We've all been there. Well, if you're one of the three nerds reading this then, yes, you have surely been there. That moment when you finish your next witty yet clever retort to someone you'll never meet and realize, "Wait... No one cares about any of this, but me...". Nerdwars are quite hilarious at times, seen on almost all forums, Reddit, and the comment boxes of every major video sharing website that exists. If you come across one of these, you might stop to read one post, and think about how ridiculous these people are arguing over some inane point when both of them know that they will never be able to change the opinions of anyone, especially the person they're arguing with. Yes, it all seems quite trivial, that is, if you aren't in it.
My most recent of nerdwar escapades happened while doing a project for CS280. We had to publish some sort of article on Wikipedia or Citizendium that pertained to the class. I chose to research a group of buildings and companies that reside in the university area, and spent many hours sifting through the small amount of information that was available on these entities. I created these pages in a sort of test section of Wikipedia, and when I was ready to publish them entirely, simply created several new live articles to accommodate them. I felt quite good about what I had written, had made sure to provide sources for every piece of information I presented, and had no personal bias or 'advertisement-like' sentences in any of the articles. Unfortunately for me though, no one had bothered to tell me about something called 'notability' - a term with which I am almost painfully familiar with by now...
The day after I published my articles I logged back onto Wikipedia to check on them, and to my surprise, they had all disappeared. Every time I tried searching for them, various pages that I had as sources for the articles popped up instead of the articles themselves. I checked the article history, and sure enough, on every one of the articles an edit had been made removing every bit of html that I had written, replacing it with something like "#REDIRECT [[IBM]]". The comment about each of the changes was the same as well "no real indications of notability on its own". It appeared that a user had systematically gone through all of the articles that I had written, and removed the entirety of their content, redirecting any searches past the title of the article to a parent or associated organization page.
I immediately thought that this user, MikeWazowski, had just ignorantly removed the articles, and so reverted the change to get my articles back. I assumed this would be enough, and that my articles would be left alone from then on. As you might expect however, MikeWazowski was back within 2 hours, and had again redirected through all of the articles that I created with the same edit comment: "no real indications of notability on its own". I decided to look up Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, and after some time spent searching I found enough evidence to suggest that a he wasn't allowed to simply remove or redirect articles based on his opinion of notability. This is where flagging an article is used - a message is placed at the top of the article suggesting it has questionable notability. So I again reverted the edits, with the comment "Flagging articles is fine. Deleting them arbitrarily is not. Learn the rules." on each (I may have been tired and slightly annoyed at the time ;) . Again after a couple hours, MikeWazowski had redirected the articles. This time his edit comments read, "I can do what I like, and you have shown no real
indications of notability for this on its own - it is up to you to
convince us otherwise on the talk page".
Oh, it was on now. I again went though Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and found out that without administrative privileges he did not have the authority to do that he was doing. I 'kindly' informed him of this on his user page, to which he responded with: "Unlike you, I do know what I am doing here. Unlike you, I know that what
I was doing was a redirect, not a deletion. I do not need to be an
admin to redirect pages that I feel are not notable." This, I still maintain, is entirely false. After deleting the redirection of my articles a third time, he posted a warning on my talk page about the 'three-revert rule'. This rule keeps edit wars from happening, and ensures stability of articles.
At this point, the admins intervened. I got messages from some of them saying that my account would be suspended if I broke the three-revert rule again. Other ones started discussions on the pages that I had written concerning notability - the way it should have been done in the first place. I removed the warning that MikeWazowski had placed on my user page, as I found out he was not authorized to do this either. I defended the notability of the articles on some of the pages, but for some I knew it wouldn't hold scrutiny, so left them empty. Most of my attempts to prove notability succeeded, with little if any replies after mine, and none of the pages getting deleted. Another article was permanently deleted however, and since I stopped checking regularly some other ones have had the redirection restored.
You may be surprised to hear however, that when I look back on my first experience as a Wikipedia editor, I'm not bitter at all. In fact, I believe it was a very beneficial experience for my overall opinion of web-based media and user regulated content. By looking through the guidelines and rules of the site, as well as observing the manner with which the editors and admins of Wikipedia conducted themselves, I have a new-found appreciation for it, and many other similar collective intelligence tools that exist. One thing to remember is that Wikipedia does not pay anyone. It exists as a sort of charity-based encyclopedia, counting completely on users donating their time to creating, editing, policing, and otherwise regulating the information that appears on it. With the sheer quantity of information on the site now and being generated by users every day, it's amazing that the standards that I observed are kept, and that enough individuals are available to keep only reliable and relevant information visible at all times. My difficulty with the site seems to be its strength, and to me it seems much less like the anyone can edit so never really trust it kind of resource that I saw it as before. I will now continue to use it, and have the certitude that the information contained on it is much more sound than one would at first believe. So, I guess my main point here is: long live collective governance!
