Collective stupidity in multiplayer gaming.

A group of people tasked to work together towards a common goal can usually be assured to cooperate to some extent, this does not always apply to to the internet and multiplayer games, an example of which is the multiplayer flash game Transformice.

Transformice is a game with a simple concept, the player is given control of a mouse and tasked with retriving a cheese and returning to a mouse hole in a given amount of time. This is complicated by the fact you are to some extent racing against up to 20 other mice with the same goal as you and because most levels are imposible to pass without the help of a 'Shaman' a mouse with powers to create ramps, trampolines, balloons, boxes, balls etc and to combine them to create nearly limitless potential ways (a platform with balloons attached to each end creates an elevator to lift mice to their goal).

Problems arise when a shaman either cannot or chooses not to help or a mouse decides to prioritize their own success at the sacrifice of the groups. An inexperienced shaman can have trouble solving problem and a large crowd of other players yelling advice to him through the chat can quickly become overwhelming while a shaman can also choose to use his powers to hinder rather than help the group, he can block the exit hole with an unmoveable barrier, he can use a cannonball to push others of the map killing them or can choose to simply do nothing to help. Some levels can be compleately destroyed and rendered incabable of passing if done wrong or rushed, for instance the level where the mice have to get from one platform to the other be traversing a seesaw, 98% of the time, as soon as the level starts about 30% of the group imediately rushes toward the exit with 1 or 2 making it and the rest dying and taking the seesaw with them stranding the other 70% with no chance of clearing the level, over time people start thinking that the only way to clear the level is to rush at the start.

From experience the size of the group playing is directly proportional to the percentage of the group who pass the level, when playing with a group of only 6 almost every level was passed by everyone with the shaman given enough room to think about the problem and build the solution and when the shaman did not know the solution to the puzzle advise was alot easier to obtain while larger groups resulted in rushing and abuse of shamans who did not know answers instead of helpfull advice.

I want my privacy compromised at times.

Unfortunately last weekend I lost my phone. This is rather annoying for many reasons including have to get a new mobile, new sim cards and try and track down people's phone numbers. I had assumed my contacts could be recovered on my sim as this has happened to some of my friends before. So for this reason I had been saving contacts to my sim card and had not bothered to back them up.

Turns out Vodafone have changed their privacy policies since my friends had their sims replaced. Vodafone and 2degrees no longer store your contact details to my annoyance. As I was in the process of getting a new sim card I suggested that you should be able to choose whether they save your contacts or not. This way if you're like me and silly enough to mislay your phone, you don't need to go through the arduous ordeal of trying to restore your phone and contacts. This is because they will be already waiting for you.

Cyber-Relationships: Changing Moral Positions

With the advent of virtual worlds and cyber communities for individuals to have a meeting of the minds, it is no wonder our relationships today are becoming so much more complicated. As if working out the intricacies of relationships (platonic and romantic) wasn't challenging enough, the internet has added a whole new dimension to cultivate. This is particular harrowing for romantic relationships. In class we had the example of a woman divorcing her husband because he was married to another woman in Second Life, while The Sunday Times columnist commented that she’d just lure her husband off the computer and back into reality. These two views show the schism developing in the new relationship “rules” of a digital age.

There’s always a lot of debate surrounding big topics in new media, like privacy, ethics and dependency, since these have potential policy connections. There is minor coverage of shifting relationship norms, but these are often handled with humor and disbelief. Just like people resisting the new technology at first, people are resisting the need to assess their stance on relationship boundaries within their technologically saturated lives.

To continue with the example above, what exactly constitutes cheating in a relationship now? The idea of the “emotional affair” is not new, but it used to be manifested in a seemingly harmless friendship, which then began to damage the emotional connection to their respective partners. With the internet now, and the constant connectivity, it is much easier to develop these affairs, especially in forums like Second Life. After our talk about cyborgs it would stand to reason that since technology is becoming a part of our identities, that affairs online are a form of cheating. There is a real person on the other side who is communicating and investing time in a “relationship.” It’s easy to discredit these relationships because of their video game like qualities, however they should be held to higher standards. It is yet another part of society in transition due to the integration of new media into our lives. It will be interesting to see how the morals sort themselves out over time.

