Anyone else remember these PSAs? I used to scoff at them when I was young. OBVIOUSLY don't post things online that you don't want other people to see, it seemed so clear to me that I laughed at people who didn't get it. Well, the PSA is still stupid, mostly because it focuses on pictures. But let's expand the horizon a bit. We no longer live in an impermanent age. You know the old saying "you can't take back what you say"? Even more relevant. This is no longer about just images that can be saved off the screen and then reposted, text now applies as well. For example, Dilbert creator Scott Adams posted on his blog an entry that was fairly anti-feminist and offended a lot of people. Within hours of realizing this was probably an awful idea, he had deleted it, but it was too late: dozens, if not hundreds of sites had already grabbed the post and reposted it, and even more took it from those sites and reposted it in a chain reaction that was unstoppable. This all happened some time last year, but I can still do a quick google search and find his exact words.
That's....that's pretty scary. Another example, some of you may or may not know, but every twitter post is archived by the Library of Congress. That's right. That tweet you just sent out? Going to be saved for all time. I actually understand why they're doing it, it's going to be a treasure trove of sociological information on our generation and the trends we followed for future generations to analyze, but it's still creepy and unsettling to think about. I even remember someone from our reader writing a quick article about Google+ automatically sharing all of his Picasa photos, some of which he most certainly did not want shared.
Privacy? You're so cute, Facebook user.
-The Facebook Staff
And let's not forget the most important offender of this ongoing trend: Facebook. Because, honestly, Facebook doesn't give a flying fuck about your privacy. Oh, where do I start? Well, one day, my girlfriend showed me the wonderful thing known as A Very Potter Musical (and the subsequentA Very Potter Sequel). Being the creepy bastard that I am, I then proceeded to look up Joe Walker, the actor for Voldemort, on Facebook. I found him too, and sent him a friend request, mostly just for shits and giggles. He never did add me, sad day :(
But I still got to read his status updates. Because on Facebook, if you just ignore a friend request, that person can still see your stuff. I guess that means I better just outright decline then, right? Next time you get a friend request, look at the button next to "accept". It doesn't say "decline", it says "ignore". Hitting this button doesn't get rid of the request, it merely hides it from you, allowing that person you didn't want to be friends with to creep all over your statuses.
Facebook is uncomfortably open when you first create an account (the new Timeline profiles are not going to make it any less so). You can go in and change your privacy settings, but, not to be rude, there are a lot of really dumb people out there who can't figure this stuff out. And even if you do, from what I hear, companies and schools can override your privacy settings and get at your profile anyway.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we're all doomed and nothing will ever be private again. The government will soon start monitoring our thoughts and things are going to get 1984 on us.
No I'm not. That's not the point at all. I'm not sure what my point is, other than the concepts of privacy are changing in our digital world, and we need to learn to adapt and figure out how to keep the things that we don't want others to know, to ourselves.
Or, as you guys might recognize, Listing 6.1 8-something from our html book. EDIT: Figured it out guys. I've been using the 7th edition of the book instead of the 8th. Got the 8th now and everything is sorted out. This is what happens when I code things while sleep deprive. Just thought I'd share.
X-men are some badass motherfuckers.
Let's face it, the X-men are some tough motherfuckers. They shoot lazors and doesn't afraid of anything. But what if you need to look up the X-men in all their badassery individually and alphabetically?
What are you, some kind of girly-man? You should be able to do that by memory! But because girly-man is a very real and serious disease, I suppose I'll help you out just this once.
Up there! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's motherfucking Arch Angel, that's who. Yeah, look at him soar around on those big fucking wings being a sexy boss. He was pretty shitty but then his wings turned metal and started shooting shrapnel or some shit, and that's pretty cool. Still a girly-man?
B is for Beast
Beast is a fucking beast. Look at him, being all blue and shit. He'll fuck your shit up and then say something pithy about it, because he's really fucking smart. What a swell guy. Still a girly-man?
The coolest kid on the block, he's crazy and doesn't afraid of anything. He also breaks the fourth wall like a cheap Vietnamese whore. And he breaks cheap Vietnamese whores like cheap German whores. Because he's fucking Deadpool. Still a girly-man?
E is for Professor X
Because fuck you, he's Professor X. He can fucking control your brain with his brain. That would be like if a large muscular Russian man named Boris killed you, skinned you, and then wore your skin on top of his skin and pretended to be you and everyone was cool with it. That's how fucking scary Professor X is, so if he wants to show up before P and/or X, he's going to goddamn do it. The man can make you shit your pants with his mind. I cannot emphasis that last point enough. Still a girly-man?
