Blog for ATEC/EMAC

Image Object - Final

2011-05-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

Text Object - Final

2011-05-10T07:50:00.000-07:00

What's Mine is Yours -The Rise of Collaborative Consumption.

My initial response, in something similar to it’s actual order of occurrence and construction, to the first part of What’s Mine is Yours.

We've all heard "don't judge a book by it's cover." Apparently I don't. While I did notice, from an artistic viewpoint, the repetition and symbol use of the cover's design, I did nothing more than that. Rather, my first impression of the book came from the inside of cover. I meant to flip through the book, take a look at the layout before actually sitting down to read; instead, I only opened the cover, and was greeted with this odd little box very similar to those student/year/condition tables in some of my high school text books.

"Barter, swap, or pass on this book."

Now this… this is just weird. Never in my life have I seen something like this in a book. There was a haiku travel bug in a geocache, but travel bugs are meant to be moved around and tracked. Books are not. Books belong on shelves. Buy, read, shelve. Re-read, re-shelve. Having known nothing about the book -aside from the fact that I should've bought it three days earlier- this piqued my interest considerably. What was this book about? Why did the authors incorporate this encouragement to pass the book on? What where they hoping to accomplish? What point were they attempting to make to the reader? It made a good primer.

And, the book is about… collaborative consumption. More specifically, collaborative consumption using the internet and social networking. You should understand a few things: I'm young, I'm sheltered, we don't answer the phone or the door, we're not friends with our neighbors, I don't leave my house if I don't have to. Collaborative consumption is barely even a romantic concept to me. I'm blaming it on the way I was raised. My folks got twitchy if I was late because I gave someone a ride home. And god forbid I let a stranger in a pinch use my cell phone, or do business on craigslist. The ideas of borrowing and trading, 'gift communities', sharing resources, etc. are just…

They're anachronisms. Technology lets us jump the space/time gap in communications easily now, but it also lets us bypass one of the primary building blocks of relationships – proximity. The old style of collaborative consumption – that is, prior to mass production – was based around a proximity that we just don’t have to value anymore. The “new” collaborative consumption is on the rise using a new model of proximity; one created by the various mediums of digital communication.

I think it’s more than technology and the way I was raised though. Our society, as a whole, is one of mass-production and hyper-consumption. Throwaway living. Very few things are built to last anymore. They are built to work a while, and then break so you have to buy a new one. No repeat business, no profit, after all. (The idea reminded me of this commercial from 2007). We are in a consumption based society - paying for things we don't need but have been told that we want; things that are not likely to enhance our quality of life.

Collaborative consumption breaks the system a bit. Enough. Even things as small as reusing, recycling, or re-gifting break this throwaway behavior pattern. The financial downturn spurred it forward, and social networking makes it easier. If I don't need something anymore, maybe I know someone who does. Maybe someone I know knows someone else. A status post on facebook or a tweet is a quick way to find out.

Ride sharing, bartering, trading, gifting… they also seem like really good ways to develop relationships and, on a larger level, a closer knitted community than what I have seen my whole life. Of course, the pessimist in me says that before this movement can really happen, on a national level, Wal-Mart (and it’s cousins) have to go under. And that will probably only happen around the apocalypse or a nuclear fallout, in which case collaborative consumption will likely be a matter of survival anyways. But still, maybe I'll write my name and a note in my book and hand it off to someone else when I'm finished reading it.

2011-03-22T21:33:00.000-07:00

Share. Gift. Swap. Barter.

What's Mine is Yours

2011-02-20T22:01:00.000-08:00

The Rise of collaborative Consumption.

"Barter, swap, or pass on this book."

Collaborative consumption using the internet and social networking. You should understand a few things: I'm young, I'm sheltered, we don't answer the phone or the door, we're not friends with our neighbors, I don't leave my house if I don't have to. Collaborative consumption is barely even a romantic concept to me. I'm blaming it on the way I was raised. My folks got twitchy if I was late because I gave someone a ride home. And god forbid I let a stranger in a pinch use my cell phone, or do business on craigslist. The ideas of borrowing and trading, 'gift communities', sharing resources, etc. are just… they're anachronisms.