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Money Well Wasted
Another interesting video caught my attention a couple weeks ago. This one has received a huge amount of traction across the web in recent weeks, reaching the top 5 most popular articles on Reddit this month, and seems to be causing a good deal of distrust in the governments that are adopting these technologies. If what is in the video holds true, many believe that this new system was a very ignorant use of money, and the breaches in personal privacy that accompanied this technology but were presented as an unfortunate necessity just add to the problem.
Assuming the allegations made in the video are mostly reliable, it bring up an very important debate on whether enough credible research and scrutiny of newly adopted technologies is being done, and whether more 'radical new technologies' will be adopted for political reasons alone. It seems, in this case, that effectiveness of this technology was either never researched properly, or that it was deliberately overlooked by some individuals. The inclination to go with the high-tech and more radical system seems to be quite high in this field, as in many, but is enough consideration going into the effectiveness of these methods over the older ones?
Being a very frequent traveller myself, I have never really been concerned with airplane safety, since anyone that decides to actually check the statistics will know that you probably have a higher chance of getting killed during your hotel stay between flights than on the actual plane. However, it is certainly understandable that airport security was heightened to a great extent, and I can certainly see some validity in the paranoia that exists given the last decade. Naturally though, when I started to see the shiny new body scanners that would do away with traditional invasive searches, my first thought was, "where do I sign up"? I did not even think to question the effectiveness and reliability of this new technology - far smarter people than I are employed specifically to make sure that these things are tested. Given how much money and political attention these scanners were getting, I assumed they were fully legitimate and were designed to be fool proof. It seems though, that a young reporter with access to the internet has managed to defeat this system completely, and that there has been a loud but subdued minority trying to get the message out all along that this technology is ineffective. We seem to follow that which we do not understand, trust in those who shouldn't be trusted, and ignore those who try and inform - all on the basis of convenience.
I believe this to be a significant problem with the 'information society' that exists today. There is an unprecedented amount of information delivered in new ways every day. The difficulty comes in sorting through this abundance of 'facts' and opinions, so that only the valid and verifiable ones are shared. It could even be thought of as a free market of information, which everyone has access to in both ways - read or produce - but that requires some set of rules or regulations to be truly useful.
This brings me off on a bit of a tangent which, for brevity's sake, I'll discuss in my next post. Suffice it to say, I have a renewed appreciation of the collective governance of information on the Internet, a realization which, almost paradoxically, I came to after taking part in what some people might call a 'nerd war'. But, more on that to come.
Assuming the allegations made in the video are mostly reliable, it bring up an very important debate on whether enough credible research and scrutiny of newly adopted technologies is being done, and whether more 'radical new technologies' will be adopted for political reasons alone. It seems, in this case, that effectiveness of this technology was either never researched properly, or that it was deliberately overlooked by some individuals. The inclination to go with the high-tech and more radical system seems to be quite high in this field, as in many, but is enough consideration going into the effectiveness of these methods over the older ones?
Being a very frequent traveller myself, I have never really been concerned with airplane safety, since anyone that decides to actually check the statistics will know that you probably have a higher chance of getting killed during your hotel stay between flights than on the actual plane. However, it is certainly understandable that airport security was heightened to a great extent, and I can certainly see some validity in the paranoia that exists given the last decade. Naturally though, when I started to see the shiny new body scanners that would do away with traditional invasive searches, my first thought was, "where do I sign up"? I did not even think to question the effectiveness and reliability of this new technology - far smarter people than I are employed specifically to make sure that these things are tested. Given how much money and political attention these scanners were getting, I assumed they were fully legitimate and were designed to be fool proof. It seems though, that a young reporter with access to the internet has managed to defeat this system completely, and that there has been a loud but subdued minority trying to get the message out all along that this technology is ineffective. We seem to follow that which we do not understand, trust in those who shouldn't be trusted, and ignore those who try and inform - all on the basis of convenience.
