Posts Tagged ‘Public Square’

The Future of Facebook: Friend or Foe?

{ May 1, 2010 @ 6:16 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , } · { Comments (6) }

I can still remember the first time I heard about the social networking site Facebook. I was warming up to play tennis with the rest of my small private high school’s Varsity Tennis team. The seniors on the team at the time were bragging to one another that they had been invited to this exclusive website that allowed them to stay in contact with other high schoolers lucky enough to have received an invite along with a slew of college students who apparently had been enjoying this privilege for some time. I remember first thinking: “Why did my older brother never mention this clearly hip new fad?” (Yes, I thought in the dorky terms of “hip” and “fad” back in high school). And immediately after that, “I definitely want to get invited to join.”

Sure enough, later that evening one of my tennis peers sent me an email, inviting me to join this illustrious “Facebook” by registering as a user within our private school network. My parents were immediately confused what I was wasting my time doing on the Internet now, given I already used AIM and email. I assured my parents that this was much more than AIM and email for it was an exclusive website for students-both high school and college.

Oh those good old days, where Facebook limited its users as such.

Still, my teachers at school immediately began warning all us students of the dangers that these online websites presented. “They hold onto the data posted on them for life. Do you really want actions, pictures, and comments to linger after you forever just for the interim delights of “staying connected” now?”

Well, yes. We trusted our privacy was remaining intact. Facebook has an assortment of privacy settings so you can limit just who gets to see your profile, so this would keep us all safe. Right?

As Facebook became increasingly popular, the creators saw an avenue to make an incredible profit and no longer required  users to be connected to a school. People could register for Facebook merely by linking themselves to their town’s network. Eventually, people could identify themselves by their office network. Today, Facebook is essentially open to anyone who has an email account.

What began as an innocuous program to keep students connected slowly transformed into a platform available to all the public. This once safe space also began to occupy a more controversial position in my life.

Again teachers warned: “You’re boss will look at your Facebook and take your profile into consideration before hiring you. Be sure you limit the content on your profile to protect your image.” Then cognizant of the potential dangers of Facebook at the time I heard this warning I immediately heeded the advice and did my best to limit my profile so that only people I had previously confirmed were my “Facebook Friends” could access my information.

As time continues I become more and more torn about how to handle my use of this website. It surely keeps me connected to friends in a simple, yet, meaningful manner. It allows me to show my peers what is going on in my life and my feelings to a certain extent. Nevertheless, I dislike how commercial the website has become. Since 2007, every time I log onto Facebook I am bombarded with advertisements that overtime become creepily more and more specialized to my interests because the site inspects topics I discuss in my profile so as to later use me as a target for advertisers to send out their messages. This is great for the advertisers, for it allows them to truly reach their niche audience, but I cannot help feeling as if a bit of my privacy is getting invaded just so Facebook and these advertisers can ultimately make more money.

Facebook continually updates its site by instituting new capabilities without offering users the opportunity to approve these decisions. If you don’t like where Facebook is going, your only way of retaliating is to deactivate your profile, for there is no platform to give meaningful feedback to stop the changes the website implements. One of the latest of these decisions that leaves me incredibly concerned is Facebook’s increased linkage ability to other websites and to itself. In the latest form of Facebook that is slowly getting implemented on each user, Facebook overrides your preexisting Privacy settings as it creates a new function: providing your profile information to other websites that you browse on, allowing these websites to access the information on your profile. Facebook essentially tries to sell you as a able consumer to any of these sites as a valued product. And with 400 million plus users, Facebook has a lot to sell.

This latest change on top of Facebook’s 2009 declaration that Facebook as a company has the power and authority to “retain users’ content and licenses after an account was terminated” creates a troubling predicament. (Admittedly, Facebook later said they would revise their policy, yet, what keeps them from re-implementing this policy in the future?) How can we users trust a corporation that holds such a large body of information about ourselves especially when that organization already seems willing to manipulate its users into specialized markets for advertisers. What will prevent people from hacking on to our profiles to access and distribute our private information? Ultimately, this leads me to a greater question and concern: can the internet really be a private space? Are we all doomed for having believed in the facade of Privacy Settings?

