Making an Imperial Walker?

Article

I found a really great article this week about “How to make an Imperial AT-AT Walker from Star Wars.”  Due to a grassroots movement among fans, attempts may actually be made to construct a real Imperial Walker.  The Imperial Walker is “an elephantine four-legged walker used to attack a snowy Rebel Alliance base in ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ were officially known as AT-AT walkers, for ‘All Terrain Armored Transport’” (Hsu ¶ 3).  People are actually considering all the factors involved in recreating a functioning AT-AT, discussing problems such as structural strength, stress on leg joint (which makes running impossible), and the ease with which they can be knocked down (in contrast to the Big Dog, the Boston Dynamics robot we heard about in class).  Despite engineering issues and intellectual property concerns brought up by Lucasfilms, enthusiasm for the project has not waned.

I think the implications of this project are the most interesting part of the article.  Basically what’s going on here is that people are recreating a fictional construct in the real world.  They are even doing this despite all the difficulties the project is raising, as well as the likely ineffectiveness of an AT-AT.  Supporters have to first convince Lucasfilms to allow them to use their intellectual property, and then overcome the engineering difficulties building such a machine presents, and finally deal with what they’re going to do with the Walker.  Once they figure out what they’re going to do with it, they then have to deal with both its potential ineffectiveness as well as how functionally incapable it is.  I don’t really know what this says about the people that are lobbying so hard to build these AT-AT’s, but it doesn’t look good.  The ability to recreate what we see in movies because our technology has finally caught up to our imaginations may not be such a good thing.

Blogger vs. Celebrity

Article

I found a really interesting article this week on Tech News Daily about how bloggers are surpassing celebrities as sources consumers trust to recommend products.  A new survey conducted by the Nielsen Company found that “20% of women who use social media are motivated to consider products promoted by or with a blogger they know, while only 13% are motivated by celebrity endorsements” (Mulvey ¶ 2).  When these decisions to take blogger advice pay off, the consumers are more likely to return to blogs and other social media for further recommendations.  According to the article, the top three types of products that the “general population” looks for recommendations on blogs are consumer electronics (35%), computer hardware/software (33%), and movies (33%) (Mulvey ¶ 5). 

The end of the article discusses some intriguing implications regarding consumer engagement.  In order to take advantage of this new desire for people to seek out other consumer’s recommendations, marketers must invest more in a “two-way conversation” between producers and consumers (Mulvey ¶ 8).   The article concludes that “marketers must seize these opportunities now or risk falling behind their competitors in the race for online consumer engagement” (¶ 8). 

A change in producer/consumer relationship is definitely occurring as a result of social media.  Marketers are trying to engage with the consumer in terms of what they actually want instead of trying to sell them a product by arguing that they want or need it.   Will this actually result in better products that people actually want to buy, or will the marketers find a way to turn this form of consumer engagement against us?  They have certainly done it before.  After marketers in the 1970’s found that they could divide consumers into groups while still catering to their “individual” needs, we began to slide down the slippery slope that led us to our current consumer culture.  Who’s to say that they won’t find a loophole that will allow them to regain control of the producer/consumer relationship?

"Cause Global"

Cause Global: Social Media for Social Change begins by stating that everyone used to think that the Internet would bring on “a more open and democratic society” (Stepanek ¶ 1).  As the Web has evolved over the years, however, that idea seems to ring less and less true.  Data aggregators, like Google and even Facebook, actually decide what information we see online.  They use filters based on the personal choices we make online, like what ads or links we click on.  Because these data aggregators are filtering what we see without our conscious knowledge, they often don’t show content they don’t think we would enjoy, which can be really limiting in terms of information you receive. 

I thought it was an important observation that “we are not using the social media tools we have to solve problems so much as we are using them to socialize with like-minded people about these problems” (Stepanek ¶ 7).  The article discusses how social activists should be focusing on getting people involved offline instead of just using the “social media” to build a list of email subscribers (¶ 7).  When people are just on an email list, they are likely to skim the text and move on.  They may get upset and want to do something about it, but email alone is not enough to motivate people into action.  This article argues that putting more effort into getting people active offline is a much more effective form of promoting civil engagement.

