Update on Protecting Yourself: Some Mail Fraud

If you're interested in learning about protecting yourself from a few of the different types of mail fraud, then check out this post at The Eight Thirty. It's really very good!

Just click!

The Eight-Thirty

One could call it a title-downgrade from The Nine-Thirty, but The Eight-Thirty has a lot of interesting posts containing my opinions on numerous topics having to do with Social Networking and its interaction with Business. Business is quickly growing into a more online world, and social networking in that world is bringing business people together. Learn about it as well as find interesting commentary, links, and references to printed materials all having to do with social networking and business.

Also, if you have any interest in Mocial Networking (Mobile Social Networking) and all the really exciting, emerging technologies that it's beginning to feature, then check out this post at http://eight-thirty.blogspot.com/.

Just click!

The Game of Life~!

I recently read in a USA Today: Money article that the game of life is going to be taking some changes. A brand new line of Life games is going to be printed, except with one distinct difference. Paper money will no longer exist.

This has to be the most desperate brand-recognition/aggressively competitive marketing technique that I have ever seen. In a never before performed phenomenon, Visa has put its trademark on The Game of Life. As if that statement weren't cliche enough. As if credit cards in general didn't already rule so many peoples' lives.

Now, in The Game of Life, instead of having paper money, players have a credit card with the Hasbro and Visa logos on it. When you wish to use money, either by receiving it or spending it, you must put your credit card into a digital machine that now comes in the Game of Life box.

Visa claims that this sort of outreach with credit type services is good for young people to get used to the process of using a credit card, and to teach them responsible spending habits as such. At the same time, all that kids playing the new version of The Game of Life will remember 10 years from now is the VISA logo in the back of their head.

Brand recognition at its best. Technology is making its way into even the most classic of frivolities. Credit cards involve the use of technology, especially the particularly advanced technology of sending in credit card verifications through high-speed DSL lines. Regardless, I feel as though this is a petty scheme on the part of Visa for coming up with something like this in the first place, however I have no doubts that it will complete the mission they have set out to accomplish with it.

Protecting Yourself

Basically, you have to protect the information you have about yourself on your computer, by preventing the computer from allowing others in to access your information. It's sort of tricky, but not entirely implausible.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qitlNpPqM7E&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

Check out that link, and then think about what they said. Just an exclamation mark at the end of your password can make the difference between a hacker making and not making out your password. Hackers have special programs that allow them to run your password through an entire database of words and phrases, but as they expand that library to include capital letters and special characters, the search takes a whole lot longer. Supposedly, an eight character password of mixed case and containing special characters would take several days or even weeks of searching before it could finally be broken. However, in today's age, someone would uncover this scheme, whether it be hotmail if they're trying to hack into your e-mail, or yourself even, catching someone in the act of hacking your computer through the c-prompt or by some other sneaky, malicious means.

Yet this is not the only way that hackers and crackers can gain access to your personal information. It's called social engineering. I once saw one of the most famous hackers of all time (this guy actually did 5 years in the chink) speak about this concept "social engineering," by which you work people and manipulate their trust. For example, you call the switchboard at HP and ask for the Manager of some department in Sales. The guy answers the phone and instantly you have his name and the sound of his voice. You apologize for the wrong number, and then call some guy in the IT department. You persuade him that you're in fact "Johnny Smoothtalker," and convince them to reset your account access password to "1234." Thus, you're into the system, collecting and examining highly sensitive and confidential/secret material. It's as easy as this, and you too can be conned in a similar manner. It's just like e-mails from fraudulent people trying to convince people to input their bank information in an online form to confirm that they're still patrons of a certain institution. Hundreds of examples like this exist. Yet, still, high-faluting lawyers, and even congressmen (I believe he was from Florida) get conned, and have their identities stolen.

Fair Use: Who am I paying for this Fair Use?

Who really owns a digital work? I wish I owned every digital work I ever downloaded onto my computer. I wish I could say it was mine, but unfortunately, I can't. Well, at least not yet.

