Information Ecology

25May09

It took me a few goes to ‘get into’ this module, I found the resources very academic-speak and abstract. But in the end, I did enjoy the readings, as it answered one of those questions I have about the Internet of ‘has anyone thought about the consequences of such and such’ and in most cases someone usually has.

I keep going back to this scene toward the end of the movie Wall-E when its the future and all the humans from Earth are on a space ship zipping around (where are they all going? It’s a spaceship!) on hovering recliners with information portals attached. The assumption is that there is so much information and connectivity available online, that face to face communication has become obsolete.

I love this scene, even though I don’t love the future of humanity that it predicts. What I love about it, is that it makes you think about where all this over-consumption of information is going. From the trivialisation of communication depicted by the attention economy to the fragmentation of human life increasingly depicted by the media of those who are viewed to spend too much time online (Why were all the humans obese in Wall-E? How were the hackers depicted in Live Free or Die Hard? Has anyone seen the British comedy The IT crowd?).

how might the metaphor of an ‘ecology’ impact on the way you think about, understand or use the Internet?

To me, the idea of an information ecology is one that makes us think about where the future of information is going. As it is often true that we only use the term ecologies when they are endangered. At the moment, information is stored, exchanged, created in response to our individual needs. But with a common ‘library’ – the internet, should we be more mindful of how this information is being organised and maintained? The term ecology is in many ways adept at describing the internet as a living, breathing and co-existing entity. It also makes us consider the ‘health’ and sustainability of the existing model, and whether we know enough about the techonologies available which are manipulating or capable of controlling that information.

The term ecology also encourages us to conceptualise the information technology space as an integrated being, rather than disjointed elements over which we have no control. As an integrated being, information ecology becomes something to define, to theorise and to protect or limit. It allows us to consider within a set framework, questions such as: How do we see the information economy in a hundred years? and Where is the current model headed?

how are the concepts ‘information’ and ‘communication’ understood within the framework of an ‘information ecology’?

Information within an information ecology, is a resource, which in our society today, is stored and exchanged in increasing amounts over the internet. It has enabled the communication of information in new mediums, and has become a leading source of information exchange in developed countries.

Communication within this framework, is the means by which the exchange of information occurs; they are the flows between information nodes (Stalder 1997).

why don’t we talk of a ‘communication ecology’?

My thoughts are that within an ecology, it is the relationships between the entities – plants, animals and so forth that create an ecology. An ecology cannot exist without those relationships. An ecology is defined by the relationships that exist between its elements. Similarly, in an information ecology, it is the relationship between different information nodes – that is, the exchange/communication which is what creates the ecology in the first instance.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Evaluating the Web

24May09

I think there might be a sentence missing in module 4. Somewhere between, ‘Searching the Web‘ where it asks us to ‘1. Choose your most commonly used internet search engine and do a search with words of your choosing.‘ and ‘Evaluating the web‘ where it asks us to ‘Next, choose your best ‘source’ or site from the three you used in the last task, then evaluate it according to the tutorial below… This source should be appropriate for your annotated sites in your Concept Reflection & Research Assessment if you haven’t yet completed it.‘

I’ve gone over it quite a few times, and I’m still not able to connect the dots. Maybe I need new glasses, but in any case, the search words of my choosing are certainly not appropriate for my concepts assessment OR for the next task, so I’ve chosen a site from my assessment – Professor David Gauntlett’s ‘How things work in the ‘attention economy‘ site.

My annotation for the assessment is below.
Gauntlett, D. 2000. Basic Web Economics: How things work in the ‘attention economy’. http://www.newmediastudies.com/economic.htm [Accessed 8th May 2009]
This webpage provides an excellent introduction to the concept of the ‘attention economy’. David Gauntlett is editor of Web Studies: Rewiring media studies for the digital age. As well as providing a list of key links to articles by Goldhaber and others on the concept of the attention economy. Using a question and answer format, Gauntlett answers the major questions around the definition of an attention economy, focussing on the transitional model of this theory – where money still exists as a reward for great content through advertising and the flow of attention. Acknowledging that Goldhaber believes that attention will outgrow money as a means of wealth, this is one area of the theory which Gauntlett chooses not to explain.

Answers to Mod 4 questions not covered above

Reliability and Authority: This article is very reliable. It has been written by Professor David Gauntlett, who is Professor of Media and Communications at the School of Media, Arts and Design, at the University of Westminster. He has also written a number of published books on web studies including Web.Studies: Rewiring Media Studies for the Digital Age

Main Ideas: As partially covered above, the article is in Q&A format, and:

This page explains how people make money from giving away information free over the Web, and how the internet has (arguably) brought about a whole new economy — the ‘attention economy’ — where traditional wealth becomes less important than the ability to capture people’s attention (Gauntlett 2000).

It is a practical guide to understanding how the attention economy works – how companies profit from giving information away for free online; that the only industry which has consistently been able to charge for content is Pornography; and examples of how money can flow from attention.

Purpose of site: The article is part of the New Media Studies website, which promotes several books by the author, David Gauntlett.

in terms of your own future use, which ‘body ‘ of information (ie. the original ‘snapshot’ of the site, or your own, annotated, analytical version) would be most useful to refer back to?

Depending on the purpose of the site, I think annotated bibliographies would be best for educational or research projects. With all the sources for our assessment needing to be online, there were a few times when I remembered a point or quote I wanted to use, but couldn’t remember exactly which site it was on. I had to read back through everything I had bookmarked for that concept until I found it. Annotated bibliographies could have been helpful in finding those quotes or remembering which sites they were on.

On the other hand, the majority of my bookmarks at home are the ‘best of’ what I have found on the Internet, so for example I have a number of food sites and recipes bookmarked. When I bookmark them, I change the title to ‘pavlova recipe’ or ‘vegetarian recipe search engine’ so I know exactly where to go for what I need, even if my memory doesn’t. Annotating these sites would just be a waste of time.

In term of external users (i.e. if you included this site as a hyperlink or resource on a website) which body of information would best help them judge if the site was useful or of interest to them?