The article continues further down to say that “we must stop assuming that civic engagement will occur online on its own” (¶ 10).  Because we control our social networks based on our preferences (which usually involve people that share our viewpoints), the only voices that get heard from the various groups are the ones that are the most extreme representatives of each group.  This can make it difficult for people within the group to take action as a result of any statements made as well as prevent new members from joining the cause because they don’t agree with the strength of the statement. 

I think a new level of effectiveness will be reached if we can learn to combine social networking and civil engagement.  At this point in time, what we’re doing is not working.  It is so easy for people to be passive with the social media they participate in because it does not encourage them to step into the offline world and put their ideas into action.  I have to wonder how sites are going to rearrange to better motivate people in to action.  I also wonder if moving civil engagement into the offline world to reconnect people if that can eventually lead to a further movement in all kinds of social media to reconnect everyone.

Augmented Reality

Benkoil describes Augmented Reality as “layering digital information onto the physical world” (Young qtd. by Benkoil, ¶ 2).  The most common applications of AR (augmented reality) today are on “smart” handheld devices like iPhones and Androids.  However, there are a ton of other applications for AR out there today: journalists can use them for restaurant reviews or even to see where bailout dollars have been spent in the neighborhood.  You can also look at real estate or historical data about a building and magazines are even using AR that functions in conjunction with computers. 

I thought one of the most interesting potential applications of AR was the idea of “TV station[s] using AR to let viewers poke around in a scene or get more information about something they’re watching right in the frame” (Benkoil ¶ 9).  This may not be one of the more practical use applications, but it would usher in a new era of entertainment.  Combining television with augmented reality would place the viewer in the show, which blurs the line between reality and imagination.  If you can interact physically with a world that is supposed to be untouchable and make-believe, can you really call something imaginary?

I thought one of the most practical applications of AR technology the article mentions is the U.S. Postal Service’s app.  The post office has the customer hold up whatever they want to mail in front of a computer’s camera.  The camera then shows them the size of the box required to ship it.  Being able to tell what size of box quickly will reduce the amount of time each customer will take in the post office, causing less frustration certainly but also the potential for greater customer volume.  Using this AR app could also potentially increase purchases, because people will wait to box their items until they arrive at the post office. 

There are already a lot of AR applications out there today, with many more potential applications on the way.  However, for all the beneficial applications of AR, there are the creepy invasions of privacy implications.  While Benkoil thinks it may be awhile before the technology progresses that far, I’m not so sure.  He states that “a lot of the apps are still glitchy, require downloads and don’t quite work all the time” (¶ 14).  But he still doesn’t disagree that there are apps out there that can be used for invasion of privacy.  Just because the applications don’t work very well certainly means they don’t exist.  So we have a lot to look forward to in the future of AR, but how much do we need to watch out for?

Daily Booth, or as some call it "Face Twitter"

DailyBooth is described on its website as “one big conversation about your life, through pictures.”  It is a photoblogging site that allows its users to upload a photo (every day or multiple times a day) with a caption.  Signing up is completely free.  The goal is to allow people to document and share their lives with others.  The DailyBooth slogan is “your life in pictures.”  It has often been compared to Twitter and other social networking sites that allow users to follow and be followed in real time.  My friend refers to DailyBooth as “face Twitter.”  This is because the majority of users post images of themselves photo booth-style sitting at their computers (hence the name of the site).  Users of both sites are able to post links on Twitter from their DailyBooth page, so Twitter actually increases traffic on the DailyBooth site.  DailyBooth separates itself from Twitter by accentuating its unique feature: the fact that people share pictures instead of text. This tends to foster a greater sense of community and connection in a more immediately accessible way than other text blogging sites.  DailyBooth is also becoming increasingly popular.  It has a growth rate of about 35% a month.  Site creator Jon Wheatley has been quoted as saying that “people find pictures a much more engaging medium than just text.”  

Whenever a user first accesses the DailyBooth site, they are immediately confronted with the option to sign up on the site.  They have their description (“one big conversation about your life through pictures”) as the first thing you see and they promise “you’ll make some new friends real fast.”  You can take a picture with your webcam and sign up right then.  You can also see the “live feed” at the bottom of the screen.  Once you get an account, you are directed to your home page.  Once there, you will see several tags at the top labeled “everything” (which is your home page), “booths” (the pictures you’ve taken), “comments,”  “likes,” and “follows.”  There are also buttons to take or upload a picture onto your page. 