I was also taught, too well perhaps, not to trust people online. You don't know who they are; they could be anyone. Airbnb and CouchSurfing? That's a serious shift in perspective. But is there really a difference between someone advertising a room for rent on airbnb and advertising in a newspaper? No, there really isn't. I wouldn't trust one more than the other. While there are a lot of psycho people in the world, they're aren't as many as protective parents would lead us to believe. I do not really want to think about how they would react to me finding a place to stay through CouchSurfing if I go to Roswell over spring break.

Throwaway living. I love this phrase, because I know it's ture. I still believe my '87 Nissan Maxima with 70,000 miles and a short in the wiring is more reliable than my '07 Malibu. Very few things are built to last anymore. They are built to work a while, and then break so you have to buy a new one. No repeat business, no profit, after all. We are in a consumption based society - paying for things we don't need but have been told that we want, things that are not likely to enhance our quality of life. Collaborative consumption breaks the system a bit. Enough. Even things as small as reusing, recycling, or re-gifting break this throwaway behavior pattern. The financial downturn spurred it forward, and social networking makes it easier. If I don't need something anymore, maybe I know someone who does. Maybe someone I know knows someone else. A status post on facebook or a tweet is a quick way to find out.

THIS is the digital art review.

2010-11-22T21:51:00.001-08:00

Okay, this is the digital art review.

This, obviously, is a picture. A photograph. Taken with a digital camera. It could use some brightness/contrast editing and some color re-balance.

Nah.

I used it as a base for a piece of digital art.

I would just like to say that getting this from the above picture was much more difficult than it looks. I feel like we appreciate the product more when we have an idea of the process that produced it. I'm not walking you through it, so just take my word for it: it was not a simple selection to make.

Also, the original was black on white. I inverted the colors so it would look better on the black blog background.

This looks cool, I love it. Something that I can do digitally that I have a hard time with in traditional mediums is simplicity. Two colors. One object. Stark. Simple. Efficient.

Working in the digital realm opens new possibilities for me. I've started experimenting with this stark style in photography and ink, which I doubt I would have done if not for being able to produce it in digital art.

The text inside the tree are the lyrics to a song called The Autumn Effect, by 10 Years. It complements the picture, although that information would have to be given to you as the lyrics cannot be read.

Again, you'll appreciate this image more if you know a bit about Photoshop and the layering here.

That seems to be a theme in digital art. It is as if using a computer is cheating... but as a photographer, traditional artist, and digital artist, I can say that Photoshop is just another tool. Learning to use it is like learning to use a wood burner or dremel for putting art into wood. Or learning to use a paint brush (clumsy, unwieldy things) when you're use to pencils.

I believe the art community as a whole has made a shift toward incorporating and accepting digital art. I have recently seen many works and instalations that are either entirly digital, or have a digital component. There are also online, interactive pieces of digital art, such as Peter Luining's works at www.ctrlaltdel.org (go play with them, they're fun.)

Almost a digital art review.

2010-11-22T20:52:00.000-08:00

This post is supposed to be a review of some piece of digital art.

It turned into a mini-essay. But it's good, so the actual blog post will be separate.

As an artist, I thought it would be good to discuss my own definitions of and the distinctions between traditional art and digital art.

Traditional art would be the hands-on media forms: drawing, painting, sculpting... acrylic, graphite, charcoal, crayon, oil. Particularly drawing/sketching and painting. I consider sculptors to be their own little sub culture, (though this is due largely to my dislike of sculpting and horrendous inability to produce anything decent.)

I feel that photography and filmography can be placed in a subcategory.

Digital art pretty much mean anything that was created using a computer, be it an interactive piece online, a rendering from Blender, or a picture created through photoshop. Digital art may also include computer generated music, as opposed to music directly from an instrument, which would be traditional.

But where does traditional stop and digital begin? especially when we consider photo-editing.

As a photographer, I say that changing a digital picture from color to black and white does not make it digital art. It simply makes it edited. Modifying the brightness and contrast or saturation does not make it digital art, it makes it retouched. The same applies for drawings that are scanned into the computer and have slight edits.

Taking elements from two different pictures and putting them into one however, that I consider digital art.

