What is the future of digital cultures?

There have been many advancements that have happened over the decades and I think that the world should brace itself for a few more.

As computer games allow us to become more and more a part of them, with the invention of Xbox Kinect and PlayStation Move it is a wonder what they will come up with next. Personally, i feel that they will go even further with that technology especially since we have surround sound  and cinema home systems already available. They could introduce games that are projected into your living room so that you are actually within the game's environment and you are surrounded by others.

I think that surveillance will also become a bigger issue than it already is now. The Daily Mail recently released an article stating that there is one CCTV camera for every 32 people in the UK.

This is a picture of a drone that could be in our skies in the near future if the Home Office gets their way. They have proposed that unmanned drones should be in the sky looking down onto the streets of Britain as well as CCTV cameras.  This is an example of how the fictional book 1984 is becoming more and more likely. As I outlined in my privacy blog, I don't think that we'll have that much privacy for much longer especially if the government now wants to have drones in the sky watching our every moves.

I think there are going to be many digital advancements in the future, though the one that really worries me the most is surveillance. Surely we are entitled to some privacy. We already have too many cameras watching our every move, do we really need anymore?

Globalisation: how far has it gone?

“We have also witnessed the rise and globalization of the 'brand'. It isn't just that large corporations operate across many different countries - they have also developed and marketed products that could be just as well sold in Peking as in Washington. Brands like Coca Cola, Nike, Sony, and a host of others have become part of the fabric of vast numbers of people's lives" -  http://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htm

Brands like McDonalds and Coca Cola are all over the world. Where ever you go you are likely to be able to find both very quickly. The yellow M is a trademark that most of the world will be aware of and visit regularly. But how did it happen?

Trade has always been something that has happened between countries. For example, England and India with tea. But, we have also learnt to copy the cultural foods of others too. There are many different cusines available on the high streets and they are a fine example of globalisation and how far it has gone.

Whenever there is a world tournament there are recognisable companies that sponsor them. For example, with football tournaments there is always a beer company as well as many food chains. They also supply many of the fast food that can be eaten by the people who attend the matches. This is an example of glabalisation because in countries far away from where the companies originate from, people are able to get american beer and food.
Companies also chose to go out to poorer countries because they can get away with paying the workers less money. This proves to be profitable for them because they gain most of the money that people pay to get their products.

Globalisation has definetely gone far in the world. Companies has truly gone worldwide and you could probably find your favourite big fast food chain where ever you are in the world now. In such a short time this has happened. What will the future be like?

Privacy: does it really exist these days?

How often do we turn a corner and see one of these?

In my first blog I wrote about the UK turning into a Big Brother society with the amount of surveillance that we have. But, there is more to it than just CCTV.

Websites, the Sainsbury's Nectar card and the Tesco Clubcard and any other store cards can be seen as ways of surveillance too. They log everything that the customer buys and then sends them suggestions according to the things they have purchased.

Amazon has a recommending service which basically shows a list of things that are similar to something you have recently bought or looked at. Sainsbury's and Tesco send you vouchers for stuff that you buy and they give you points and money off as long as you buy the same things again.

You do not even have privacy in your own home as Google even targets people because it logs what you've been searching and then it sends you adverts catered to you. There is no getting away from the adverts targeting.

Anywhere that you go is tracked by CCTV. UK has the highest amount of CCTV cameras in the world alone. Is it really right that we're watched all the time? Should there be a limit to which we should be surveyed.

Although surveillance helps solve crimes and keep people safe from them, it can also cause controversy. There was recently a news story which explored the vast amount of CCTV in schools and whether it was really necessary.

I think that privacy within our own homes is starting to become less apparent. Even though we're not watched just yet, there is still the feeling that whatever you do someone will know about it. With the internet being so watchful as it is, it is only too easy to suggest that one day in the future people will not have any privacy at all especially as technology advances even more.

What are the benefits of Open Source?

Open Source allows software to become widely available to everyone, free of charge. For example, instead of everyone only having the choice of Microsoft as their operating system they can have the free Linux operating system. It is free to use and accessible to more or less anyone.