There is a similar textual literacy to Twitter required on the site, i.e. you need to know how to write and read in shorthand text lingo.  Not everyone uses it, but the majority of people do some type of textual abbreviation in their “posts.”   Since the main focus of the site is on the photos, it is expected that people write very little to accompany their pictures.  Some people choose to write longer posts, but they never go more than a few short paragraphs.  The generally accepted amount of text is about a line to two lines, but a short paragraph is not going to result in accusations of spamming the screen.  Because it is a photoblogging site, it is also important to be picture/image literate.  This means that the user must know how to take and upload digital photos to the site or take a photo from a webcam while on the site.  They also need to know how to “read” photos and respond to them.

To participate in the site, all users need to do is snap a pic and wait for someone to comment.  Because of the live feed, any user might be likely to comment on your picture rather than people you know.  There is not a “friend” feature on DailyBooth, but you can “like” or “follow” other users’ Booths.  You can also comment on their photos they post by following the live feed or checking in on Booths you are following.  DailyBooth is also synchronous: users are constantly uploading pics to the world.  As a result, when you are viewing the “live feed,” there is actually a “pause” button so you can catch up with the ones you missed if they were posting too quickly.  The instant a user takes or uploads a picture, it’s on the site.  However, there is no way to access all the past archives of the live feed.  There is a search bar at the top of the site that will bring up booths that contain the keywords, but there is no comprehensive database of past booth’s except on the individual profiles. 

DailyBooth users are also (for the most part) reflections of their real world selves.  However, users of DailyBooth are much more likely to edit or alter their appearance because it is a site based a lot on looks.  Quite a few of the Booths posted daily are superficial and tend to be posted by high schoolers.  The site allows for the continuation of real world friendships onto the site, but the set-up is really more designed to get strangers to interact.  Viewing the live feed, you see almost multiple new people per second, and any one of those have the potential to become a new friend. 

The goal seems to be to have the biggest number of people following you.  The people who have the most followers are not outwardly different from other Daily Booth users.  The social hierarchy seems to be based on “coolness,” or everyone on the site’s agreed-upon definition of coolness.  The users with the most followers take normal pictures of themselves (maybe a little more artsy).  The people who are constantly campaigning to get followers never have very many at all.

Many people participated in the “Day of Silence” a few days ago – national youth movement protesting the silence faced by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people and their allies; deliberate silence echoes the silence they face.  A lot of people were doing this, which was interesting on a photoblogging site (the pictures featured the users making some mime of not talking, usually holding their hands in front of their mouths).  I noticed that half if not more of the people participating were just “supporters,” meaning they just were friends with or were in support of gay/lesbian/bi/transgender rights.

On this site, a lot of people steal other people’s pictures.  The implications of this on identity are really intriguing: because that’s essentially how identity is manifested on the site (there is an option to add where you’re from and an “info about you” section on your profile, but most people don’t fill it out), stealing someone’s picture is like stealing their identity. 

The purpose of the DailyBooth site is pretty clearly stated in all of the site’s literature.  The idea is for the user to upload pictures of themselves that describe their life in some way.  That way you know everything a user posts is really relevant to them, so that any comment you make is really going to be taken to heart.  DailyBooth’s goal is to get its users talking and participating in the site all at once, so everyone is connected. 

DailyBooth is tailored to our current time.  Blogs are a thing of the past when you can type out your feelings in 140 characters or less.  DailyBooth follows this trend with an idea that exactly the in-the-moment type of experience that most users desire today.  Lots of blogging sites are starting to charge instead of being offered for free, which also suggests a shift in user preference.  DailyBooth already has funding from a number of wealthy investors with others looking into it all the time.  It clearly has an effective model (for the time being, anyway).

Another way in which DailyBooth trumps blogging sites is that a lot of people today (especially younger ones) just don’t want to sit down and slog through writing an entire journal entry.  These people are used to writing a status for Facebook or Tweeting.  Blogging is now way more effort than a large number of young people are willing to expend.  They want something they can do RIGHT NOW and be done with it.  The constant updating and large number of users afford this in addition to the creative user experience.  There is always something new happening on the live feed.