At this point, I think I’d rather remain a bit in denial, because I cannot imagine a communication dynamic without Facebook. As Facebook institutes further changes, I may have to accept its transformation in purpose for its users (once connecting person to person to connecting person to eager advertiser, or worse, an individual set to destroy your reputation). Hopefully, we users will gain the power to better protect ourselves from the potential damage of using a social networking site like Facebook. I will certainly remain an active user dreaming this is possible.

Glee Tells Us What It Feels Like For a Girl

{ April 24, 2010 @ 10:59 am } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , , , } · { Comments (4) }

For some time now I have maintained an intense love-hate relationship with the critically acclaimed Fox dramedy Glee. Admittedly, the set up of the show itself is quite innovative for a television series, given it succeeds at maintaining a musical genre format in its weekly hour-long episodes. Although employing the tactics of a musical can often be successful in a single episode within an entire straight-acting series, few television shows have managed to stay on air when they attempt the musical genre consistently. Glee can maintain the sensibilities of a musical because it centers itself on a high school show choir as they sing popular songs with complex choreography.

Unlike a real musical, however, Glee autotunes all of their singers, which knocks out both the musical imperfections and personality of each performer. Sadly, our society seems to have grown completely comfortable with this overproduced sound. One of the most lucrative aspects of this franchise has become the sales of the Glee CDs, which use a number of the songs recorded specially for show in the brassy autotune style.

Throughout the course of the show, the plot has varied from the very trivial (girl likes boy, but boy likes other girl dilemmas) to the more substantive (the struggles of a young gay man coming out to his father; a girl getting kicked out of her home for getting pregnant, etc.). The show tackles these issues very directly and makes special use of dialogue to explore these issues, leaving the musical numbers as further extensions of the already expressed emotions.

This past week’s episode again chose to focus on a more serious societal problem. At the onset of the episode, the show choir star Rachel asks her female colleagues within the glee club what she should do now that her new boyfriend is pressuring her into having sex. Laden with irony, one of the cheerleaders, Santana, responds that she always agrees, stating “What’s the worse that can happen… Oh, sorry Quin.” (Quin used to be the head cheerleader  until she got knocked up and kicked off the squad). The conversation continued to move away from the specifics of males dominating discussions and decisions about sex to evolve to the greater power that the guys tend to hold over the girls. At the close of the scene, Quin stresses the importance of this issue as she leaves the classroom declaring, “The fact is, women still earn 70 cents to every dollar that a man does for doing that same job. That attitude starts in high school.”

The rest of the episode uses Madonna as a model for the girls to find strength, independence, confidence, and a sense of equality beside their male peers. Yes it is corny, but through exploring Madonna songs, the girls realize how powerful they can be and how they should not stand for the guy’s arrogance. By the end of the episode, the guys realize that they cannot treat the girls as if they are something below them.

Unfortunately, this understanding and recognition does not always surface in high school, let alone later in life. Leave it to TV to provide such wish-fulfillment. But I guess that’s what keeps us watching.

More Than Just a Play Thing: The iPad

{ April 9, 2010 @ 1:16 am } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Comments (4) }

Even in this downtrodden economy, Americans love to consume. And with incredible new trinkets on the market, why not? If you’ve got it, flaunt it. All you need to do is fork over that $500 you have lying around to get the latest innovation from Steve Jobs: the iPad. People may make fun of you for holding an enlarged iPod touch. People may question the necessity of possessing a 9″ Multi-Touch Screen. But, ignore these nay-sayers. After getting the chance to play with Apple’s latest product, all I could muster to say mirrored the exclamation of  David Carr of the New York Times: an extended shriek of “Yeeeeeee!” Yes, the iPad is a shiny new toy, but it is also a beacon for the future of how society can function. Get excited.

Even in this first edition, the iPad provides a wonder of services in its highly portable tablet form. Although the iPad possesses many of the same applications as the iPod Touch, the iPad improves the functions of many of those applications, especially the Mail, Notes, Calendar, and Safari capabilities. As Jobs merrily claims, the iPad lets you hold the Internet in your hands. You surf the web by gliding your fingers back and forth across the screen. The iPad makes the fictional style of  newspapers from Harry Potter come to life. Users can read what looks like a hard-paper copy of The Wall Street Journal, but if the page has a video, users can watch the video amidst the screen of text. Yes, this technology piggy-backs off what many users can accomplish with a computer, but the iPad makes it mobile.