F is for Forge
This guy built some nifty shit. He's like the mutant form of Steve Jobs or something. Still a girly-man?
G is for Gambit
Pretty much the coolest motherfucker alive. Look at him tossing those cards. That's fucking badass. Wait, what's go- HOLY SHIT DID YOU SEE THAT? THAT CARD JUST FUCKING EXPLODED. That's not even his mutant power. That's just him being so goddamn awesome that the card couldn't contain it and exploded. Gambit gets all the chicks. Still a girly-man?
H is for Havok
I don't remember what this guy does, I think he was Cyclops' brother or some shit, but with a name like Havok, he's probably uber badass. If you were told you had to fight to the death either a guy named Norman or a guy named Havok, which would you choose? That's what I thought. Still a girly-man?
HOLY FUCKING SHIT RUN RUN RUN RUN IT'S PHOENIX OH GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE Still a girly-man?
Q is for Phoenix still
BECAUSE PHOENIX IS SO BIG AND SCARY SHE TAKES TWO LETTERS TO COVER OH GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE. I CANNOT STRESS THAT ENOUGH Still a girly-man?
R is for Rogue
Probably the saddest person on earth, and for good reason. But just you wait. When her powers evolve and she learns to control them, shit is going down. Still a girly-man?
S is for Storm
Badass African wind goddess shooting fucking lightning and shit fuck that's cool. Still a girly-man?
T is for Thunderbird
I think he was the token Native American mutant or something? He was also a pretty sweet car. Still a girly-man?
Fuck, look at those claws. Those are fucking sharp. This guy is going to fuck up your day. Why? Because he fucking can. Good luck killin the fucker too. He just keeps coming back like some sort of angry Canadian zombie ready to tear your shit up. Still a girly-man?
X is for X-23
It's like if Wolverine were a hot chick with boobs and stuff instead of being hairy and Canadian. Also, toe claws. What's up with that? Still a girly-man?
Y is for Yoko Ono
Only a mutant would have the power to destroy the Beatles. It all makes sense. Still a girly-man?
Z is for Zombies
What's scarier than the X-men? Zombie X-men. You may proceed to shit your pants now.
If you're a long time follower and fan of my blog, you might notice that things look a little....different today. Well that's because I read this article and then largely ignored what it had to say. I don't know where it gets off calling itself "design tips" when the only real design advice they give is "let a professional designer look it over".
Probably the number one priority of your blog should be readability. The author of the article mentions that briefly in "part 2" (which there is no way to navigate to from part 1....are we sure this person is qualified to be giving design advice?). That point should be NUMBER ONE for design. It doesn't matter how sleek or "cool" your blog looks if no one can read anything on it. My old design was white-on-black, which is a solid choice, and I prefer it to black-on-white, because staring at a white screen for extended periods of time can strain your eye. Currently I'm rocking out some light blue to combat the oncoming dreary winter. Sure, the big blocks of solid color somewhat obscure my totally rockin' background image, but readability is much more important than whatever background I choose.
Something that had been bugging me for awhile now, my default theme made my hyperlinks difficult to read. When I hyperlink something, I damn well want you to know about it. Red does that wonderfully, contrasting with my blue background just enough.
I've also added a navigation bar and some new pages to navigate to. That was way more difficult than it should have been.
I don't really agree with the need for a "top posts" gadget, not with the level of traffic I get, but it's cute and it entertains me, so I'll keep it.
Recently, I came across a video on youtube from Fox News:
As you can see, and I was shocked to learn, there is a hidden internet gang of hackers known as "Anonymous" terrorizing us today. This "internet hate machine", as Fox News caster Paul Fetch fitting calls them, gather on a secret website veiled in mystery. Here they plan "raids" against innocent people on the internet, claiming to do it for the "lulz".
I am appalled that such a thing has developed in this day and age. I've heard the term "anonymous" tossed around occasionally in news reports, but this is the first time I've ever really looked into it. It's disgusting. How can people act like this?
Some things Anonymous does, according to Fox News:
Hack random myspace accounts
Plan domestic terrorist acts (like blowing up a football stadium)
Ruining the end to popular books like Harry Potter
Harassing children's sites like Habbo Hotel
Being anti-semetic and racist
This is the real threat to America. The liberal agenda tries to confuse you with false issues like Global Warming, but it's Communists like these guys (just look at their terminology- "collective". If this group were any more red, a bull would charge them). God Bless America. God Bless.
So I'm sitting there, reading about what it means to be technologically literate, when these two brothers, Polem and Mick come up behind me.
With one on each side, onion and garlic breath battling for dominance, they ask me what I'm reading.