I believe this to be a significant problem with the 'information society' that exists today. There is an unprecedented amount of information delivered in new ways every day. The difficulty comes in sorting through this abundance of 'facts' and opinions, so that only the valid and verifiable ones are shared. It could even be thought of as a free market of information, which everyone has access to in both ways - read or produce - but that requires some set of rules or regulations to be truly useful.
This brings me off on a bit of a tangent which, for brevity's sake, I'll discuss in my next post. Suffice it to say, I have a renewed appreciation of the collective governance of information on the Internet, a realization which, almost paradoxically, I came to after taking part in what some people might call a 'nerd war'. But, more on that to come.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
The Unexpected YouTube Millionnaires
I have been aware of this issue for some time now, and was recently reminded of it by an extremely popular thread on Reddit (top scoring this month). It centers around YouTube's method of enforcing IP protection laws, and companies that take advantage of this to every extreme possible.
YouTube employs a very novel piece of software that combs each uploaded video for possible copyright infringing material. This can contain images, or even entire video clips, but usually it is not the visual content of the video that is disputed, but the audio it uses. The software compares the contents to a library of material that has been requested to be protected by someone, usually a third party company. Most notable among these companies is UMG, the largest music publishing company in the world. Their entire library is compared to newly updated video's content, and this library is updated many times daily.
If a possible infringing video is detected by the software, it is completely blocked pending approval. If the video is indeed found to be infringing, the user that uploaded it has the option to take it down entirely, or allow it to be monetized with ads by the company that owns the copyright. Now, this is where the truly interesting part of the system comes into play. Following a successful copyright claim, the copyright owner also has the option to withdraw the claim at any time, and thus give the user permission to use their material for the video. As you might imagine, this makes quite a bit of sense since the software does not distinguish between videos, and therefore has no idea whether or not the user that uploaded the video actually does have permission to use the copyrighted material.
Ah, but a keen individual would also pick up on the huge flaw that this system has, and the reason why entire companies are built upon the exploitation of this process.
Rumblefish is a company consisting of "an interesting blend of music, technology, and intellectual property experts" according to their web site. What they really are is a group of lawyers and business majors that have created an entire company out of exploiting IP laws and the copyright system of YouTube. They own the rights to millions of copyrighted songs and audio files, and their entire library, similar to that of UMG, is synced with YouTube's copyright protection software. They also license the copyrights out to just about anyone, for a fee, and this is their main claim of revenue. Where they actually turn a profit however, is with YouTube's content ID system. It will identify a piece of audio copyrighted by the company, and then begin running ads along side the video to compensate Rumblefish.
Another interesting, I would say almost criminal, form of the revenue for the company is with disputed claims. If a user disputes the claim, Rumbfish will send out an email to the individual asking for a certain sum of money in exchange for a license, or they will have the video taken down completely. This happened to a youtuber that I follow regularly (username Zisteau), who had purchased the license for the use of music to use in a video intro from another company, but later got a notification that Rumblefish owned the copyright to the audio. This was entirely false, however a recording of the same song was owned by Rumblefish, and was flagged by YouTube's content ID software. After disputing the claim, the company demanded he pay them to keep his videos from being taken down.
A similar case, with an even more bizarre situation, is seen with the Reddit thread I mentioned earlier. In this case, the sound of a bird singing in the background of someone's video had been matched to a piece of audio that Rumblefish had the copyright to, and so the video was monetized with proceeds going to Google and Rumbfish alone. It was disputed, and Rumblefish confirmed that they did indeed own the rights to a bird chirping. It was not until an article written by the video's creator went viral that the claim was taken down, and apologies were sent out.
The system is clearly being misused, and the ancient copyright and IP protection laws are being used to support claims that any reasonable person would deem unfair. This, along with many other examples of the ineffectiveness of hundred year old laws that are supposed to control modern content, tells me that some serious discussion and thought should be put into how we deal with property protection over the internet. It is clear to me that more than just simple amendments or additions to these laws should be made, and that eventually a complete re-imagination of the concepts that created them in the first place should be done, with special consideration to how they will be used in the current technological era.
YouTube employs a very novel piece of software that combs each uploaded video for possible copyright infringing material. This can contain images, or even entire video clips, but usually it is not the visual content of the video that is disputed, but the audio it uses. The software compares the contents to a library of material that has been requested to be protected by someone, usually a third party company. Most notable among these companies is UMG, the largest music publishing company in the world. Their entire library is compared to newly updated video's content, and this library is updated many times daily.