Technological advancements that amplify mobility still take a bit of time to gain adherence within society, despite the reality of the world becoming more mobile everyday. The idea of a mobile phone frightened members of society at its initial introduction.”Why would I want to bring a phone around with me when I leave the house? I leave so no one can reach me.” Today, the idea of not being able to get a hold of someone ushers in panic. Only the accident of forgetting a charger or keeping a phone hidden on silent would explain any break in constant communication. Skeptics denied the practicality of smart-phones, trusting the new emphasis on lap-top computers could surely sustain any businessperson’s needs. Oh, how wrong again.

The two features of the iPad that will revolutionize the lifestyle of  society come from the applications for  iWork and iBooks. Apple redesigned its version of the Microsoft Office Suite, iWork, for the iPad. Creating professional looking documents, spreadsheets, and presentations can be done at the swipe of a finger. Apple has long provided a user-friendly operating system, but the technological advancements of controlling and creating such polished products seems like a fantasy item of ease from some Sci-Fi flick. The handling of business and production of products will ironically return to being incredibly hands on through the use of this technological tool.

Now for the future of books. The iBooks app essentially takes the concept of Amazon’s Kindle and Barnes and Nobles’s Nook and amplifies the capabilities many times over. Similar to iTunes, users can preview books, and read reviews. Once you download a book, you can easily flip through it and rotate the screen depending on your preferred viewing style. The one function it seems to miss – and will surely attain in the next version, given the iPad’s current ability to pop up a key board in any direction – is the ability to take notes to accompany one’s reading. Once this emerges, it will cause a major leap in the how people interact with texts.

Already, a major push to digitize books has begun. The ability to carry around a 9 inch long, 1/2 inch deep, 1.5 lb screen to encompass an entire interactive library is a logical progression forward. As the environmentalist movement continues to reign over society, the prospect of avoiding the stripping of countless trees becomes very appealing.

The iPad may be a bit pricy for now, but that will quickly change. When the iPhone first entered the market in 2007, a simple 8GB model cost $599. Today, the 8GB model costs $99. Although the iPad may never go below the hundred dollar mark, it will become affordable to broader branches of society, making the implications of the technology that much more resonant.

Upon first appearance, the iPad seems like yet another easily portable product. But given its breadth of applications, the iPad converges important functions together into a simple tablet form. Steve Jobs, you did it again. You changed how society can interact with its surroundings and the very mentality for accomplishing tasks. I await the next i_____.

Google Good; Bing Bad

{ April 3, 2010 @ 5:14 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Comments (3) }

Really, Microsoft? Continuing to allow China’s censorship of Bing is your chosen path to ultimate victory over Google?

Microsoft’s tardy version of a universal search engine – Bing – has been playing catch-up ever since Google emerged in 1997. Bing did not reach computer screens until 2009, only twelve calendar years but, in terms of cyberspace, an eternity later. Given its prodigiously late start, computer-programming legend Microsoft says it is committed to Bing’s displacement of Google as the world’s top search engine. But, from Bing’s latest maneuvers in China, it is doubtful that any of the smart money is ready to bet long-term on Mr. Gates.

For any company, China is a key market.  Because “search” is a relatively young phenomenon, it is logical that Bing would attempt to make inroads against Google in a nation of more than 1.3 billion people, 300 million of whom constitute a new “middle class” that eagerly consumes trendy products and desires everything “high tech.”

The problem, however, is that China is an authoritarian nation, where the leaders in Beijing control practically everything and usually with a firm hand. The same one-party state that seriously damaged its image with a bloody crackdown against protesting students in 1989, at Tiananmen Square, continues to stifle protest by heavily censoring its citizens’ access to information.  With an explosion of information now available to all Internet users, China’s leadership is not only uninterested in any  “right to free speech” but is sufficiently paranoid that it seeks to control – absolutely – every bit of information that is available to its citizens, in hopes that it can forestall another “Tiananmen Square.”

