I dream a day when I can sleep as much as I want

When I first understood the term 'internet of things' I thought, woah, what the hell, why do we need to be that efficient?

But then I thought about all the times i've said "You know what would make this better?"

Just think of all the spare time we would have if we knew exact times for public transport, for example, the Free Bus here in Wollongong. Imagine how much more sleep I could get if I knew exactly how far away each bus was! Thinking already of how this is impacting my daily life, I think of the various apps that I have on my iPhone, for example, the new "Find my friends" which tracks where friends are. Which is actually quite scary when you think about it.

But then again, if everything is somehow tagged, and integrated, and there's just super-efficiency going on. This means that more time will be freed up, so either people are going to have a lot of free time, or they will be doing more work in the same amount of time (such as in workplaces, they will have information readily available and the such). But I'm opting that as a university student that I will have way too much free time on my hands, so I wouldn't even know what to do with it.

So, I'm just going to do a brainstorm of all the objects currently connected to the internet:

• Buoys in the ocean relay information relating to governments about temperatures, and potential tsunamis
• Fridges that monitor what food is and is not in there, and when there should be a refill
• Stock inventory systems (although these are still mainly manual)
• Cars which report to the manufacturer any faults that occur

I guess everyday jobs are becoming easier, especially for disabled people, and we have advanced warning systems in place that help us prepare for disaster. Further, we can produce more and more, and reduce problems to do with supply.

Even thinking about my research topic, I guess the IoT could have revolutionised the riots, for example, police may have been able to crack down on criminals faster, and people may not have died if they were found faster.

So is everything for the better, after watching this video, I think so.

But I still think it is many, many years away. I mean, my hometown only gets extremely basic, high-priced and slow wire-free internet, in that the only cable internet access is dial-up.

In the meantime, I can only dream of a day when I can sleep as much as I want.

So I'm not sure if I hit the nail on the head, but I have definitely helped myself understand the potential of the internet.

As my last blog post, I bid you all farewell and good luck for the future, I may even see you in some BCM classes next year.

Make Love, Not War

Am I the only one who thinks this whole patent war between Apple, Google, and Samsung, and the rest too I guess, is silly?

This relates to one of the earlier lectures/blog posts, and I think that all the companies should just get along and make the most useful, cheapest, coolest mobile devices that they can.

That being said, I am quite the anti-Apple person, despite owning an iPhone 3gs, an iPod touch, and an iPod nano, all of which, I only paid for one, the iPhone, which I got for cheap off eBay about a month ago. So as you can see, I am quite technologically outdated owning such an old iPhone, but it does the job, and I usually tease people who upgrade saying that the 4, and now 4s is not that much different anyway.

I pride myself on not having brand loyalty, but then I remember, nearly all my computer stuff is HP, but I think this is more my parents trusting it, or their workplace having some sort of deal with them for cheap products.

I found this infographic, from 'Google vs Apple: who's winning the tech industry land grab?' which details the whole Apple vs Google thing anyway, and it appears that they're becoming more and more tied everyday:

See http://www.techi.com/2011/08/google-vs-apple-whos-winning-the-tech-industry-land-grab/ for the full infographic

But what is the relevance of this?

Now here comes the commerce student in me: I think that it's all to do with marketing and innovation. It's essentially just a race between the two companies to innovate, and then make money. I also think that Apple has an envious marketing campaign, as it has established itself as a brand to which people are loyal, and has even produced fanboys and girls. Further, most of my friends who are Apple fans tend to be a little up themselves. Thinking that just owning this particular brand makes them better than everyone else. And here's an article that supports this idea: 'Apple iPhone Marketing: a work of genius'.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you use, it's how you use it. To tie this in with my research topic of social media revolutions, you can look at the English riots, where Blackberrys and iPhones were the main devices being used. Or even the Arab Spring, which I'm not sure what they used. But Either way, smartphones and innovation are drastically changing the society in which we live, and it's all just a matter of business and money.