SNS and I

I am one of the few people in the western world who doesn't own a facebook. I used to have a myspace, bebo and a Hi5 but I deleted those accounts and never signed up to facebook because of some of the issues about social networking sites that were bought up in class.

These issues were that of communication on social networking sites. One was that of small talk. This is also a reason why I don't go on msn anymore either. I'm not someone who is into small talk, I'd rather get to know someone a bit more deeply if I was going to establish being friends with somebody. This used to happen with comments on my myspace or bebo page and some of it was so pointless I wouldn't even respond. Some would think I would be a separated, lonely person but it's the opposite when I know more people in the real world than the virtual world.

Then there is the tension between the static self and the fragmented self. The fragmented self is something that is seen on social networking sites as people seem to keep up dating and changing their profiles. This happened a lot on myspace and bebo with the people I was friends with. I couldn't really be bothered doing this. I guess it's because I see myself as having a static personality. This isn't to say that I haven't been different in different kinds of situations or throughout my life as I have changed to an extent but I see myself as the same at the core of it. Yet these social networking sites are good for people around my age as this stage of life is mostly identity formation and these sites are good for constructing ones own identity.

Yet I'm still torn if social networking sites are challenging traditional modes of communication or whether it has always been like this but on a new playing field.

Awkward

So computer science began as a women-dominated field.

And with that link, I was going to write a blog about women in cyberspace and how women blog more reflexively than men and I was going to link it to this video by Madonna and quote the beginning of it.

But then my choir concert came up.

And with it came the awkward conversations over text and Facebook inviting people from my "outer circles" to the concert. In fact, I'm inviting some of those people right now on another tab, and it really brings home the fact that I'm not as comfortable with these people as I feel I should be. And, while I may not be 100% sure, I get the feeling they're not particularly comfortable with me either.

I mean, I can hold conversations over the internet with my friends for hours and hours on end, and it'd be fine and dandy. But with my kind-of-friends, they all have to walk the dog, or take a shower, or wash the dishes after about ten minutes of awkward back-and-forth.

It's like a game we all play, pretending that we love talking to people who we don't really like talking to at all.

But while I may not actually go out of my way to do a favour for these people, or even hold a decent conversation with them, that's not to say those members of the outer circle aren't important. They do have social capital, and are a useful resource, inhuman as it may sound: whether it be for [dissenting] opinions, networking (looking for jobs, for example) or just to sell things to (like choir concert tickets). Perhaps Dunbar's number is still in effect, after all - I just called some of my friends resources.

Or perhaps I just need to get some sleep.

?

Being part of the young generation that has more or less grown up with the Internet curiously doesn’t mean one can’t feel hopelessly old-fashioned and lost when confronted with some of the oddities of the virtual world. A bit like parents at the start of the current century witnessing their offspring only functioning socially with a mobile phone attached to their ear. But I’m losing track here. What I’m talking about is the virtual world of coupling. Which makes me feel like an old fashioned lady reminiscing the good old days when kids still believed masturbation causes blindness, because despite seeing the positive aspects and having spoken to couples who have found their fairytale ending with their match made in cyberspace I can’t help but feel slightly unsettled at the thought of some computer technology finding compatible partners. And I’ve just lost track again. I blame this on having lost track in general after having come across some online phenomena, which has left me slightly confused. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, pity or judge, try to make sense or just forget.

At this point I’m so off track that I need someone to tell me how to process the following: In Second Life it is apparently possible to have ones avatar engage in all sorts of fantastic sex practices, one of which is this: You avatar can masturbate. It can do that while looking at online-porn! So there is someone sitting in front of a laptop, looking at his or her virtual self masturbating in front of a virtual laptop. That’s it. I have no more words. I’ll just let this stand for itself and tell you this fun fact can be found in the following research paper: 'Now The Orgy is Over' by Dennis D. Waskul and  Justin A. Martin.

I guess no-one told her about the Dunbar number?

According to MSNBC's technolog, Karen Beth Young, an American woman, is currently suing Facebook after they disabled her account. She claims they did this because she started a petition page to increase the current 5000 'friend' limit. Clearly, no-one thought to tell this woman she is only capable of maintaining 150 meaningful relationships. But, do facebook friends really qualify as meaningful relationships? I went through my 203 facebook friends and counting only the ones I would say hello to if I saw them in the street, found only 44 of them made the cut. Maybe I'm just antisocial but the thought of trying to maintain 5000, or even 1000 friends is impossible, and a little frightening.

