Saturday, November 23, 2002
:: Confessions of an Apple fan::
In a flu-induced, Neocitran-enhanced break with the actual topic of this blogspace, I feel compelled to share a link to this great satirical video clip (requires Quicktime plugin to view). It's a parody of the Apple switch ads, and it's about an American guy named John who "switches" to Canada. I found it via ni vu ni connu who found it on Emmanulle's blog who found it...well you get the picture...
While I'm posting this, I guess I'll spill that I used to be a huge Macintosh booster, until a powerful former employer forced me over to the Dark Side. A few Thinkpads and clone desktops later, I'm still a reluctant PC user, and I still have a soft spot for Macs. Taking this into consideration, then, it shouldn't be too surprising that I've always loved Apple ads.
Is that a bad thing for a Mass Communications student to say? That there is any advertising out there that I find enjoyable?
(We use Macs in class, so hopefully it's not too bad a confession and won't prevent me from getting that almighty-A for this project.)
My own favourite Apple switch ad is the one with Christmas-saving Janie Porche.
Do you have a favourite??
In a flu-induced, Neocitran-enhanced break with the actual topic of this blogspace, I feel compelled to share a link to this great satirical video clip (requires Quicktime plugin to view). It's a parody of the Apple switch ads, and it's about an American guy named John who "switches" to Canada. I found it via ni vu ni connu who found it on Emmanulle's blog who found it...well you get the picture...
While I'm posting this, I guess I'll spill that I used to be a huge Macintosh booster, until a powerful former employer forced me over to the Dark Side. A few Thinkpads and clone desktops later, I'm still a reluctant PC user, and I still have a soft spot for Macs. Taking this into consideration, then, it shouldn't be too surprising that I've always loved Apple ads.
Is that a bad thing for a Mass Communications student to say? That there is any advertising out there that I find enjoyable?
(We use Macs in class, so hopefully it's not too bad a confession and won't prevent me from getting that almighty-A for this project.)
My own favourite Apple switch ad is the one with Christmas-saving Janie Porche.
Do you have a favourite??
Thursday, November 21, 2002
:: Open representations (Part I) ::
Absent Images
Having already posted a general overview of Stuart Hall's theory on representation in the media here, in this blogspace, I thought that for tonight's post, I'd apply some of those theories to the actual experience of blogging, both from a blogger's perspective and from a blogreader's perspective. Not so coincidentally, this topic will also be the focus of a presentation I'm doing in my COMZ class next week.
Note, though, that I've got the flu today and as such, the brain isn't firing on all cylinders. Thus, I think I'm going to do this blogpost as a series of related posts over the course of the next few days. Hopefully, I can setup the argument, the theory, the analysis and the examples in a way that makes sense in this representation of them.
++++++++++++++++++++
Diving into Stuart Hall's theories on representation of meaning in the mass media, I am quickly struck by his idea that there is no inherent meaning in a representation of an issue or opinion itself. While he speaks most often about representations through images, I don't see why this theory can't be applied to a textual representation, such as a blogpost.
Of course, the first notable thing about this is the overt lack of imagery in blogs, in general. It was one of the first things that struck me about the medium of blogging -- it doesn't have to be advertisement supported, and it lets the message reign supreme. The focus is on the text. Even most of the interfaces are clean and spare and simple; it is all intended to focus eyes on the posts and their messages.
Try it -- sideways surf through some of the blogs I've linked to at the left there and check it out...feel free to sideways surf to some of their links while you're there.....
Back? Did you see what I mean? No matter how many you go through, you note an absence of images, or at the very least, a seemingly deliberate restraint in their use and care in their selection.
Tomorrow I'll talk about the back end of blogging -- the way bloggers put out their messages and how that relates to this theory of an emphasis on the textual message.
Absent Images
Having already posted a general overview of Stuart Hall's theory on representation in the media here, in this blogspace, I thought that for tonight's post, I'd apply some of those theories to the actual experience of blogging, both from a blogger's perspective and from a blogreader's perspective. Not so coincidentally, this topic will also be the focus of a presentation I'm doing in my COMZ class next week.