So, if I buy a song from iTunes, how long is it mine for? Good question. It probably depends on how much I paid for it.

I download a .pdf orginal of a magazine artical that I'm using for a paper, off of JSTOR. Then, it's on my computer forever. Now, is this mine? I don't think so... I thought the music was mine. Yet, it seems to be the other way around. And did I actually pay for the database? Well, in a sense, yes, because I paid AU and they paid for the database.

Yet, here's this "middle man" concept again that Adam pointed out in class that is so prevalent and hindering to so many people in actually obeying the law.

So I get confused. I don't know where my money is going, and even then- does any of the money that AU pays for it's access to the database actually go to the people whose works are contained in said database? For example, gradesaver.com will buy your papers from you for $25, but you have to hand over all the rights to those papers, which they then in turn sell to hundreds of other people for about 1/5 of that price. So what's so "fair" about this "use", is what boggles me. I see big profits for these middle men, and hardly anything for the producers of work. Then again, if they didn't sell their work to a database, would anyone pay anything for their work? Tough questions. Lit-101, what is the best way to remedy this confusion about "fair use"?

Online Voting: Possible or Implausible?

A few of the articles we read for class focus on ideas like furthuring democracy through technology, and doing so bestly by incorporate a form of e-voting for the citizens of this country.

So I shall examine this possibility, and evaluate its potentiality.

Possible: Today's technology allows for its inception to be possible, however safety is still a concern. It would bring our society and our democracy much closer together by making voting something that is so easy, people won't have an excuse not to vote. With the typing of a few pieces of identifying information, and the clicking of a few buttons representing votes, this would be very easy and I would say probably 6 times more people either vote, or register to vote and then vote.

Implausible: Safety comes first! I'm not sure about you guys, but to me, that was always the most annoying statement ever. I always just wanted to GO! instead of sitting through some boring lecture on why always pointing the barrel down range is important, or why aiming bows at others is unethical and deadly. Regardless, online voting has many safety concerns. A number exist, but they lie primarily in the server that the government (or the government's privately chartered organization/company) will be running to host such elections. Any number of things could happen. The server could be hacked, and people's personal information could be stolen. Or, the voting results could be skewed and talleyed in favor of a different candidate. So, as you can see, the entire system would be at risk of violating people's legally guaranteed rights to privacy.

I read a newspaper article talking about a system that the government contracted out to have made and tested. One was made, and tested, however its flaws were in the coding, and the government had its personnel test it ahead of time, hence the reason the flaw was found. Even if the system was hugely successful and highly functional, it would have probably been at least two presidential elections before the system could have been implemented.

Guess what? "More than 30,000 Estonians have cast ballots this week in the world's first online parliamentary election, an electoral official has said." This happened today, March 2nd. Check it out!

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12953/195/

Technology, Education, and Communication

The story we read called "The Netizen: Birth of a Digital Nation," by Jon Katz, analyzes the spread of democracy through the internet, and its effect on the people of this country, as well as online culture.

In his final subtopic though, he mentions: "Technology is power. Education is power. Communication is power. The digital young have all three." My question for you is whether or not you agree with this statement.

I must say... Think back to every world war ever fought, or any minor dispute you may have had just between you and some other person. Now, most of the time, is the argument not based on the premise that someone is lacking one of the above three elements? I argue with people all the time, who insist they're correct, because it's what they know. However, what they know is outdated, and what I know is the latest and greatest, truth. My ex-roommate argued with me once about Dr. Seuss. Now, I'd just finished reading several books about the guy, and writing a something like 10 page paper about the topic this argument was about. Cleary I knew, and he didn't, what I was writing and talking about. Yet, his innocent and naive image of Dr. Seuss is what he stood by, and he argued for this guy, and against what I, and the books, said. What he didn't understand was that, unlike in his case, what I was saying wasn't an opinion, it was fact. Education... definitely leads to the Know, which is power, in its purest form. Even a simpler example would be nomadic settlers- the ones who know how to farm and hunt will survive the best.