If a possible infringing video is detected by the software, it is completely blocked pending approval. If the video is indeed found to be infringing, the user that uploaded it has the option to take it down entirely, or allow it to be monetized with ads by the company that owns the copyright. Now, this is where the truly interesting part of the system comes into play. Following a successful copyright claim, the copyright owner also has the option to withdraw the claim at any time, and thus give the user permission to use their material for the video. As you might imagine, this makes quite a bit of sense since the software does not distinguish between videos, and therefore has no idea whether or not the user that uploaded the video actually does have permission to use the copyrighted material.
Ah, but a keen individual would also pick up on the huge flaw that this system has, and the reason why entire companies are built upon the exploitation of this process.
Rumblefish is a company consisting of "an interesting blend of music, technology, and intellectual property experts" according to their web site. What they really are is a group of lawyers and business majors that have created an entire company out of exploiting IP laws and the copyright system of YouTube. They own the rights to millions of copyrighted songs and audio files, and their entire library, similar to that of UMG, is synced with YouTube's copyright protection software. They also license the copyrights out to just about anyone, for a fee, and this is their main claim of revenue. Where they actually turn a profit however, is with YouTube's content ID system. It will identify a piece of audio copyrighted by the company, and then begin running ads along side the video to compensate Rumblefish.
Another interesting, I would say almost criminal, form of the revenue for the company is with disputed claims. If a user disputes the claim, Rumbfish will send out an email to the individual asking for a certain sum of money in exchange for a license, or they will have the video taken down completely. This happened to a youtuber that I follow regularly (username Zisteau), who had purchased the license for the use of music to use in a video intro from another company, but later got a notification that Rumblefish owned the copyright to the audio. This was entirely false, however a recording of the same song was owned by Rumblefish, and was flagged by YouTube's content ID software. After disputing the claim, the company demanded he pay them to keep his videos from being taken down.
A similar case, with an even more bizarre situation, is seen with the Reddit thread I mentioned earlier. In this case, the sound of a bird singing in the background of someone's video had been matched to a piece of audio that Rumblefish had the copyright to, and so the video was monetized with proceeds going to Google and Rumbfish alone. It was disputed, and Rumblefish confirmed that they did indeed own the rights to a bird chirping. It was not until an article written by the video's creator went viral that the claim was taken down, and apologies were sent out.
The system is clearly being misused, and the ancient copyright and IP protection laws are being used to support claims that any reasonable person would deem unfair. This, along with many other examples of the ineffectiveness of hundred year old laws that are supposed to control modern content, tells me that some serious discussion and thought should be put into how we deal with property protection over the internet. It is clear to me that more than just simple amendments or additions to these laws should be made, and that eventually a complete re-imagination of the concepts that created them in the first place should be done, with special consideration to how they will be used in the current technological era.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
When Computer Scientists get bored
I found another very interesting video on TED (but seriously, which one isn't), related to technological security and risks. It's basically a summary by CS Professor Avi Ruben of some experiments done by other CS professors on how all new technology is hackable. Some examples are cars, personal radios, cellphones, and even pacemakers. They all have some kind of wireless capability, and store and run code in order to function properly, and so can theoretically be hacked. This theory seems to have transferred rather well in practice as all of the devices were, in almost all meaningful ways, completely reprogrammable after hacking.
I rather enjoyed the talk, and it explained some innovative and creative research relating to everyday technology. My problem with it though is the fear that the presenter attempts to instill in listeners - a rather misplaced notion in my view. The issue that I have with this video and the conclusions that are drawn from it is simple - who besides a team of Computer Science doctors could do things like this? The answer for most of the hacks, especially with some of the more dangerous ones, is no one. The technical skill, resources, and knowledge base required to implement some of these hacks is beyond any small individual's capability, and if a large company or rich individual wanted to exploit people for some reason, there are far better and more cost effective ways of achieving this. Besides simply knowing that these hacks can actually be implemented successfully, the results of the research has very few implications, since practically they make no sense at all.
Let us use the pacemaker hack as an example. First off, using an existing CID (used by hospitals to transmit data to the pacemaker) the wireless protocol interface that it uses must be reverse engineered. To gain any kind of access to the internal functions of an already existing pacemaker, the model and unique coded ID of the pacemaker would have to be known, or the security protection that exists in the device would have to be circumvented. Then, a prototype device that uses the generated protocol must be made and tested successfully. In the case explained in the video, an entire team of graduate student researchers was involved in the program, and even then it was never tested on an existing pacemaker with which the team did not have previous access.