Note, though, that I've got the flu today and as such, the brain isn't firing on all cylinders. Thus, I think I'm going to do this blogpost as a series of related posts over the course of the next few days. Hopefully, I can setup the argument, the theory, the analysis and the examples in a way that makes sense in this representation of them.
Diving into Stuart Hall's theories on representation of meaning in the mass media, I am quickly struck by his idea that there is no inherent meaning in a representation of an issue or opinion itself. While he speaks most often about representations through images, I don't see why this theory can't be applied to a textual representation, such as a blogpost.
Of course, the first notable thing about this is the overt lack of imagery in blogs, in general. It was one of the first things that struck me about the medium of blogging -- it doesn't have to be advertisement supported, and it lets the message reign supreme. The focus is on the text. Even most of the interfaces are clean and spare and simple; it is all intended to focus eyes on the posts and their messages.
Try it -- sideways surf through some of the blogs I've linked to at the left there and check it out...feel free to sideways surf to some of their links while you're there.....
Back? Did you see what I mean? No matter how many you go through, you note an absence of images, or at the very least, a seemingly deliberate restraint in their use and care in their selection.
Tomorrow I'll talk about the back end of blogging -- the way bloggers put out their messages and how that relates to this theory of an emphasis on the textual message.
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
:: Hacking and cyberterrorism ::
In the essaypost I made last week in this space, I mentioned hacking and the counter-reaction to it by the corporate netplaces and their overlords.
While that part of the essaypost was a minor contribution to the overall essay, I received a comment or two about that aspect in particular. One person asked if the subtext to my post meant that I condone or wish to glorify hacking. Someone else basically gave me a virtual two thumbs up. Different keystrokes for different folks, I guess.
As a result of the feedback, I thought I'd clarify my view. First of all, from the scholary perspective of the project that is the underlying reason for this blog, the morality of any online activity is irrelevant. Whether I think something is right or wrong, good or bad, has no place in my thesis or in the overall scope of my examination of the I-Space for this blogproject. Even later, when this blog is no longer part of a blogging-for-marks thing, I hope to avoid the polarization that providing a value judgement of someone's activity can cause. I particularly want to avoid the flaming -- I'm a pacifist at heart.
This is the ideal of course, and I understand that the possibility of having value judgements creep into my thinking and into my writing here is inevitable and must be accepted as par for the course. The only other option is to go back and edit the original essaypost, which, given that I've already done so once, begins to make the idea of essayblogging rather unusable.
So -- since a few of you have asked, here's my opinion....
:: disclaimer ::
This particular opinion should not be considered germane to the more academic nature of this blog - take it for what it is and know that I understand and accept your view may be different.
:: open opinion ::
Hacking for the pure thrill of it is not something that I advocate. I find it particularly reprehensible if hacking is done for the purposes of random malicious damage. Denial of service attacks, site defacements, phone phreaking, etc., are all undesirable if damage to people or information is caused as a result of the actions with no reason whatever than the fact that you can. It is the online equivalent of chopping down your neighbours tree, keying their car and breaking their picture window just because you had the axe, a key and a few rocks, as well as the urge to do it "just 'cause".
Hacking for a reason, be it to protest a corporation's policies or actions, point out the flaws in their security while doing nothing to their information resources, or to learn about cybersecurity in the goal of getting a job to prevent malicious hacking, this I find more palatable. The idea here is that nothing is actually harmed -- no damage is done and no true confidentiality is breached.
It is probably not a secret to anyone who knows me in the meatworld that I, personally, would love to see the virtual equivalent of the Whirlmart protests borne out online in a DOS attack of a blatantly sexist and commercialistic site or event, such as...oh...say....the slavering peepshow (a.k.a cyberfashion show) that happens one or twice a year at Victoria's Secret.
This kind of hacking can be called many things. The most common term that I know of is "white hat hacking", as in the idea of the "good" white-hatted cowboy facing off against the bad, usually black-hatted cowboy in the old westerns. I've also heard it called "hacktivism", which I think I prefer.
