After all there are differnt lenses.

Joe’s Blog » Blog Archive » What are common to digital and traditional photography?

Published on 11 May 2006 at 4:06 pm. 222 Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

Joe’s Blog » Blog Archive » What are common to digital and traditional photography?

Hmmm. Interesting. Close. I wonder if that’s true for every photograph. I mean we do have different lenses for different angles, perspectives. Is it really that imporatn to see it upclose.

World.Wide.Wanderer » Blog Archive » Language

Published on 11 May 2006 at 4:01 pm. 61 Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

World.Wide.Wanderer » Blog Archive » Language

Cooooooooool. lol.

geek ramblings » Not a good day

Published on 11 May 2006 at 3:56 pm. No Comments.
Filed under Special effects.

geek ramblings » Not a good day

I know how you feel. lol.

(Un)plugged communities

Published on 1 Apr 2006 at 12:01 am. 9 Comments.
Filed under Digital & Social.

(Un)plugged communities

It seems to me that virtual communities and a number of means by/through/via? which ‘users’ interact and contribute to such communities are the focus of this subject.

Furthermore, I have noticed that an attempt is being made (by the designers of various networks, platforms, message boards, etc.) to make such means of interaction as real as possible; directly related to a number physical experiences from the real world.

An observation made above is directly related to a criticism of the virtual community that I am about to make. Now a ‘criticism’ might not seem like a good starting point, however I believe that it should be taken as more than a criticism. It should be seen as a warning. A warning, you wonder? Yes, a warning about THE true ‘purposes’ and ‘limitations’ of the virtual community.

Yes, there are many different virtual communities, most of them promote healthy discussions and have a meaningful purpose, and yes their users come from many different countries, but that’s not all, actually I could keep adding positive comments for quite a while. However, none of the useful services I just mentioned are available to people who are not PLUGGED into the internet, or your WWW, call it whatever you want. And this, in my view, makes virtual communities quite the opposite of what the ‘utopian view’ of the internet suggests (free information sharing for everyone, relatively cheap technology that’s easy to assemble and use, etc.) moreover it turns them into dangerous propaganda machines.

How can virtual communities claim to represent or comment on any human condition (on any aspect of reality) when some of the most horrible (human) experiences cannot be expressed, cannot be talked about, cannot be witnessed by others. The people who are experiencing them are not capable of participating. Not because they do not wish to participate but because they are excluded, BY DEFAULT. Yes, I am talking about the third world countries, war thorn countries, locations with frequent natural disasters (unless they are large enough to arouse international curiosity). It seems to me as if though the collective subconscious of the ‘modern day’ internet users, thus of the virtual communities, is tuned into the thematically relevant topics (if you are a student you look encyclopaedias, if you are a games fanatic you look for online gamers, if you are a gardener you look for a website about gardens, etc.). It’s all there, waiting for you. But when do you look for ideological or physical aspects of humanity that cannot be captured in a form of a particular topic, animation, game, interactive module. (How can you look for them when they are not there.)

So how can virtual communities wonder about what it means to be human, or I guess I should ask CAN VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES WONDER about an undefined human condition. Can they really ‘wonder’ about the state of the society or is that we allow them to ‘pretend’ that they can by discussing that which we know we wouldn’t discuss in a real (physical) world for we would know that as an individual we would not be able to change anything with our discussion.

How do we comment on conditions which cannot be designed or simulated by a group of programmers? And even if they could be designed would anyone have any desire to experience them.

…In his keenly insightful introduction to the French edition of his sci-fi novel Crash, J.G. Ballard identified “the most terrifying casualty of the century: the death of affect” and linked the “demise of feeling and emotion” to “the pre-empting of any free or original imaginative response to experience by the television screen”. Those who see the virtually community as an electronic agora restoring a sense of community and reviving public discourse in the age of the corporate media monopoly, will protest that virtual communities are not TV; so noted. But the bright promise held forth by virtual communities must be considered in the context of the culture at large, where the flight into the cyberspace takes place at a time when urban public space, as Mike Davis argues in City of Quartz, is increasingly privatized and segregated in the name of “redevelopment”; when working class urbanites fortify what Davis calls their “prison cell houses” with bars and grates while middle class suburbanites retreat into privately policed, gated communities; when the fear of crime and a chimerical drug war are used to justify whittling away of civil liberties; and when US Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich warns of the “secession of the rich” – the abdication of social responsibility by an Information Age elite “linked by jet, modem, fax, satellite and fibre-optic cable to the great centers of the world but…not particularly connected to the rest of the nation” (“Secessions of the successful”, The New York Times, January 20, 1991).
In such context, virtual communitarianism that does not bear fruit in the meatworld, as a result of on-line grassroots organizing, entrepreneurial initiatives, information exchange, consciousness raising, and so forth, cedes the territory of the real to the powers that be and escapes to a kinder, gentler place by rolling itself up in the map. It is indistinguishable, in all the essentials, from TV escapism…

I wonder if it is any different than TV escapism. I think you should wonder too. Does the fact that the interactive doco about the homeless people (played in class) cannot be seen by the homeless peolple (who were in the doco) tell us anything about the nature of the POINT OF VIEW and RESPONSIBILITY that virtual communities play with and ignore.

We continue to chat, surf, upload, download, email, and while it might seem that the rest of the world is right here under our fingers tips, nothing could be further from the truth. Are we running away form the truth at oh my 56KB per sec or even faster. Hey the faster the better???

Well excuse my scepticism!!!!?????? We need a little controversy here?

Derry, M, 1997, ‘The medium’s messenger Marshall McLuhan’ in Transitlounge, Crawford, A, Gibson, A, (eds.), Craftsman House, North Ryde, NSW, Australia