So I was trying to catch a train home, and in keeping with Britain's inability to run a train network as good as Germany's, I first caught the wrong train which, although travels through my town and station, doesn't stop near me, and then when I got off at a station that I could get off, the train I was supposed to use was delayed. I was a tad bit annoyed, especially because they've upped the price of the tickets, only to give me less frequent journeys.
In any case, I was at Market Harborough station, annoyingly only ten minutes away from Kettering, but yet had to wait forty minutes until the train arrived. Anyway, soon a guy joined me, and to his luck he had been trying to travel from somewhere just north of Leicester, but it had taken him two hours to just reach Market Harborough because he had been through two whole hours of delays.
Throughout our conversation, I noticed him tapping away at his pathetic excuse for a smartphone (that new stupid Blackberry), and he soon revealed that he was complaining about his awful two hour journey to Market Harborough using Twitter. Not only was he just complaining, but he was also complaining to East Midlands Trains by using their hash-whatsit.
As much as I despise Twitter, I thought this was genius. I was thinking about complaining about the crappy service that East Midlands Trains now suddenly provide because they've decided to make my trains run every hour instead of every half hour, but this guy was on the ball. He was complaining in real time, which is the absolute wonder of social networking.
Anyway, just wanted to share that with you.
Pete out.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Cliché Life Stuff: My Moan About ACTA
Cliché Life Stuff: My Moan About ACTA: In response to my video, I can't really say anything here. Although if you do want a proper written explanation, you need only ask an...
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Cliché Life Stuff: Down with PIPA!
Cliché Life Stuff: Down with PIPA!: Fellow interneters,
It has come to my understanding that a bill is rushing through American Congress right now that threatens our way of life. The American government wants to censor the internet.
We cannot let this happen.
For why?
Because of the freedom of information act. Because of the right to freedom of speech. Because of our need to accumulate knowledge with ease.
The idea is that with this bill the government will be able to shut down sites that distribute illegal content. But how far will they go?
As we, the internet, know every government that has ever existed has tried to keep things from us. Occasionally they do outrageous things outside their jurisdiction like, for example, shutting down Wikileaks. In fact, not so long ago the British government used taxpayers money to buy up every single copy of a book that revealed sensitive information just so that it didn't get into public eyes. Technically there was nothing wrong with the book, and that's why the publishers went for it, but because the government didn't want us to see it they bought up every single copy that existed.
And now they're trying to do it to the internet.
Okay, yes, it's fair enough that they want to try and stop illegal material from being distributed around the world and preventing industries like the film industry losing money. But at the end of the day, who gives a shit?
Better yet, why would they stop there? The bill is ambiguous enough for this censorship to spread through to sites like YouTube and Facebook, which means that those companies would lose millions of pounds because they'd have to censor their users to stop the sites from being closed. At the moment, social networking sites operate under the pretence that the users are responsible for the content that they put up, but with this new bill it would be the site owners' problem, which could mean that the biggest money makers in the world right now (Google, Facebook, YouTube etc) would lose millions, and that would impact on the economy a hell of a lot more than a couple of films not making much money.
The internet is the biggest and fastest growing industry in the entire world. And that is because not even the sky is the limit, because for once it is down to the audience, people like you and me, to generate the content. A lot of it is mindless drivel, yes, but it is there.
I pull you back to a point I made in the essay I did for A-Level Media. The entire mid-east uprising against dictatorship (Libya, Egypt etc) started on Facebook. So what if the governments got the ability to censor that? There will be much more room for corruption, information would be scarce, and the world would turn to shit.
Now, of course there are many problems with a machine like the internet. It may look like it is constantly spinning out of control. But you know what it actually is? It's us. In our raw form. Saying what we want because no one can stop us. The way things should be. In fact, I concur. If I couldn't get my word out in this blog then I'd just be a voice in a head, to be heard by no one. What kind of a world would it be if Inside Voices couldn't be heard? It would be horrific.
And so, today, dozens of websites blacked themselves out to represent a world with censorship. To raise show what will happen if we let this bill pass. Wikipedia, the world's biggest encyclopaedia, pissed off loads of people because they couldn't copy and paste things into their essays. But that's exactly what our lives will be like if we let this bill pass.