Regardless, though, the whole issue is a moral slipperly slope. Just as urban graffiti can be seen as one person's damage and another person's art, the same metaphor could be applied to hacktivism as well. The line is thin indeed.
What I find more disturbing in general is the traditional media's usual kneejerk reaction to hacking as something that is evil, immoral and wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter what. If one digs deeper into the stories and sideways-surfs to a bunch of sites related to the topic, the whole morass starts to resemble a bit of a Certeau-esque strategy of the forces of domination to control the individual's view. I hear echoes of the old propaganda that advocates against individuals or groups who don't toe the current, "spend spend buy buy" passive mode of the online place. I see an aspect of disinformation at worst, or one-sided reporting at best.
:: close opinion ::
As many of the balanced news items about hacking will point out, the only thing that is usually liable to get hurt by a hacking event is data, not people.
Does this mean that I justify it? Again, I don't advocate for either role.
To find out more yourself, go check out a recent well-written post about the topic of hacking and cyberterrorism that was posted on The Washington Monthly Online recently...I found it through a link today in The Literacy Weblog.
I do try to remember that there are always multiple sides to every issue. Digesting information with a critical mind is the key here (note I use critical in the old world sense of a "detailed examination and review", per Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)Just because the corporate media provide one slant on a topic does not make that slant to be the truth. We all have to dig a bit deeper, evaluate and query the text or images, and be willing to use alternative resources to get a more 360 degree view of the topic beforemaking up our minds about something. In doing so, we expand our mindsets and can see the possibly deliberate or unintional closures of representation more clearly.
Stories and resources about hacking:
The thin gray line (CNET.com)
E-Terrorism: Digital myth or true threat? (News.com)
Underground and Hacker sites (Searchsecurity.com grouped links)
The Myth about Cyberterrorism (The Washington Monthly Online)
As always, your opinion on this post or this blog are welcome.
In the essaypost I made last week in this space, I mentioned hacking and the counter-reaction to it by the corporate netplaces and their overlords.
While that part of the essaypost was a minor contribution to the overall essay, I received a comment or two about that aspect in particular. One person asked if the subtext to my post meant that I condone or wish to glorify hacking. Someone else basically gave me a virtual two thumbs up. Different keystrokes for different folks, I guess.
As a result of the feedback, I thought I'd clarify my view. First of all, from the scholary perspective of the project that is the underlying reason for this blog, the morality of any online activity is irrelevant. Whether I think something is right or wrong, good or bad, has no place in my thesis or in the overall scope of my examination of the I-Space for this blogproject. Even later, when this blog is no longer part of a blogging-for-marks thing, I hope to avoid the polarization that providing a value judgement of someone's activity can cause. I particularly want to avoid the flaming -- I'm a pacifist at heart.
This is the ideal of course, and I understand that the possibility of having value judgements creep into my thinking and into my writing here is inevitable and must be accepted as par for the course. The only other option is to go back and edit the original essaypost, which, given that I've already done so once, begins to make the idea of essayblogging rather unusable.
So -- since a few of you have asked, here's my opinion....
:: disclaimer ::
This particular opinion should not be considered germane to the more academic nature of this blog - take it for what it is and know that I understand and accept your view may be different.
:: open opinion ::
Hacking for the pure thrill of it is not something that I advocate. I find it particularly reprehensible if hacking is done for the purposes of random malicious damage. Denial of service attacks, site defacements, phone phreaking, etc., are all undesirable if damage to people or information is caused as a result of the actions with no reason whatever than the fact that you can. It is the online equivalent of chopping down your neighbours tree, keying their car and breaking their picture window just because you had the axe, a key and a few rocks, as well as the urge to do it "just 'cause".
Hacking for a reason, be it to protest a corporation's policies or actions, point out the flaws in their security while doing nothing to their information resources, or to learn about cybersecurity in the goal of getting a job to prevent malicious hacking, this I find more palatable. The idea here is that nothing is actually harmed -- no damage is done and no true confidentiality is breached.