The thing is, these people aren't conventional friends. Social networking sites blur the real life barriers you put between your interactions with genuine friends, acquaintances, that guy you met once at a bar and Mahoumed Jahar(no mutual friends). Despite the insistence of facebook, all of these people are not your 'friends.' South Park had it right when they criticised the emerging 'friending' culture. Yes, I too was obligated into adding my nana as a friend. At least twitter is honest, because really a lot of them are 'followers.' They might occasionally browse your page to keep up to date with where you are and who you're with (stalkers, much?), but they're also likely to avert your eye in the street to avoid the awkward 'I know who you are but don't want to greet you' smile.

Putting the friend issue aside, the greatest thing about this story is that apparently Karen Beth Young drove from her home in Maryland to Facebook headquarters (about 3700km) to demand her account be reinstated. Now that's dedication.

Today on Youtube.

I couldn't help noticing this morning as I arrived on the youtube homepage that there had been a categorisation error for some of the videos. The Christchurch Earthquake was displayed under the entertainment headline and under the sport headline was a recorded online match of the Starcraft 2 computer game.

As I pondered these media highlights I realised that there may not have been a categorisation mishap at all. The Christchurch Earthquake was quite a devastating event for sure. Many people are without homes and neccesities and a young child rode his bicycle into a large crack that had developed in the ground. However I assume that for the vast majority of the people browsing youtube who are not affected by the event, this really is just an entertainment video. Many people are going to click on this video hoping to see buildings falling down and vehicles exploding, I notice I have done this myself sometimes. When the news comes on and annoucnes that a volcano has erupted and pelted a small nearby village with rocks before enulfing it with lava, I will say something along the lines of "Oh dear me, oh my, those poor people!", meanwhile my mind is tingling with anticipation for the upcoming footage. If it turns out it is just me that does this then I admit it, I have a problem. If it is not just me, then perhaps youtube has caught onto the way humans work and decided to categorise things honestly for once.

As for the sport section. Starcraft is a very serious game, at least in South Korea. If you do not believe me then type 'Korea national sport' in Google. Computer games are gaining traction around the world as serious competitive events with big money prizes and it is not just in Korea. Who knows where this trend will lead, perhaps the Starcraft World Cup?

Privacy & the Digital Age

Privacy in the digital age is an important factor, and the issue of privacy has increasingly become a problem with the growth of technologies. As technologies develop, privacy has changed. We now live in a more commercialised society where our private lives are more often than not blurred in between.

Our less privatised lives highlight the greater surveillance that is put on us. We are easily tracked and watched in all areas of our lives. Security cameras, CCTV, and online social networking sites are the main areas in which privacy is becoming an issue and the ways in which we are being surveyed.

We often trade up aspects of our privacy to access sites such as Facebook which questions how much we really value our privacy. Facebook’s privacy settings are controlled by users. The settings a user uses is an issue as there are many cases where employers survey and track potential or current employees based on their Facebook profiles to understand a side of them they would otherwise not know about.

Security cameras are also all over today, whether or not we are conscious of its presence. They monitor what people are doing and are meant to keep society in order. But how much surveillance is too much? Despite the obvious usefulness of CCTVs in the area to create a safer community this jeopardises our privacy. If we’re being constantly watched, where do we get our freedom?

The less privatised world means that every move we make out on the street, or every click we make on the internet is being tracked by someone out there. Privacy in the digital age is becoming more and more complicated everyday and this makes it hard for people to know when they are being watched or not.

Why Create Facebook Places?

This new Facebook application works by enabling users to "check in" at bars, restaurants, stores and other locations. Friends of that user will know their exact geographic location. This means Facebook can now broaden its core goal, bringing people together online, into the physical worldto apparently give users an even richer real-world experience.

At the launch of Places, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg presented how the application will benefit Facebook users. It provides a means to realise and organise real-time meetings with others as well as a virtual documentation of our memories. Zuckerburg shared the example of a person visiting a beach and finding out that her parents had their first kiss at that location via Facebook

"One day, when it's done, you'll go to a page

and on that page will be our collective memory [...] that's dope.."

