This blog is best viewed at resolutions at least 1280 pixels wide. Anything less is for failures.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Who Killed the Electric Car?

I skipped a second blog a while back, so that means I needed to go to a bloggable event to make up for it.



Enter Who Killed the Electric Car?, a movie about the General Motors EV1, a fully electric (yeah, none of this hybrid stuff, pal) car. There were only 1,117 made, and none of them were sold--only leased. In the end, they were all crushed.



So, what happened? Well, the last nail in the coffin came when GM realized it would be cheaper to just sue the state of California to undo their clean vehicle regulations than it would be to build electric cars. Also, back then, gas was still cheap and GM thought that people would rather buy large and intimidating SUVs over smaller vehicles like the EV1.



At least, that was the thought before this movie came out. Who Killed the Electric Car? sheds some light on the subject by providing a list of suspects in a whodunnit fashion and goes through them one by one to figure out exactly what happened to the EV1. The list is:

Customers, because they didn't want to drive smaller cars that had less cargo space and less range than gasoline vehicles.

Batteries, because they sucked when the EV1 first came out.

Oil companies, because (just like the FM vs AM wars I described in my powerpoint presentation on Lessig's Free Culture) they saw the EV1 as a threat and did things to stop it from succeeding, like buying patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in modern electric cars.

Car companies, for being way too honest about the EV1's limitations (try getting a used car salesman nowadays to say anything bad about something he's trying to sell you). Also, for not letting people buy EV1s or building enough to respond to the high demand.

Government, for not doing more to raise fuel efficiency or lower emissions.

California Air Resources Board, for caving into pressure to remove the Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, conflicts of interest and not letting pro-ZEV people finish talking while giving car companies all the time in the world to finish making their points.

Hydrogen fuel cell, for distracting people with hopes about the future, as opposed to a solution that was already here (electric cars).

In the end, only the batteries were deemed Not Guilty by the movie. As it turns out, new and way, way better batteries were developed, but were not made available.

The Wealth of Networks

I tend to zone out when I see a pages upon pages of justified, practically single-spaced text written in small font, particularly when these pages rarely, if ever, contain more than one paragraph break. So instead of digging through that dizzying clusterfuck of ten-dollar words at 4:20 in the morning just so I can find one relatively interesting passage that reminds me of something more interesting for me to ruminate on, I'm just gonna go ahead and blindly trust the first half of the wiki's four-sentence summary of what's-his-face's 34-page intro to The Wealth of Networks, that:

"Production is shifting from physical products like blue jeans, to decentralized information goods, like articles on the Internet. This gives users more power (they can publish instead of just reading), creates more opportunities for democratic participation, lowers costs for developing countries, and democratizes the creation of our culture."



Best example? You're reading one right now: blogs. Peer-created, decentralized information goods like blogs have proven to be rather useful, including very recently when journalists look[ed] to bloggers for [more information on the] Virginia Tech story, something I'm shamelessly ripping from Prerana Chhabria's blog.



Other examples include sites like Fark.com and SlashDot.org, of which I've been an RSS subscriber since the day I discovered "live" bookmarks via RSS feeds and added these feeds to this blog just for the hell of it. Sites like these are decentralized in the sense that any user--not just administrators or moderators--can sign up and submit stories, questions or links to articles and spark massive discussions about them. SlashDot focuses on "news for nerds", dealing mostly with tech subjects, including "Your Rights Online", but there's also a section for science and politics. Fark focuses on "not news", originally satirizing how news organizations publish "stories" that in reality are of no value, but have expanded to included a wide variety of cool and interesting things to read while maintaining an always-funny and (given some of the material) surprisingly intelligent community.



Sites that are wide open for discussion and rely on the contributions of others are excellent sources of discussion and quick information. The successful ones grow very quickly and in turn require powerful servers that can handle many users at once. When someone posts a new topic that points to another site for people to read and comment on, often those sites crash because they cannot keep up with the sudden spike in users--this is known as the "SlashDot effect" or being "Farked".



An extremely bandwidth-consuming event is a national tragedy, where millions of people flood the phone lines and news sites desperately seeking information about the events that unfolded and the status of their loved ones. Phone lines may overload, and news sites may crash--not Fark, however; since it already gets insane amounts traffic on a daily basis, it is much more likely to remain up during times like that. Tragedies can also take out communications, as was the case with 9/11 (many TV news feeds were in the towers, as well as a major Internet hub that feededs all of Europe) however, as you can see in the Farkives, Fark was alive and well, and users who live near Ground Zero or were lucky enough to get through to news sites were able to instantly share that information to the world.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Free Culture


This week's my powerpoint week, so I'll use my blog to plan what I'm going to say. Spoiler alert; if you don't wanna be bored out of your mind for today's lecture, you're probably better off not reading it. I got some pretty interesting things to tie this reading with the 'bloggable' "Who Killed The Electric Car?" movie I saw a couple weeks back, so I'll type that up soon.



[SHOW TITLE PAGE]

Alright, so: this week's reading is the “Piracy” section of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.