There is also the term "mixed-media," which can probably be applied to digital work that uses traditional art as it's base.

As a traditional artist (primarily graphite and ink drawings) I would ask "Is digital art actually art?"

The answer to that really depends on your answer to "what constitutes 'Art'?" Which is different question. Which I am not going to address.

Is photography art?

Well, to the grandmother who takes a hundred pictures a day of their first grandchild, no, it's not really art. It's more like archiving .

To the chick trying to take a sexy picture in their bathroom mirror with their camera phone for their profile picture... it's not art. I'm not sure what that is.

To the Best of Show winner of the City of Richardson's photography contest, it's definitely art.

Photography can be art... or not, (although I'm noticing the word itself has an artsy connotation.) The same can be said of other mediums as well. I.e. there is a distinguishable difference between a full blown graphite still life and a doodle in your notebook.

A non-photographer artist might think "psshh. Anyone can take a picture, what makes that art?" I did. Truth is, taking a balanced, well composed, aesthetically pleasing picture is a helluva lot harder than you'd think. Unless you've tried.

We tend to think the same way about digital art. As if using a computer program is cheating. But, that's how it goes with all the new stuff.

We stop thinking like that and appreciate the product much more once we have a glimpse of the process that produced it.

As an artist, I find that there is overlap in the primary skills. The over arching artistic ability is the ability to see. Being able to see the shapes and value changes in a still life. Being able to "crop with your eye" to take a well composed picture. Yes, a lot of it can be learned, but some people have a stronger inclination towards it... an instinct. Putting together a well balanced picture, using the colors (or lack thereof) to achieve a certain mood, the over-all ability to compose... is the same whether you are painting or photoshopping.

The fine-tuning comes with the medium and with knowing your tool. I've done some excellent graphite and ink work. My painting fails epically. Holding and swapping between three different pencils in one hand is a habit of mine. I'm clumsy as can be with a paint brush. Drawing with a homemade quill pen has a bit of learning curve compared to store bought metal pen tips.

Similarly, software is another tool and one has to learn to use it. Photoshop has a lot of buttons. Blender has A LOT of buttons. Learning to use either one was like learning to use the dremel, or the wood burner, or the airbrush...

The digital realm is just another medium for art.

CC

2010-11-15T10:24:00.000-08:00

Use a creative commons image.

Well, this was really good for me. Now I am at least somewhat familiar with the Creative Commons licensing types, which puts me one step closer to putting some of my own work under creative commons.

I'm not a big fan of Flickr, but I was impressed with the system for sorting through CC images, and with the brief summaries provided on the side bar explaining the attribution, non-commercial, no derivative, and share alike.

As a photographer and sometimes artist, I can definitly appreciate what CC does. For example, take a look at this picture:

Water drop pictures have been done time and time again, but that doesn't make getting a clear, crisp, centered shot any less difficult. If I took this picture, I would not be pleased if someone else to the credit for it.

I've taken at least one contest-winning photograph myself - a one of a kind picture - and I am almost paranoid about someone reusing it, saying it was their own. Or selling it. A full fledged copyright for a handful of pictures that I am particularly proud of is unreasonable. Getting them under a attribution, non-commercial CC license seems far more manageable.

Using the internet and tools such as Flickr, any 'sometimes' artist or photographer can get their work out there... and CC can provide a copyright-like sense of security over the artist's ownership of the work and the credit due to their time and effort.

note

2010-11-13T12:01:00.000-08:00

I was in bed sick most of the day on Friday, really the only time I got up was to take more NyQuil.

So, the blog post that should've been up yesterday will be posted sometime tonight.

Using the Social Netowrk

2010-11-05T19:31:00.001-07:00

"Have you learned to play yet?" - Creative Motion.

I was introduced to Creative Motion a few years ago when it was barely a fledgling out of the concept stage, through a friend whom I met through MySpace when I first started spinning fire. Since the days of the monthly Spinfest at White Rock Lake, where I became a semi-regular, Creative Motion has grown into a much larger "skill toy enthusiast" community.