Again, I think it depends on the use of the site. Educational or research sites contain more information and retitling a website heading ‘attention economy’ is not very useful if I have 10 sites on the attention economy from different perspectives. However, if someone required a pavlova recipe, I don’t think they would really need it to be annotated, perhaps just a recommendation as to whether the recipe was worthwhile.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Concepts Assignment

21May09

22. Public space and regulation

“Originally, Usenet was a very useful place for shared communication because the only people using it were, by and large, committed to the maintenance of the system and were careful (mostly) to observe rules of good practice. As the size of the Internet grew however, Usenet has become increasingly ‘uselessnet’ with its news groups deluged by spam and inconsequential ‘noise’… What we can learn from this history is that public spaces often operate best when there is some form of regulation: who can speak, what sorts of things can be said etc… Of course, the question then becomes: who decides and how. (Something for you to think about).” (Allen n.d.)

In this concept, I will focus on the role of corporate companies and the use of Copyright laws in regulating the internet.

“The AT&T network gave AT&T the power to decide how its network would be used. If an innovator had a different idea about how a telecommunications network should be run, that idea would run on the AT&T network only if AT&T wanted it. AT&T had the power to choose which ideas ran and which ideas did not. It architected this power into its network, and this power was backed up by the force of law. Even if you could, it was illegal to connect devices to the AT&T network that AT&T itself did not approve. The government made sure that AT&T kept control.” (Lessig 2002)

Although competition is regulated in Australia, Governments around the world struggle to tackle the issue of Internet Regulation in different ways, encumbered by the unbordered nature of the Internet itself.

“The Internet is a transnational communication medium. Once connected, there is little that a single country can do to prevent citizens from communicating with the rest of the world without drastically reducing the economic and intellectual value of the medium… Yet, the more a nation pursues a restrictive Internet policy, the less value it will derive from the network and the more it risks being left out of the information revolution.” (Froomkin 1996)

Case Study: ‘Scientology vs The Internet’

(Lippard and Jacobsen 1995)

Reports on the practices of the Church or Scientology (CoS) are widely published on the internet. Under legislation such as the DMCA, CoS has used the threat of the law to influence what can be said on the Internet. The measures taken to limit criticism of its practices have been labelled harassment, intimidation and encroaching on Freedom of Speech (Slashdot 2001).

A key example is the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s) which was threatened with legal action after being highly critical of CoS. Under the DMCA, CoS had posts to the group cancelled, even though many of these contained either no copyright material or so little quoted text as to be covered under the ‘fair use’ article (which provides for the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of commentary and criticism). CoS also undertook spamming methods to render the group unusable, although these were thwarted by the group’s ability to block users (Lippard and Jacobsen 1995).

In one case, the real name, address and telephone number of an anonymous user of a.r.s. was privately investigated by CoS and published on the network, clearly aiming to intimidate users with the comment:

“It is Andrew’s right, as it is mine, to post the name of anyone who is hiding behind a phony name while spewing forth lies…No one is telling you to stop your tirades, but at the same time, no one can tell me not to find out who you really are and publish your name for all to see.” (Lippard and Jacobsen 1995).

Legal measures have been undertaken by the CoS to force ISPs including AT&T to hand over records which will identify anonymous users who have made posts critical of the organization and may infringe on copyright laws.

“This individual has not been shown to do anything wrong and yet he’s going to lose his anonymity,” said Leipold, who declined to name the author. “He’s worried. He does not want to give up the anonymity because he knows who’s on the other side and he knows what they’ll do to him.” Critics have charged that the Church of Scientology employs strong-arm tactics to silence those who publicly disagree with its policies. Chief among the alleged tactics are lawsuits and public smear campaigns.” (Goodin 1999)

More recently, over 4000 DMCA takedown notices were sent to YouTube making copyright infringement claims against content including Australian and German news reports about Scientology (Galperin 2008).

For the CoS, it is not just about controlling criticism, but also the protection of ‘trade secrets’;  documents only available to higher levels of membership. Access to these are restricted to members who have undergone particular training, which are a key income source for the CoS. The publication of some of these documents in 1994, and their authentication by ex-Scientology members meant that this material, previously only accessed via profit to the CoS, were now accessible to any Internet user for free (Lippard and Jacobsen 1995).

Does it work?

In 2001 Slashdot, was pressured to remove a comment which contained CoS copyright text. Subsequently, the creator of Slashdot published an article informing readers of why the comment had been removed, as well as publishing links to anti-scientology sites and the following information.

“Now there is the matter of this specific comment. It contained a text called “OT III”, part of what is known as the Fishman Affidavit. This text is Copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. In compliance with the DMCA, we are removing it from Slashdot. In its place we are putting non-copyrighted text: Links to websites about the church of Scientology, as well as links to how you can contact your congressman about the DMCA…

First of all, we would like to point out that the text of OT III is available at many other places on the web. To many to list here in fact. Instead, try a Google search on “OT III” and “Fishman”, which as of this writing (March 2001) returns over 250 pages. A broader search on AltaVista returns over 2,000 webpages.” (Slashdot, 2001).

Similarly, when CoS began issuing take-down notices to Google about sites listed on their search pages, the notices were published on chillingeffects.org (Marti 2002). The DMCA specifies that websites can escape liability by taking pages down when requested by private organizations. Although Google removed the websites from their search engines, chillingeffects continues to publish the details.

If anything, it appears that attempts by the CoS to regulate the Internet, have resulted in even more public scrutiny around their internet practices. While the impact for individuals (see Lippard and Jacobsen 1995) has been severe and disproportionate to their actions, the positive result has been that the information is still available online for everyone to see; I only came across this case study through researching this concept.

Word Count: 575

Bibliography

Allen, M. n.d. Internet Communications Concepts Document. http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/ [Last Accessed 22nd May 2009]

Chilling Effects 2005. Scientology Complains that Advanced Technology appears in Google Groups. http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=2355 [Accessed 20th May 2009]

Fabricatorian, S. 2008. Scientology vs Everyone. http://newmatilda.com/2008/03/05/scientology-vs-everyone [Accessed 20th May 2009]

Froomkin, M. 1996. The Internet as a Source of Regulatory Arbitrage. http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/arbitr.htm [Accessed 20th May 2009]

Galperin, E. 2008. Massive Takedown of Anti-Scientology Videos on YouTube. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/massive-takedown-anti-scientology-videos-youtube?0xccff00 [Accessed 20th May 2009]
This page is an article appearing on the Electronic Frontier Foundation website http://www.eff.org/. The foundation is a not-for-profit organization positioned at protecting and defining civil liberties as they exist on the internet. The website provides whitepapers, articles and links on every major issue faced by the Internet today from a variety of contributors. Established through the electronic community well.com, its founders first action was to bring a lawsuit against the United States Secret Service, in defence of a businessman who’s rights had been violated by the Secret Service without any charges being laid against him. The EFF is often at the forefront of civil rights protections on the Internet.