Still, even in this tightly controlled environment, the promise of 300 billion+ Chinese customers is extremely attractive to aggressive international corporations.  Thus, even “righteous” companies like Google have attempted to navigate around Chinese governmental restrictions and even to look beyond certain human rights violations. So, for four years, Google adhered to China’s strict censorship restrictions, as its search engine churned out impressive numbers in the Middle Kingdom. Although Google’s decision to accept a certain level of censorship in China generated repeated and widespread criticism, the company insisted “that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results.”

Then matters escalated.

Hackers within China breached Google’s security, stealing aspects of the company’s intellectual property. Chinese restrictions on retrievable sources of information from Google’s search engines subsequently increased, further limiting the degree of “free speech” in China. This past January, it was learned that Chinese hackers attacked the Google email accounts of Chinese human rights activists. This was the final straw for Google.  It publicly announced that these recent incidents could force its exit from the world’s most populous nation. China’s response was far short of guarantees that it would budge from its intensified heavy-handed censorship and likely hacking.

And so, two weeks ago, Google pulled the plug. Google no longer adheres to the censorship guidelines outlined by the Chinese government. Users of Google in China automatically get redirected to Google’s facilities in Hong Kong, where there is no such censorship. Already, China has responded by blocking access to part of Google’s site throughout the country.  For Google, its more principled recent decision to reject Beijing’s heavy hand will likely come at the cost of sizeable loss in profits, at least for the near term.

Meanwhile, how goes Bing?  Apparently it aims to fill the vacuum that Google’s departure from the mainland is leaving. Politics and morality aside, that will be a tall order, as Bing’s brand recognition in China is even more limited than its miniscule footprint in the US.  Moreover, most Chinese Internet surfers are already sufficiently comfortable with the widely known search engine of a Chinese company, Baidu, whose market share is likely to accelerate in coming months.

Ultimately, however, the greater threat to Bing is that its acquiescence to Chinese government censorship threatens to seriously tarnish its image back in the United States and engender intense criticism around the world.  Ironically, it also appears to be exactly the opposite Grand Strategy that any upstart, any “alternate option” company would ever plan, to catch the gargantuan Google.

For a latecomer who offers – at best – a nearly identical product that has been highly successful around the world for more than a decade, Microsoft should re-think its strategy regarding Chinese censorship of the Internet. Should uber-programmer Bill Gates ever hope to make any inroads into the separate field of “search,” it is time to join Google in standing up to the Chinese censors.  For Bing, it is time to re-boot its Chinese strategy.  A search for any alternate course should yield the answer, “no results.”

24’s Out of Time… on TV at least

{ March 27, 2010 @ 7:10 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , } · { Comments (1) }

Yesterday, Fox confirmed that this marks the final season of 24. With 11 episodes to go in the eighth season, executive producer Howard Gordon, series star Kiefer Sutherland, and the studio determined that there is little left to tell within the serial drama.

The show functions as an intense action-thriller where Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) has 24 hours to solve a terrorist plot and save the United States– and world– from destruction. In an especially unique format, each hour-long episode of 24 corresponds to the “real-time” hours of that 24 hour period. This style of story-telling becomes quite taxing on the writers, who must think very literally about how each season (one 24-hour day) could proceed. When characters have to travel, you watch them on their set course and cannot always cut to more juicy action. Luckily, the show accounts for commercial time too, which must be where Jack eats. Nevertheless, the program’s ability to filter reality into a highly entertaining medium makes 24 such an engaging television experience. Even so, after eight seasons, the show has become too expensive to continue to produce, especially given waning viewership.

I cannot deny that I am one of those fallen fans of 24. Although the concept and initial filming of the series first began before 9/11, the show only aired in November of 2001, a time when many people within the United States were eager to witness a more glamorized handling of terrorism. When the show first came out, everyone I knew wanted to see it: this included my neighbor’s dog who learned to push down the handle of our front door to let herself in and then jump on the couch to watch with my family. As the seasons continued I found myself too busy to watch and merely viewing pre-episode recaps could not suffice to help my understanding of the complex plots.