It is probably not a secret to anyone who knows me in the meatworld that I, personally, would love to see the virtual equivalent of the Whirlmart protests borne out online in a DOS attack of a blatantly sexist and commercialistic site or event, such as...oh...say....the slavering peepshow (a.k.a cyberfashion show) that happens one or twice a year at Victoria's Secret.
This kind of hacking can be called many things. The most common term that I know of is "white hat hacking", as in the idea of the "good" white-hatted cowboy facing off against the bad, usually black-hatted cowboy in the old westerns. I've also heard it called "hacktivism", which I think I prefer.
Regardless, though, the whole issue is a moral slipperly slope. Just as urban graffiti can be seen as one person's damage and another person's art, the same metaphor could be applied to hacktivism as well. The line is thin indeed.
What I find more disturbing in general is the traditional media's usual kneejerk reaction to hacking as something that is evil, immoral and wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter what. If one digs deeper into the stories and sideways-surfs to a bunch of sites related to the topic, the whole morass starts to resemble a bit of a Certeau-esque strategy of the forces of domination to control the individual's view. I hear echoes of the old propaganda that advocates against individuals or groups who don't toe the current, "spend spend buy buy" passive mode of the online place. I see an aspect of disinformation at worst, or one-sided reporting at best.
:: close opinion ::
As many of the balanced news items about hacking will point out, the only thing that is usually liable to get hurt by a hacking event is data, not people.
Does this mean that I justify it? Again, I don't advocate for either role.
To find out more yourself, go check out a recent well-written post about the topic of hacking and cyberterrorism that was posted on The Washington Monthly Online recently...I found it through a link today in The Literacy Weblog.
I do try to remember that there are always multiple sides to every issue. Digesting information with a critical mind is the key here (note I use critical in the old world sense of a "detailed examination and review", per Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)Just because the corporate media provide one slant on a topic does not make that slant to be the truth. We all have to dig a bit deeper, evaluate and query the text or images, and be willing to use alternative resources to get a more 360 degree view of the topic beforemaking up our minds about something. In doing so, we expand our mindsets and can see the possibly deliberate or unintional closures of representation more clearly.
Stories and resources about hacking:
The thin gray line (CNET.com)
E-Terrorism: Digital myth or true threat? (News.com)
Underground and Hacker sites (Searchsecurity.com grouped links)
The Myth about Cyberterrorism (The Washington Monthly Online)
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
:: Ever have one of those moments? ::
I call them "Eureka!" moments, so-named for the expression I might consider using aloud when I have one of those brain clicks, in which all the miscellaneous parts of a puzzle that I didn't know my brain was even working on suddenly all seem to fall in place. I usually feel my vision get clearer, my heart start to race, my eyes widen. Thoughts race, testing out the new clarity of understanding, of illumination. If it all works, if any of my tests still fit into the hypotheses or brain click I've had, I will usually grin like the proverbial Cheshire Cat, pick up my walking pace and utter wonderingly out loud a single word....
"wow!"
Many things can bring these on for me. Often, it's because I've read something that has...resonated...that's the best word I can think of. It's resonated with me, somehow. Other things, though, that seem completely trivial and should not lead to this kind of a brain click, should seem unimportant and unremarkable, can also lead to one of these moments.
It's like a chain reaction, the newly-acquired idea butting up against existing ideas, information, guesses and questions and forming an entirely new idea, a moment of brain clarity so sweet, so sharp, so...real...that I want to jump and shout and proclaim to the world....
....well....something. Sometimes profane, sometimes not. Of course, doing so would be liable to get me some very strange or worried stares from the people around me.
I have the incredibly strong urge to share it. And often can't. For any number of reasons.
Ever had one of these moments?
I call them "Eureka!" moments, so-named for the expression I might consider using aloud when I have one of those brain clicks, in which all the miscellaneous parts of a puzzle that I didn't know my brain was even working on suddenly all seem to fall in place. I usually feel my vision get clearer, my heart start to race, my eyes widen. Thoughts race, testing out the new clarity of understanding, of illumination. If it all works, if any of my tests still fit into the hypotheses or brain click I've had, I will usually grin like the proverbial Cheshire Cat, pick up my walking pace and utter wonderingly out loud a single word....