Technology. All of us know a great deal more than most people in Africa and South America about technology. We can use that technology to Communicate better with each other. Already here, power is manifested in the power to communicate with one another, which is a result purely of technology.

**Random side note: When I went to India two Christmas's ago, my girlfriend and I bought hundreds of pieces of candy, and went to a small countryside village and handed them out to all the children. It was the most rewarding experience of my life.**

John Katz finishes his article with, "No other social group is as poised to dominate culture and politics in the 21st century." He is referring, of course, to us, the Net-Generation. His point is valid and accurate. As we have seen, power is manifested through education, and communication, which is a result of technology. Given such a verity, it would be illogical to assume that our generation isn't the most poised yet to take over the world, whether it be physically or digitally. We're also the most prepared to run this country. How would you assess Katz's outlook for the future of our generation?

Or, if you feel that developing and advancing technology will ultimately be our downfall, then you might want to check out this link, because it says that the DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security) agrees with you.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11518

Method #1 or Method #2?

I have to go with number 2.

In class, or, rather, out of class, when we had class online, the class was conducted first as a free-for-all for conversation, and secondly, as a controlled, moderated forum similar to our physical in-class discussions, except slightly slower.

What I felt were the pros about using the second method: it was similar to in-class, in that it was moderated and controlled, allowing for people to take turns, and for cohesion to result. People could understand and comprehend what another was saying about a certain topic. People could then respond, or type notes into notepad to then submit it later in retaliation. This was by far the better system.

Cons of the system were: you couldn't type into the little text box when it wasn't your turn. For example, to prevent people from always being "right on the spot" when they were called on, i.e. when their hand in the hand-raising order came up, the text box should have been enabled, that way people could type what they were thinking, when they were thinking it, and when it came to their turn to speak, they could simply hit "enter" as opposed to having to type it just then. This, ultimately, is what led to the slow down and frustration/distraction of many people. I personally didn't like the slow-moving nature of it, but as I said, if the above change were to be enacted, it would make that system smoother and better to use.

Also, the fact that we were using the Blackboard chat utility did not help out conversations. The window would stop scrolling about once a minute, and too much speech was taking place all at once when everyone was allowed to talk freely. The system clearly, undoubtedly, didn't work.

The Stifling and/or Growth of Multiculturalism Online

The title you see is the description of the presentation I will be delivering during Thursday’s class, except that I will talk about the stifling and growth that is taking place.

The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, as found in dictionary.com, says that multiculturalism is, “The view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest. As time history tells us, this definition is not always met. Equality continues still today, however the aspect of it that we will examine is that concerning the Internet.

First, let’s look at multiculturalism from a broad perspective. It would seem as though the Internet is very multicultural. Most people are given this impression by MMO’s, and Dell. When you ask Dell for technical support, you speak or IM with someone in India, not Ohio. When you play an MMO like WoW, you don’t play just with/against people from the United States. You play with gamers from Sweden, Spain, Korea, Japan, etc. Korea, for example, is famous for its powerhouses of servers. Hundreds of rooms full of nothing but servers provide fiber optic LAN access to the world; they also have gaming cafes where everyone appears to be drugged because they’ve been living off of peanuts and coke for four days straight while playing Counter-Strike.

When you think about it, though, aren’t most of the people you’ve played with from Europe, and western Asia? When was the last time you played against a farmer from India, or a postal worker from Ghana? Sure, there are people in developing countries that play online games, and who use the Internet, but there are not very many of them.

This brings us to a more micro approach to the subject. 14 months ago I visited India, and while I was staying in a small town (maybe 20,000 inhabitants), I found an Internet café. I sat down to use this Pentium I machine, at 10 cents per minute, and… the dial-up wouldn’t work. I was then informed that the town only had one data line coming into it, and that, if the dial-up didn’t work, then no other Internet café, or person with a computer, in the town could use it either. I was amazed at this, but this is when multiculturalism online becomes most clear. Multiculturalism on the Internet spreads and spreads- through developed countries with free-market economies and money (i.e. resources to support massive online infrastructures). Where this spread to the “haves” ceases, a lack of diversity occurs with the “have-nots.”