Goodin, D. 1999. Scientology subpoenas Worldnet. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-226676.html [Accessed 20th May 2009]

Lessig, L. 2002. Innovation, Regulation, and the Internet. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=innovation_regulation_and_the_internet [Accessed 20th May 2009]

Lippard, J and Jeff Jacobsen. 1995. Scientology v. the Internet: Free speech & Copyright Infringement on the Information Super-Highway. http://www.discord.org/~lippard/skeptic/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html [Accessed 20th May 2009]

Marti, D. 2002. Google Begins Making DCMA Takedowns Public. Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5997 [Accessed 20th May 2009]

Slashdot 2001. Scientologists Force Comment off Slashdot. http://slashdot.org/yro/01/03/16/1256226.shtml [Accessed 20th May 2009]
This website is “A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (see annotation above) and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics”. The site provides extensive resources, case studies and documents relevant to the protection of civil liberties of the individual on the Internet. It deals with issues such as copyright and defamation, as well as holding a database of Cease and Desist notices which are available to the public. The website notes that “Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users. Chilling Effects encourages respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to “chill” legitimate activity.” (Chilling Effects n.d.)

26. Privacy and Security

“The Internet is a profoundly ‘open’ system and advanced Internet users are cautious about either accepting or sending material from and to unknown sources and are careful in releasing information about themselves in any form. Conceptually the Internet challenges us to take greater responsibility for the protection of privacy and security than perhaps we are used to when dealing with the media.” (Allen n.d.)

My focus will be on Privacy rather than Security, and as ‘Informational Privacy’; the type found on the Internet rather than other forms of Privacy. Professor Jed Rubenfeld of Yale Law school differentiates the two based on the fact that:

“If a security guard sees our genitals on a screen, at least we still have them. But if government can see or listen in on our private lives indiscriminately, without probable cause, we will no longer have private lives at all.” (Rubenfeld 2001).

Informational Privacy is defined by Froomkin as “the ability to control the acquisition or release of information about oneself” (Froomkin 2000) and by Westin as:

“The claim of individuals, groups or institutions to determine for themselves how, when and to what extent information about them is communicated to others” (Westin 1967 cited in Nockleby n.d.).

The Impact of Technology.

“Almost everything each of us does seems to generate transactional information. Walks around the block are still unrecorded, except in those communities with cameras” (Litman 2000).

“Imagine a society in which undercover police officers are ubiquitous.  Nearly every workplace has at least one, as does nearly every public park, every store and restaurant, every train and plane, every university classroom, and so on. These undercover agents wear hidden microphones and video cameras, recording and transmitting everything they hear or see. Your colleagues, coworkers, or closest friends may be spies. Perhaps there is one in your own family.” (Rubenfeld 2008)

“A Web bug is a graphic on a Web page or in an e-mail message designed to monitor who is reading the page or message. Web bugs are often invisible because they are typically only 1-by-1 pixels in size. In many cases, Web bugs are placed on Web pages by third parties interested in collecting data about visitors to those pages.” (Bugnosis.org (no longer published) Cited in BOLD n.d.)

These quotes demonstrate the increasing ability to infringe on a population’s informational privacy through new technologies. The ability to collect, store and analyse mammoth amounts of data through the use of ones and zeros enables commercial and government entities to collect, store and analyse information about us in increasing means. Without such efficient technologies, the threat to our privacy would be greatly hindered by the resources required. A hundred years ago this information would be on paper, with people employed to manage the access and organization of this information. Others wanting access would be required to physically come to the place of its storage and given permission to access it (Nockleby n.d.). Now, the same information is easily traded on the internet, with few regulations, not to mention its ability to be pilfered or ‘hacked’. How easy would it be to steal a storage facility with floors upon floors of paper files? The issue of informational privacy is therefore an evolving concern for the 21st century and requires re-conceptualisation beyond traditional theories. (See also Froomkin, 2000. 1468)

Privacy and the individual: How do we deal with it?

Until this unit I was unaware of the extent to which information could be collected and the detail of this to the point where:

“It is technically possible for the government to track and trace virtually all surfing behaviour; indeed, it is frequently possible for individual websites to identify the user even if the user has not previously identified herself to the website.” (Nockleby n.d.).

While I agree that: “the Internet challenges us to take greater responsibility for the protection of privacy and security than perhaps we are used to when dealing with the media” (Allen n.d.) the reality of the technology as it stands today, where the ability to monitor the web is entrenched in the technology of our web browsers so that:

“Clicking on a link instructs a browser to automatically disclose the referring page to the new site. If a person has entered a name or email address in the browser’s communication software that too will be disclosed automatically. These features cannot be turned off – the are part o the hypertext transfer protocol” (Froomkin p1486)

This entrenched nature of technology and its ability to pass on information about our behaviours without our acknowledgement is a serious threat to privacy. When it is possible (and legal) for companies to behave as RealNetworks did in the late 90s, it appears our current methods of protecting privacies are inadequate and indicates that more concerted efforts need to be made by individuals to protect privacy. when the technology we use everyday in our work and leisure automatically passes on information without our knowledge or consent, we no longer hold the power of our own privacy. Furthermore, as this information is commonly bought and sold between companies and government entities without our consent, the value of our privacy has also been taken away from us, and we receive no compensation for the taking of this information.

From the corporate side it is also argued that informational privacy should no longer be viewed as such but as a type of Property which we can trade-off for benefits as consumers in a commercial market place (Litman 2000 explores this idea but doesn’t agree with it). When technology continues to evolve and change, how do we as individuals better manage our informational privacy? On the one hand the private sector gives us new technologies such as Cloud Computing. But where does our Privacy come into play when we choose to store our personal information directly in the hands of the private sector and its servers without knowing how it might be used?

Word Count: 548

Bibliography

Allen, M. n.d. Internet Communications Concepts Document. http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/ [Last Accessed 22nd May 2009]

Berkman Center for Internet & Society. n.d. Privacy in Cyberspace. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/module1.html [Accessed 15th May 2009]
This website is part of the Harvard Law School Open Education initiative. It provides access to many diverse resources, some of which are also referenced in this entry.
Module 1 is an introduction to the concept of Privacy on the Internet. As well as providing a context for the long list of linked resources (which include Gormley 1992 and Froomkin 2000), the module asks a number of critical questions around Privacy, the law and the Internet. It provides the case study of Real Networks, an organization who inserted code into its software allowing it to monitor the listening habits of its users.