"But Wikipedia doesn't violate any - "
Let me stop you there. Wikipedia is a vast resource of lots of things copied and pasted onto one massive site. It is literally like every single GCSE student in the world got together to plagiarise the shit out of everything they could. So yes, Wikipedia would be affected very much so because it technically violates some crap about protecting creative licensing, or whatever. That bit might be wrong, but you catch my drift. Either way, no one cares, not even the creators of the original content (in fact, they probably had a hand in putting it in Wikipedia) because we love the idea of having this sanctum of knowledge at our fingertips.
So if you don't want to know about the world outside your living room, then you can go ahead and let this bill pass, but if you want continued freedom of information, then we, the most powerful voice on the planet, must put a stop to it.
Now turn to your right and give the person next to you a fist bump. If there isn't someone to your right, then hopefully you're to the right of someone else. If you are alone, GET UP AND FIST BUMP SOMEONE.
P.S. On a similar note, if we were censored, then I couldn't say radical things like this: If Twitter tweets, then Facebook faeces.
Pete out.
It has come to my understanding that a bill is rushing through American Congress right now that threatens our way of life. The American government wants to censor the internet.
We cannot let this happen.
For why?
Because of the freedom of information act. Because of the right to freedom of speech. Because of our need to accumulate knowledge with ease.
The idea is that with this bill the government will be able to shut down sites that distribute illegal content. But how far will they go?
As we, the internet, know every government that has ever existed has tried to keep things from us. Occasionally they do outrageous things outside their jurisdiction like, for example, shutting down Wikileaks. In fact, not so long ago the British government used taxpayers money to buy up every single copy of a book that revealed sensitive information just so that it didn't get into public eyes. Technically there was nothing wrong with the book, and that's why the publishers went for it, but because the government didn't want us to see it they bought up every single copy that existed.
And now they're trying to do it to the internet.
Okay, yes, it's fair enough that they want to try and stop illegal material from being distributed around the world and preventing industries like the film industry losing money. But at the end of the day, who gives a shit?
Better yet, why would they stop there? The bill is ambiguous enough for this censorship to spread through to sites like YouTube and Facebook, which means that those companies would lose millions of pounds because they'd have to censor their users to stop the sites from being closed. At the moment, social networking sites operate under the pretence that the users are responsible for the content that they put up, but with this new bill it would be the site owners' problem, which could mean that the biggest money makers in the world right now (Google, Facebook, YouTube etc) would lose millions, and that would impact on the economy a hell of a lot more than a couple of films not making much money.
The internet is the biggest and fastest growing industry in the entire world. And that is because not even the sky is the limit, because for once it is down to the audience, people like you and me, to generate the content. A lot of it is mindless drivel, yes, but it is there.
I pull you back to a point I made in the essay I did for A-Level Media. The entire mid-east uprising against dictatorship (Libya, Egypt etc) started on Facebook. So what if the governments got the ability to censor that? There will be much more room for corruption, information would be scarce, and the world would turn to shit.
Now, of course there are many problems with a machine like the internet. It may look like it is constantly spinning out of control. But you know what it actually is? It's us. In our raw form. Saying what we want because no one can stop us. The way things should be. In fact, I concur. If I couldn't get my word out in this blog then I'd just be a voice in a head, to be heard by no one. What kind of a world would it be if Inside Voices couldn't be heard? It would be horrific.
And so, today, dozens of websites blacked themselves out to represent a world with censorship. To raise show what will happen if we let this bill pass. Wikipedia, the world's biggest encyclopaedia, pissed off loads of people because they couldn't copy and paste things into their essays. But that's exactly what our lives will be like if we let this bill pass.
"But Wikipedia doesn't violate any - "
Let me stop you there. Wikipedia is a vast resource of lots of things copied and pasted onto one massive site. It is literally like every single GCSE student in the world got together to plagiarise the shit out of everything they could. So yes, Wikipedia would be affected very much so because it technically violates some crap about protecting creative licensing, or whatever. That bit might be wrong, but you catch my drift. Either way, no one cares, not even the creators of the original content (in fact, they probably had a hand in putting it in Wikipedia) because we love the idea of having this sanctum of knowledge at our fingertips.
So if you don't want to know about the world outside your living room, then you can go ahead and let this bill pass, but if you want continued freedom of information, then we, the most powerful voice on the planet, must put a stop to it.
