Facebook Fraud

Awesome Thing of the Week (not necessarily weekly)

How awesome is this?

Are You Sure You're 18?

For the past week my productivity has been completely shot. As a result of being unproductive on the internet, I've lost all sense of self. I find myself in a strange reality where I can't differentiate between my own identity and that of a 33 year old in Oregon who works as a personal trainer. It's all thanks to the wonderful site that is Omegle.

Upon visiting the site, it's purpose is immediately apparent. There is no navigation, or list of links. There is simply a banner declaring, "Talk to Strangers!" and a button that allows you to do so. All of the chat is anonymous, and so far as I can tell, completely unmoderated.

After having a few boring conversations with people from Brazil (Most of the people on Omegle during the day seem to be from Brazil. Most of them are boring) I met a guy from Oregon. We had a long talk. I basically spent the night with this guy. What I was struck by, as how open that people are willing to be when they think they are anonymous. After his I had another such conversation. Then another.

Then, I started to use the personalities of the previous people I had talked to, in new conversations. Despite the fact that I was completely full of shit, I still got what I perceived to be juicy and honest responses to my queries. But what if all of the other people were doing what I was doing? After a long and circular discussion with my self, I have arrived at my current state of confusion.

One of the beauties of anonymous culture, is that it allows us to be anyone we want. It causes us to realize the fundamental truths of being human, through complete obliteration of self. Whether or not the people I chatted with were genuine, is unimportant.

I could continue that rant further, but I'm sure you understand my vague point. I would urge all of you to try out this service, as it is great fun and extremely intellectually stimulating.

I've saved all of my convos, and if I feel it is appropriate, I may post them here. So keep your eyes open.

Have Your Cake, Or Don't

Last week I posted bloopers from Google street view. Scroll down in case you missed a fantastic series of snapshots that captured a kid falling off of his bike. It's perfect. You can see the moment that the van startles him, and then his classic, feet in the air, rolling plummet to the pavement. I love it. I know exactly what that kid on the bike is going through. The dissociative moment of confusion when your brain first registers that something is wrong. Instinct takes over, your eyes close, your limbs flail. Then a flash, followed by a mental reboot. It all comes back to you after the fact, and by then it's too late to recover. Anyone who saw is already laughing at you. And in this kids case it's a little more extreme. Sure in the heat of the moment the laughter might hurt you, but everyone is laughing for a reason. They relate. Falling off of your bike is one of those humiliating shared experiences. Like spilling a drink or having someone walk in while you're masturbating, it's these moments of vulnerability that people can relate to. I wonder if that kid knows how many people have laughed at his moment?

"Google Maps is some ill shit... As much as it helps. It makes me wonder .... Can they see me pee." This well put quote from Chuck Inglish of the Cool Kids probably sums up what you are thinking at the moment. The amazing services provided by Google and countless other sites do present a dilemma. Should we be worried about our privacy?

Granted, the chances that it will be you falling off of your bike when the Google van drives by are slim, but the issue remains. Anyone with a computer could easily track you down using little more than your IP address, and then look at satelite photos of your house. They could find a picture of you on Facebook. Oh God. Just think of how much they could do!

On the surface this seems like a warranted knee jerk reaction that I would expect people to have. Surprisingly though, I rarely hear any suck concerns. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that the news hasn't been flooded with interviews of distraught people worried that Google is destroying America. Maybe I'm just cynical, but this pleasant surprise puzzles me.

There are only two possible reasons that there hasn't been a paranoid outburst against Google. Either people are dropping their insecurities, and allowing themselves to be more open with each other, or they simply have no idea.

I would like to think that it's because we are gearing towards a less paranoid, less fearful society, but somehow I doubt it. Still though, I am glad that the vocal minority hasn't taken huge issue with this yet. Even if they aren't knowingly being more open, I think that it is likely that the gneration coming up now, the ones who were born with Facebook, will inevitably be more open, and less fearful of each other. They will be used to having that photo of them, caught in the throes of a vulnerable moment, preserved for all to see.