They now host a weekly get-together called Cirque Out, either by the Richardson Public Library/ Civic Center, or at their rainy day location, The Peace Pipe; and Spinfest once a month at Heights Park.

Two months ago, a few members formed the Creative Motion performing troupe: the Circus Freaks.

I recently reconnected with the Creative Motion main, which included the vanguard of the performing troop, and got to hear a bit about what they are trying to do and how they are going about it. In a nutshell, the idea is to bring "circus-styled variety performers" into the performance side of Dallas and create a network with and a community of performers across Dallas and DWF.

Most of this networking and rapport building is done IRL through words and works, but I've seen Creative Motion come a LONG way in developing their online identity and presence as well, especially with the emergence of the performance troupe. They now have a maintained website, Facebook page, twitter feed, and an in-the-works wiki page, all of which can be conveniently accessed from the main site: http://www.circusfreaks.org/index.html

While you probably won't find them on Google unless you specifically search "Creative Motion" and/or "Circus Freaks," the effort they have put into using the social networking tools goes hand-in-hand with the traditional networking means. As a not so active skill toy practitioner, I keep up with Creative Motion's events and any time changes/cancellations through Facebook and it is incredibly convenient since I don't see these people on a regular basis.

Even though the Circus Freaks have their little corner of the web, every gig they have gotten so far as been through word of mouth. Someone is looking for performers, and someone knows someone. Not only was I surprised by this bit of information, I was surprised that I was surprised. The web and the networking tools in it are great and should be utilized, but it is NOT the be-all end-all. Real life networking is the foundation, digital networking is a tool to further it - to communicate across the space/time limitations.

Duh. Apparently I need to get out in the real world more. Instead of blogging ;)

Quasi-Video Blog

2010-10-23T05:12:00.000-07:00

Time spent working on video:

2 days - Approx. 28 hours.

This is a record.

Video length:

6 minutes 49 seconds.

So, I'm several hours past my "Friday at midnight" deadline, but... well, I kinda go perfectionist once I get into video editing. And I cut back quite a bit for this.

Currently it is posted as unlisted on YouTube.... hopefully the embedded video will work.

The quality may be poor if it is still in processing.

Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hYqgXVhJek

a week without facebook.

2010-10-15T02:08:00.000-07:00

Officially quit facebook at 6:34pm, Friday October 8^th. (according to the "I'm quitting" status message.)

A few observations I made note of in the first couple of days:

Saturday, October 09, 2010. ~1:30 a.m. Roughly seven hours without facebook.

Observation #1: I prefer to share pictures with people by posting them on facebook and directing friends to the appropriate album.

This came up because I rented a viola on Friday, and was telling a friend (who played viola for years, and who currently lives in a different state,) about it. He asked me to describe the bow, to which I replied: "Uhmm… it's a bow?" I would like to take a picture of it for him, and I immediately thought "I'll just post it on Face… oh, wait." Guess he'll be getting an e-mail.

October 9, 2010 2:54 am

Observation #2: Feels like there's a lot less to do online.

October 9, 2010 1:20 pm

Observation #3: the bookmark for facebook is the first one on my bookmarks bar. The original placement was actually as a filler, to push other bookmarks more mid-screen so they were easier to find and get to (this was probably part of my adjustment to a widescreen laptop.) However, facebook is usually the first page I open anyways, and force of habit tried to open it today. I moved the bookmark to the other end of the bar. Make it just a tiny bit less convenient.

Currently, having logged back into facebook after almost a week without.

Beyond the observations above, I had a periodic urge when I was online to check facebook, just to see if I had any messages or notifications. Other than some of the mindless games, I mainly started using facebook because there are people who use it to get in touch with me.

I logged back into facebook earlier today. I had eight notification, none of which were anything important, which disappointed me. It is the same feeling as getting a text message, hoping that it is from a certain someone, and it being one of those nonsense chain texts. There were also two event invites, neither of which were overly important, and some 70 requests for the game apps (Farmville, CafeWorld, etc.)

Overall, I didn't have any serious "facebook withdrawals," but I did have to adjust to not automatically going to it for the games and such. It was mostly a matter of breaking a habit - one that I didn't know I had until this past week.