The third world is left behind, essentially, as the times move on. In this way, they are unable to contribute to the growth of online multiculturalism. Unfortunately, this leaves out billions of people in our world, who are too impoverished to afford access to the Internet. Of course there are firms in Delhi and Ho Chi Minh that offer traditional Indian and Vietnamese goods for sale through the Internet, but the farmers and laborers from the countryside that actually produce those products, have no concept whatsoever of how their goods are “mysteriously” sold. They do not know about the internet, and how it connects people and allows instantaneous communication across tens of thousands of miles.

Multiculturalism online, therefore, is divided simply between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Multiculturalism grows because the “haves” use it, and it is stifled because the “have-nots” can not and/or do not use it.

This link is to an article that is an excellent supplement to my post, and elaborates a little further the concept I explore here of "haves" and "have-nots": http://wordswork.com/samples/etc/multicultural-internet.html.

This link is for a YouTube video that reflects somewhat upon the issues I have explored here. Keep in mind, though, that although it speaks of "a few villages" or "one place over there," the problem of multiculturalism being stifled by poverty still affects billions of people more than it helps. It even talks about Intel's goal of "connecting the next 1 billion people to internet." Intel- you've got a ways to go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgIimMEronA.

Works Cited for the definition of "Multiculturalism": "multiculturalism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 20 Feb. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiculturalism.

Virtual Pets

Tamaguchi, NeoPets, "Catz", Sims 2 Pets, Nintendogs... The list goes on. If you think its possible to maintain a relationship with a virtual pet (or personality, for that sake), then raise your hand now. Well, most programs are made so that: if you mistreat your pet, they really don't care. Sometimes they act a little more naughty, and seem to have relatively minor cases of IBS and/or prostate issues. However, although their happiness meter may be down, they still eat food from your hand, and don't seem to actively hate you. However, this isn't how a real animal would act. So, on a grander scheme, lets examine the pros and cons of having a virtual pet.

Pros: If you want to go on vacation, leave them behind. You don't have to pay luxury tax when purchasing the dog food, because you won't ever have to buy dog food. You don't have to walk a virtual pet, or clean up after one. No kennel fees apply, and a virtual pet won't destroy your property (i.e. peeing on things, chewing on furniture, ripping curtains, etc.).

Cons: Au contraire, you might have to replace the batteries after a while, or renew a subscription, depending on what system/service/game you use. This can be very costly, as subscriptions can be up to $15 per month, and batteries can cost up to $4 per unit, depending on how specific a battery type your device may require. You can't hug your virtual pet, or snuggle with it, nor will it ever lick your face. It will never eat out of your hand, or show you affection, other than preprogrammed actions/behaviours, set ahead of time by programmers to respond to the precise action which you have just performed.

The biggest con to having a virtual pet, is the lack of affection and connection you may feel; however, they are relatively easy to maintain, and are convenient replacements in this oh-so inconvenient a world we live in.

Bridery and Bribery

Bridery- My made (or is it?) term for the buying of brides online.

http://www.mailorderbrides.com/,

http://www.online-brides.com/, and

http://www.asian-brides-r-us.com/

are all great examples of what our world is coming to today. The buying of brides, essentially permanent prostitutes, that vow to remain yours for life. Personally, my morals force me to consider this a pretty messed up trade. If you notice, most of these women are from either Russia, or poor, third-world countries, and really have no other way of getting out other than essentially being baught by someone. My inquiry is to whether or not these women really stick to the committment. Is there a contract that they have to sign that obliges them to servitude, or says they won't run away? If there is a contract, under what government is it legally binding? How do these women get to come to America? Does the man have to "claim" her as being his, or does she just apply for a student/workers permit/visa to stay? I have a lot of inquiries as to the way this system works. I do know that out of Russia and Eastern Europe, women are tricked into going to other countries to "work jobs" that will allow them to make money and send it to their families back home, who are in desperate need. They are then tricked into prositution, and told that they can buy their way out so long as they can work off a debt- essentially the amount the pimp bought them for. Unforunately for them though, it's never actually possible for them to buy their freedom, because the pimp ups their debts big time for the smallest things, i.e. a customer complaint, etc. What ultimately ends up happening, is that if a girl is to be saved, then its up to the family/husband of the girl to do the job. They end up having to bribe the pimp into letting their loved one go, otherwise the police would be notified, for example.