Clarke, R. 1987. Information Technology and Dataveillance. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/CACM88.html [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Fleischer, P. 2009. Cloud Policy Consequences for Privacy. http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2009/04/cloud-policy-consequences-for-privacy.html [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Froomkin, M. 2000. The Death of Privacy? Available at http://digitalenterprise.org/privacy/privacy.html direct link: http://www.law.miami.edu/%7efroomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.pdf [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Gormley, K. 1992. One Hundred Years of Privacy. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Gormley–100%20Years%20of%20Privacy.htm [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Kang, J. 1998. Information Privacy in Cyberspace Transactions http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Jerry%20Kang%201998%20Stanford%20article%20excerpts.htm [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Lessig, L. 1998. The Architecture of Privacy. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/architecture_priv.pdf [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Litman, J. 2000 Information Privacy / Information Property. Available at http://digitalenterprise.org/privacy/privacy.html direct link:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7ejdlitman/papers/infoprivacy.pdf

Nockleby J.T. n.d. Privacy: Circa 2002 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/PrivacyCirca2002.htm [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Rappa, M. 2009 Managing the Digital Enterprise: Data Privacy http://digitalenterprise.org/privacy/privacy.html [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Robinson, S. 1999 CD Software is said to Monitor User’s Listening Habits. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/11/biztech/articles/01real.html [Accessed 15th May 2009]

Rubenfeld, J. 2001. Privacy Exposed. http://www.law.yale.edu/news/3257.htm [Accessed 15th May 2009]
This article by Robert R. Slaughter Professor of Yale Law school, Jed Rubenfeld provides an interesting and engaging argument for the increased right of the individual to informational privacy, while arguing for more invasive technology in the real world. Rubenfeld’s position is articulate and thought provoking, despite being brief. He argues that the more invasive technologies, such as radiation imaging which ‘can detect the diameter of a woman’s nipples, or whether a man has been circumcised’ allow the individual greater dignity and is less degrading than the alternative: a body cavity search. As such, Rubenfeld argues that civil liberty groups should focus their attentions on informational privacy law, which ‘does a very poor job of protecting dignity’.

Rubenfeld, J. 2008 The End of Privacy. http://www.lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue1/Rubenfeld.pdf [Accessed 15th May 2009]

30. Frames: the information-display challenge

“Websites can be created in many ways, using a variety of display techniques. One well-used, but also widely criticised approach is to use frames. While it is useful to understand frames technically (so as to allow users easy printing, navigating, saving and searching), it is also important to see them as an example of an underlying conceptual struggle between information and display… Frames open the possibility that web page designers could window documents produced by other people within their frames, thus implying that the document belongs in some sense to them.” (Allen n.d.)

Although Frames have lost prevalence on the web, they can still be found on a surprising number of websites (including Blackboard!). The ‘information display challenge’ (Allen n.d.) presented is a problem for a number of reasons, these are defined by Nielson as:

“Frames break the unified model of the Web and introduce a new way of looking at data that has not been well integrated into the other aspects of the Web. With frames, the user’s view of information on the screen is now determined by a sequence of navigation actions rather than a single navigation action… Even worse, URLs stop working: the addressing information shown at the top of the browser no longer constitutes a complete specification of the information shown in the window” (Nielson 1996).

The main argument against the use of frames however, revolves around the presentation of information taken from someone else and presented differently; often subverting the purpose of the original. As such, the use of Frames have implications on copyright law. For example, Kaplan (1998) discusses the case between two newspapers in Fort Wayne and ft-wayne.com. ft-wayne.com linked to articles from the two papers, but altered the article from its original layout, using frames to place its own ads and site address in the browser. He writes that:

“The practice [of using frames] becomes problematic when frames are used to place a page from another site in a different and possibly misleading context, such as next to the framing site’s ads and logos.”(Kaplan 1998).

The majority of case studies have been settled out-of-court. While the height of law cases against the use of frames appears to have taken place in the late 90s (see Ott 2008), more recent cases of copyright infringement have striking similarities to the frame debate. Specifically, the 2007 Viacom case against Google/Youtube for the publication of its copyright material on its website. Although the technology is slightly different, the premise is very similar: Viacom sued YouTube over the publication of unauthorised clips of its content. While there is a strong argument for the benefit to Viacom of having parts of its programs on YouTube; Viacom argue:

“The availability on the YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of plaintiffs and others is the cornerstone of defendants’ business plan” (Weinstein 2008).

Viacom went on to license the content to YouTube’s competitor Joost (Downes 2007).

With help from a very active online community, YouTube provides access to such a large array of material, much of it not in contravention of copyright or other laws. It encourages creativity through providing a forum for content creators to air their work. Had YouTube remained a private organization without the funds to respond to Viacom’s $1 billion challenge and the subsequent demands on it resources, might we be without the website today? (Think Kazaa). A Google spokesperson put it this way:

“This lawsuit is an attack on the internet and everybody who has come to depend on it… it attacks the platforms that let people make the internet their own” (Wired 2007).

The latest innovation which could attract similar attention is Google’s recently updated Search Options. Google will collect and reorganise content from other pages displaying more than they currently do. In particular, a new function, Google Squared, will collect and organise facts into spreadsheets for users – potentially taking away the need for the reader to leave the Google site at all (Cheng 2009). This is strangely similar to the 2007 Agence France-Presse (AFP) lawsuit against Google News, which similarly takes headlines from popular news sites and re-orders them on their own site. The AFP case was settled with Google paying for a licensing agreement to utilise the information. In both cases, the critique is that Google is using the copyright material of others to keep users on its own site and thereby increasing profit from advertising. In 2006 this figure was $16m a day (Foley 2006). In this latest move, Google is in fact challenging the concept of copyright altogether, and forcing the makers of Internet law to make concrete decisions in this regard. The alternative – that Google has not considered possible repercussions to this new form of search – seems highly unlikely. By providing these services, Google are potentially creating a monopoly; where content owners have the choice of either partnering with Google or being left in the cold.