Reading Rabbits

2010-10-08T20:55:00.001-07:00

This week, I had to do "40 minutes of uninterrupted reading." No big deal, right? Wrong.

Turns out, I don't pick up a book and just read as much as I use to. Not novels at least. I probably get 40 minutes or more out of reading for school, but it is not on a regular basis.

This time around, I read two articles from a book called Taking Sides, which is for my Mass Communications and Behavior class. These two articles were about violence in video games causing violent behavior and if it is something we should be concerned about; one covered the yes side of the argument, the other covered the no.

Uninterrupted means no background noise, nothing else going on, and no distractions. No music, no looking things up on the internet, etc. Reading without outside distraction is easy enough, I always prefer a quiet environment for reading and writing anyway, but I noticed that I have this habit of interrupting myself.

Now, this may have been because of the content of my reading material. I have taken social psychology classes and have various bits and pieces of information about this video games and violence topic, so every couple of paragraphs I would stop reading and start recapping or connecting the reading to other information. I was still "managing multiple streams of information" as I would be doing online with multiple tabs.

In this case, having multiple information streams wasn't a bad thing, because they all stayed fairly on topic and probably helped me synthesize the information, but the digression did significantly slow down my reading.

I will have to try this 40 minutes uninterrupted again with a novel and see if the same thing happens. I think that it will; I will read something that reminds me of something else, and chase the rabbit down that hole for a few minutes, then come back a read until I find another rabbit hole. I suppose it is similar to what we do on the internet; if something interesting comes up, it is easy to open another tab and explore that topic, and then switch quickly between multiple topics. Has the quick and convenient way the internet provides information changes the way that I think, leaving me falling down mental rabbit holes every few pages? Maybe. Or maybe I just have an active imagination that would being doing the same thing without the speed/convenience priming of internet browsing.

Generative and Appliancized

2010-10-01T22:15:00.000-07:00

In the Introduction and first chapter of The Future of the Internet, Zittrain presents these two categories of technology; generative and appliancized. I'm going to highlight the differeances between the two.

Generative technology would be a flexible platform base that can be reprogrammed for a variety of uses. A Personal Computer is the clearest example of generative technology. While computer manufactures do provide software bundles (such as Office), and almost every computer one can buy will come with a pre-installed operating system of the buyer's choosing, the pre-installed software is not "locked-in," nor is it the be-all and end-all. Software can be added, software can be removed.

With operating systems, there are of course, some compatibility hang-ups when it comes to hardware and drivers (to my knowledge, this is mostly with laptops,) but that aside, it is possible to uninstall one operating system and replace it with another.

The main point that Zittrain brought to my attention in chapter one was that the beauty of the early PC was this flexibility - a feature that my generation of computer-users takes for granted. Though, feature is not the right word. When we think of a personal computer, we think of a collection of programs that we run on the computer, the actually physical box with the wires sticking out of the back is an afterthought. You say "computer," I say "Borderlands!"

The ability to accept and use third party software is what defines our computers. I've been playing computer games since 1993 (and installing them myself since '95 or so, when my dad got tired of doing it for me); the idea that this flexibility was once novel is just a bit beyond me.

Now, the counterpart of the super-generative-technology is appliancized technology. That is, an appliance that has one purpose (or set of purposes) and those alone. It is not meant to be tinkered with. It is not meant to be dynamic. For example, a CD player. It plays audio CDs, nothing more. These "appliances" have evolved into devices that have many purposes and abilities - mp3 players now store pictures and videos, and mine can even record audio files, - but they don't do much outside of those purposes, and cannot easily (if at all) be made to do anything they were not intended for.

Honestly, generative technology requires that you know how to use it; beyond knowing how to install and run software. Computers now days do a lot of stuff, and they do a lot of stuff behind the scenes that the user may or may not know about. It is frustrating to have a computer get a virus, and to have to jump through the hoops of getting someone to fix it. It is less frustrating when you know how to fix it yourself, or even better, when you know how to avoid being in those virus-ridden or hard-drive crashed situations.