This illustrates exactly why I believe the implications of the video to be shallow at best. It is certainly a good thought experiment - knowing that technological ignorance can lead to harm in extreme cases, and questioning new technologies and the security risks they might present is important - and it was clearly a very interesting challenge for the researchers, but beyond that it means very little. Using artificial intelligence learning algorithms, writing advanced reverse engineering software, and prototyping sophisticated devices to compromise someone's privacy or security is surely a fun experiment for computer scientists, but the fear mongering that accompanied these studies in the video is entirely misplaced and unnecessary. Surely, as suggested in the professor's closing remarks, these sorts of things must be taken into account when companies develop new technologies, but should I be worried every time I get in my car or text on the bus? Absolutely not.
I rather enjoyed the talk, and it explained some innovative and creative research relating to everyday technology. My problem with it though is the fear that the presenter attempts to instill in listeners - a rather misplaced notion in my view. The issue that I have with this video and the conclusions that are drawn from it is simple - who besides a team of Computer Science doctors could do things like this? The answer for most of the hacks, especially with some of the more dangerous ones, is no one. The technical skill, resources, and knowledge base required to implement some of these hacks is beyond any small individual's capability, and if a large company or rich individual wanted to exploit people for some reason, there are far better and more cost effective ways of achieving this. Besides simply knowing that these hacks can actually be implemented successfully, the results of the research has very few implications, since practically they make no sense at all.
Let us use the pacemaker hack as an example. First off, using an existing CID (used by hospitals to transmit data to the pacemaker) the wireless protocol interface that it uses must be reverse engineered. To gain any kind of access to the internal functions of an already existing pacemaker, the model and unique coded ID of the pacemaker would have to be known, or the security protection that exists in the device would have to be circumvented. Then, a prototype device that uses the generated protocol must be made and tested successfully. In the case explained in the video, an entire team of graduate student researchers was involved in the program, and even then it was never tested on an existing pacemaker with which the team did not have previous access.
This illustrates exactly why I believe the implications of the video to be shallow at best. It is certainly a good thought experiment - knowing that technological ignorance can lead to harm in extreme cases, and questioning new technologies and the security risks they might present is important - and it was clearly a very interesting challenge for the researchers, but beyond that it means very little. Using artificial intelligence learning algorithms, writing advanced reverse engineering software, and prototyping sophisticated devices to compromise someone's privacy or security is surely a fun experiment for computer scientists, but the fear mongering that accompanied these studies in the video is entirely misplaced and unnecessary. Surely, as suggested in the professor's closing remarks, these sorts of things must be taken into account when companies develop new technologies, but should I be worried every time I get in my car or text on the bus? Absolutely not.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
I can sleep, listen to music, study, and e-mail all at once. Can YOU??
I was reminded in class today about a subject that turned into a rather heated discussion with some acquaintances of mine a while ago. It was concerning the message of this video, directed by an instructor at Kansas State University, who had become internet famous with his viral 'web 2.0' introduction video. After seeing the 4.5 millions hits it now has, I'm even more amazed at how this sort of information, presented in a fashionable and casual way, can captivate people to the extent that it does. The video mainly deals with modern student's perspectives on education, and how negatively influential new technologies have been on the lifestyle and habits of a typical college graduate.
Besides the incredible number of logical and reasoning fallacies (thank you PHIL150!) that are rampant throughout the video, I would like to first address the specific information presented in the video. The facts presented in the video are, as unfortunate as it is to believe, complete bull. Taken from a self-written collaborative survey form, using a sample size of one class of the same students that wrote the survey, and consisting entirely of arts liberal majors like Media Studies and Anthropology, the data is so incredibly bias and confounded that it should be taken with an entire bag of salt grains. Anyone understanding even the simplest of research and data collection procedures will know that the only useful thing that can some of information collected in this manner is finding out what percentage of the population will believe anything they see in a YouTube video.
Okay, enough ranting... Anyways, as you can see, besides repeatedly pressing my pseudo-scientific annoyance button, the video clearly speaks to a larger and more significant problem that this professor's class believes is present, and that nearly 4 million others might as well. So, has technology made the average student's lives as hectic, disconnected, overwhelming, and excruciating as the video describes? No.
Oh, I have to explain myself? Well, fine...