Word Count: 551

Bibliography

Allen, M. n.d. Internet Communications Concepts Document. http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/ [Last Accessed 22nd May 2009]

Bolin, B. 1996-2008. Linking and Liability. http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html#Frames [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Cheng, J. 2009. Google beefs up Web services, search. http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/05/google-beefs-up-web-services-search.ars [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Downes, L. 2007. Viacom and Joost on YouTube, Oh My. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5192 [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Foley, S. 2006. Google Seeks to Defuse Row Over Copyright: In every area where Google has pushed, it has been over the line. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/google-seeks-to-defuse-row-over-copyright-419546.html [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Holahan, C. 2008. Viacom vs YouTube: Beyond Privacy http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2008/tc2008073_435740.htm [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Hudson, R. 1999. Hyperlinks, Frames and Intellectual Property. http://www.usability.com.au/resources/frames.cfm#REF [Accessed 10th May 2009]
This page is part of a site by web accessibility consultant, Roger Hudson. It is a detailed resource for website useability, with the express intent of promoting and providing resources on the subject. These resources are in-depth, referenced, and inform the reader on evolving web theories beyond issues of accessibility.
Through a number of detailed case studies, this page provides examples of the problematic use of Frames within media organizations. The examples provided demonstrate the infringement of intellectual property rights made possible through the use of Frames, and outline the subsequent development of law. While agreeing with the rights of content owners, Hudson provides a measured account of  the issue worldwide.

Kaplan, C. 1998 Lawsuit may determine whether Framing is Thieving. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/05/cyber/cyberlaw/29law.html [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Nielsen, J. 1996. Why Frames Suck (Most of the time). http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html [Accessed 10th May 2009]
Nielsen’s website provides a plethora of articles that are a practical and detailed discussion of many issues on the www. Nielsen is a recognised expert on web usability, co-founding the Nielsen Norman group in 1998.
This article on Frames details the useability issues surrounding the use of Frames on web pages. These include the inaccessibility of URLs, breaking the visual unity of websites and their lack of ability to integrate with accessibility software and other Internet elements. Nielsen discusses the issue from both a user and corporate perspective, and despite seeming bias, provides a convincing argument and some balance in the form of a section titled “When it’s ok to use Frames”.

Ott, S. 2008 Framing / Inline-linking: Copyright and trademark law infringement? http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases-framing.htm [Accessed 10th May 2009]

WebProNews. 2007. AFP Settles Google News Lawsuit. http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/04/06/afp-settles-google-news-lawsuit [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Weinstein, N. 2008. Google says Copyright Suite Threatens the Internet. http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/Google-says-copyright-suit-threatens-the-Internet/0,339028227,339289364,00.htm?feed=pt_internet [Accessed 10th May 2009]

Wired. 2007. Viacom vs. Google: How a huge lawsuit could kill internet TV. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/03/VIACOM_YOUTUBE [Accessed 10th May 2009]

33. Information and attention

One of the newest and most significant ways of thinking about the Internet is termed the ‘attention economy’ (Goldhaber). In this kind of economy, the most valuable commodity is people’s attention (which can be, for example, bought and sold in the advertising industry): successful websites and other Internet publications / communications (says Goldhaber) are those which capture and hold the increasingly distracted attention of Internet users amidst a swirling mass of informational options. (Allen n.d.)

The concept of an “Attention Economy” is challenging for me. ‘How can you live off attention?’ is one question that is not convincingly answered. Where will the future of the Attention Economy lead? One reason for this may be the quality of information available from web sources on the subject. Anderson (2008) while not critical of the theory, labels it: “too fuzzy to merit an academic department” which may explain the lack of academic material available despite its decade-long tenure.

Definitions

“[The Attention Economy] is not closely defined; rather it is a model for discussing the immediacy-dynamics of current communications between a person and the media, and between persons” (Breitenstein 2007).

With the growth and globalisation of all media including the internet, we are faced with more information than ever before. Consequently, the notion of an ‘information economy’ is outdated; information itself is no longer a scarce resource (Iskold 2007). In societies where we are not required to fight for survival or the basic human needs of food and shelter, what is increasingly becoming a scarcer resource than money, is what information consumes: Attention. The concept is nicely summed up by Herbert Simon who many attribute as the originator of the term.

“…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it” (Simon 1971, p. 40-41 cited in Kelly 2007).

Goldhaber argues that attention is the lowest common denominator because in a conversation, information may or may not be exchanged, but by its nature, attention certainly is. “Information, in the sense of something not previously known to one of the parties or another is secondary, if present at all.” (Goldhaber 1997a).

Where is the Money? Translating Attention to Money

“The idea behind the Attention Economy is to create a marketplace where consumers are happy, because if they are shown relevant information – then retailers are happy too, because happy consumers spend money!” (Iskold 2007)

Goldhaber also wrote in his initial essay:

“money… flows along with attention”; someone who is doing a good job at generating attention, is also able to generate money from this through influencing a strong fan base to “pay out money at the stars’ behest” (Goldhaber 1997a).

But essentially the concept of the Attention Economy in Goldhaber’s view will tend toward a society in which money will be obsolete (Goldhaber 1997b). Google is the prime example of a company who sells nothing to its users but is worth millions of dollars. As Gauntlett explains:

“There are now loads of people who have become millionaires by devising websites which people want to visit. Their money-making secret is quite simple: advertising and sponsorship. It’s just the same as with commercial TV: you don’t pay to watch the programmes. The programmes are paid for by advertisers, who, in return, get to display their ads to audiences alongside the shows” (Gauntlett 2000).

In Goldhaber’s terms, this is an effect of the transition between an economy based on capital and the attention economy. For me, the challenge to this argument is in the ability of attention receivers to generate money from their blogs or webpages. Problogger has written extensively on how bloggers can generate money from their blogs, including his own story about how long it took for him to become a full time blogger. It is apparent from many of the examples he uses, that it is more than just how much attention you receive that determines how you can make money from it.

While Goldhaber’s notion of the Attention Economy is interesting to note, and does appear to describe the Internet with a surprising amount of accuracy, it doesn’t resonate with me due to the fact that it ignores the inequalities of society today and doesn’t seem to lead to a better Internet or future. In an increasingly global society, internet users are from societies of varying economic stability. Allowing anyone with access to the Internet to publish information is a huge democratising factor of the technology. Does the creation of an Attention Economy on the internet disclude these users from the rest of society? Is the nature of the Attention Economy not a trivialisation of life experience by focussing on ‘stardom’ resulting in the deprecation of audience participation, now relegated to being ‘fans’ or completely excluded from the economy?