"Oh nothing," I reply, "just some stuff about technology."
"Tech-NOL-ogy?" Polem exclaimed, sounding out the word with a look of disgust, "Oh I know all about tech-NOL-ogy."
He spits on the ground just left of my foot. It's a faint greenish color.
"THAT'S what I think of tech-NOL-ogy." he said snorting.
"Shut up buttface!" Mick punched him in the arm.
"You're so dumb! Technology is the best! It helps EVERYBODY!"
I sit there and sigh as the two brats break down into a squabble. Eventually, as it always does, they both turn to me and ask me.
"What do YOU think Daniel?" Mick asks eagerly, "Isn't technology the greatest?"
"No WAY! You agree with me, right buddy?" Polem enthused, "That stuff is EVIL, right??"
"Look, guys," I say, standing up, "Technology isn't good OR evil. You can't just look at everything in black and white. Polemic arguments just don't work here."
It's just not that simple
In Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century, Selfe discusses two opposing points: technology is a boon, or it is a bane. The problem with this view is an issue of polemics.Polemics is essentially the concept that there are two absolutes, and one has to be right. An example is the aforementioned concept that technology is either inherently good or bad for society. Another example I want to discuss is religion.
Not so long ago, someone on facebook linked me to this completely awesome music video from the band Rise Against, discussing bullying against homosexual students within schools. When I watched it, the most upvoted comment was from a person whom I will paraphrase, because he had awful spelling and grammar:
"This is why I hate religions, all they do is cause hate and violence and war. This just shows that religion is truly an evil tool."
Above: EVIL. PURE EVIL.
There are so many things in this statement that make me angry. First, the video doesn't have anything to do with religion. None of the people in the video, the bullies or the bullied, are portrayed as Christian or any other faith. It really irks me when people take things tenuously related to things they dislike and use it as a soapbox to spread their (usually idiotic) opinions to others. Second, if you actually believe wars are instigated and fought over religion, you're a dumbass. Simple fact of life.
But the part I really want to focus on, the part that ties back into polemic arguments, is the phrase evil tool. How can a tool be evil? A tool can be used for evil means, absolutely, but can the tool itself be evil? No. Religion is no more evil than a wrench is. This is a perfect parallel to the argument for or against technology. Technology is also a tool. It is not inherently detrimental, nor is it inherently beneficial. It can be used both in powerfully good ways to advance society, or it can be used to hurt others or damage oneself.
Pop quiz: What's the largest racist, sexist, and just generally slimy organization in America?
If you guessed the KKK, YOU'RE WRONG!
That's right, it's Hollywood.
Hollywood is a giant stagnant cesspool stuck in old conventions in a rapidly changing modern today, and they don't look like they're going to be embracing the future anytime soon.
How Hollywood hates women
Pictured: important to the plot.
This shouldn't be a hard one to figure out. Let's play a little game first, though. I want you to think of, say, your top 10 favorite movies. You got them in your head? Ok, now tell me how many of them involve two female characters that have a conversation that does not involve a man. How many of your favorite movies passed the Bechdel test, a simple test to see if a movie is feminist friendly or not? Well that's not fair, some of you might argue, the main character is male, of course the conversation is going to revolve around him, because the plot revolves around him. Well then, I guess the question becomes, why are there so many movies with male leads? Even movies with female leads can fail this test (the first two movies starring female leads that comes to my mind are Underworld and Tomb Raider (so sue me, I'm a guy), both of which I actually think only HAD one female in them). This is of course, without addressing the rampart hyper-sexualization of women in movies, or the damsel in distress archetypes that even purported "strong" female characters seem to fall into. Take Disney's recent Princess and the Frog, for example. Tiana is touted as an allegory for the modern day women, she is supposed to be independent, intelligent, and a role model for girls everywhere. What's the problem here? Right off her need to work hard to get what she wants is portrayed in a negative light, with her blowing off friends. She then progresses throughout the movie to end up grabbing a prince, who shows her how to appreciate the little things in life, and also gets that restaurant that she was unable to get by herself. So what happened at the end? A man stepped in and made everything in her life better. THAT'S the supposed role model for young girls of today?
How Hollywood hates minorities
But wait! You're saying. Hollywood can't be racist! Look at all the prolific African-American actors there are! Well, yes and no. More on that later. First I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that there are more minorities in American than simply black people.