Linux is being favoured over Microsoft, especially in the poorer countries because of its availability. For example, Brazil are using Open Source technology in companies, universities and other industries. The availability of the software allows many companies to work on the same project at a time and it inspires competition. Without access to this free software, poorer countries like Brazil would have no way to get on board of the technological advancements. It allows them to connect with the world but do it in a way that means they aren't spending money that they don't have.

Another big company that is affected by the freedom of Open Source is Apple. Whilst many people do use iTunes and the app store many people also don't. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can download music, albeit legal or not, you can still do it without using iTunes. Users of Android phones also use other app stores to download their apps. Although they get it free and don't have to pay any subscription to create their own material and share it, it is arguably not as safe or regulated as the Apple app store. However, it is still a place that does not give to the Apple corporation.

Open source is very beneficial to people who do  not want to pay for software that is just as good and professional as Microsoft and Apple. It allows freedom of information, without it being copyrighted to anyone and all Open Source material is available in the public domain. It gives poorer countries/people/families a chance to get up to date with technology and it can give businesses software that it requires whilst creating competition between them on projects. Best of all though, it is free!

Why do people use cheats to advance in video games?

There are thousands of websites that have cheat codes for levels and various unlocks on all types of games. A gamer doesn't have to endure the process of the game, instead they can access all the parts of the games that others would work for hours to get to.

Computer games are full of challenges and are often very long winded. From the ones that I have experienced, I have completely very few of them. The temptatation to cheat to access the next level is always at the back of my mind whenever I play one. The problem with games being so long winded is that it can get boring. If you fail a challenge or a level you have to go back and do it again and as the game gets considerably harder you end up repeating them more often. Therefore, a cheat is an easy option.

However, there are other ways that you can cheat instead of just simply getting codes. For example aimbots allow the player to have an advantage over others when shooting. They do not need to target because the bot will just do it for them, the user simply just has to press the 'fire' button. Although it's not the same as gainig codes to complete levels it is still a cheat that majorly affects the game.

Instead of playing the game as the manufacturer intended, you are playing the game with your own rules when you cheat. The purpose of the games are the challenges and by overriding them with the cheats you are defeating the object of having th game in the first place.

Apart from the reason that games get boring, I think that people use cheats to get ahead in games and be better than others who play it. League tables and acheivements are something that are publicised with things such as Xbox Live and the Playstation Network.

Personally I would rather accept the challenges that the game designers have given me rather than override their hard work with a code that will instantly get me past a level.

Are games different realms within this world?

Whenever you sit down and play any time of game, whether it be a board game or a video game you enter a different environment and, with some games, a different world or universe altogether. 

"The arena, the card-table, the magic circle, the temple, the stage, the screen, the tennis court, the court of justice, etc., are all in form and function play-grounds, i.e. forbidden spots, isolated, hedged round, hallowed, within which special rules obtain. All are temporary worlds within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance of an act apart.” - Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens (pg 10)

Much like any activity, they require your full attention. Games suck you into their own world and you become immersed in them. You become the characters and become part of the game. Many computer games allow you to enter a different virtual world altogether. The games that are made to coincide with fantasy and sci fi films that are in the mainstream media really let the player experience different worlds. For example in Star Wars games you can be your favourite characters and experiment with the light and dark side of the Force or fly the spaceships that the characters in the films do.
Games could be seen as different realms within this world because they are easy to acess and easy to get out of yet they are completely different environments with different rules and regulations.The player can transform themselves into someone they would like to be but can't because it isn't possible in real life. An example that can be used to illustrate the idea of a realm within the world is that of the witches realm in the TV show Sabrina: The Teenage Witch Although it is not a game, it presents us with the idea that different places can exist within one world, even if it is a fantasy one.

I believe that we do enter different places when we play games. The level in which people get immersed and obbsessed and addicted to games proves that it means something to people. Some players take their characters seriously on games online games such as World of Warcraft (WOW). They definately enter a different community altogether which not everyone has access to. Furthermore, they learn to fully function in the virtual world as well as the real world.

Therefore, I believe that games are different realms because of the strength of immersion and how easy it is too become addicted to a game and really care about what happens to your avatar.

Are physical books better than reading literature from a technologial device?

Annie Proulx once said that "no one is ever gonna sit down on a twitchy little screen ever" to read a piece of literature. But, she was wrong. The internet has allowed us to read books online and find many extracts on sites like google books. Technology has gone even further and given us handheld gadgets to read books from. For example we have the Kindle and the iPad to name just a few.