Although future installments of Jack Bauer’s 24 will no longer air on Fox’s network, the franchise is far from death’s door. Studio execs have indicated that spin-offs of the show may emerge overtime. Additionally, Jack Bauer will move to the big screen. Kiefer Sutherland has excitedly agreed to star in a 24-based movie, which 20th Century Fox will produce. Don’t worry, you won’t be sitting through 24 straight hours of film. The feature will condense a 24 hour period into a 2 hour movie.

Although I trust the writing will be just as good, if not better, than the already well-crafted television program, this will make 24 like every other action-thriller movie out there. What makes 24 so special now is its unique “real-time” storytelling format. Still, 24 has a clearly established brand and fan base. Continuing the franchise in feature film is the most logical and profitable manner to continue Jack’s story.

And The Oscar Goes To…

{ March 6, 2010 @ 5:27 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (2) }

Well, we won’t know the real answer to that question until tomorrow night, but all the more reason to make projections now. This Sunday, March 7th marks the 82nd Academy Awards, hosted by the comedic duo Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood.

Likely the intent of the Academy, this Oscars Award Season has garnered unusual media attention over the last few months.  The Oscars certainly has its focus set on expansion. First, as mentioned in an earlier post, the Academy opened the Best Picture category to include 10 films, doubling the nominee pool from the more traditional 5. Also, the inclusion of 2 hosts (Baldwin and Martin) is the first use of multiple hosts for the Oscars since 1987. The reason for this expansion comes from the desire to increase viewership. By widening the major nominees and including a pair of hosts–one beloved for his current role on the celebrated NBC comedy 30 Rock (Baldwin) and the other beloved for his storied comedic past (Martin)–the Academy hopes to draw a wider audience than years past and to continue to have their judgments seen as relevant within society.

Cognizant that the inclusion of 10 Best Picture nominees could jeopardize the voting process, instant runoff voting will select the Oscar for Best Picture. This system of ranking preferences in order of choice is not new to the Academy, but it has been out of practice for some time. Round by round, the Academy will eliminate films with the fewest votes until one film has more than half the votes of the Academy and can be declared Best Picture. This shifts away from the plurality voting system the Academy adopted for some time. As eloquently explained by Rob Richie of the Huffington Post, plurality gained favor in Hollywood because “it can make Oscar night more surprising by encouraging upsets — favored films can “split the vote” and allow another nominee to win with as little as 21% support.”

Even with the switch to instant runoff voting, I do not expect my predictions to line up perfectly with the results tomorrow night. Nevertheless, I would like to go through some of the top categories (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Animated Feature). For a full listing of the nominees, check out the Oscar Website. Let’s get started:

Best Picture: Avatar

Out of the 10 nominees, I see Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Bastards, and Up In the Air as the top competitors. Despite the well executed wit and modern style of Up In the Air, the film does nothing extraordinary, worthy of the Best Picture title. Quentin Tarantino exudes a love or hate reaction out of many moviegoers. Although I absolutely adored Inglorious Bastards I see it to be too polarizing to win Best Picture against other highly celebrated films. The only similarity between The Hurt Locker and Avatar are that they both center around a war: the former strives to demonstrate a realistic vision of the war in Iraq, whereas the latter illustrates a fanciful war (read: genocide) in the outer reaches of space. Kathryn Bigelow’s film is understated and raw, whereas her ex-husband’s is an utter spectacle. In the end, the more polished and progressive (from a filmmaking standpoint) Avatar deserves recognition, and in my mind deserves to win.

Best Director: James Cameron for Avatar

Reread what I said for Best Picture, because it can all be applied for Best Director. That being said, the politics of the Academy may come into play. Cameron has already won a Best Director award for Titanic. Overlooking how the Academy may subtly feel the pressure to make more headlines and award a woman the winner of the Best Director for the first time in history, Bigelow’s film was truly remarkable and would certainly deserve the recognition.

Best Actor: Colin Firth from A Single Man

Admittedly I did not see all the films whose actors are in contention to win this award. George Clooney played a single charmer, again, but did it well, showing greater signs of inner-struggle than in previous films. Although it was likely a reflection of the character, Jeremy Renner held up too much of a wall that prevented the audience from connecting to him. In the end, he lost my intrigue and just became an annoyance. A close film lover friend of mine raved about Colin Firth in A Single Man for weeks after the film’s release, and I trust his judgement that Colin Firth deserves the win.