For Your Consideration: Google Street View Bloopers

When you take pictures of every street in the entire country, you are bound to come up with some funny things. I have collected, and present here for your amusement, what I deem to be the best of said "things." Enjoy.









And now for the best thing ever:

1.


2.


3.


4.


For more visit Street View Fun.

I Know You Never Ever Read The User Agreement

How does it feel knowing that all of your personal information is in the hands of a 20-something CEO who is desperately trying to prove to investors the he can turn a profit on the internet? Well if you are one of the many users of Facebook, this is the situation you are in, and as CEO Mark Zuckerbeg recently proved, he is willing to go behind your back if it means turning a profit.

Recently Facebook pulled a fast one and changed their user agreement without so much as a post to the news feed. This would be fine if it were simply smoothing out the wording , or clarifying a point. Unfortunately it was a bold authoritarian move which can be summed up with the words, "I own you ." With the change, Facebook declared ownership over everything that you post, including contact information, wall posts, and even photos of yourself. Not only did they declare permanent ownership of what is currently posted on Facebook, but also what has been posted in accounts that have been deleted. It was only after a bored anon felt like rereading his user agreement, that the change was reported to several internet watchdog groups.

Naturally, the response from the public was overwhelmingly negative. A massive Facebook group was constructed within a day protesting the change. Zuckerberg tried to explain it away as a simple clarification in policy, rather than a regime change. Luckily no one drank the kool-aid, and the policy was changed back several days later.
While I don't think that Facebook should have the legal right to change their user agreement without first notifying their users, it does hit upon something that has always bothered me about how people use the internet. You know all of those boxes below long bits of text that you so flippantly click when signing up for a new online service? I know yo click them without reading the agreement. I know you think to yourself, "well if this were a bad thing to sign, it wouldn't be allowed." Wrong.

One thing that most people fail to understand is that the internet is quite literally the wild west of technology. It is relatively unbound by law, and the laws that are in place are so sparsely policed that if you wander outside of the sheriff's territory, you had better be ready to defend yourself. Luckily that isn't as hard or as dangerous as it was in the old west, but it does mean that if you aren't watching out, you can sign a whole chunk of yourself over to another entity with just the click of your mouse. Using social networking sites, and the internet in general, is somewhat of a Faustian bargain. You can have anything you want, but you can not have yourself. You can't have your privacy.

Whether you like it or not, once you post something to the internet, it's no longer private. I don't care how many passwords you have on that Photobucket account, or what you changed your privacy settings to. If it is on the internet, and someone wants it, it's as good as theirs. Take this into consideration. Employers scan Facebook when screening employees. Just because that photo of you passed out in a public restroom is for friends eyes only, doesn't mean they won't see it. More than likely they will. Now imagine that Facebook has a price for this information. They don't even have to break in or use a backdoor. This same price is offered to advertisers who want to know what you buy, how old you are, and where to send the spam to. Not only this, but even if you delete your account, Facebook is holding onto this picture for possible blackmailing opportunities in the future. (An extreme vision of the future, but a possible one)

What Facebook did was shady, but well within the limits of acceptability. Don't expect this to be the last time that Facebook, or other sites try to mislead you. At this point in time, Zukerberg is backed against a wall, pinned down on all sides by investors wondering where their millions are. Do you think they will listen when he tells them the internet doesn't function in the same way as the real world? More than likely, he will try to use what he has to make their millions, and when it comes to Facebook, all he has is what you post.

The Internet's First Top Model

In 2000 The Guenis Book of World Records was the shit. It had a big shiny cover, a picture of Dancing Baby, and a half page spread of Cindy Margolis in a purple bikini. She was holding down the record of "Most Downloaded Woman." Looking back on it I can almost picture the out of touch executive giving the order to cram the book full of that internet thing. At the time it wasn't hard to pick out the new hot thing, but the speed at which culture moves on the internet has been increasing exponentially. It seems impossible to me that anyone holding down a day job would have time to keep up with it, which makes me wonder if the creators of the hit show America's Next Top Model were really aware of what they were doing when they chose Allison Harvard to be on the show.