Having said all of that. Are we moving towards more appliancized technology? Will we primarily stick with the generative for computers, networking, and internet? Or will we start seeing a mix of the two - a computer that accepts third party software, but does not allow the user to customize that software? Operating systems that are programmed to do everything automatically so that the user does not have to worry about updates, settings, etc; without the option to configure it otherwise?

The following is a humorous bit, simply to emphasize that last question:

When I got a new laptop with Windows 7, I spent the first couple of days tinkering with it: changing the display (monochrome Windows Classic, thank-you-very-much) was just the tip of the iceberg. No, I do not wish to register Windows. No, I would not like to activate MacAfee, in fact, I will promptly uninstall it and replace it with anti-virus of my choosing. No, do not automatically check for updates. No, I do not want desktop clean-up wizard to remove unused icons… What if my computer just starting doing all of those things, without me telling it to, or without asking me? That wouldn't fly half as well as the computer itself would.

"Dear computer, you are an electronic idiot, stop trying to do things that you think I want you to do, because I am not technologically retarded. Thank you."

I edited a Wiki page!

2010-09-24T15:42:00.000-07:00

Oooh that was stressful.

I made a few edits to the Harvest Moon 3 wiki page, mostly adding some details on to what was already there.

As much as I've played said game, I could've made the wiki page read like a walkthrough guide, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for. I think, maybe, I didn't tone it down enough, but I suppose the beauty of Wikipedia is that if someone doesn't like what I put out there, they can fix it. Of course, we're talking about a blip of information on a GameBoy Color game that was released a decade ago; I could barely find decent FAQs to check my information against, so I don't think anyone is going to be very concerned about it.

Over all, I was very very conscious of what I was putting out there. I didn't want to add wrong or superfluous information, or have anything worded in an unclear way or be grammatically incorrect... I mean, once it's out there, it's out there. Did anyone else experience this near paranoia of doing something wrong?

If everyone out there making Wiki-edits is as concerned as I am about the quality of the information they are posting, well, I guess Wiki would be great and mostly accurate, wouldn't it?

Driving Distracted

2010-09-17T19:53:00.000-07:00

My previous post was about the potential of cellphones - and the various communication mediums they now include - becoming too pervasive in our lives. Maybe we could end up glued in our little hover chairs with our entire world confined to the screen in front of our face; but that's a bit further-fetched than, say, nuclear apocalypse. So, here is a slightly more realistic, and concrete, concern about cellphones and their [over]use.

In 2006, psychologists at the University of Utah published a study about using a cell phone while driving. Using a driving simulator, participants 'drove' behind a pace car that braked intermittently and their reaction times were measured when they were 1. not distracted, 2. talking on a cellphone, 3. talking on a hands-free cellphone, and 4. intoxicated at the .08% blood-alcohol level.
The details can be found here, but I've pulled out a couple of highlights:

"Both handheld and hands-free cell phones impaired driving, with no significant difference in the degree of impairment. "
"Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk."
The results support that "hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones because the conversation itself distracts drivers from road conditions."
The conclusion: “Impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk."

I particularly like point three. The only thing having a headset or speaker-phone does is put both hands back on the steering wheel; it doesn't seem to do much for putting attention on back on the road. For most of us driving is very automatic, and I think that makes us extremely susceptible to over-estimating our abilities to multi-task and otherwise divide our attentions.

There's a short post at Tech Chick about "OnStar’s new 'responsible connectivity' initiative." Check it out. It's all the more interesting if you keep the cellphones and impairment findings in mind.

Cell phone saturation

2010-09-11T00:34:00.000-07:00

Next time you are out shopping, walking across campus, or on public transit; take a listen and a look around. How many people are talking on cell phones? Texting? Browsing? How many people have a Bluetooth headset on? How often are you talking, texting, or browsing on that cellular device?
Now, I am NOT anti-cell phone by any means. Google maps on my Treo was incredibly handy. So is being able to look something up when I am not near a computer. When the tornado sirens went off during my class Wednesday evening, most of us were on our cellphones getting weather updates while hiding out in the Callier Center's interior 'safe' rooms. Cell phones have become a convenience, and for some people a necessity.