S/R 1 Revision

Convergence Culture is a book by Henry Jenkins that discusses his ideas on the collision of modern culture with technology.  In his introduction, he states that the book “is about the relationship between three concepts – media convergence, participatory culture, and collective intelligence” (2).  Jenkins then goes on to define convergence as “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences” (2).  He describes the example he uses for media convergence, the film The Matrix, as “entertainment for the era of media convergence, integrating multiple texts to create a narrative so large that it cannot be contained within a single medium” (95).  He begins his book by establishing that there is a major shift occurring in the relationship between producers and consumers and follows that by discussing the implications of this shift in reality television.  Using the example of the “spoilers” of the show Survivor, Jenkins demonstrates his point that collective intelligence is causing some definite tension between producers and consumers.  He states that “collective intelligence refers to this ability of virtual communities to leverage the combined expertise of their members” (27).   Participatory culture refers to the recent ability of the consumer to interact with and help create in some cases a media text that used to have a one-way path from producer to consumer.  Jenkins uses the examples of Star Wars and the Harry Potter franchise to demonstrate his concept of participatory culture.  Jenkins states that “in both cases, these grassroots artists are finding themselves in conflict with commercial media producers who want to exert greater control over their intellectual property” (21).  He also uses the implications he draws from these examples of popular culture to analyze politics.  Jenkins states that “in each case [referring to Star Wars and Harry Potter], entrenched institutions are taking their models from grassroots fan communities, reinventing themselves for an era of media convergence and collective intelligence.  So why not apply those same lessons to presidential politics?” (208).   

The issue of literacy is something Jenkins brings up a lot in this novel.  It is of particular concern in chapter five in both conflicts surrounding the Harry Potter franchise.  In the first case (with the fan writers online), we can see that the issue of literacy is no longer just about being able to read and write.  It now requires that an individual create and express themselves through other media.  Jenkins also argues that participating in fan fiction improves the other two components of literacy.  This occurs mainly through the writing, because there are many ways that authors get feedback on the sites: through other writers on the site or through systems set up to help critique newer writers and get them on the right track.  The second issue is mostly concerned with students’ ability to read.  Teachers think the Harry Potter books should be allowed in school because they know kids will read them, and anything that gets kids to read is good.  It is also easier for kids to go deeper into the analysis of something if they are interested in it.  I think both pro-Potter sides need to converge: by applying the methods used by online fan fiction communities, teachers can not only improve children’s literacy but allow them to have fun while they do it.  If schools were to model some aspects of learning how to write after fan fiction forums, kids will have some control over what they create, they will have an easier time evaluating their peers’ work, and they will gain a sense of independence in their writing that will make them better writers.  Teachers could create safe online groups for their students to interact in a forum-type setting, but instead of fan fiction they could work on school assignments.  Another tactic might be to assign students to participate in a fan fiction community for homework so they learn the skills that way.  Using this technology early on in the classroom will also help students to learn how to work with digital information. 

Machines are Watching

Article

I know a lot of people already know about this, but I thought it was an interesting topic to put up for discussion.

Even if you did know that machines watch you surf the web, by the time you found out it was already too late.  The technique called machine learning “affects the kind of Internet advertising you see on Amazon.com, but most people don’t realize that is the underlying technology” (livescience).  The ads we see online are often put up by machine learning systems to “learn” how people use the Internet.  By comparing your activity with other users, the “agent” targets what ads you are most likely to respond to.  Then, every time you click on an add, the host site (usually Google or Facebook) charges the advertiser.

So how do machines learn?  They start out at the level of a child and have to learn more to progress further in “intelligence.”  For example, the article mentions that “like school children learning arithmetic from a teacher, some agents can use simple examples and feedback to learn how to approach more complicated information.”  Other agents rely on experience: using the responses from their past “decisions” to deal with similar situations.  What is most important to notice is that these machines figure out the patterns in the data they receive.  The downside to teaching a machine to learn is that they are doing so based on a model of human learning.  This causes some issues because we don’t fully know how the human brain works.  So for now, these machine learning programs can only process a limited amount of information. 