Ask any student, even the ones in this Kansas State classroom, whether they would be willing to remove the 'distracting' technologies they use - cellphone, laptop, Facebook, email, television, music - to make their life more enjoyable and less hectic. How many would voluntarily do this? Well, using my detailed 'scientific study' of asking myself and the person sitting next to me, the results are exactly 0%!
This is what the debate usually boils down to, and how it is very similar to other debates that people have over the dilution of experience by virtue of modern technologies. Watching movies at home has taken away from the 'authentic' theatre experience, most communication - done through digital means such as IM or e-mail - has lost meaning and significance which creates socially inept adults, families spend less time together because the individuals are busy being slaves to technological appliances. And the list goes on, and on. Again, we will pose a question to these individuals. Will you give up all of these annoying and personally destructive habits, and go back to your live Shakespearean dramas for entertainment, your carrier pigeons for communication, and your wonderfully blissful and pristine family dinners.
The reality is that these things have never commonly existed, and that American life before this 'technological apocalypse' was just as stressful, just as individualistic, and generally much more difficult than it is now. Schools, particularly Universities, were actually difficult then too, and in many cases required a much more dedicated and focused student than is expected now. A newer video made by the same class and teacher, with thankfully much less exposure, basically sums up exactly what they believe is happening to modern students. Anyone with critical thinking skills will see how truly ridiculous some of these comments/complaints are. My comment on the video when I first saw it accurately describes my beliefs on the matter:
Besides the incredible number of logical and reasoning fallacies (thank you PHIL150!) that are rampant throughout the video, I would like to first address the specific information presented in the video. The facts presented in the video are, as unfortunate as it is to believe, complete bull. Taken from a self-written collaborative survey form, using a sample size of one class of the same students that wrote the survey, and consisting entirely of arts liberal majors like Media Studies and Anthropology, the data is so incredibly bias and confounded that it should be taken with an entire bag of salt grains. Anyone understanding even the simplest of research and data collection procedures will know that the only useful thing that can some of information collected in this manner is finding out what percentage of the population will believe anything they see in a YouTube video.
Okay, enough ranting... Anyways, as you can see, besides repeatedly pressing my pseudo-scientific annoyance button, the video clearly speaks to a larger and more significant problem that this professor's class believes is present, and that nearly 4 million others might as well. So, has technology made the average student's lives as hectic, disconnected, overwhelming, and excruciating as the video describes? No.
Oh, I have to explain myself? Well, fine...
Ask any student, even the ones in this Kansas State classroom, whether they would be willing to remove the 'distracting' technologies they use - cellphone, laptop, Facebook, email, television, music - to make their life more enjoyable and less hectic. How many would voluntarily do this? Well, using my detailed 'scientific study' of asking myself and the person sitting next to me, the results are exactly 0%!
This is what the debate usually boils down to, and how it is very similar to other debates that people have over the dilution of experience by virtue of modern technologies. Watching movies at home has taken away from the 'authentic' theatre experience, most communication - done through digital means such as IM or e-mail - has lost meaning and significance which creates socially inept adults, families spend less time together because the individuals are busy being slaves to technological appliances. And the list goes on, and on. Again, we will pose a question to these individuals. Will you give up all of these annoying and personally destructive habits, and go back to your live Shakespearean dramas for entertainment, your carrier pigeons for communication, and your wonderfully blissful and pristine family dinners.
The reality is that these things have never commonly existed, and that American life before this 'technological apocalypse' was just as stressful, just as individualistic, and generally much more difficult than it is now. Schools, particularly Universities, were actually difficult then too, and in many cases required a much more dedicated and focused student than is expected now. A newer video made by the same class and teacher, with thankfully much less exposure, basically sums up exactly what they believe is happening to modern students. Anyone with critical thinking skills will see how truly ridiculous some of these comments/complaints are. My comment on the video when I first saw it accurately describes my beliefs on the matter:
Monday, 30 January 2012
A New Hope
While reading a surprisingly
relevant and interesting section of the textbook, A Gift of Fire, I realized an interesting
repercussion of growing up in the "information age," and being part
of the WWW community all my life. The book talks about an interesting and
unique ability that the Web has given us: "For the first time in history,
we have a many-to-many medium, in which you don't have to be rich to have
access, and in which you don't have to win the approval of an editor or
publisher to speak your mind." The Internet,
and specifically Web 2.0 technologies, are very significant, and have almost
paradoxically important repercussions.