Best Actress: Carey Mulligan from An Education

Perhaps its her freshness on the film scene, but I could not escape the vision of Carey Mulligan as Jenny Miller, a confused young woman coming-of-age in the 1960s in England. Although Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep shone and held their movies together (The Blind Side and Julie & Julia) their contribution was not enough.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Christopher Waltz from Inglorious Bastards

Watch the film. His acting was perfect for this role. It demonstrates the importance of supporting actors in any film to push the story forward and hold an entire piece together.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Mo’Nique from Precious

After watching only a clip from the film, I could sense that Mo’Nique held greater talent than her history of B-Class comedies would suggest. In a very dark role she demonstrates incredible honesty and depth of character.

Best Animated Feature: Up

This is the only animated feature nominated for Best Picture overall. Certainly it deserves to win within its more specialized category.

Alice’s Return; Breaking with Industry Standards

{ February 27, 2010 @ 7:56 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (3) }

Next Friday, March 5th, Tim Burton’s interpretation of Alice in Wonderland will open in theaters. The story was first written in 1865 by Lewis Carroll  and was adapted numerous times into film, most notably, the 1951 Disney animated picture. The film contains an all-star cast including Johnny Depp, Helena Bonhan Carter, Michael Sheen, Anne Hathaway, and a number of other successful British actors. Similar to the 1951 version of Alice in Wonderland, this 2010 theatrical release will be distributed by Disney, yet, it will feature a combination of live action along with its animation. Another advancement from the 1951 film includes the fact that the film will be released in 3D and shown in IMAX3D in addition to regular theaters.

In an effort to counteract declining DVD sales, Disney announced it would shorten the film’s theatrical release to only 12 weeks (as opposed to the more traditional theatrical release period of 17 weeks) and open up the DVD sales after those 12 weeks. Movies have remained in theaters as long as 5 to 6 months within the past decade, but Disney has decided to shorten the release of two movies a year in hopes it will increase its rapidly declining DVD sales. This upset a number of theaters, including the Odeon/UCI cinema group. In a statement made to The Hollywood Reporter, the group explains:

Odeon/UCI has invested considerable sums of money, especially in the U.K., over the past 12 months to install digital projection systems in its cinemas to enable customers to enjoy 3D… The popularity of 3D titles meant that last year these films played in Odeon/UCI cinemas for an average of 18 weeks from initial release… We have a very full lineup of films to offer audiences over the next few weeks, including two new 3D titles [other than Alice in Wonderland]. These will now take priority in our cinemas.”

In essence, the Odeon/UCI group was fully prepared to stage a boycott of Disney’s 2010 release of Alice in Wonderland, which could have seriously hurt the film, given the company’s ownership of over 100 theaters in the UK alone. Then, on February 24th, Odeon agreed to show the film as desired by Disney. This agreement was met in part from the public’s reaction, as noted in polls in the UK paper The Guardian and Disney’s commitment to not run ads for the DVD within the UK until at least 6 to 8 weeks after Alice‘s theatrical debut.

This strikes a very interesting change in industry standards. As films continue to struggle to bring in money to the studios, it is only expected that studios will take new measure to reign in profits. Disney seems confident that people will be more likely to buy DVDs when they are offered closer to the release of the film. But what if no change in DVD sales occurs from this new approach? What other measures could get taken?

It also seems odd that Disney believes taking a 3D film out of theaters to release it on DVD (2D) will increase revenue for the studio. What makes films more enticing than TV and movies you watch at home is the spectacle. Shortening its theatrical release period would seem to diminish one of the film’s major strengths over other entertainment mediums. We’ll have to wait and see…

What Can’t Google Do?

{ February 20, 2010 @ 6:45 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (5) }

Twenty years ago, any conversation about “Google” was likely a reference to the number 1 followed by 100 zeros properly known as “googol.” By 2002, the American Dialect Society voted “google” to be the 2nd most useful word of the year. Today, saying “google” is typically thought of as the equivalent to saying “search.” Twenty years from now, who knows what other connotations google will amount. Before any speculation, let’s take a look at the boom of this miraculous company.