Hollywood has a looooooooong history of discrimination, but the one that really broke it open for me was The Last Airbender, a 2010 film directed by Shamalyan, adapted from the Nickelodeon television show (Avatar, the Last Airbender). Here's a quick video to get you caught up:
A show that the creators took painstaking care to make authentically Asian (to the point of hiring a calligrapher to make sure the Chinese writing was accurate- which was detailed to the point that the style would vary depending on theoretically who wrote it, ie high born, low born, in a rush, etc). All of this was ELIMINATED in the movie, because, face it, audiences just can't "connect" to people who aren't white.
If anyone wants to defend this monstrosity of a film, feel free to comment below. I'd be more than happy to show you why you're wrong :)
"I...uh...I don't read so good"
You might have noticed in that video that the movie 21 was shown briefly. You might be wondering why. Well, as it turns out, that movie "based on a true story" was based on a true story...about a team of most Asian-American MIT students counting cards. That's like if the movie The Blindside had cast Dwayne Johnson to play Micheal Oher.
I'll admit, being Asian, this probably gets me angrier than if it had been about another race. But don't worry, while Hollywood may be done blackfacing, they're still running strong on racial stereotypes to make their audiences laugh.
Remember how I said I would get back to those prolific black actors?
But wait! You're saying. Hollywood can't be racist! Look at all the prolific African-American actors there are! Well, yes and no. More on that later.
See? I told you I said that. </crappyAustinPowersjoke>
Well, it's true that there are a lot of very famous, very good black actors. But this article brings forth some disturbing questions on Hollywood's- and society's- preferences.
Hollywood is full of scumbags
Ok, this blog post has gotten a lot longer than I had anticipated, so I'll make this brief. This article details 6 veeeeeeery unsavory things Hollywood does to earn a buck. I'll sum it up for you because I've already asked you to read a lot (but if you're interested in this kind of thing, I really recommend it).
Essentially:
1. Hollywood manipulates the numbers in their books to avoid paying people.
2. Hollywood gives grossly unfair deals with theaters, taking most of the earnings for themselves (this is the reason you pay $6 for popcorn).
3. Hollywood manipulates (when they aren't just outright making up) reviews to make their bad movies look good.
4. Hollywood smothers new material by lobbying for longer copyrights (remember McLuhan?).
5. Hollywood tries it's damndest to resist new technology (Netflix, Hulu), thus hurting the consumer to further their own profit.
6. Stealing scripts to avoid having to pay the writer.
What are your thoughts?
What do you guys think of this? I want to know! Am I being crazy and over-analytical and just a general douchebag, or is Hollywood pure evil? Is it a mix? Is it neither? Leave your comments below!
You're in a crowded auditorium. People are chatting excitedly and music blares from speakers. Many are holding signs and the atmosphere is festive. The music cuts and the lights dim, an announcer comes out and says a name. The cheers begin. You turn to the big monitors on either side of the stage and see....video games?
You, my friend, were at an e-sport tournament. E-sports are, essentially, a collection of video games played at a professional level. This has been around for ages and ages, most notably it has been a huge success in South Korea with the release of Blizzard's Starcraft and expansion Starcraft: Broodwar in 1998. There are at least two television stations that are dedicated to broadcasting games, and the players there are treated like sports stars here. Cash prizes for tournaments can be upwards of $100,000. These guys are literal professionals that plug in 10-hour days of training to be as good as they are.
A Starcraft finals match in Korea looks like this.
Overseas, e-sports has had it's ups and downs, and is currently experiencing a rather large boom with the release of Blizzard's long awaited sequel to Starcraft, Starcraft II. There are a lot of competitive games out there, from first person shooters like Halo and Call of Duty to fighting games like Street Fighter. Of course the real time strategy king Starcraft cannot be forgotten, and there has been a growing interest in the MOBA genre, with the successful League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth. The picture above was from Anaheim, California, part of MLG's pro circuit. Huge crowds were in attendance to watch their favorite players from Call of Duty: Black Ops, Halo: Reach, and Starcraft II battle it out for cash prizes.
But it's much older than that.
I recently came across this article about the legendary Nintendo gold cartridge. I had heard about this thing in passing, and I knew it was one of the most coveted game for collectors in existence (there were only 26 ever made). What I didn't know was the history behind this game.
You see, e-sports isn't something that just cropped up recently. These cartridges were prizes related to Nintendo's 1990 World Championship (with a prize of $10,000 and a new car). That means e-sports has been around for at least 20 years. The article details the quest of certain individuals in obtaining these rare games, as well as the stories of some of the kids who had participated in it. I honestly had no idea that e-sports had gone so far back. I think it is interesting to see that those who participated in Nintendo's event 20 years ago were all children. There has definitely been a paradigm shift (to borrow from Emig, whom we discussed in class) in how we view video games. The winner of the Starcraft portion of Anaheim was Korean veteran IMMVP, who is 21. In fact, the average gamer is around 37.
