Showing posts with label graded assignment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label graded assignment. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

QotW10: Me, Myself, and Sydnee =P

Meet Sydnee Sands, my virtual double :)

Sydnee Sands, in Orientation Island.


I call her my double, because i created her to be like me.
She has long black hair,
side-parted bangs,
fair skin,
brown eyes,
wears minimal make-up,
and a casual outfit,
just like me.
So let's just take it as she is me.
Well, since I have the power to decide every aspect of how I look online,
i gave myself a smaller nose,
longer lashes,
bigger eyes,
long, slender arms,
a slightly smaller waistline,
and
a boost in height.
Sydnee measures 1.8 meters tall!
So, she is sort of like a combination of me, and who I want to be =)

I named my avatar Sydnee Sands - Sydnee because Sydney is the only name I can think of which begins with my initials (Sy), and Sydney Sands is a name already taken by another user in Second Life =S Thus, i have to be contented with Sydnee ending with a double E. I chose the last name Sands because it is easy to remember; i forget half the usernames that i choose for online games. So there you go, that's me on Second Life. =)

---


My most favourite place (so far) in Second Life is this:




Sydnee in the Tranquility Garden, from dawn to daybreak.


Tranquility Garden.
The name itself is enchanting enough, isn't it?
The place lived up to its beautiful name. =)
In real life, i seek quiet, scenic places to just sit and let time pass.
There is no reason why i should be any diffent in Second Life.
I watched sunrise in Tranquility Garden,

Sydnee, watching the sun rise in Tranquility Garden.

where flowers bloom and butterflies flutter,
listening to the birds chirp and the streams flow.
There are little visitors there;
there was only one other person whom I saw there,
so that adds to the peace you can experience in this virtual garden.
Yes, peace in a virtual garden!
Amazing, isnt it.

So, that's my second life =)

Saturday, February 3, 2007

QotW3: Signed, Sealed, and Pirated.

“Put an end to piracy.” pleaded Hollywood, through its anti-piracy campaign launched in 2003. (BBC News, 2003) When content piracy reaches a state of rampancy intense enough to worry this billion dollar generating motion picture industry, we know it deserves attention. Figures show that the “total loss of the audio visual industry through copyright theft… is more than £818 million.” (PiracyIsACrime.com) What, exactly, is causing such extensive piracy?

Some might wonder if copyright laws are too ill-defined to protect content creators of their right to their creations. On the contrary, copyright laws seem specific enough to offer the creators adequate protection. Copyright gives creators “exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time,” (Ovalle, 2005) including the right to authorize reproduction and public performance or display of their creations. Copyright also allows creators to “benefit financially from their creations, which should provide an incentive for them to continue creating.” (Ovalle, 2005)

Far from the common misconception that “copyright is a law invented by publishers solely to serve their own financial interests (and)… the convenience of scholars,” (Givler, 2003) copyright exists not only for the creators’ benefit, but also, “for the public good.” (Givler, 2003) Because the copyright laws encourage creators to work for the “progress science and useful arts,” (Ovalle, 2005) and their creations will belong in the public domain once the limited time stated by law is over, we are the ones who stand to gain from these laws in the long run.

In this sense, copyright laws protect the rights of both the content creators as well as the public. It balances the interests of both parties, and is undoubtedly sufficient to ensure the fair use of intellectual property. This brings us back to the old question: what, then, can be causing such extensive piracy? I would think that the problem lies not in the law itself, but in the people under the law. The public in general are lacking in two areas which are essential pillars of support for the copyright laws.

The first would be a clear understanding of what copyright is and why it exists. With Attorney Kevin S. Brady’s list of common copyright myths and misconceptions running as long as 25 items, it is hard not to notice how little the general public knows about copyright. Researches conducted on educators showed that “many educators lack the basic understanding of the copyright law and the actual latitudes it provides (for them)." (Chase) If the educators are unsure of how copyright works, be rest assured that almost everyone else are too. Schools are where people first come to learn of concepts like intellectual property and plagiarism. If the teachers themselves are unsure of these laws, there is no way they can teach their students right regarding this topic. Without knowing exactly what copyright is, it is no wonder that many believe copyright to be a law that protects content creators at the public’s expense. (Givler, 2003) Such misconceptions would only lead to copyright infringements; after all, who would obey rules that undermine their personal rights?

The second which the public lacks is social integrity. When interviewed, a 26-year-old business student in Berlin confessed that he “has burned 700 to 800 CD’s… with downloaded songs,” (Landler, 2003) and still “don’t feel like (he is) infringing on the artists.” (Landler, 2003) “Whether Robbie Williams makes 15 million or 12 million a year doesn’t matter to me, honestly speaking,” he said, referring to the British pop star whose songs are repeatedly downloaded from the net. This student is not the only one who expressed apathy towards content creators. Charles W. Moore provided an unsound justification for piracy in his online article, claiming that piracy is “perceived as a victimless crime… (because) if someone copies a song… the copyright-holder is no worse off materially than he or she was prior to the piracy.” (Moore, 2003) Such indifference towards the plight of the content creators veils the need to reward content creators, and thus of course, causes people to disregard piracy as an act of impertinence. People need to know that the content creators deserve rewards as incentives for future creations, before they would succumb to obeying the copyright laws.