In 1996, Stanford computer science grad students Larry Page and Sergey Brin started a search engine for their university called BackRub. But, by 1997, BackRub occupied too much bandwidth for Stanford to continue to support it, forcing Page and Brin to take their search engine elsewhere. Then, as early as 1998, PC Magazine recognized Google to be the top search engine website. But it was not for long until Google expanded its capabilities past being a search engine. Google now operates as an email provider, a mapping service, a web-based word processing cite (GoogleDocs), a calendar, a news aggregate, a web browser (Chrome), a translating program for 41 languages, and more.

Google’s importance within (American) society only continues to expand. In October of last year, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously decided to make Google their official email provider. Then, on February 10, 2010, Google announced plans for an experimental fiber network. Google will “build and test ultra high-speed broadband networks” in select trial locations including Los Angeles, Seattle, Austin, and Pittsburg. This service claims to work at speeds 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to currently. Google dreams big for what this ultra-high speed internet access can provide:

Imagine sitting in a rural health clinic, streaming three-dimensional medical imaging over the web and discussing a unique condition with a specialist in New York. Or downloading a high-definition, full-length feature film in less than five minutes. Or collaborating with classmates around the world while watching live 3-D video of a university lecture.

Amidst this expansion, however, Google struggles with its operations in China. As soon as Google launched in China, the government imposed censoring restrictions on what the search engine could provide for results.  The government maintains the power to remove websites that it considers “subversive or offensive.” An example of such topics include any postings about the Tiananmen Square protests. Tension between the company and the country spiked January 12, 2010 once Google discovered “a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google.” Google has evidence which indicates “the primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.”

In their response, Google made the following announcement:

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

Google is still in talks with the Chinese government trying to resolve this issue, but, so far, no agreement has been reached. I respect Google for expanding the issue of hacking onto human right activists’ accounts to the need for better human rights within China as a whole. Far from imposing what should be said on the Internet, Google is working to provide free speech and access to free speech for its users. It’s going as far as to provide a better fiber network. Sadly, I do not foresee China lifting any censorship barriers. However ambitious, establishing freedom of speech on the internet may be one thing Google cannot do.

Why is 10 such a big deal?

{ February 6, 2010 @ 4:31 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (5) }

As enticing as Punxsutawney Phil’s Groundhog Day 2010 prediction might have been (6 more weeks of winter), the more shocking revelation of February 2nd was the Academy’s decision to open up the Best Picture Nominee list to include 10 pictures-Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Bastards, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, and Up in the Air. In the following video, Academy President Sid Ganis explains the board’s resolution to “return to a past Academy tradition.”

Yes, 1939 saw the nomination of 10 great films-Dark Victory, Gone with the Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, The Wizard of Oz, and Wuthering Heights. As Ganis points out, these movies varied greatly in genre: historical epics, a Western, a comedy, etc. So too do the nominees this year. He continues to defend the Academy’s decision to return to 10 films by citing that in most years from 1931 to 1943, the Academy had included 10 nominees, one year including as many as 12 nominees.  Instead of the typical 5 nominees that has become customary, beginning with this 82nd Academy Award season, 10 movies will be up for Best Picture. The Academy “will be casting [its] net wider. In casting that net wider, who knows what will turn up?”

I think the fear in opening the playing field is just that. What’s going to happen? Could this dilute the category? Certainly being 1 of 10 nominees does not hold the exclusivity of being 1 of 5. Nevertheless, as Ganis acknowledges, winning the Best Picture category is “the pinnacle of an honor for a motion picture, and it is a singular honor.”

Over the past few years, I have made a genuine effort to see all Best Picture nominees, but needing to see 10 films is rather daunting. At the same time, opening the category to more films has the potential to entice more viewers to watch the Oscars on March 7th. Casting the net wider for nominees acts as a great opportunity to broaden the audience of people watching the Oscars. Typically, Oscar nods help any movie’s box office. Perhaps opening up the Best Picture category is exactly what the industry needs. With the recent trend of shrinkage (Miramax studios recently closed and many studios, such as Sony, are in the process of shrinking departments), casting a wider net may help the business grow.