To a large population, Allison Harvard is known as Creepychan, and has been since around 2005 when her pictures were posted to an online image board. Because of her enormous eyes, and creepy photos she quickly developed a devout and obsessive following. Did someone at the CW know this? Is this why she was chosen? I seriously doubt it.

In the proud tradition of reality show web sites, a popularity poll was posted. Before any of the other contestants had broken triple digits, Creepychan was ahead by several thousand votes. Last I checked she had 96% of the vote, and it was rising. All this thanks to a massive push from people determined to prove their devotion. I would imagine that this has left the webmaster baffled, the producers jubilant, and instilled a deep feeling of insignificance in the other models.

It will be interesting to see how this season unfolds, which is exactly why people should take note of this. I hate the show, but will I be tuning in? Yes. Intentionally or not, this show has just connected with a rather sizable audience who would never have previously considered watching. Let's see if they tune in as well.

Good News Everyone!

Recently the visionary Matt Groening did an interview with CNN. Among other illuminating tidbits, the Simpsons creator spoke about the future of Futurama.

Originally airing on Fox beginning in 2000, the show only ran for four seasons before being canceled. It wasn't until the show began airing in syndication on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block that the show's massive cult following became apparent. Like family guy, this following persuaded some people to reinvest in the series. Comedy central ordered four straight to DVD movies, the last of which, was just released.

As a fan I was excited about the movies, but in this interview Groening mentions the possibility that Comedy Central may renew the series. Keep your fingers crossed. If a show like Family Guy can be resurrected, then let's hope that the same can be done for Futurama. Unless you don't like futurama. In that case I guess you should just do nothing.

Anonymously Generated Content

I came across this piece of short anonymously generated fiction. These aren't always worth reading, but I liked this one and thought I would post it.

"If one were to visit "Burger Tex" in Austin, Texas, one would find what appears to be a normal restaurant at the first glance. There is a TV, A pool Table, several groups of patrons, and Hispanic cooks behind a sneeze guard, linoleum floors, fluorescent lights one of which is flickering lazily. After a short time, however, one will begin to notice things that appear to be just... off. One will notice that the pulley that releases the ball to the pinball machine is missing, one will notice that there is no bathroom, One will notice that no patrons are entering or leaving the establishment. They will have seconds, thirds, fourths and fifths of their meals and won't say a word to each other or their servers and will never excuse themselves to the bathroom. One will notice that the cashier will not ask you for money, nor is there a cash register. The menu would be handwritten with a sharpie, offering Burgers, Cheeseburgers, Salad, Tang and Coca Cola. One would not feel fear, dismay, awkwardness or a feeling of reclusiveness. One would feel nothing.

One would point to their choice on the menu, knowing not to disrupt the silence-only broken by the running sound of the old analog television. One would receive their food via the counter underneath the cashier's blank desk. One would continue to the toppings bar, without haste, and place all their desired meal, except...

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE LETTUCE? HUH? JUST WHO THE FUCK OWNS A BURGER JOINT WITHOUT SOME FUCKING LETTUCE ON CALL???

Never mind it. One wouldn't want to stick out to their fellow patrons. One Continue on to their table, ignoring one's earlier outburst.

One would continue one's mediocre meal and throw one's wrapper away into an empty trash can with a fresh liner. One would turn around and see all of one's fellow patrons exiting their restaurant. One would feel rage and betrayal washing over their body. One would sit down and pray newer, more loyal peers would enter. One would continue to get up and order food that isn't there from servers who aren't there. One would continue to move until they cannot stay awake any further. One would fall asleep.
One would wake up, in an empty strip-mall sector without any memory of any dream of the night before. One would exit the best night of their life. One would exit a room of no worries, hatred, pressure to feel, care or choose. One would, in all human nature, ruin their own heaven. One would ruin the very thing they love.
One would continue their life as normal... but never feel the same feeling of relaxation when they left their ordinary life. A cookie would never taste as sweet, an orgasm would never give them the same rush, a joke would never give the same shock value. One would descend into their own personal hell." -Giant Clank /x/

This type of fiction is particularly interesting to me. In the past, writings and other artistic creations were ostensibly created for money or some personal gain, but the motive behind this is less apparent. What would be the purpose of putting thought into something and then throwing it to the masses without signing your name? It is usually simply for feedback, amusement, and even so that it can be copied.