Certain individuals and distinct minorities within society have always had the ability to make their views known to the masses. This has historically been achieved through wealth or power: the rich could manipulate the press, a king could make his opinions law, or a totalitarian leader could censor speech and open discussion. More significant to my discussion however, is how religious personalities and spiritual leaders have dictated the type of material and information that is distributed to their respective followers.
For the majority of human history, a particular religion or set of beliefs have been prevalent in countries or regions, if not entire continents. An interesting, albeit overly simplistic, visual timeline of religious influence can be seen here. This has come, in virtually every case, with the existence of an individual or group that dictates what should be preached, and how certain events should be dealt with according to their system of beliefs. Here lies, I believe, a monumental problem that has existed for millennia, but that can now be resolved with the proper use of Web-based technologies.
My personal experience with religion and mass market faith starts when I was quite young. I grew up in a moderately religious household, was baptized, went to a Catholic school, and attended church relatively often. I was always rather inquisitive though, and in a Baptist church youth group around 11 years old I began to see huge discrepancies and flaws in some of the ideas we were being taught. I asked questions frequently, but after receiving few, if any, adequate responses to my observations, I had to admit that religious ideas just didn't seem to sit right in my mind. I gradually withdrew from the youth group, excused myself from church attendance as often as possible, and started actively avoiding any conversations that could make me have to explain my "abnormal" views.
After years of internal debate and external deflection of any religious discussion, I began to observe that I was not alone in my indecision. It was not until I discovered the open and anonymous environment of the Internet that I could truly express my opinions, and hear about other that had similar views to mine. I quickly saw how enormous the non-religious/Atheist community is, and was able to re-asses and refine my own views by hearing other more educated individuals speak on the topic.
The point is, my personal experience and growth in spiritual and religious matters would have been completely impossible had it not been for the amazing resource and 'many-to-many' facilitating technology that is the Internet. I would have been solely exposed to, from every angle - the media, politics, social interactions - the other more "accepted" view on religion that has existed for over three millennia. Had I been born 400 years, 200 years, or even 70 years ago, my personal ideas would have been dismissed as threatening, unfaithful, and even blasphemous. The inter-connectivity and mass communication environment of the Web has allowed me to not have to ignore my opinions, but expand and strengthen them instead.
I am now completely open about my religious views, and will debate the issue with anyone that has the capacity to think critically, and retain a somewhat open mind. I owe this spiritual confidence entirely to the wonderful technology of the Internet, and believe that this is a resource that can be used similarly in many more ways in the future, and one that hopefully will be able to positively reach millions more individuals as it has with me.
Certain individuals and distinct minorities within society have always had the ability to make their views known to the masses. This has historically been achieved through wealth or power: the rich could manipulate the press, a king could make his opinions law, or a totalitarian leader could censor speech and open discussion. More significant to my discussion however, is how religious personalities and spiritual leaders have dictated the type of material and information that is distributed to their respective followers.
For the majority of human history, a particular religion or set of beliefs have been prevalent in countries or regions, if not entire continents. An interesting, albeit overly simplistic, visual timeline of religious influence can be seen here. This has come, in virtually every case, with the existence of an individual or group that dictates what should be preached, and how certain events should be dealt with according to their system of beliefs. Here lies, I believe, a monumental problem that has existed for millennia, but that can now be resolved with the proper use of Web-based technologies.
My personal experience with religion and mass market faith starts when I was quite young. I grew up in a moderately religious household, was baptized, went to a Catholic school, and attended church relatively often. I was always rather inquisitive though, and in a Baptist church youth group around 11 years old I began to see huge discrepancies and flaws in some of the ideas we were being taught. I asked questions frequently, but after receiving few, if any, adequate responses to my observations, I had to admit that religious ideas just didn't seem to sit right in my mind. I gradually withdrew from the youth group, excused myself from church attendance as often as possible, and started actively avoiding any conversations that could make me have to explain my "abnormal" views.
After years of internal debate and external deflection of any religious discussion, I began to observe that I was not alone in my indecision. It was not until I discovered the open and anonymous environment of the Internet that I could truly express my opinions, and hear about other that had similar views to mine. I quickly saw how enormous the non-religious/Atheist community is, and was able to re-asses and refine my own views by hearing other more educated individuals speak on the topic.