A Look into a Public Intellectual: Christopher Hitchens

{ January 31, 2010 @ 5:52 am } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Leave a Comment }

For some time I have considered Vanity Fair my favorite magazine. Excluding the excessively lengthy exposure of the Bernie Madoff scandal, the magazine provides an excellent blend of coverage on the issues of both politics and pop culture, topics that interest me greatly. As I flip through my issue every month, I find myself most enthralled with the writings of contributing editor Christopher Hitchens. As I set out to establish my identity on the blogosphere, I can only hope to emulate the work of this fifth best “public intellectual” so that one day, I too may earn the title.

Born in 1949 in Portsmouth, England, Christopher Hitchens attended Oxford University, where he earned a degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. He started his career as a staff writer for The New Statesmen and soon began writing for London’s Evening Standard. After emigrating to the Unites States in 1981, Hitchens launched into 20 years of writing bi-weekly posts for The Nation. By 1992 he acquired the role of contributing editor for Vanity Fair. He continues to write a variety of articles for the Atlantic Monthly, Slate, The London Review of Books, Granta, Harper’s, New Left Review, Vogue, and many other publications. Hitchens also composed a number of critically acclaimed books including The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001), Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), Why Orwell Matters (2002), and most recently God is Not Great (2007). His memoir, Hitch-22 Some Confessions and Contradictions, is due for publication in June of this year. Additionally, Hitchens also taught as a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkley, the New School of Social of Social Research, and the University of Pittsburg.

Throughout his career, Hitchens has established himself as an especially witty, at times crude, polemicist. As his writing indicates, he has little fear of proposing contrarian positions to those held by the majority within Western society, whether it be his distaste for Henry Kissinger or organized religion. Although he writes with sophistication, it remains clear and simple to comprehend, unlike some of his philosophical contemporaries. He has accumulated a variety of recognitions, some of which he likely holds in higher regards than others.

For example, in January of 2009, Forbes magazine compiled a list of The 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media. Alongside Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias , Fareed Zakaria, Thomas Friedman, and Paul Krugman Hitchens was ranked number 14:

Vociferously atheistic, Hitchens, who styles himself a “radical,” will likely be aghast to find himself on this list. This prolific, but never less than eye-catching, author has supported the war on terror as enthusiastically as he has excoriated Sarah Palin.

A ranking Hitchens likely prefers is one conducted by Prospect magazine and Foreign Policy for the Top 100 Public Intellectuals, where, as mentioned previously, Hitchens was ranked number 5. Given Hitchens penchant for oppositional commentary, esteemed University of Southern California Professor Stephen Mack would agree with Hitchens’ ranking as well. In a recently reposted blogpost, Mack expresses his belief that public intellectuals garner their title:

Only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we [public intellectuals] do at our day jobs.

Look up again at Hitchens’ many publications. Being a public intellectual is clearly his day job. Mack’s article concludes with an insightful suggestion to the role and importance of a public intellectual:

The measure of a public intellectual work is not whether people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.

In a Vanity Fair web exclusive piece, Hitchens assesses the dangers of society overusing “The Other L-Word” (“like”). In this albeit more colloquial article, he addresses a fairly disconcerting shift in linguistics that is, in my opinion, “worth talking about.” Having taken a number of classes involving public speaking in college, I am shocked by the relentless use of filler words, such as “like” that impede the strength of any argument. Despite holding the distinguished title of “public intellectual,” Hitchens addresses this issue with every-day ease:

The actual grammatical battle was probably lost as far back as 1954, when Winston announced that its latest smoke “tasted good, like a cigarette should.” Complaints from sticklers that this should have been “as a cigarette should” (or, in my view, “as a cigarette ought to do”) were met by a second ad in which a gray-bunned schoolmarm type was taunted by cheery consumers asking, “What do you want, good grammar or good taste?” Usage of “like” has now almost completely replaced “as,” except in the case of that other quite infectious youth expression “as if,” which would now be in danger of being rendered “Like, as if.”

Here Hitchens does an excellent job of pulling together a seemingly obscure instance in history to form a broad template for understanding the current linguistic dilemma, a skill Hitchens masters time and time again in his work. The fluidity of Hitchens’ writing is certainly something to strive to emulate. In the end, I cannot help but want to be like (note the correct use) Christopher Hitchens.