Most of this entire process was achieved through the internet. On sites like the above, as well as other sites that are encrypted, or offer the same information except through encoding or disguise, illegal human trafficking takes place every day. This is a fact. So while AU has a seemingly large movement to end the human rights infractions in Darfur, Sudan, my question is why AU doesn't have a movement to end illegal human trafficking/forced prostitution in eastern europe? Does it not matter enough, or has just nobody come up with the idea until now? I wonder sometimes where our true motives/money go. There exist, too, non-profits that money can be donated to in order to help this cause.

Utilitarianism at its finest

What if everybody did that which made the most people happy? Would society be benefited as a whole, and would everybody be happier? Not necessarily.

Let's talk about file sharing. File sharing over peer to peer networks takes place all day long, every day. The files shared include music, videos, games, feature films, and actual documents. It happens at AU so much, for example, that the Office of Information Technology has actually had to cap the amount of bandwidth that the residence halls receive during normal business hours, so that academic users during the day time can still perform their work.

Utilitarianism is denoted by the "greatest happiness principle," in which individuals are supposed to act in a manner that creates the 'social utility,' i.e. common happiness. File sharing makes everyone involved happier, doesn't it? Well, not necessarily. Nelly is involved in a sense, because his music is being shared. Is he happy about it? Not at all, I would suspect. But let's think about it: does the number of people who benefit from file sharing, create enough happiness to counterbalance the unhappiness created by the RIAA and by Nelly? Or would the amount of happiness found in the world if no file sharing took place be greater than that which is found when it does? If you answered "no" to both of these questions, then congratulations, you are essentially a utilitarian, or at least, you have taken a utilitarian stand point on this issue.

So we can justify file sharing because it creates more happiness for people than if we didn't do it. This, my friends, is utilitarianism at its finest.

What have you done?!

Virtual rape? Harassment? Sexual Harassment? What exactly does "I'm licking your thighs" count as? This is a question which boggles my mind.

Dictionary.com defines the word "harass" as, "to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute." I think that what DemonBoy did could definitely qualify as harassment, then.

Dictionary.com defines "sexual harassment" as, "The making of unwanted and offensive sexual advances or of sexually offensive remarks or acts, especially by one in a superior or supervisory position or when acquiescence to such behavior is a condition of continued employment, promotion, or satisfactory evaluation." Most definitions of sexual harassment reference this employer-employee relationship, although I'd say that what DemonBoy did applies to this definition too.

Dictionary.com defines "rape" as, "the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." OK, I'd say that DemonBoy didn't go this far, for there wasn't any actual touching, except in the case of his keyboard and possibly himself.

Dictionary.com does not list a definition for "virtual rape," however in my mind, virtual rape is the middle ground between actual, physical rape, and sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can be committed over the phone, in person, or online. Rape can only be committed in person. The middle ground would most likely be a physical action committed online. This is a virtual rape. So using this logic, allow me to construct a definition of "virtual rape": the compelling of a woman to have sexual intercourse through unwanted and offensive sexual advances, in an online and seemingly physical, but not actually physical, environment." Under this definition, the only act DemonBoy committed was sexual harassment. I don't see virtual rape as being anything achievable by today's technological capabilities. Virtual rape would imply that two people are able to meet face to face in a virtual room, and experience everything the five senses have to offer. It would be sort of Matrix style where the real, physical person is somewhere else, resting yet hooked into a machine of sorts, while they act outside of their body in a different place. Of course, virtual rape would be like a dream, where you would experience horrible things, such as pain and fear, however once you woke up from it, you would be entirely fine, less any psychological damage that the experience has caused you.