Even though the physical book has been around for years, technology allows our libraries to evolve. You can carry your whole library around with you and read anytime you want without the hassle of carrying various books with you.

What is better though, an actual book or an electronic version?

Personally the feel of an actual book with actual pages is something that cannot be replicated when reading from a screen. The action of turning pages and using bookmarks has been practiced for years. By using something like a Kindle, there is no physical interaction apart from touching the screen to turn a page.

On the other hand, with the Kindle you can highlight words that you are unsure about and it gives you a definition. If you're reading a book and you don't understand a word, you have to reach for another book (the dictionary) and physically look it up. Carrying a Kindle around is also much lighter than carrying some books around. Furthermore, you can store lots of novels onto the Kindle.

Conclusively though, I think that reading from an actual book is better than something like the Kindle because authors write for books, not for electronic devices. Also, when you read you can get lost in the story and play the scenarios of the book in your head. I'm not sure if this could be done or if you could get the same effect if you were reading from an electronical tablet device

Does the way we tag things determine our online identity?

Sites like Flickr are a great way to share our photos and creations with the world. When we upload our photos we are allowed to tag them with whatever words we feel like so that people will be able to find them when they type the tags into the search bar. However, is this system always accurate and more to the point, what does it say about people online?

If two people uploaded a picture of the same car, but tagged it differently it would respond to different searches. For example, one person might know alot about cars and tag the photo as the exact model and specific details. But, the other person might just tag it as a "red car". If someone searches for a particular model, that car would not come up because of it's tagging.

So, how does the tagging represent a person online?

People who know what they're talking about will tag a photo specifically and type in the specific words when they want to find something. However, if you're just a normal browser then it won't matter to you what type of thing you're looking for as long as it includes the tags that you have selected. The different tags that people use show how much they know about a certain subject and how they want their items to be viewed. Other users who have the same ideas of how things should be tagged will find their content much easier than those who don't.

Furthermore, those who upload the same types of content show what their main interests are. Using the above example, if someone uploads loads of pictures of cars, then it is obvious that it is what they are interested in sharing and finding. This also allows them to be targeted by people/companies who are involved with cars themselves, especially if they are doing a search on a search engine like google which scans your keywords to bring you adverts. Therefore, tagging can determine our online identity because it can lead us to adverts that are specifically tailored for us. It allows companies to target us through our tag searches so that they gain a specific audience that they know will be interested in their products/services.

Does immersion mean that games become more real when we play them?

Video games are easy to get addicted to. When we play them we become so in touch with the characters and story lines or missions that we forget about our everyday lives. We become attuned to the problems that our character is facing and they become our priority.

When playing a first person game such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (KOTOR) you get to customize your character and it becomes the spawn of you. Throughout the game you complete the missions of that person. Also, because of the nature of Star Wars you can decide whether to enter the dark or light side of the force. In short, you become the character that you have created as you decide everything from the speech to their fighting style. When you become this close to the action does it allow you to become attached? Do we enter cyberspace?

In a third player game, where you control from a far away position and switch between characters, does it still have the same effect? In the case of something like The Sims, I would say it does. As with KOTOR, you can customize them to look how you want and chose their characteristics but they cannot be completely controlled. If you use the 'free will' setting then they'll do whatever they want to whilst you watch over them. So, even though we cannot completely control their destiny, it is still something to get immersed in- but why?

I think that video games are so easy to get immersed in because they represent lives that many of us would like to have. The younger audience that play them are more likely to get addicted because they'd like to be super heroes or drive fast cars and catch the bad guys. Games allow us to enter a place where our real life problems are put to one side as we look out for an avatar that isn't and will never be, real.

Will robots one day be so advanced that they can mimick human emotions?

We've all seen the futuristic films that have robots in them and wonder in amazement if we'll ever live in a world that the characters do. But, with the advancements in science and the ongoing advancements, could we one day live in a world where robots walk the streets beside humans and understand the world as we do?

"The development of an artificially conscious entity may happen within our lifetime." - Robert Pepperall, 2003

i,Robot portrays a world where robots are used by humans for domestic purposes around the home, or even to do jobs that people don't particularly want to do themselves. With the rapid advancements in technology could we be heading towards a world that is exactly like this?