In my research for this, I’ve come across a theory which resonates more and discusses similar concepts. Freeconomics (See annotated bibliography for definitions) on the other hand, encourages creativity and its potential to change the world we live in is endless. Anderson compares the idea to energy in this analogy:

“In 1954, at the dawn of nuclear power, Lewis Strauss, head of the Atomic Energy Commission, promised that we were entering an age when electricity would be “too cheap to meter.” Needless to say, that didn’t happen, mostly because the risks of nuclear energy hugely increased its costs. But what if he’d been right? What if electricity had in fact become virtually free?The answer is that everything electricity touched — which is to say just about everything — would have been transformed. Rather than balance electricity against other energy sources, we’d use electricity for as many things as we could — we’d waste it, in fact, because it would be too cheap to worry about.

All buildings would be electrically heated, never mind the thermal conversion rate. We’d all be driving electric cars (free electricity would be incentive enough to develop the efficient battery technology to store it). Massive desalination plants would turn seawater into all the freshwater anyone could want, irrigating vast inland swaths and turning deserts into fertile acres, many of them making biofuels as a cheaper store of energy than batteries. Relative to free electrons, fossil fuels would be seen as ludicrously expensive and dirty, and so carbon emissions would plummet. The phrase “global warming” would have never entered the language.” (Anderson 2008)

Word Count: 551

Bibliography

Allen, M. n.d. Internet Communications Concepts Document. http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/ [Last Accessed 22nd May 2009]

Anderson, C. 2008. Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all [Accessed 8th May 2009]
This article by the editor of Wired Magazine, Chris Anderson, details the theory of ‘Freeconomics’ covered elsewhere by Kelly (2007, 2008). The page contains a short video presentation of the theory from Anderson as well, where he describes a situation in which the cost of manufacturing is steadily decreasing, but never quite reaching free. For manufacturers and distributors however, the difference is minimal, and they are able to give things away to customers while making a profit in other related products or services. An excellent online example is Netscape, who distributed for free what everyone else at the time charged money for – the internet browser. A ubiquitous example of something we (now) all expect to receive at no cost. Clear benefits to society include: democratising access to websites; leading to a more informed and engaged readership; which leads to engaging more users as a percentage of total readers who use the technology of the internet such as HTML and CSS to create more websites and further improve technologies.

Breitenstein, M. 2007. Push and Pull in “The Attention Economy”
http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2063/01/Breitenstein-Attention%5FEconomy-Sept07woillus.doc [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Gauntlett, D. 2000. Basic Web Economics: How things work in the ‘attention economy’. http://www.newmediastudies.com/economic.htm [Accessed 8th May 2009]
This webpage provides an excellent introduction to the concept of the ‘attention economy’. David Gauntlett is editor of Web Studies: Rewiring media studies for the digital age. As well as providing a list of key links to articles by Goldhaber and others on the concept of the attention economy. Using a question and answer format, Gauntlett answers the major questions around the definition of an attention economy, focussing on the transitional model of this theory – where money still exists as a reward for great content through advertising and the flow of attention. Acknowledging that Goldhaber believes that attention will outgrow money as a means of wealth, this is one area of the theory which Gauntlett chooses not to explain.

Franck, G. 1999. The Economy of Attention http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5567/1.html [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Goldhaber, G. 2006. The value of openness in an attention economy.
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1334/1254 [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Goldhaber, M. 1997. Attention Shoppers! The currency of the New Economy won’t be money, but attention – A radical theory of value. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.12/es_attention.html [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Iskold, A. 2007. The Attention Economy: An Overview http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/attention_economy_overview.php [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Kelly, K. 2008. Better than Free.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Kevin, K. 2007. Technology Wants to be Free. http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/11/technology_want.php [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Rowse, D. 2008. Can You Really Make Money Blogging? http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/12/03/can-you-really-make-money-blogging/ [Accessed 8th May 2009]

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Virtually a library!

13May09

This concept is one very close to my heart… I’m a link horder. In my earlier university days I was a book horder. So technology has really improved my storage space and I absolutely love the idea of a ‘personal virtual library’ (concept doc #32).

Top 3 Resources on ‘Paper Design Ideas’

URL: http://www.figmentsdesign.com/

Author: Peggy Lo

Institution: Figments

Source: Jux2: http://www.jux2.com/

Figments website

Software saved with: Screenshot with Image capture on OSX, Bookmarked via Bookmarks tool on Firefox.

URL: http://www.cooldesignideasblog.net/tag/paper

Author: No Author specified.

Institution: Cool Design Ideas Blog.

Source: Clusty: http://clusty.com/ and Google: http://google.com

Cool Design Ideas website

Software saved with: Screenshot with Image capture on OSX, Bookmarked via Bookmarks tool on Firefox.

URL: http://www.creativepapermache.com/

Authors:Annemarie Hegeler and Karen van Wyk.

Institution: Creative Paper Mache

Source: Clusty: http://clusty.com/

Paper mache website

Software saved with: Screenshot with Image capture on OSX, Bookmarked via Bookmarks tool on Firefox.

I used the above technologies because they serve the function I need very easily and without me needing to leave my web browser. As previously discussed, my bookmarks tool keeps all my bookmarks easily accessible and well organised. Image capture allows me to use a keyboard shortcut to take screencaptures that are automatically saved to my desktop.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Boolean Searching

13May09

I thought this task was going to be a lot scarier than what it was by the mathematical-sounding name.

I think my choice of search words is probably not ideal for this type of task, but it does tell me to use the same terms.

So on Jux2 I used ‘or’ between everything thinking this will get me the most results, seeing as its searching for any of these search terms. That’s probably going to be a lot of websites.

Google (48,400,000) Yahoo! (136,000,000) MSN (63,900,000).

On Google the same search got me: Results 1 – 10 of about 31,700,000.

To get the most relevant results for what I’m interested in (cool design ideas with paper) I used ‘and’ between everything.

Jux2: Google (48,400,000) Yahoo! (162,000,000) MSN (60,100,000) – How did I end up with more?!?

On Google the same search resulted in: Results 1 – 10 of about 59,400,000.