The copy paste function is something that anyone who has spent more than a few hours with a computer is aware of, but what most people are unaware of is the subculture that has cropped up around it. The anonymous boards of the internet have provided a new forum for a digital generation of folk tales. Stories generated by unknown anons, merely so that they may be copied and pasted by those who enjoy them. Alteration, and improvement on the original is often encouraged, and if a piece strikes true with enough people, it may just live on to be pasted again and again.

An interesting aspect of this is the anti IP attitude of this culture. While most of the media industries are loudly reminding all of the pirates out there that IP isn't generated for free, much on the internet seem to be proving them wrong. While not everyone is involved in these circles, it feels like a part of the free culture movement.

Of course, as with everything on the internet, most of these are far more short lived than a traditional folk tale, but the basic premise is the same. A piece of writing generated to express something inherent and common to those sharing a culture.

Maybe it is my Texas heritage that drew me to this piece. Burger Tex is a real place in Austin, TX. It could easily be that this particular piece of copy paste has limited appeal. At any rate, I reproduce it here, for you with the permission of Giant Clank who created it. He invites critique, and has a link to this page. If you have any thoughts, please leave critique for him in the comments section.

To Rebuild by way of Destroyer

I remember spending hours clicking away at minesweeper on my family's first P.C. With no understanding of how the game worked, I never got too far. It didn't matter to me one bit though. All my kindergarten mind was interested in was interacting with this machine. Soon I was learning my first dos prompts, and sending the computer spiraling into safe mode with my inept commands. I had no idea then how much further the computer would reach into my daily life. I suppose the first revelation came when I realized that America Online was not the entire internet. Soon after that, Napster came around to save us all from twenty dollar C.D.'s, each which likely would only have one track worth listening to. Napster was such an amazing revelation.

I don't think it really occurred to any of my middle school friends that what we were doing on our parents computers could be illegal. After all, I had spent years copying Weird Al Yankovich albums for my friends, and P2P file sharing seemed like exactly the same thing. Our clueless parents certainly had no idea that we were all committing what the music industry would consider grand larceny until the aging rock group Metallica got whiny and made a big stink about how their art was being mistreated. "It is sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is." Was the official statement from drummer Lars Ulrich in 2000 when it was announced that the band would be filing suite against Napster, The University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University. It's a shame that bloated egos of rock stars were the ones who got to speak for the industry. It has been argued that their violent reaction started the industry down the path towards destruction. Rolling Stone writer and author of Appetite For Self Destruction may have put it best in this interview when he said, "Had the record labels jumped into a deal with Napster when the time was right, when Napster was at its peak, I really do think that could've been a business model." Unfortunately, rather than embracing the digital revolution, the music industry reacted with fear, and a torrent of frivolous lawsuits, mostly against college students and unsuspecting parents has followed. Like many other industries, the music industry is left asking themselves just what they are going to do. The trend of illegal file sharing has done nothing but increase, and traditional business models seem worthless. It is my opinion, that the destruction of the music industry is merely a transitional phase that will make room for multiple, more elastic models for distributing intellectual properties.

To fully understand and appreciate part of the problem faced by industries dealing in intellectual property, you have to understand the collective psyche of the internet. The recording industry is up against a paradigm shift in the way people view copyright, and their relation to it. In the infamous A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow declares the internet free of all national law, and casts off old ideas. Among these is the idea that one can own intellectual property. "In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost." While this statement has already become somewhat dated, the sentiment remains. Reading the news online, watching free shows and movies, and listening to free music has become the societal norm.