E-sports has definitely gone through some major changes through it's life. Here's a video from the 1990 Nintendo World Championship and one from the MLG Anaheim tournament earlier this year.
Just what IS rhetoric? Aristotle calls it "the art of finding [seeing] the available means of persuasion." Merriam-Webster says it's "the art of speaking or writing effectively."
I personally would have defined it as being able to speak eloquently and persuasively. In Digital Literacies, we have settled on the definition of "situated strategic discourse."
Now what does that mean? Well it means more or less what Aristotle said. A strategic use of language to prove your point. Alright, you might be thinking, that's neat, but what's that got to do with me?
The answer is EVERYTHING!!!
I may like Goku more, but I will fight
you on how much Superman would kick his ass.
Rhetoric plays a HUGE part in our lives. In fact, right now, right this second, you are reading my rhetoric about why rhetoric is important! Have you ever gotten into a fight with a friend over something? Whether it's that Superman would totally thrash Goku in a fight, or maybe that the Colts are much better than the Patriots, or anything else...you need good rhetoric to win the day.
What did our Founding Fathers do before they fought a war? They used rhetoric to try to reason with the king. They used rhetoric to inspire their country to fight. The most powerful men in the world are the ones who can speak well. Those are the ones who will inspire the masses to follow their causes. Hitler, for example, was a phenomenal speaker. Former President George W. Bush, however, was not. He was unpopular for a lot of different reasons, but his weak rhetoric did not help him at all (and it is probably one of the most memorable traits of his presidency- the media loved to mock him for it). In total contrast, our current president is an amazing speaker.
Rhetoric is a tool. A powerful tool, but one that can be used for both good and evil (as cheesy as that sounds). We recently had to read a (tedious) article on "epistemic" rhetoric, and there was a lot of talk of "finding truth" through the use of rhetoric. I don't know much about that, but I think it is important to recognize when rhetoric is being used effectively, and then be able to listen to the message beneath the rhetoric. It's great that Jonny or Sally Speaker got you all riled up for action, but what action are they asking you to take?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't want to end up
working for this guy.
Here at our lovely Ball State, we have this real neat thing that all students have to take. It's called the writing competency exam. As one might expect from the title, it is an exam to test how competent one is at writing.
THIS IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE
I cannot emphasis enough how angry this thing makes me. Let's look at the official description given by the Ball State website:
Click for enlarged view
Let me just reiterate what that says. You have to pass both ENG 103 and ENG 104 in order to be eligible for this exam. You must pass this exam to graduate.
Am I the only one who sees an issue with this? Both ENG 103 and ENG 104 are English classes specifically designed to teach you how to write well in an academic fashion. So you have to pass these two classes that essentially say "Hey! This person knows how to write!" in order to take an exam to prove you know how to write? That would be like me having to take a driving exam in order to take a driving exam. It's idiocy.
That's ASSUMING you somehow managed to make it to college without the ability to write a decent paper. Are Ball State's standards for their potential students really so low that they need to retest their ability to write?
It gets worse.
There is no spellcheck available during the exam. Exactly what possible reason is there for this? Do you remember back in math class, when you got to algebra, and they let you use calculators during the tests? Do you want to know why? Because you've proven you can do arithmetic by getting to an algebra class. That's not the point of the class. The point is for you to learn algebraic formulas and how to apply them to problems. Calculators are merely tools to help you do this quicker and more accurately.
That is exactly what spellcheck is to writing. By GETTING TO COLLEGE, there is the implication that I know how to spell fairly well. Spellcheck makes sure I don't make stupid mistakes while typing quickly. Let's look at it another way: in what POSSIBLE scenario will I be writing something important where I WILL NOT have some form of spellcheck available to me? In "real life" no one is going to stop me. Unless the point of this exam is to test my spelling (which I am told it is not), then I do not see the need to remove spellcheck, other than to piss me off.
Wound, meet salt.
If this wasn't aggravating enough, I only need to look at the title of my major to set myself off in another apoplexy. I'm a creative writing major. A creative writing major. I'm in a major about writing, but Ball State somehow still feels the need to force me to take some foolish exam to prove I can write.
Wait, there's more.
Now there is no solid proof of this, only second hand stories, the whispers of friends-of-friends, but word on the street is that you can fail by writing too well. That's right. 4.0 students are failing this exam. Why? Because the graders belief these intelligent young men and women somehow found the prompt before hand and managed to prepare an essay ahead of time. So you have to know how to write, but you can't know too much about writing, or you'll fail. This is just so messed up.