The CTIA conducted a semiannual US wireless industry survey for the last half of 2009;

"The survey of wireless carriers revealed that over 285 million Americans are mobile subscribers, about 91 percent of the total population. […] Americans traded 822 billion text messages—5 billion per day—for the second half of 2009, and over 1.5 trillion for the whole year. MMS messaging is more than double year-over-year for the last half of 2009, with 24.2 billion photos, videos, and audio clips moving from one mobile phone to another in just six months." (Full article here.)

Unfortunately, this kind of convenience may come at a price. We may be in danger of being taken hostage by a self-made alternate reality - more concerned about (and preoccupied with) checking e-mail, facebook feeds, tweets, texts, and who knows what else than with the real, physical, immediate world around us.

MotherLoverGoddess shares my pondering and concern in her post Please Stop Texting:

I watched shows like Caprica and see the holo-bands the characters wear which take them to a virtual world and I think - how long? How long until that REALLY happens? Or Wall-e? How long until we are sitting in hovering chairs only talking to other people via a computer screen? How long? Not long. It's right around the corner people, it really is.

RFID Chips

2010-09-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

They are small, they have been around for a while, and they are moving towards some new, and questionable, uses.
RFID stands for radio-frequency identification. (Read here for an in depth explanation.) This technology is already used widely; some of the most common examples being the 'chips' placed in pets as ID tags, the EZPass or toll-tag, and for tracking inventory and cargo in shipping. RFID chips are also being used in surgical sponges to avoid the sponges being left inside of patients after invasive surgery. (Full article.)
The technology is useful, of course, in these cases, but when it comes to having personal identification information stored in one, tiny little device, things get sketchy.
The first obvious question: how secure is the information? There have been many studies and tests that demonstrate how easily (and cheaply) RFID technology can be hacked and duplicated. This article (PDF) contains summations of a few of these studies, starting on page 4.

In Germany, beginning in November citizens will receive mandatory ID cards with RFID chips in them. "The new ID card will contain all personal data on the security chip that can be accessed over a wireless connection." (Article at International Business Times.) This article does express the concern that "Illegal access to the stored data would be useful to create perfectly forged passports and for criminals to use hijacked identities for supposedly secure transactions online."

Another concern expressed early in the development of RFID technology was the question of anonymity, should products begin to be RFID tagged. In his article RFID Chips Are Here , Scott Granneman wrote "Once you buy your RFID-tagged jeans at The Gap with RFID-tagged money, walk out of the store wearing RFID-tagged shoes, and get into your car with its RFID-tagged tires, you could be tracked anywhere you travel."
Could it happen? Probably.

With this easily-accessed-information-bank technology becoming more and more common, and the idea of products everywhere being RFID tagged, my only question is this: How long until one must have a chip in the back of their hand in order to buy simple commodities?

Another article of note:
Don't Let Schools Chip Your Kids

Introduction

2010-08-27T17:24:00.001-07:00

    This is my blog for my ATEC 2322 class. I am a junior at UTD; an Arts and Technology/ Emerging Media and Communications (hereafter ATEC and EMAC respectively) double major, likely to minor in psychology. I was undecided on a degree plan for a while, but most of my on again/off again hobbies have something to do with art, or computers, which kept bringing me back to ATEC.
    Those hobbies include drawing, writing, photography, video games, fire spinning, contact juggling, movie making/editing, playing guitar, and making… stuff. Stuff like bags and boxes and jewelry. I'm big on DiY projects, and recently made a pair of minimalist/almost-barefoot shoes modeled after those on InvisibleShoe.com. I also enjoy running, although I'm not very good at it, and have been slowly working my way through the Couch to 5k program.
    For anyone who isn't familiar with Contact Juggling… think Labyrinth and the "Fushigi Magic Gravity Ball" (which, by the way, is a nauseating disgrace to the contact juggling community. *shudder*)
    I'm the kind of person who sees something cool and goes "Oooh I bet I can do that." And sometimes my only reason for pursuing this that and another is "because I can" or "because it's cool" (teaching myself Latin, for example.) This leaves me with a bunch of little this/that/another's and not much for a specialty, but I suppose I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little.

Addendum!
Contact juggling video links:
Japanese Street Performer (Contact Juggling)
Contact Juggling . . . Beans