Be[lie]ve

Sifting through the altered pictures on Cnet news, one in particular stood out to me. It was a photo that had been altered so that Leon Trotsky, a member of the Communist party in Russia, had been eliminated due to his falling-out in the party. In his place there is inserted a gap, supposed to add a touch of 'realism' to the picture. He seems to be eliminated without a trace, as if he never was never really there. This picture stood out to me among all others because it reminded me of the novel 1984 by George Orwell, where pictures were constantly being updated and changed, and there was no standard conception of the past. The picture was altered to show that Trotsky never had any connection to any aspect of the Communist party. This picture could be harmful because it represents an alteration of the truth, yet it isn't really that harmful. In the grand scheme of things no one would really know, or be able to talk about it because it never happened. If you say it did, that is doublespeak, and not allowed. [IF you would like to view the picture, the URL is http://news.cnet.com/2300-1026_3-6033210-14.html?tag=mncol.

Chris Nolan and the Internet of Doom

Chris Nolan's lecture was abound with many interesting facts and tips that proved helpful in navigating the endless waves of information. What I thought was the most interesting was how the search results are catalogued in order to show up correctly when a key word is typed in. For example, the "cached" button on Google, which is the very first source that would come up on your list of hits. Furthermore, it was interesting to know that it is not really how many times the keywords are referenced in a source that makes it appear high on the list, yet it is how many sites actually link to that one website. This, of course, lends itself to one of the things that surprised me, how people actually create blogs and link their sites on these and other webpages, in order for them to appear higher on the list when the subject of their site is referenced.
That was very fascinating because it is another aspect of blogs that can be brought up in controversy, as, not a tool to display ideals, but yet another way to cheat the system. It is yet another subtle reminder that things are not what they seem and you should not judge a book by its cover, or a website by its URL (martinlutherking.org).

Copyright: An Infringement

The presentation on copyright illuminated facts about copyright that I both liked and those I never knew. I remember learning what copyright was, but I never knew how long it lasted. Seventy years is a very long time for something to be shut off from being free for the public. But the idea of Public Domain was a breath of fresh air, because the things we write will eventually be free for everyone to use, which I think is the purpose of publishing ideas. But conversely, I think it is interesting that people write some things to enlighten to public, and then make you pay them for use. That aspect seems counter intuitive; however, I find solace in the knowledge that people cannot take things that I write without contacting me and gaining permission, because I wrote some very interesting critical essays in high school on the Heart of Darkness and Grapes of Wrath and it is nice to know that they are "fixed in tangible format". I would be very irate if they were cited as original ideals.
There is an issue with copyright going on right now is the copyright system of the infamous Youtube website. The EFF (Electronic Fronteir Foundation) talks about the issue, and it can be seen here: http://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2009/2/3-0. People are being taken off for performing copyrighted material and their videos deleted. When a teenage-girl is taken off for singing "Winter Wonderland"? I understand it is coyprighted and they want a right to the music, but this is too much. How can their music even be performed if you need to ask them to even sing it on the fly? It is not like people are getting personal gain and money for posting something on Youtube. I think that this is becoming a gray situation that needs to be watched, but in the end people like to sing, and as long as my critiques are not being downloaded off the Internet, I am content.

Facebook: The Final Frontier

Facebook. Today among the younger generation it can be used as a word in itself "Dude, we on for tonight?" "Don't know yet, I'll facebook you and let you know." I use Facebook, and I admit if it were not useful I would get rid of it. I use it for the most part for communicating with friends that are far away, to see how their life is fairing since I have seen them last. But honestly I have used it for more academic reasons, like when I forgot the directions for an assignment. On facebook I can just contact someone in my class and ask, without having any of their personal information but their name. In this sense facebook is more secure because not everyone who contacts you has your e-mail address, home address, or phone numer.
The article "Facebook: A campus fad becomes a campus fact" by Cristian Lupsa supports opposing views, about how it can affect your employment by people judging you on how you conduct your social life, and how it separates the normal sense perception of people and situations. But honestly, that can occur regardless if you are in a face-to-face senario or a cybenetic one. I think it is a valuable resource, that like anything else can be used irresponsibly by people; however, that is the fault of the persons involved and not that of the inherent set-up of Facebook.