Before the public gains a clear understanding of copyright and uses copyrighted content with integrity, the best defined set of laws will not keep piracy out of our world. Thus, even though the present copyright laws are well-scripted enough to supposedly offer adequate protection for the rights of both the public and the content creators, the public needs to be educated more regarding these laws before piracy can be curbed.

---

References:
BBC News. (2003, July 22). Hollywood Launches Anti-Piracy Campaign. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3085875.stm

Brady, Kevin S. Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html
Chase, Mark E. Educators' Attitudes and Related Copyright Issues in Education: A Review of Selected Research 1980-1992. Retrieved February, 2007, from http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/cham.txt

Givler, Peter. (2003, May 9). Copyright: It’s For the Public Good. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://aaupnet.org/aboutup/copyright.html

Landler, Mark. (2003). The New York Times: U.S Is Only the Tip of Pirated Music Iceberg. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/nytimes/2003-09-26_nytimes_global_piracy.pdf

Moore, Charles W. (2003, August 8). Is Music Piracy Stealing? Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.applelinks.com/mooresviews/pirate.shtml

Ovalle, Carlos. (2005). Why Copyright? Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/2.php

PiracyIsACrime.com. DVD Piracy – The Big Picture. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.piracyisacrime.com/bigissue/piracy.php

Saturday, January 27, 2007

COM125 Week 2: Web Search Engines


You need information. No time to lose. What do you do? Google it, of course! The search engine can scan through the internet, track relevant websites that you may want and generate a list of links to these sites for your viewing pleasure, all in a matter of seconds. Researching has never been easier. The convenience that online search engines provides explains their vast popularity: the world’s most popular search engine, Google search, receives “over 200 million queries each day through its various services.” (Google search, 2007)

A search engine is “an information retrieval system designed to help find information stored” (Search Engine, 2007) on the internet. Search engines were created, even before the World Wide Web, in attempt to “organize the Internet.” (History of the Internet, 2007) The first of these was Archie, created by Alan Emtage in 1990. This program downloaded the directory listings of all the files located on public anonymous FTP sites and provided a searchable database of only filenames, exclusive of file content. The first full-text Web search engine was the WebCrawler, which was created in 1994. Unlike its predecessors, the WebCrawler searches through not only page titles but also the entire page content. This has become the standard for all major search engines since.

Search engines must be a big deal on the Web right now, or why else would the word “google” be added into the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as a legitimate verb in the English language? Why else would Chris Sherman write a book in 2005 named Google Power? Why else would Yahoo! receive an average of 3.4 billion page views per day as of October 2005? (Yahoo!, 2007)

The Web search engines receive such great attention not undeservingly. Research has shown that “a majority of Web page access are referred by search engines,” (Cho & Roy, 2004) so much so that the survival of online businesses is somewhat determined by how high they are ranked on online search lists. A study conducted by a marketing firm, Enquiro, showed that “65% of North Americans use search engines to come to a purchasing decision.” (Baker, 2004) This is the extent of how dependent Web users now are on search engines.

Such dependence is, of course, not without reason. The mass of information available on the internet is rich yet disorganized; it is constantly, and so efficiently, being updated and added upon that it is impossible for individuals to keep close track of. By allowing keyword searches and displaying search results ranked in term of relevance, search engines aid a lot in the organization of the web. The filtering of irrelevant sites, especially, makes online browsing much easier. It is no wonder then, that Compete.com findings show MySpace.com and Yahoo! as the 2 top sites that Web users spend most time on. (Baker, 2007)


Many have come to realize the influence of search engines on web page popularity. Human rights groups all around the globe are collaborating to create a search engine of their own, in order to help coordinate campaigns against abuse. These groups found that “they are not well served by current search engines,” and thus, “detailed local information about rights abuses could have been overlooked.” (BBC News, 2006) Microsoft has also set up a “special charity search site based on their Live.com search engine” so as to raise global awareness of the plight of refugee children. (Reimer, 2007) In current times when the internet is congested with information, it is search engines that tell people what to read and what to take note of.

With such power in hand, search engines cannot be dismissed as just a passing phase on the Web. Judging by the amount of study and research done on them, it is safe to conclude that their influence over Web users will remain and continue to be in control of the reader traffic of online pages and sites. Yet, with the Net now constantly evolving, who knows? Maybe one day there would be the invention of another web program that would revolutionize web organization and strip search engines of their glorious position on the internet. We can only wait and see.

---

References:

Baker, Loren. (2007, January 25). MySpace.com and Yahoo Top Sites People Spend Most Time On. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=4322#more-4322

Baker, Loren. (2004, April 26). Search Engines Influence Consumer Research. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=493

BBC News. (2006, December 1). Search Engine Aids Rights Workers. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6198244.stm

Cho, Junghoo, & Roy, Sourashis. (2004). Impact of Search Engines on Page Popularity. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=988672.988676&coll=portal&dl=ACM&type=series&idx=SERIES968&part=series&WantType=Proceedings&title=WWW

Google search. (2007, January 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_search&oldid=103185004

History of the Internet. (2007, January 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Internet&oldid=103255177

Reimer, Jeremy. (2007, January 24). Microsoft Sets Up Search Engine for Charity. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070124-8687.html

Search engine. (2007, January 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine&oldid=102827900

Yahoo!. (2007, January 26). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:00, January 26, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo%21&oldid=103432789