The point is, my personal experience and growth in spiritual and religious matters would have been completely impossible had it not been for the amazing resource and 'many-to-many' facilitating technology that is the Internet. I would have been solely exposed to, from every angle - the media, politics, social interactions - the other more "accepted" view on religion that has existed for over three millennia. Had I been born 400 years, 200 years, or even 70 years ago, my personal ideas would have been dismissed as threatening, unfaithful, and even blasphemous. The inter-connectivity and mass communication environment of the Web has allowed me to not have to ignore my opinions, but expand and strengthen them instead.
I am now completely open about my religious views, and will debate the issue with anyone that has the capacity to think critically, and retain a somewhat open mind. I owe this spiritual confidence entirely to the wonderful technology of the Internet, and believe that this is a resource that can be used similarly in many more ways in the future, and one that hopefully will be able to positively reach millions more individuals as it has with me.
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Artificial Life
While browsing through reddit today, I came across an article discussing recent innovations at the University of California's chemistry lab. They have successfully created a container that will eventually be able to support the first artificial life forms ever made. This is being done to better understand how life "spontaneously" emerged on our planet, and to better asses the conditions on extra terrestrial planets that would be conducive to life.
This reminded me of a press release I saw on TED.com about a year ago. A team of biologists had been the first to imprint synthetic DNA onto a cell, making it the first reproducing organism with a computer for a parent. To further prove that this in fact occurred, they wrote names, quotes, and even a website URL into the genetic code as a watermark - signatures of their achievement. If you look at the comments below the video, the first thing that you see is a heated 'creationist vs. scientist' debate, centered around the dilemma of whether or not humans should have the power to create life, and whether this is ethically (or spiritually) wrong.
This brings up the very important question, that I believe to be relevant the class, of whether simply having the technology and knowledge necessary for scientific advance means that it should be done. This intrinsic ethic that seems to exist in certain scientific communities could potentially be dangerous, but only to individuals that subscribe to particular ethical paradigms, or to ones that let their faith or religion dictate their ethics. When viewed from the perspective, which I'm certain many academics have, that the quest for knowledge and understanding is an ultimate goal, humanity's control over life is just the next step in our understanding of our world and our origins. If humans currently have the power to control disease, alter their physical surroundings, wipe out entire species, and destroy continents with a whim, is generating new life for scientific understanding such an radical idea?
It would be naive to think that new technological advances and abilities will never be used maliciously, but I believe that in most cases the knowledge and understanding that comes with these advances outweigh the ethical problems. The issue is likely to become very significant as more and more significant innovations occur, particularly in the fields of AI and genetics. Ultimately though, as was the case with human cloning, it is not up to the society to decide whether these fields will be explored to their full potential - sooner or later a group will decide that for themselves. The question then becomes how we choose to react to the results, and whether to accept the implications and advances that come, or reject them on ethical grounds.
This reminded me of a press release I saw on TED.com about a year ago. A team of biologists had been the first to imprint synthetic DNA onto a cell, making it the first reproducing organism with a computer for a parent. To further prove that this in fact occurred, they wrote names, quotes, and even a website URL into the genetic code as a watermark - signatures of their achievement. If you look at the comments below the video, the first thing that you see is a heated 'creationist vs. scientist' debate, centered around the dilemma of whether or not humans should have the power to create life, and whether this is ethically (or spiritually) wrong.
This brings up the very important question, that I believe to be relevant the class, of whether simply having the technology and knowledge necessary for scientific advance means that it should be done. This intrinsic ethic that seems to exist in certain scientific communities could potentially be dangerous, but only to individuals that subscribe to particular ethical paradigms, or to ones that let their faith or religion dictate their ethics. When viewed from the perspective, which I'm certain many academics have, that the quest for knowledge and understanding is an ultimate goal, humanity's control over life is just the next step in our understanding of our world and our origins. If humans currently have the power to control disease, alter their physical surroundings, wipe out entire species, and destroy continents with a whim, is generating new life for scientific understanding such an radical idea?
It would be naive to think that new technological advances and abilities will never be used maliciously, but I believe that in most cases the knowledge and understanding that comes with these advances outweigh the ethical problems. The issue is likely to become very significant as more and more significant innovations occur, particularly in the fields of AI and genetics. Ultimately though, as was the case with human cloning, it is not up to the society to decide whether these fields will be explored to their full potential - sooner or later a group will decide that for themselves. The question then becomes how we choose to react to the results, and whether to accept the implications and advances that come, or reject them on ethical grounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just the opinion of a CS major though, what do I know? ; )"