Now turn to your right and give the person next to you a fist bump. If there isn't someone to your right, then hopefully you're to the right of someone else. If you are alone, GET UP AND FIST BUMP SOMEONE.
P.S. On a similar note, if we were censored, then I couldn't say radical things like this: If Twitter tweets, then Facebook faeces.
Pete out.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Week 4 - Online Learning Material
What did I learn?
Uh... I learned that Vin Crosbie thinks that only three different types of media exist. I suppose that's kind of right if you look at it the way he did, but describing the internet and everything as "new media" is ... outdated. The internet is a mass medium with a twist that the audience are the users and also the producers and the distributors. It's a kind of mass medium that can be one to many, but can also be many to many, or many to one. It's a massive world. The internet, I believe, should be classed as its own medium that encompasses all other media. Because it just does. Vin Crosbie also forgot about video games. I'm not trying to say that I dislike Vin Crosbie, I'm just saying that he's not entirely correct.
My response
Honestly? I got through it as quickly as possible, taking in only the stuff that I didn't know and felt was important.
What did I like?
I liked the way the information was laid out in a clear and concise manner. I also liked how I could get through what was essentially an hour's worth of lecture in about ten minutes.
What didn't I like?
I didn't like the lack of interactivity. There was an attempt in the first few slides to make the user think by posing questions to them, but without any way of selecting an answer, and because of the fact that the answer was already there at the bottom of the page in clear sight, it didn't really feel like it was trying hard enough. It was a token effort, to put it another way.
Improvements?
Interactivity. If you want to ask a question to the user, make sure you give them check boxes and not reveal the answer until they've answered the question. Learning by reading is only effective if the user is engaged in the task.
Usefulness
I didn't find it all that useful but that's probably mainly because I've studied all of this extensively in the past (apart from the bit about Vin Crosbie) and therefore I ended up skimming the entire exercise. But it was a good way to kill half an hour in my lab session.
Pete out.
Pete out.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Nokia and "Advertainment"
The term "advertainment" is a method of advertising a product through entertainment. This used to be as simple as product placement within movies and television programs, but now advertisers are creating their own short dramas and/or comedy flicks to help promote their product. For example, BMW created their own short series in which this secret agent guy drives around town in a Z4 and always manages to save the day. But that's fair enough though, because the Z4 and all other BMWs are just amazing cars. There's no two ways about that.
But anyway, I'm going to talk about Nokia's advertainment... adverts/programmes.
Do you know what I can do because this is a blog? I can show you the videos that Nokia made via YouTube. Isn't the internet cool?
[insert videos here]
How are corporate brands such as Nokia using online video to make films and create 'viral marketing'?
They uh... well you see it's like this... viral videos are like... um... I don't know really. I'll have to get back to you on that one. AKA [insert essay-style answer here]
What do you think is distinctive or valuable about this method of 'new media advertising'?
I suppose it makes a change to all the other crap we usually get for adverts. Again [insert essay-style answer here]
Pete out.
But anyway, I'm going to talk about Nokia's advertainment... adverts/programmes.
Do you know what I can do because this is a blog? I can show you the videos that Nokia made via YouTube. Isn't the internet cool?
[insert videos here]
How are corporate brands such as Nokia using online video to make films and create 'viral marketing'?
They uh... well you see it's like this... viral videos are like... um... I don't know really. I'll have to get back to you on that one. AKA [insert essay-style answer here]
What do you think is distinctive or valuable about this method of 'new media advertising'?
I suppose it makes a change to all the other crap we usually get for adverts. Again [insert essay-style answer here]
Pete out.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
YouTube as a Social Network
Yes, sometimes I do actual work on here.
How is YouTube a social network?
A social network can be described as any place people congregate and share things about themselves. For example, on Facebook people are constantly moaning about homework, the weather, being ill, their siblings, the weirdo down the street, veneral diseases and so on, because this is a very social thing to do on the internet. People think you're being unfriendly if you're not slagging off their best friend for being a total b****.
So as a social medium, YouTube works in very much the same way. In fact, I'd say it was more akin to blogging, but with videos. You can video your day and upload it to YouTube and anyone who is following you can instantly be updated on your life. They can then comment on your video, or post a video response, or even be as sociable as to click a little thumbs up or thumbs down button to express their opinions of your video.