I was a bit baffled by this until I realised Jux2 was not on the Boolean tutorial page and might not use Boolean logic. Will double check my search methods with ixquick, which is.

The first ‘or’ search returns: 39 unique top-ten pages selected from at least 7,309,999,015 matching results.

The second ‘and’ search returns:44 unique top-ten pages selected from at least 101,999,979 matching results.

Success! That looks much more as I’d expect it. We have a new winner in the Search Engine competitions.

To only search university sources I used the advance search option in Google, which added a site:.edu to my search terms. Here I only got 576,000 sites and when I put the same search terms in ixquick, I was given 34 unique top-ten pages.

I did enjoy learning about Boolean search terms. Although I think many of us pick up related tricks along the way like using inverted commas or words between our search terms, its nice to actually know how it works. Particularly for library or academic sites when I’ve had to browse for more sources and get faced with too many results to be easily used.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

How did Google outdo the rest?

13May09

I remember when there used to be 4-5 popular search engines on the internet, which would all come back with different results. Alta Vista is one that comes to mind that is no longer commonly used.

I guess Search Engines have been our tool to access the net for so long that many of us (such as I) no longer think much about their use. Reading through the tutorials was very interesting, because it made me think about how I access information on the web. Our reliance on Google, despite the fact that I still believe it is innovative and works really well, does actually funnel the information we receive through the one source. Which just doesn’t sit well.

So for something which has become a new word in the English language (I refer to ‘Google, Googling, Googled’) its very surprising how little we think about how this information is getting to us and how little I knew about how Google actually works.

The other thing I realised was that for many of my unsuccessful searches, I should have been using ‘Directory’ instead.

Seeing as I could not find Sherlock and Copernic is only for PCs, I used Clusty, Metacrawler and Jux2. I have to say, I feel a little ‘jipped’ because none are desktop searchers. I’m not sure what was so special about Copernic that it required installing, but this is one application I would have liked to have tried. At any rate, I did a search on ‘Paper Design Ideas’ on all three.

Jux2:

First hit: http://www.figmentsdesign.com/

I was surprised that Google was outdone in the numbers game by both: Google (20,200,000) Yahoo! (105,000,000) MSN (72,300,000). However, Google did list highly on more relevant results. The other thing about this site, was that it listed the ranking of the page on each site: #9 on Google #1 on MSN etc. The site’s layout was very simple – ‘Google-esq’ with very little on the page other than the links. The first hit was also exactly what I was looking for – cool design ideas working with paper.

Metacrawler:

First hit: www.faradayandkent.com.au/

I thought this one was going to be good, because it searches 13 search engines. It proved to be a little disappointing. It listed a mere 13 results, and all of them were from Google. Its saving grace was that it provided a very broad range of results. Good for me because I was just having a browse with the search term – not sure how that would work if I was looking for something more specific. The major down was that the first hit was completely irrelevant. They’re a painting and decorating company! The other super annoying thing about this engine is that it opens your link in a new tab.

Clusty

First Hit: www.designtosellonline.com/D2S_16_White_Paper_Marketingcfm.cfm

This one was my favourite. It provided more results from a wider range of sources not just from Google (after all, if I’m going to use something other than Google, I don’t really need it to show me all the Google results do I?).  It provided me with the ‘Top 204 results of at least 2,070,000′ and it puts your search results in Clusters! This was awesome because it gives you common options to refine your search. While the first hit was not what I was looking for, the second one certainly was. And when I refined my search (as I probably should have thought to do at the beginning) ALL of my results were relevant!

Mine were listed as: Decorating – 22; Crafts – 17; Wallpaper – 14; and so on. This is exactly what I’ve been looking for, for those searches where you just can’t find the words!

Google:

First hit: scrapbooking.lovetoknow.com/Scrapbook_Design_Ideas

Results 1 – 10 of about 20,200,000. Ok, so Google still wins for most relevant results. But I know where to go when I need a second opinion.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Revisiting Bookmark Managers

12May09

After going back and looking at the URL Manager’s Sample file, I realised I could use the basic program without paying for it. The front screen was just a scary pop up that made you think you couldn’t use it by telling you it wasn’t free. Also because all the Edit etc options were blanked out because I hadn’t opened a new manager.

So I started using the program and found that it pretty much works like my bookmarks frame in Firefox. I couldn’t find anything else that made it more exciting than that. I understand that it does certain things like import your bookmarks between browsers and lets you keep them separately, therefore being accessible outside of your browser. But for my purposes, this was an additional application that I really cannot see the value of (disclaimer: For ME!).  For one thing, I don’t use more than one browser. I shopped around until I found the one I wanted and then I stuck to it! At one point, when I was using Safari, and realised that Firefox was better, I switched across. When I did, Firefox gave me the option to import my bookmarks. Taking away the only use I can think of for this program: If your current browser doesn’t allow you to transfer bookmarks.

Otherwise; I have a list of about 200 odd bookmarks (growing everyday!) in Firefox. They live in folders and sub-folders and often sub-sub-folders as well. I permanently keep the bookmark frame open on my browser windows, as I’m always clicking to news sites, bank sites etc. Basically every new page I visit that I think I might have a future use for, I bookmark. I keep them in separate folders such as ‘Food’, ‘Travel’, separate ones for every research project I’ve done and I delete any that I stop using. I never have to search for what I’m looking for, because I know what folder I’ve put it in. So in summary, kudos to Mozilla for meeting all my needs!

URL Manager Pro verdict:

• Cost: Basic version is free, although they try to trick you into paying $25USD!
• Ease of use: I had to read the instructions on this one, which automatically put me in a bad mood. Should I really have to read through a 24 page .pdf file to understand how to use this program? Seriously, there’s a reason why the iPhone doesn’t come with an instruction booklet. Apple recognises that no one wants to read them!
• Functionality: It saves bookmarks for you in folders. Like Firefox. But in a whole ‘nother application.
• Utility: I’m giving this one a fail. While it functions and is easy to use, there is no apparent benefit from using this over what is already there and free in Firefox. The only thing I can give it, is that it gives me an extra shortcut on my top menu bar, saving me from opening the web browser itself. However it required lots of reading instructions to use it, and lots of additional steps to allow it to work with my current browser like changing preferences and the like. Not to mention all the files it put into my documents folder which I will now delete.
• Commonality: The technology is so common it’s already incorporated in Firefox!

Am I missing something? What is it about this program that makes it worth using?