Current copyright law may say that most of these things are illegal, but it certainly isn't the norm. It is only recently that copyright law was of any real importance to anyone other than people directly involved in these industries. A decade ago, Napster was just a baby, and the largest problem that the music industry had to worry about was teens making mix tapes for their friends. No one in the public sector had any reason to be concerned about laws regarding intellectual property. But I bet if I looked through your internet history today I could find at least a handful of things that could be considered copyright infringement. Everything from streaming a movie from a site like allc.org, to posting a video of yourself lip syncing to an old boy band hit, are illegal under the current laws. "We are, technically speaking, a nation of copyright infringers." -John Tehranian

So does this mean that we are all going to pay for our unwitting crimes? The RIAA would like for us to, but luckily those of this opinion seem to be on the losing side of this boxing match. In the opposite corner of the ring, are people like Lawrence Lessig. Coming from a point of view that many would consider extremely radical, Lessig has been called an intellectual property communist by critics. This guy is on your side if you like to bit torrent, remix, or partake in most other modern pass times. His vision of the world is one where culture isn't limited by by the restraints of monetary vale, and any work can be reproduced an infinite number of times with any variation. This view actually makes a lot of sense when you look at the current trend. A large portion of music being produced is created from snippets of previously recorded songs, and every time you reply to an e-mail you are reproducing the original text of the sender. Content is generated anonymously every single day, and copied and pasted without a second thought. In the world of cyberspace, it seems logical to do away with most copyright laws.

But where does this philosophy leave the recording industry, and all other creators and distributors of intellectual property? For the most part, it leaves them out to dry. Under these rules being a musician would be impossible to turn into a career. Most IPs would be created as a hobby, and because of the ease of posting your own work to the internet, no middle men would be needed to bring the content to the people. The end result would likely be a flood of work with no quality control. Imagine going to a record store where you have to dig through piles of trash, hoping against hope to find something listenable. Already, Myspace is somewhat like this, as are many other providers of free streaming music. Luckily this will not be the case.

In all likely hood we will see the emergence of multiple business models for distribution to pick up the slack left by the all but destroyed recording industry. Already we are seeing the industry attempting to adapt, with the advent of places like the iTunes store, and Emusic. These stores though, are too much of a literal translation of the old model, and will likely be too little too late to save the recording industry. People are largely unenthusiastic when confronted with the idea of paying upwards of ten dollars for a package of digital files. To add to the problem of this model for digital distribution the music industry execs have opted to attach DRM protection to the files. While their fear of piracy is understandable, it doesn't appear that DRM has been at all beneficial to them. In response the the widespread complaints about the DRM protection on songs bought from the iTunes store, Steve Jobs issues this response, explaining that until the record execs realize the error of their ways, his hands are tied. Since this statement, iTunes has gone DRM free, but it is still unclear whether of not this will bolster sales of their music, especially when piracy rates are soaring.

I think the most likely, and obvious solution for the time being is the model presented by the fine folks at Amie Street music. Amie Street is an independent music download site, where much of the music is free. Let me explain. All music on Amie Street is free until it has been downloaded a certain number of times, at which point the price of the song is raised slightly. Songs reach a maximum price of ninety-eight cents once they have become popular enough. This system of community driven pricing feels right with the spirit of the internet. It also shows a level of humility not seen in the mainstream recording industry. After the CD boom of the 90's it often feels like the execs feel entitled to an inflated cash flow that they never really deserved. Well luckily the days of paying up to twenty dollars for a C.D., which is essentially just a piece of trash to litter your car with, are over.

Not only is the internet blossoming with new models of distribution, but many labels are finding that old models are being revived. Surprisingly, the buying of vinyl is becoming poplar once again. Many fans want to support the artists, but don't want to spend their money on plastic garbage (C.D.s). Instead they opt to buy something that feels more like a finished product. Something a little more permanent. This phenomena is definitely something that the labels should pay attention to. When trying to provide digital downloads, they should look for ways to make the product more than the sum of its parts. With vinyl copies you often receive large posters, and extended liner notes. Something similar should be done with MP3 downloads. On the last N.I.N release, The Slip, each track came with its own art work, rather than a single picture for the album. While I find the art boring, it is still an interesting angle. Record labels should no longer expect people to pay for garbage.