How is video 'social' on YouTube?
Video is literally one of two ways that you can communicate on YouTube, the other being the YouTube-based private messaging service that no one pays attention to. But in terms of these videos being used as social tools, I think they work very well.
I personally follow a "vlog", which is essentially a blog in video form, in order to be updated on this person's life. And these days, because of the integration of so many social networking sites, if I like or post a comment on a video, then a post appears on my Wall on Facebook showing the video I have liked or my comment. This way, all of my friends can see exactly what kind of videos I'm into, and can decide effectively if they want to continue being my friend based on what they see. How social is that?
Is YouTube important, significant, social or new?
This is a stupid question. YouTube is all of those things. YouTube is probably the most important video streaming site on the net, because it is so widely viewed and is just far easier to use than any other streaming sites such as Blip. In fact, YouTube has become so vast and significant that people can enter "YouTube partnerships" in which YouTube pay them based on how many views their videos get. Wish I could do that.
I've talked about the social aspects of YouTube to death, so let's move on. Since YouTube is only a few years old, and certainly didn't really kick off properly until about 2006, it is one of the newest things in the world. Or you know, it isn't. But every single second there is a new video, in fact, I'd wager that there is akin to about 100 videos going up every minute, and so it is entirely impossible to track every video that goes up. So how you can describe YouTube as not new is absolutely beyond me. It is literally the newest thing in existance. Why? It just got updated. With 25, no 37, no wait sorry it's 1,145 new videos. And that's only right now. By the time you finish reading this sentence there'll be more new videos on the web than there is stars you can count in the sky. Of course, by the time you've finished counting all of the stars in the sky (at night, doing it in the day doesn't count because there's just one) there will be more videos than there are stars in the universe.
I think I've made my point.
Pete out.
How is YouTube a social network?
A social network can be described as any place people congregate and share things about themselves. For example, on Facebook people are constantly moaning about homework, the weather, being ill, their siblings, the weirdo down the street, veneral diseases and so on, because this is a very social thing to do on the internet. People think you're being unfriendly if you're not slagging off their best friend for being a total b****.
So as a social medium, YouTube works in very much the same way. In fact, I'd say it was more akin to blogging, but with videos. You can video your day and upload it to YouTube and anyone who is following you can instantly be updated on your life. They can then comment on your video, or post a video response, or even be as sociable as to click a little thumbs up or thumbs down button to express their opinions of your video.
How is video 'social' on YouTube?
Video is literally one of two ways that you can communicate on YouTube, the other being the YouTube-based private messaging service that no one pays attention to. But in terms of these videos being used as social tools, I think they work very well.
I personally follow a "vlog", which is essentially a blog in video form, in order to be updated on this person's life. And these days, because of the integration of so many social networking sites, if I like or post a comment on a video, then a post appears on my Wall on Facebook showing the video I have liked or my comment. This way, all of my friends can see exactly what kind of videos I'm into, and can decide effectively if they want to continue being my friend based on what they see. How social is that?
Is YouTube important, significant, social or new?
This is a stupid question. YouTube is all of those things. YouTube is probably the most important video streaming site on the net, because it is so widely viewed and is just far easier to use than any other streaming sites such as Blip. In fact, YouTube has become so vast and significant that people can enter "YouTube partnerships" in which YouTube pay them based on how many views their videos get. Wish I could do that.
I've talked about the social aspects of YouTube to death, so let's move on. Since YouTube is only a few years old, and certainly didn't really kick off properly until about 2006, it is one of the newest things in the world. Or you know, it isn't. But every single second there is a new video, in fact, I'd wager that there is akin to about 100 videos going up every minute, and so it is entirely impossible to track every video that goes up. So how you can describe YouTube as not new is absolutely beyond me. It is literally the newest thing in existance. Why? It just got updated. With 25, no 37, no wait sorry it's 1,145 new videos. And that's only right now. By the time you finish reading this sentence there'll be more new videos on the web than there is stars you can count in the sky. Of course, by the time you've finished counting all of the stars in the sky (at night, doing it in the day doesn't count because there's just one) there will be more videos than there are stars in the universe.
I think I've made my point.
Pete out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)