You say you want a revolution

Online revolution has been something which has appeared much in the news lately, in that you look at the Arab Spring, UK riots, and now the Occupy Wall Street movement (which I still don't really understand).

I find the UK riots of particular interest, as from everything I have read, nothing and no one can seem to conclude why they occurred. Sure enough I have heard both sides, with one side arguing that they were a protest about welfare cuts and inequitable distribution of funds (a socialist revolution?) and the other side that they were simply poor people, and copy cats, mindlessly venting their frustrations over being in such a situation.

One of the best resources I have found on this is the Reading the Riots website, which is presented by the Guardian newspaper, as well as the London School of Economics. It clearly demonstrates that social media, mainly Facebook and Twitter were used in the riots, as well as listing stories on the people who have been charged over using the services to incite rioting and violence.

Of particular interest was a 15 year old boy who was given a curfew and year of rehabilitation following a Facebook post which encouraged his friends to participate in the rioting. There were several other charges laid on different people for essentially encouraging violence and rioting on social media websites.

From further reading, I don't believe that anything was really achieved by the riots, except maybe a hefty damage bill to the British people. They started out as a peaceful protest over the shooting of Mark Duggan, a 39 year old man who was killed by police, however, it escalated into street violence, with many people believing that the British police were lying over what actually happened.

So, is there really a political message instilled in these demonstrations?

This leads me to believe that the internet can be used for mass revolutions, but they don't always have to be for something positive.

So in my own true blogging style, I end with the question of what you think the UK riots were about? And, do you think anything was really achieved?

Also, here is footage of a Malaysian student being mugged by people he thought were going to help him during the rioting, displaying some of the grotesque and intolerable behaviour which occurred.

Hacking for the truth

So in my own mind I think that hacking is wrong, but then again, there are exceptions. This article from SMH reports on Mitsubishi's missile making facility being hacked and information being stolen. So in my eyes this is essentially wrong, because it is likely that someone is using this information to be malicious or steal ideas.

Then you look at something such as WikiLeaks, and from 'WikiLeaks and Julian Assange' on Assange, it makes me feel that okay maybe hacking is okay if it is in some sort of quest to obtain the truth. So I guess it just comes down to morals, if you intend to do damage then it is bad, but if it's for a noble cause, then it's probably good. I guess you could nearly call what Assange has been doing as some form of investigative journalism, which is reiterated in the article. So we know all this information that we probably wouldn't have if it wasn't for WikiLeaks, but then again, what have we really gained?

 I recently gave a presentation on "Media, Conflict and War" in another subject and showed this video. The reactions were really different, and one question that arose in debate on it was whether or not it really affected us if we knew what was going on from this particular WikiLeak.

The only idea we got from the debate was that it enhanced already instilled anti-war views. But we couldn't really do anything about it, so does this make WikiLeaks somewhat redundant?

But then again, having the right to know is something which is important, and I guess with people trying to hide such footage, we are not getting this right to decide if we really want to know or not.

Anyway, back to the main topic. I'm an advocate for the idea of situation and context when judging the idea of hacking and the 'dark side of the internet'. Hacktivism can be a good idea, especially when traditional methods of protest are not working to have your voice heard, but the moment you get malicious, is the moment it becomes wrong.

I think I may have just confused myself even more with this blog, so what does everyone else think?

Extra, Extra, Tweet All About It

What grabbed me from How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live was the opening sentence "The one thing you can say for certain about Twitter is that it makes a terrible first impression". This was exactly my sentiment, now when my friends pay me out about using it I often find myself using defences other than 'it's just for uni'.

At first I thought Twitter was ridiculous, like who really would want to know what I'm doing 24/7 (apart from this freaky stalker girl, but that's a different story, perhaps another topic about Internet security?) Well the truth is, people generally don't care, unless your a Twitter celebrity. But as time has gone on I have grown to appreciate the potential of Twitter.