Before we see a few extremely successful models for distribution emerge, it is likely that we will see the industry fall further into disrepair. We also will likely see reform to currently existing copyright laws, as well as more specific laws regarding illegal downloading. For the time being you can probably continue to steal all of your music, and only run a slight risk of being sued. But soon enough we should have models of distribution that cater to all tastes. Such is the beauty of the internet. An infinite amount of space. We just have to wait for the industry to get desperate enough to start trying new things. *Looks at watch.* Shouldn't be too long now.

Sources:
Barlow, John. "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." homes. 08 Feb 1996. 21 Feb 2009 .

Barlow, John. "IP in The Global Net." Homes. 13 Dec 1993. 21 Feb 2009 .

Ginsburg, Jane C.,Essay - How Copyright Got a Bad Name For Itself(October 18, 2002). Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2002. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=342182 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.342182


Harvilla, Rob. "How the Music Industry Died: Steve Knopper's Appetite for Self-Destruction." Village Voice 06 Jan 2990 1-2. 21 Feb 2009 .

Jobs, Steve. "Thoughts on Music." Apple 06 Feb 2007 21 Feb 2009 .

Knopper, Steve. "RIAA WIll Keep On Suing." Rolling Stone 09 Jun 2005 21 Feb 2009 .

Lawrence Lessig, The Vision for the Creative Commons: What are We and Where are We Headed? Free Culture, in Open Content Licensing: Cultivating the Creative Commons, Brian Fitzgerald, ed., Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2007.
(Can be found here)

Tehranian, John,Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap(2007). Utah Law Review, Forthcoming; Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-46; U of Utah Legal Studies Paper No. 08-20. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1029151

Free Download

While doing a bit of research I came across this link to Lawrence Lessig's book Code. This is an update to his original book. It was created through a collaborative wiki, and then edited by Lessig himself. Don't worry this isn't stealing. It's available for free on his web site.

A Brave New Model for Television Emerges

I was stumbling around the internet last night, bored as usual, when I found what could become my new time killer of choice. It could also be viewed as an early model for television 2.0.

Justin.tv is just one of many sites popping up out there that allow users to stream whatever they want on their own channel. The best part is that there is a chat box right next to the video. Suddenly watching Myster Science Theater 3000 on the internet for hours has gone from sad and lonely to social and interactive! Hoorah!

Although the downside to the format is a certain loss of user control, in a strange way this deficiency adds it's own appeal to the whole thing. Because of the chat room, users often request that the channel operator play certain episodes. If a particularly bad program is being played the people have the opportunity to complain about it, or debate with other people in the room. The added sense of community almost makes up for the lack of control.

While the legality of streaming movies and T.V. shows that are probably stolen in the first place is questionable at best, the big media companies should take a serious look at this. While at this underdeveloped stage it would be a nearly impossible chore to monetize, this format holds many exciting possibilities.

Oscar Winners Leaked

So a list of the Oscar winners has been leaked onto the internet, various blogs are reporting. No word yet on the validity of this, but I thought it would be interesting to post the alleged evidence.



Enjoy!

Epic Win for the Citizens of the Internet

According to IT World the prosecutor going after The Pirate Bay, an online torrent community, has dropped the charge of, "aiding in the making of copies of works under copyright." The prosecutor apparently was unable to prove that the defendants made any copies of bootleg material. While I find it hard to believe that the men in this photo haven't downloaded more than a few death metal albums, the prosecution should have realized that hosting torrent files is not the same as sending copies of protected works to people.

The one hurdle these internet superheroes have yet to clear is the charge of, helping to make copies of works under copyright available. Although if legal precedent has anything to say about this, these Swedish nerds may win this one.