Now, how is a virtual world like this to be regulated? With virtual police men? Real police who hook up to a machine and then enforce laws in the second life world? Or would the virtual rape take place in a private meeting place, such as a bright, white room, where nobody else was monitoring? If that's the case, then women and men will experience rape, as well as all kinds of other heinous acts, all the time! DemonBoy- time to chillax on the "sexual harassment," and start thinking about what type of person it takes to sexually harass another.

Regulating the Underworld

The Air-Ship talks about people inhabiting small pods underneath the surface of the earth. My biggest thought about the Party of the Machine, in all it's 1984 style, is how it regulates the people living in those pods. Say for instance the woman acting as flight-attendant on the air-ship were to have whacked the woman complaining of the sunrise, in the face. Keep in mind that battery is not a serious crime, and is in most cases what we would consider a misdemeanor offense, however in the context of this story, at least in the case of the woman who was "whacked," direct touching of another person is entirely taboo and strictly forbidden. Now, what would have happened to the "whacker," is the mother of all questions that spoils my imagination.

Scenario 1: Part of me says the Party of the Machine, with its all-seeing eye, would have immediately relinquished this "whacker" from her duties, and sent her to some place of reform. This could be a dungeon of sorts, or even in a pod of her own- one that is limited in its capabilities and is meant to "build character" or "teach a lesson." There she would live for the better part of 3-6 months, at which point she would be confined to a pod, and told she could not leave, but could communicate with other people through the same means as the lady she once whacked.

Scenario 2: The same all-seeing eye would send this poor woman to the surface of the earth to fend for herself against the wrecked planet's nature, or to wander off to some random establishment where she could hopefully find someplace at which to survive, and essentially begin a new life. The Party would feel that the trouble she'd have to go through to achieve this acceptance and start a new life, would be enough of a lesson for her to know not to be so foolish again.

Scenario 3: Yet again, the Party acts- they exile the "whacker" to another planet, or even to the core of our own planet. If she went to the core of our planet, she'd be in a "hell" of sorts, but ultimately end up dying. If she went to another planet, it'd be like Britain sending criminals to Australia at one point, in that she'd be placed on a planet of exiles like herself. Now, depending on how strict the Party is with their no-tolerance policy, this planet could be one in which convicts roam free like nomads and either band together as one, kill each other, or do both in some facet of organization. If the party is not so tough (they'd have to be at least a little tough, though, to exile people for simply "whacking" a person), such a planet could be one with cages or facilities designed to contain prisoners.

Scenario 4: Lastly, I shall examine the possibility of nothing happening. I think this option is the most exciting to think about. Imagine if nothing at all happened to someone who committed an act such as striking another person. Would the Party see the act and respond immediately; would the woman who was struck have to file a formal charge at a police station; or would nothing at all happen, and that would just have to be part of life- a part that individuals are protected from by being in their pods in the first place? If nothing happened, then what would stop atrocities from being committed every second of every day, and even, what would keep something like "the air-ship" even running? A society of anarchy is much more exciting to think about than any regulated system of punishment. For all the story tells us, the rest of the earth could be an anarchist's playground, however, given the seemingly far-reaching and mighty power of the Party of the Machine, I don't think that citizens in a world like that in this story, would have such extensive personal freedoms.

Question for discussion: Which of the above options do you think is most likely, if any, and what makes you think that? If you don't think any of the above scenarios is likely to occur, then what is?

The Air-Ship

This was a story that actually resembles what earth might hold in the future. I have a feeling that humans will either go underground (as in The Air-Ship), go into outer space and inhabit other worlds, or both. The planet earth in this story is a destroyed ball of dust that essentially spins while baking in the sun's rays. The planet also seems to be run by no political order other than the Party of The Machine. Additionally, people have become so isolated that they no longer see one another face to face, and communicate solely through electronic/digital medium. Everyone seems so weak that they cannot bend over to pick something up, because they have not had to in many months. Their muscles are so atrophied, that they can hardly walk even. With the path that American culture is taking today, I can see this level of laziness developing over time, but I would expect it within the next 100 to 150 years. I would not, however, expect humans to begin living underground in The Machine-like environments within that time. I suppose if a nuclear Holocaust were to occur, or some major natural disaster were to strike, then Americans could and probably should begin to live underground. When a device like "The Machine" will be developed for underground use and human occupation, though, is uncertain, however I expect it wouldn't come for at least 200-250 years. We are in the prime of our technological whir of advancement, and for how much longer it will continue will ultimately be the determining factor for The Machine.