"wow!"
Many things can bring these on for me. Often, it's because I've read something that has...resonated...that's the best word I can think of. It's resonated with me, somehow. Other things, though, that seem completely trivial and should not lead to this kind of a brain click, should seem unimportant and unremarkable, can also lead to one of these moments.
It's like a chain reaction, the newly-acquired idea butting up against existing ideas, information, guesses and questions and forming an entirely new idea, a moment of brain clarity so sweet, so sharp, so...real...that I want to jump and shout and proclaim to the world....
....well....something. Sometimes profane, sometimes not. Of course, doing so would be liable to get me some very strange or worried stares from the people around me.
I have the incredibly strong urge to share it. And often can't. For any number of reasons.
Ever had one of these moments?
Monday, November 18, 2002
:: Nothing new ::
I admit it. I'm spent. There is no blogging rush left in me today.
After creating that monster blogpost essay on Saturday night, working all weekend on a political sociology paper for tonight's class, and making a few minor modifications (properly annotated of course -- I follow the Weblog Code of Ethics) to the aforementioned essay, I'm blogged out.
Perhaps tonight's class will refresh the brain and recharge it, giving me a few ideas to post here later.
Perhaps not.
Thus, go easy on me if I don't get anything other than this drivel post up for today.
Instead, go read the essay I wrote and posted here on Saturday night. It felt good putting it up.
I'll blog again tomorrow.
I admit it. I'm spent. There is no blogging rush left in me today.
After creating that monster blogpost essay on Saturday night, working all weekend on a political sociology paper for tonight's class, and making a few minor modifications (properly annotated of course -- I follow the Weblog Code of Ethics) to the aforementioned essay, I'm blogged out.
Perhaps tonight's class will refresh the brain and recharge it, giving me a few ideas to post here later.
Perhaps not.
Thus, go easy on me if I don't get anything other than this drivel post up for today.
Instead, go read the essay I wrote and posted here on Saturday night. It felt good putting it up.
I'll blog again tomorrow.
Sunday, November 17, 2002
:: Reading for fun, not marks ::
While diving into various blogs today, I followed a link from Jessa Crispin's Bookslut to a book review website called Bookmunch.
Wow! I've just spent one hour and hundreds of dollars (in my head, anyway) on wonderful books, based on Bookmunch reviews. My hubby will probably walk out on me though if I spend one more loonie at Amazon.ca or Indigo.ca on books (before Christmas anyway).
Perhaps I should add in a little section over there on the left that says what I'm reading now and what I'm hoping to read next, like I've seen on Rebecca Blood's blog or on Bookslut.
I have to say that I can completely identify with the term "bookslut". It completely describes me. Now if only I had time away from my sociology and mass communications required reading from Concordia to spend reading the increasing stack of books for fun that I'm accumulating. I'm jonesing to read Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media, At Swim Two Boys or re-read Factoring Humanity and Snow Crash.
When is my next vacation?
While diving into various blogs today, I followed a link from Jessa Crispin's Bookslut to a book review website called Bookmunch.
Wow! I've just spent one hour and hundreds of dollars (in my head, anyway) on wonderful books, based on Bookmunch reviews. My hubby will probably walk out on me though if I spend one more loonie at Amazon.ca or Indigo.ca on books (before Christmas anyway).
Perhaps I should add in a little section over there on the left that says what I'm reading now and what I'm hoping to read next, like I've seen on Rebecca Blood's blog or on Bookslut.
I have to say that I can completely identify with the term "bookslut". It completely describes me. Now if only I had time away from my sociology and mass communications required reading from Concordia to spend reading the increasing stack of books for fun that I'm accumulating. I'm jonesing to read Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media, At Swim Two Boys or re-read Factoring Humanity and Snow Crash.
When is my next vacation?