Already on the internet we have chatterbots like A.L.I.C.E and Eliza who engage in conversation with us, even if their answers and questions are slightly limited. There are other examples of these chatterbots online as major companies are starting to use them as customer service advisers. For example, O2 use one called Lucy who advises you on what phone to buy and answers any problems you've got.

However, even though there is Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can talk back to us, we still have not reached the stage where they can feel what we feel or have any sort of human emotions. Most of all, they do not have any empathy.

In i,Robot, we see an example of a robot that starts to experience human emotions and has the ability to question things unlike the others of his generation. He is then able to mimick the wink and understand the meaning of it when he learns about it. He also learns how to keep secrets and understand how important they are. Will a robot one day be created that can do the same? If one was created would it mean that they'd be human or would they still be seen as machines built for a purpose? Personally, when I watched i,Robot and saw how the robot was nearly killed, it tugged on my heart strings because as he was able to know human characteristics I identified with him even though he was not physically human.

Do Xbox Kinect and the Wii make us cyborgs when we play their games?

New technologies have been developed which allow users to physically become part of video games when they play them. For example, the Wii  is a console is that controlled totally by the players movements. Each game allows the player to interact completely with the game. All the player has to do it move their arms and body's around as though they are the characters in the game.

Shortly after this, microsoft brought out Xbox Kinect as a way to try and compete with the Wii. However, this differs in the way that it has sensors which sense every movement that the player makes. Therefore, it takes game play to the next level as the slightest movement is mirrored byt the character on the screen.

Nintendo has also released Playstation Move which incorprates both elements of the Wii and Xbox Kinect but also uses a different technique as it includes a webcam so that it can see your movements. Furthermore, Playstation Move also uses 3D technology to make the player's experience even more realistic.

With all of these consoles bringing out games that allow us to be physically a part of them, do they turn us into cyborgs?

When we disappear into these video games, we are entering cyberspace and becoming a different being, therefore pointing towards us being cyborgs. With these technologies in our hands, literally, we are able to control the technology that is in front of us. Subsequently, this can be seen as us being a part of the computer or having a part of it in us.

Cyborgs are often seen as having super powers, or being indestructible. Gaming may not have gone that far yet, but who knows what the future may hold for video games. In the 21st century, technology is developing very fast. Will we all be able to actually transform into a cyborg in the next 50 years?

Mash ups and remixes: Should users be allowed to create their own content using existing material?

REMIXERS MANIFESTO
1. Culture always builds the past.
2. The past always tries to control the future.
3. Our future is becoming less free.
4. To build free societies you must limit control of the past.
(Sourced from RIP: A Remix Manifesto, 2009)

Anyone who was born in the late 1980s onwards has become a part of a "media generation": a generation that has become literate in the ways of the internet and new technologies. The internet allows us to share ideas and information as well as building communities through the usage of technology. People can share their creations and thoughts through a variety of different sites and blogs.

On youtube, there are various user generated videos- some of which contain music that is solely their own and others which contain music that isn't. Along with myspace, youtube has become a place where people can share their creations and promote themselves.

Mash ups have become increasingly popular with artists such as Radiohead and Jay-Z being mixed together to form Jaydiohead, by DJ Max Tannone. In RIP: A Remix Manifesto, Brett Gaylor follows his favourite remixer Girl Talk, a DJ who also uses samples from different songs and artists and puts them together to form something different.

If users create something different using bits of other people's creations is it right?

When Jay-Z found out about project Jaydiohead, he openly supported it with a tweet saying: "There are 3 or 4 REAL gems on Jaydiohead." However, even though this was a good case many other people, especially those who work at the record companies, disagree with mash ups because they take songs without any permission and create something that the artists have not agreed to.  But, if the music is out there, surely it's there to be enjoyed?

I think that users should be allowed to create new content using others creations. Originality isn't around much these days, in fact many of Walt Disney's creations were stolen from things that were already in the public domain. So, maybe we need to 'borrow' other people's ideas to create our own successful ones?

Is web 2.0 different from the original idea of the web?

"Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along." -Tim Berners Lee

Web 2.0 has allowed the internet to become more of an environment where user content can be created. Sites like myspace, facebook and even this blogging site have emerged from the evolution of the internet. Users can now create things in simple steps without having to have any knowledge about codes that are needed to create websites because it already done for them. Therefore, web 2.0 allows people to connect with others around the world without having to go through the long-winded process of creating a website from scratch.