It also includes some novelty aspects intrinsic to Facebook – you can become mayor of a location if you visit it the most. Also Facebook money is generated through loyalty schemes- virtual money that has real world purpose

I suspect that Places is disguised marketing device to gather consumer data. Consistent of course, with Facebook’s other core goal to bring in advertising revenue, and location based services like Places have a big part to play in the future of online advertising

There is no question that knowing where people are and what places they visit will be valuable data for Facebook and its advertisers. It will permit Facebook to better understand individuals’ wants and needs not only based on what they 'like' but on their actual behaviours. Ads can then be personalised and shaped to a user.

Another key benefit is the social nature of Facebook, which allows connections with individual consumers to spread to friends via notifications and newsfeeds to provide extra publicity.

Knowing and individuals Geographic placement enables Facebook to exert ads relevant to their location. Location services enable them to deliver a compelling offer or reward when consumers are at the point of decision. When ads are pushed to people the moment they are engaged with something they have a greater effect on customers. Imagine you pass by McDonalds, Places phone application can send you a coupon at the exact moment you are passing by that store to entice the individual inside

Marketers can also use the data gathered via places to cross reference things that people 'like' and locations that they frequent, and if they see large correlations, they can then set up billboards, other advertisements or shops in that location.

So what do you think is the motive behind Facebook? Is Facebook Places new kind of social tool or a disguised means of obtaining consumer data?

Please comment below!

Money, money and money.

Technology nowadays is revolving faster than ever. The release of iPd has drwn a lot of ttention all over the world. Apple being a very valued international brand yet has done it again. However, a funny picture has been spreading over the internet for the past few weeks. So far apple has released new gadgets about once every two years. When they release these gadgets they don't only release them once. With minor alterations they tend to add a number at the end calling some the 2nd generation, the 3rd generation and so on, encouraging consumers to purchase the latest model out there. This photo however, criticizes the iPad. People have stated that at this rate by 2012 Apple will release an iBoard, by 2014 an iMat. These functions do not vary much in technical sense, but just alterations of size.

Although the world had been drawn to the release of iPad with excitement, if we own an iPhone or an iPod touch, how much does it really differ? Is it worth all the costs? Owning an iPod Touch myself, the iPad didn't seem new to me at all. The functions were very similar, and having bought my iPod touch not long ago, I just couldn't see the point of buying an iPad, which has very similar functions to the gadget I already have. Some argue that producers are just infor it for our money. That they are constanly in the race to release new products and fooling us into buying new gadgetes every few months. How far are these people willing to go? What new inventions will emerge in the next few years? How are these people manipulating us to purchase new goods when the old ones work just fine?

you are 5 and you have a cell phone? whom do you call?

“you are 5 and you have a mobile phone”, is a very common statement used these days by many adults and even teenagers. But there is nothing to be surprised about. These days, young kids own a mobile phone and they know how to use it including operating very complicated functions like operating a GPS or sending emails through phones. But is it meant for them?

Children own phones not because they have to make real use of it like make important phone calls or text messages containing important information. It is merely to show off to their mates that they own a mobile phone and use it as they like. However, it is very unsafe as children are exposed to a lot of information which they aren’t supposed to be exposed to at a tender age. For example, children are prone to giving their cell numbers to many people who in turn send them text and multimedia messages having sexual content which affects the mental health of children. Moreover, the personal and private nature of mobile phones makes parental supervision almost impossible.

Moreover, children are addicted to mobile phones. It has become an integral part of their life. The EMC world has published a report which says that children are addicted to cell phones more than toys and they can’t live without it and parents often cannot keep a check on what do the children do with mobile phones.

It is not only harmful to the child’s mental health but also to their brain. A research proves that children at the age of 10 or below are prone to ear tumors by 4 times compared to adults. The radiations from cell phones can also affect their DNA. To prevent the misuse of cell phones, a special mobile phone was devised in UK but was withdrawn from the market because it encouraged children at that age to buy a mobile phone.



Cell phones are necessary to an extent when parents want to contact their children or for use in emergency but children aren’t mature enough to decide what is right and what is wrong for them. Parents should be careful while giving cell phones to children and should take it back when the need is over. Also children should be made to understand what they should do and what not in order to maintain their privacy and safety.