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

The frustrations of inaccessibility and the fear of downloading

12May09

As part of my work for another subject, I had to look at accessibility issues for non-mainstream users of the internet, such as people with sight impairments. I had to make sure that the work I was doing was going to be accessible for as many people as possible.

The assignment made me realise that the issue of accessibility is a serious one; if web designers don’t pay attention to issues such as accessibility what will happen is that the web will become an undemocratic resource, available only to some and not to others.

The relevance of the above is that Module 4 of Net11 is making me realise that I deal with accessibility issues all the time! As a Mac user, this module – already taking me out of my comfort zones with the introduction of new technologies and so forth – is continually bringing to my attention the lack of support or options for Mac users in comparison to PCs. I’m not having a whinge, I realised when I bought my first Mac that I would be putting myself in this position, but I persist because I really only use my computer for email and word… And my lack of meeting with ‘the blue screen of death’ the last few years is a welcome trade-off.

So onto Mod4. This Module is really pushing my buttons. Firstly, I absolutely HATE to download applications that I don’t know and probably don’t need, aren’t very highly recommended from IT savvy friends or IT savvy media who can provide the exact link and guarantee there will be no spam/spyware/viruses involved. Call me narrow minded but I’ve had bad experiences from my days of using PCs with lost assignments. But what could I do? I bit the bullet…

Because I’d used all of the first four recommended programs I tried to download Sherlock and Glooton. The Glooton link leads to a French site, and the Sherlock link leads to the Mac website, where a search for Sherlock leads only to games. First fail.

So I download the next Mac-accessible link, which is URL Manager Pro Mac. After I downloaded *eek!* the application and opened it I got this:

URL Manager costs $25USD

Second fail.

I downloaded Pagesucker as a last resort. I’m still not 100% sure about the purpose of this: doesn’t my web browser allow me to work offline and see all pages I’ve previously used? And if I haven’t seen the page before, why would I want to download it? I suppose I am looking from the perspective of someone who is nearly always connected to the internet. If I was travelling long distances or offline for long periods of time, this would certainly come in handy for research and so forth.

I put in the url of a blog I’ve been reading recently, but I think I was a bit ambitous in this. Its quite a large blog that’s been going for a couple of years: here’s the screenshot.

Using Pagesucker

That was taken about 20 minutes ago and it’s still going!

With my experimenting so far I’m finding that Pagesucker is:

• Free – for the basic edition. Which seems to be sufficient for what I needed.
• Easy to use – I didn’t read the instructions for this on purpose. After all, I wouldn’t normally for any other application unless I was really struggling. So I opened it and found that all I had to do was type the URL in the first box! The consequences of this were that the folder I downloaded the files to was filled with folders for all the links that the page had: Twitter, sitemeter, polldaddy and lots and lots of others. Perhaps I should have looked at the next box: Max. Depth to Dig: which was listed as INF! Next time I will make that smaller.
• Functionality – very functional for a technical infant like me to be able to use it.
• Utility – Pagesucker definitely serves a purpose for those who need to access online information offline. If I ever need this, I know where to go!

I also tried to Google Glooton and download it from a different site. The first site I tried, techrepublic.com, required me to register. The second, download.cnet.com had a promising ‘Download now’ link. Unfortunately when pressed, it led back to the French site. After this, giving up the hope of keeping my machine virus free, I went to mac.wareseeker.com and clicked ‘Download now’ another 3 times only to be led from one page to another to another to another. When exactly the same thing happened at yet another site: http://glooton.mac.findmysoft.com/ I promptly gave up hope that I would be able to find it anywhere.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

What I really think about blogging.

11May09

I have to admit, when I started this subject and realised I would have to keep a blog, I was a little apprehensive. The idea of having my thoughts and words out there for all the world to see was quite unappealing for a private person like me. But the last few months have been a pleasant surprise, and I’ve also made a few realisations along the way. For one thing, there’s so much stuff out there in the ‘www’ that its highly unlikely anyone will just happen along to this page. Particularly as I’ve made no effort to get it out there as such. So really, it’s just happily serving the purpose for which it was intended and little else.

Secondly from a personal perspective, this enforced diary keeping for public perusal has made me put my writing through a little practice which it is dearly in need of.

From a more general perspective, my experience with blogs has certainly broadened quite a bit. I’ve realised that some blogs are actually very high quality publications well worth reading. A few of my favourites are The Sartorialist and this one by the owner of Sorted! and this one which is really just for laughs – Fail Blog. I think blogs have come a long way from a few years ago when every man and his dog had a personal blog telling the world what he/she had for breakfast and where they were going to dinner. Particularly from the perspective of journalism and getting first hand accounts from ordinary people in war zones or occupied countries (as opposed to accounts by seasoned journalists who spend their lives seeing and telling). I can’t remember the name of the actual blog that comes to mind (during the war in Afghanistan? If anyone remembers please let me know.) but while I was looking for it I did find this interesting comment:

It looks as though the Israel-Lebanon are-we-calling-it-a-war-yet of 2006 is the first conflict to be blogged from day one. Bloggers from both sides of the border – some of whom were already aware of one another before this tragedy began – have been providing live updates, commenting on one another’s blogs and sometimes linking to posts by bloggers on the other side of the border. Will this turn out to be the first time that residents of “enemy” countries engaged in an ongoing conversation while missiles were falling?

That was from On The Face which is no longer being written. However the comment is still very relevant! The idea of the web (and specifically in the form of blogging) being able to provide a platform of communication between two sides of a deeply entrenched conflict, where only the voices of governments and those in positions of power are normally heard should definitely have the potential to create a new form of peace-negotiation?

On a less serious note, I’ve found this blog which discusses careers a valuable read as well. I guess this shows that blogs can be valuable in just about any area! The Creative Lawyer.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Aaarghgh!

11May09

I’ve found myself a little behind in this unit… I blame having a 4 yr break from studying and then thinking it would be a good idea to go back to uni, do it full time while working and trying to do everything else I was doing as well all at the same time. Well I’m paying for it now! I’ve been a hermit for the last month trying to finish my assignment for my other subject.

The other thing is that I think I’ve used up all my webspace on Oasis for another assignment, because I can’t even open the page. I keep getting this message.

Page Load Error

It was all working fine on Friday when I uploaded a much larger website on to it, so I will have to search for some assistance on that one.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment