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?