The Floor is Made of Lava

The term Sfyxopalphasia has been affixed to a rare, yet troubling neurological disorder. Sfyxo, the Aramaic term for, interior, and phasia, a Celtic phrase meaning to redesign by way of destroyer, are joined together by an imaginary modifier, pal, for aesthetic purposes. Many have questioned this term. Both its etymology, and whether or not the term appropriately describes the disorder are regularly called into question.

Originally coined by a children's psychologist by the name of Dr. Ackerman in 1991, only several other professionals have brought the term into the public square. Ackerman, a PHD in psychology, and self tutor of ancient languages, created the term to describe the affliction of one of his patients. The child seemed to be suffering from some form of brain trauma as a result of playing virtual reality games. Ackerman noted that social communication had become difficult for the child, and that his perceptions of the world seemed to be skewed. He noted that the child was uninterested in traditional skill building games, such as catch, or yahtzee, but that the boy excelled at rearranging furniture so as to traverse a room without touching the ground. He demonstrated these skills impressively in a series of controlled tests.

In 1994, Dr. Ackerman published his controversial book, "The Floor is Made of Lava: An Investigation of the Affect of Negative Feedback From an Imaginary Construct on the Ever Developing Mind". His book was met with skepticism, but garnered some acclaim outside of the intellectual circles. In it, he posits that repeated actions, even those made within a virtual reality, will program the brain. Usually this programing is something small, such as a program which instructs one to eat with a fork. However, when a certain action is repeated often enough, and for long enough durations, a large portion of the brain can be rewritten so to speak. In the case of his patient, the brain we reprogrammed so that it would be useful for avoiding pits of lava.

Since this publishing, Several other cases have been diagnosed, but the disorder of Sfyxopalphasia is denounced by the professional community at large. Dr. Ackerman has remained largely silent on the subject. He gave just one lecture at the University of Applied Science and Design at Denton, Texas in 2007. He spoke about virtual reality, and the evolution of human consciousness.

"A decade ago, children were thinking in terms of platforms and pitfalls. Already we see the affect this is having on the world and society at large. I tremble to think what will become of the world once the children thinking in portals reach maturity."
-Dr. H. Ackerman

Anyone Listening?

Within intellectual circles there seems to be a universal concern that the public is less and less interested, and possibly even opposed to the influence of the public intellectual. The feeling that the masses are barely listening to our thoughtful musings is not a comforting one, nor is it one that seems to have any easy explanations or solutions. After being thrown into a mode of existential crisis when faced with the potential value of intellectual commentary within the broader scope of modern society many begin to point fingers at those sitting around them. As discussed in this post by Stephen Mack, many think that there is a is a decline in the quality of intellectual work. If the public is not listening to the intellectuals, then the problem must lie in the quality of the work. When questions of influence are the ones of main concern, Stephen Mack puts it very well when he says, "The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about."

An example. Lawrence Lessing is a prominent proponent of copyrightlaw reform, and more recently an active ouster of political corruption. He founded theCreative Commons, a radical institution which is working, with some success, in changing the very nature of intellectual property using the advent of the internet. He has called for major reform of copyright laws, and spearheaded the free culture movement. Yet, those not directly concerned with issues of intellectual property in the digital age have probably never heard of any of his accomplishments, or even of the man himself. Despite this he is undoubtedly a prominent public intellectual.

They may not be listening to The lessons of Lawrence Lessing, but they are hearing the noise. While most may not be aware of the specifics of intellectual property rights, and the implications of the internet upon them, you wold be hard pressed to find someone who does not know about DRM protection on audio files. It would be even harder to find someone unaware of the major problems involved with illegal file sharing, and it would be even harder still to find someone with no opinion on the issue at all. While they are not aware of the works of specific intellectuals, through some bizarre filter of media, the things discussed amongst the intellectuals does reach their ears. Whether or not it has the same affect upon the public that is has in the past, or if the quality of the work has declined, is one of maddening subjectivity.