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