Vote

It's the weekend after all, too bad the debate is over

Food for Thought

Something to chew on.

Maybe it will expand your mind a little. Who knows?

Wording

It was recently explained to be by the Prof, why Andrejevic seems very calm in the book(to Prof, please correct me if I get it wrong again). Just in case you also missed it, "this one's for you".

He speaks in such a calm manner because he is trying to convince pople who don't already agree with him, and it makes sense to sounds like a reasonable human being when you're trying to convince people that your argument is valid.

However, I wish that he had actually sounded a little more confrontational, but that just might be cause I like controversy. And I would have liked a little more definition of "interactivity" as he used the term, because it took a while for me to fully figure out what he meant with the word.

Hallelujah

Salvation?

This could be it. This could be the first strike back against the grip of corporate surveilance. 

Internet Forums in Real Life

So last night some asshole puked in three of the sinks in the bathroom on my floor. Usually I would just gripe about it to my roommate, but not really go any farther. Now it seems kinda lame from your point of view but i duct taped a message in an easily readable location in my bathroom that says

"Sinks are exclusivly for bathing purposes (aka washing hands/face, brushing teeth, etc.). Toilets are convineniently located for puking in.

~Thanks

Everyone you fucked over by puking in our sinks"

I forgot to mention that there was zero vomit anywhere else in the bathroom but in the three sinks. 

Anyway, that message strikes me as sounding like it could have been posted on some kind od internet forum so I decided to share with everyone.

Cheers...

PS I have road rash on my leg and elbow and enjoy cleaning and re-bandaging my wounds in front of a sink.

PPS If you couldn't tell, I'm super pissed and if you know who puked in the sinks on deCordova(south) 4th floor let them know that they are a terrible person.

Responce to responces

Jen wrote a whole bunch of stuff here that you should read first.

People who thought it was so different to invade someone's room and catalog everything they saw are having a hard time seeing the other point of view.

The reason that invading someone's home and keeping information about them is wrong is that we, as a society, have decided that it is a morally wrong (and in most cases CRIMINALLY) wrong. The internet has become what is now in our generation.

The online world is effectively a new society, where we are now trying to hash out a new set of morals and ground rules. In order to properly understand the internet you have to completely disengage yourself from the real world and all its social mores. That is not to say that we cannot define the social mores of the internet to mirror those of the real world, but without complete control of the internet resting in the hands of one governing body, it is left to each site to decide for itself what goes.

Back to the raison d'etre of this post. Just because corps are allowed to catalog us now without our consent, and hide the information they have from us does not mean that it has to be that way forever. The argument shouldn't be about whether we feel fine with letting them own our personal information, it should be about whether we want to let it stay that way.

Why should it be up to corps to decide what the rules about internet privacy should be? When big companies try to tell our government what to do people go to prison ala Jack Abramoff.