Johnny Mnemonic

This short story was incredibly confusing to follow. Honestly, I don't think that many people who haven't lived in Japan would understand a lot of it. Ono-Sendai make much sense in terms of the Japanese language, yet in Gibson's story, it's a super-computer type piece of machinery that has some regulation purposes. Yakuza is the Japanese mafia, which, I don't believe was mentioned anywhere in the story. Also, Chiba city is really a city, and it's north/west of Tokyo itself. A minor side-note: I went to Chiba city when I was filmed as an extra in the Grudge 2.

For me, this story had a lot of interesting cultural things (Japanese) that I could relate to, and that made me very excited to read it. On the other hand, the complexity of the story in such a short number of pages, was utterly discouraging. It was difficult to follow what was going on without highlighting, or writing down notes.

Another part I did like, was the concept of having a human being serve as a place for digital storage, as well as a messenger. Having this man travel all around with different bits of information in his head-different secret messages in encrypted languages that only the receiving end could understand-was fascinating to ponder. I imagine that eventually, all humans will have some sort of micro-data chip in them by which to store information, documents, etc. When the nanotechnology for implants this small will come around, however, I do not know.

It's Almost Like Communism- Except Not

I've lived in Japan for two years, and I played tennis while I lived there. I've played tennis against many Japanese high school kids. From what I have come to learn, kids there pick something-either a sport or a subject-that they start to go all out on, every day, when they're between 5 and 10 years old. A lot of the kids I played matches against had been playing since age 8, 5, 6, etc. I always put up a good fight, having only played for 2 or 3, but my point is that they pursued something vigorously. American kids, unless they have a gift, or their parents have money, don't tend to follow the same path. Japan is very technologically advanced, and many kids do play arcade games, etc., but they don't devote their entire lives to it- besides, they cannot afford to when the culture has so much pressure riding on their backs to be successful.

Discussion Question: Although American culture is far from Japanese culture, what do you feel it would take for the education system in America to shift to a policy of pushing kids at a young age to pursue some one or two specialities, so that by the time they become an adult, they have mastered one or two arts?

Moor/Bynum Intro to Cyberphilosophy

An interesting philosophy is the one that Moor and Bynum present in their introduction. They hold that "computing provides philosophy with new and fertile subject matter, models, and methods." This they say in their opening statement. However, in the very last paragraph of their introduction, the two assert that "no scientific or technological enterprise is conducted without a philosophical framework." Hold up a minute- which came first then? Luckily, common knowledge tells us that computers have only been around for just over sixty years, and that what Moor and Bynum really meant, is that computing is just one of very many sources from which philosophy finds its fuel. Adaptation to an ever changing world is essential, which, given the conclusions above, the very course for which we are working at this moment would not have been possible just sixty years ago. I am fascinated to think about what course must have been in place of this one back then. Or, wasn't there one? With regards to the subject matter concerning this course, though, I must say I am excited to begin addressing all the issues that Moor and Bynum decided to include references to in their introduction: artificial intelligence, phenomenology, pedagogy, historically Western philosophical thought, epistemology, and ethics, etc. Perhaps my greatest interest among all these stimulating topics will be ethics. I look forward to learning the opinions of my classmates on matters regarding cyber-ethics, including intellectual property rights, and copyright law with regards to the net. There is a whole spew of controversy surrounding law and the internet, and I absolutely love engaging in fast-paced, intellectual conversations with my peers. To all my peers reading this entry, I look forward to working with you.