Just a quick list mixed from my own views and the article on how Twitter has changed the world:

• It was one component of the Arab Spring
• Established a new way of advertising and public relations
• It allows for open conversations to occur, which can be used to educate
• It has encouraged citizen journalism and free speech, as people can post what they like in an uncensored and somewhat anonymous environment

So what are some other ways it, and other social media, has changed the world we live in?

In taking this topic further, I can add in some stuff I have learned from my research topic, of which we have focused on social media and its role in events such as the Arab Spring, the London Riots, the Pakistani Political Crisis, and other global events. A key article by Shaheen underlines the importance social media plays, in that the Pakistani government blocked YouTube, after there were attempts at citizen journalism which were to the detriment of what the government were trying to enforce.

So all in all, Twitter, YouTube, blogging, citizen journalism has changed the way we live and how we access information. Overall, it has allowed for softer voices to be heard and commercially ;unsuccessful' stories and views to be exoressed.

I leave you with a further example I found today, whereby there was a Twitter 'fight' between NATO forces and the Taliban, heres the link.

Copycat

A key quote I remember from year 12 English from my teacher was that she would "never snuggle up to a computer screen to read a book".

Think again Miss. Welcome to the future, where you're going to have to adapt, or get out. With the close of many bookstores in response to the online revolution, is it necessarily such a bad thing?

The beauty of the the Internet is that there is infinite space available, i.e. there are no inventory costs. Everything is stored in what is called in the marketing world as 'mass customisation' whereby each customers experience with a company is tailored to their individual needs without the need for face-to-face interaction. Customers can access and search for what they want, what they might want and what they need easily and without the help of a customer service officer.

Essentially this online information marketplace is thriving - we don't need to leave our homes to purchase a book, or a song, a movie, or a TV show. We can access them when we want and how we want. The bad side to this, however, is the detriment of physical businesses who deal in things that are now available online: music stores, DVD rentals, and book stores. But couldn't this just be considered part of our business-based society - you snooze you lose, by this I mean that if you don't adapt to the current time, you're going to go down.

From Kelly, the key phrase that made me think was:

"When copies are super abundant, they become worthless.
When copies are super abundant, stuff which can't be copied becomes scarce and valuable.
When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied."


Just an interesting concept that I found was the virtual-train-station-supermarket, it's putting a twist on virtual shopping and all in the time you wait for your train:

All for one, one for all?

When I think convergence, I think things such as the iPhone, iPod's, mobile cameras, and pretty much everything that has converged into the one device. But does this necessarily mean that the full technology is being integrated into the one device? I thought about my own life and came up with one example.

So one of my pet peeves is people using iPhone and mobile cameras to shoot 'art'. The bottom line is, you're not going to get everything you want from some crappy little lens. Sure, it may look good, but you can't do much with it.

The bottom line is, you're not going to get a fully functional camera in a mobile communications device. Maybe one day in the future, but at the rate we're going, could you even imagine a SLR camera in an iPhone? For those of you who don't know, these types of cameras are the ones professionals tend to use, and you could not fit a full lens, or the proper mirror in a small device, which would see declining picture quality. Here is an example of a new lens that you can buy for your iPhone:



The iPhone 4 SLR Mount at the Photojojo Store!

So enough about my stupid little rant. Now to move on to probably what the readings were talking about/the main ideas discussed in the tutorial.

I think nearly all media are coming together on the internet. Television is now online, radio too,
in fact, we're currently learning online, not using textbooks sitting in class being spoken to. This embraces a new age where people want to be interactive with what they're doing. So this, I believe is the fundamental cause for convergent media practices, the need for interactivity.

Dare I link this in too? It could even be said that this has something to do with our democratic society, with people wanting to be more involved in the things that they do, rather than just be spoken at. People nowadays do not just want to sit back, they want to be involved in their lives. So what does everyone else think?