So, what does this mean for us?  It probably means that advertisers are going to get better and better at reading the individual’s wants, so that everyone is constantly being barraged online by things they really want.  It took decades for advertisers to hone their methods to personalize ads, but machines are already able to do it faster and more efficiently.  When the technology is perfected, consumers’ only option will be to “just say no.”  Watching a commercial for something is awful, boring, and frustrating.  Ads placed on websites are hardly notices because you’re focusing on whatever else you’re doing.  If you do click on those, you certainly don’t feel like you’re saying “yes” to purchasing something, but you totally are. 

I’m sure other (and much creepier) implications can be drawn from this too.  It presents a great “Big Brother” opportunity for everyone from the ad agencies to the government being able to monitor what has become a pretty crucial part of our consumer culture: what we want.  Professionals can build complete personality profiles based on what ads you respond to, and who knows who they would be willing to sell those to?  Anyone?

SR/3 - eXistenZ

eXistenZ is a movie that challenges the distinction between actual and virtual existence.  It begins by introducing a new game, eXistenZ, and the woman who designed it, Allegra, who someone (later revealed to be a realist) tries to assassinate just as they are starting to play the game.  Allegra and her appointed body guard Ted go on the run and eventually play eXistenZ to make sure it didn’t get damaged in the shooting.  The whole movie can be organized by levels of reality.  It begins in what the audience first believes to be reality, but we find out later that it was the first level of the game transCendenZ (the "real" game they were playing that is revealed at the end of the movie).  Then there is the sort of in between level Ted and Allegra go through before they actually start “the game,” when they are in the gaming store receiving their new identities.  The second level occurs when Allegra and Ted port in to play eXistenZ (the game in the first level of “game reality,” set at a trout farm that harvests mutated amphibians for components in the game pods).  They have a series of adventures within the game, all surrounding the theme of game designing and the realist underground movement.  eXistenZ is full of betrayal and double agents, and Allegra and Ted are stumbling around blindly the entire time because there are not really rules or even free will to a certain extent.  Ted has an outburst at one point when they are on the trout farm about how little free will there is in the game, and Allegra responds by saying “like real life, there's just enough to keep things interesting.”  The final level of the game transCendenZ is a sort of combination of the other levels: it has the setting and antagonism towards Allegra of the first level mixed with the characters and vocabulary of the second level (the realist underground movement).  Finally, the characters all “wake up” from playing the game transCendenZ and are discussing it when the final scene culminates with Ted and Allegra shooting Nourish, who is the “real” game designer.  The movie ends with Ted and Allegra pointing their guns at the man who played their waiter while he asks them if they’re still in the game.

eXistenZ plays with gender roles quite a bit.  Throughout most of the movie, Ted is presented as hesitant and weak.  He doesn’t want to get a port, play the game, or even kill anyone (which is his job as her bodyguard).  Allegra is always the one to coax him to do something.  Their reversal can be seen throughout the movie, but is especially prevalent when they are discussing and acting with the bioports.  Allegra is the one directing Ted during his “first time” porting in to a game pod, with the movie makers even going as far as having her prime his bioport and insert the game cord into it herself.  Allegra is also the one who pushes them to get together when they realize their game characters “are supposed to have the hots for each other.”  Ted is hesitant and Allegra has to talk to him and calm him down even though she clearly just wants to have sex.  This is a joke poking fun at how girls behave before they will have sex with someone and how the guy always has to reassure them and sort of coax them into it.  Allegra is also the one that kills most of the people in the game (Ted only kills the waiter at the Chinese restaurant).  However, when they exist the game transCendenZ, Ted's character is clearly in control , as he is directing his and Allegra's actions to kill Nourish.  eXistenZ also plays with the line between the virtual and reality. It is impossible to tell after finishing the movie exactly where the game ends and reality resumes, the last line cementing how unsure the audience is whether the characters were back in reality or whether they were ever there in the first place.  The whole point of the movie is that you never know what’s real.  It plays on the human desire to separate what’s real and what’s not by asking you to contemplate whether there is a difference between reality and the virtual if they are indistinguishable.  eXistenZ asks the viewer to examine their own lives to realize that we could all be part of a game and just haven't "unported" yet.