With web 1.0 people were just consumers, but now with 2.0 they have become prosumers. People can now get more involved with the process in which things are made. For example, ordinary people can create apps for an android phone or an iPhone. 


Web 2.0 is not completely different from the original idea of the web because the whole idea of the internet is to connect people. However, it differs in the way that is allows people to be connected. Ideas can be shared more freely and in different formats. Youtube and social networking sites have become a big internet communites with people sharing and interacting all over the world. With a few clicks of your mouse you can become part of a social networking site and start meeting new people who share similar interests. All the hard work is done for you, for example if you join facebook, Mark Zuckerberg has already done everything so that you can create an account in seconds!

Is digital media a good way to convey news?

Digital media helps people to access the news from wherever they are around the world. Websites, videos and articles can go viral within a matter of minutes because of the usage of social networking sites and the ability to share news with the click of a button. Media consumers can have a variety of different news outlets at their fingertips, therefore it's a good place for people to get news and events known globally.

Image courtesy of: http://venturebeat.com/company/wikileaks/

WikiLeaks has thrived from the internet as it continuously releases new material about things that they believe needs to be known by the public. Without the freedom of the internet, this site would not be able to spread the information that they have.

However, is this freedom really as good as it sounds?

Although people are able to see information and it's sources on this whistle blowing site, it is also putting at risk some of the people that are named in the cables. Because some of the information hasn't been censored properly, names are emerging which creates a safety risk. Therefore, does this make the leaking of cables right? People want to know the information but are we really willing to put people's lives at risk just to get it?

Do we become a different person when we're in cyberspace?

“On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog” –Peter Steiner, The New Yorker.

When we create a facebook profile or set up a twitter account are we becoming someone else or being the person that we are? “Should we post our age and marital status? Should we make our profile private or public? Should we reveal that we're gay? (Data-crawling programs can make a pretty good guess about it even if we don't.) Should we boast on Twitter that we applied for a grant? Should we talk about the ravages of chronic Crohn's disease?” (Andy Oram, 2009)

Nobody really knows who they're talking to on the internet or who's profile they'e viewing. You can be anyone you want to be because of the freedom that the internet offers. Unfortunately this can sometimes be bad because it can be a great place for people to commit crimes such as identity theft and online grooming, which is more common amongst the teenagers and younger people that use the internet. 

However, because of the freedom that the internet offers I think that we can be ourselves a lot more or become someone that we'd want to be. When someone posts a status on facebook or twitter they can write it in any style that they wish, be it formal or informal. You can chose how people see you and therefore you can create an image for yourself. 

So, we do become different people online. We either have the confidence to be ourselves because we have a screen to protect us or we can become a person that we'd like to be. 

Is the idea of cyberspace dead because it's all around us?

When the internet first became apparent no one really knew what it was or what it could do. When Tim Berners Lee created the World Wide Web he never thought it would amount to anything and therefore gave it away free. Would he still have done that is he had known the phenomenon that the internet and technology is now?

The notion of cyberspace is something that has become less alien to everyone because of the accessibility of technology and the internet. For example the introduction of the Xbox Kinect and PlayStation Move means that you can now become a physical part of a video game as opposed to sitting down with a controller in your hand controlling an avatar on the screen.

So, because we can get inside a video game does it mean that the idea of cyberspace as a seperate place is dead? No I don't think so.

A new language has been created to use on the internet. The usage of words like LOL, ROFL and TTYL are not things that were would say in everyday life because it would be seen as odd, but when we're chatting on a messenger service or through messages on a website or forum it is seen as acceptable. Communities online communicate very differently to how they do in real life.

When we enter these communities we enter cyberspace. Therefore, it becomes a separate place to have an identity. But, so is being part of a video game. Even though the character's path could already be set out for you, it is your choice how to do the things that the game instructs you to do. Furthermore, you can create your own avatar on the Xbox and other gaming consoles which also connect to the internet so that you can play with other players.

I think that cyberspace is all around us but not in the way that it is becoming something that we're always in. There is still a distinct divide between the virtual world and the real world and we can still decide to be a part of either one at various times.