[CLICK TO NEXT SLIDE]

Lessig is a law professor at Stanford best known as a proponent of fewer restrictions on copyright. That's him and his book right there.

[SWITCH TO FIREFOX]

I wanna get us started, though, with a short clip from the 20s. You guys probably have seen this scene portrayed in other movies before; props if you can name the movie without cheating.

[GO BACK TO PRESENTATION]
[GO TO NEXT SLIDE]

So yeah, as you could tell by the title on there, that movie is Steamboat Bill, Jr. Back in the 1920s, culture was completely free. This means that back in the day, people used the works of others as inspiration and no one gave it a second thought; nobody needed to ask for permission. This gave plenty of room for Disney to create new things out of things that are barely old.

[CLICK TO NEXT ELEMENT]

The character we now recognize as Mickey Mouse made his first successful debut in Steamboat Willie. This cartoon was a direct parody of the silent comedy Steamboat Bill, Jr.

[CLICK TO NEXT ELEMENT]

That movie got its inspiration from a song called Steamboat Bill. No one had a problem with “Disney creativity”; he took what he saw, made it your own and released it back into the world. You might be surprised as to how many Disney movies were inspired by the works of others:

[CLICK TO NEXT SLIDE]

Considering how much wealth Disney makes borrowing from others, you'd think that they wouldn't mind if others borrowed a little back. As you could probably guess, if I were to suddenly make something “inspired” by something Disney has created, I'd most likely be sued out of existence and be accused of plagiarizing or “piracy” because even something as old as Steamboat Willie which was made in frickin' 1928 won't be in the public domain until 2023—that is, if they don't lobby congress to extend it again. Ironically, the movie Steamboat Willie was based on is on public domain and, as you just saw, can be legally found on Google Video for free.

[GO TO NEXT SLIDE]

So, what's going on?

[CLICK TO NEXT ELEMENT]

Lessig argues that we're moving from a free culture to a permission culture. Back in Disney's day, people were free to learn from the work of others, put a unique creative twist on it and release it back to the world—as Lessig calls it, “Rip, mix and burn”. Nowadays, we need to get everyone's permission for anything that remotely resembles something else's work to be absolutely sure we won't get sued.

Some have justified this change from a free culture to a permission culture as necessary because it protects commercial creativity.

[CLICK TO NEXT ELEMENT]

However, “this is not a protectionism to protect artists. It is instead a protectionism to protect certain forms of business.” Corporations loves them some money, and will go to any length to eliminate emerging competition, especially if that competition seems to be substantially better and threatens the success of the current market leaders.

If I made a cheap Mickey Mouse knockoff that nobody liked, I'd either be laughed at, flamed or ignored altogether—but what if I redesigned the character and made him much cooler, much more appealing than Disney's Mickey Mouse? Well, that's when Disney would bother to come after me, because now I'm a legitimate threat.

[CLICK TO NEXT SLIDE]

Here's another example: In 1933 Edwin Howard Armstrong received his patent for the FM radio, a technology he later on demonstrated to be vastly superior to the technology of the time, AM radio. Armstrong was working for RCA, which back then was the dominant player in the AM radio market. His new technology threatened RCA's empire, so they did everything they could to prevent it from becoming popular, including manipulating the FCC. Eventually RCA began to use FM technology in their televisions, and refused to pay Armstrong any royalties despite the patents. As soon as the patents expired, RCA offered a settlement so low it wouldn't even cover Armstrong's lawyer fees from the years of legal battles he had trying to defend his patents from RCA. The defeat led to his suicide in 1954.

[CLICK TO NEXT ELEMENT]

Because of the corruption in our political process, RCA was able to stifle the effect of technological change. They did their best to kill a superior technology while it was still young in order to preserve their bottom line.

[CLICK TO NEXT SLIDE]

The Internet is thus to the industries that built and distributed content in the twentieth century what FM radio was to AM radio ... : the beginning of the end, or at least a substantial transformation.

And that...

[CLICK TO NEXT ELEMENT]

...brings us to p2p sharing.

[CLICK TO NEXT SLIDE]

There are four types of sharers:

[CLICK AND READ THE REST OF THE SHOW WITH MINOR ELABORATIONS]

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

The Global Flow of Visual Culture

The final chapter of the book has a couple sections dedicated to the Internet, including one on how it can be a global village, with communities dedicated to certain areas of interest. It even goes on to discuss how the relative anonymity of the online world can lead to deceptive and harmful behavior. It's impossible for me to even think about this subject without being reminded of the two and a half years I spent in the TSRP community.

TSRP, or The Specialists Role-Play is a mod of a mod. A team of coders and artists created a modification of the first-person shooter Half-Life, creating an alternate game inspired by, among other influences, The Matrix. Originally the game was a simple deathmatch-type game, the twist of course being able to do impressive stunts and slow down time to kill other players as stylistically as possible for the most points, in locales including a replica of the lobby shootout scene in the original Matrix.



Eventually, though, a sub-community formed. These people were role-players that redefined the way the game was to be played. Instead of running the around the map, doing impossible stunts and killing everything in sight using names such as "l33T aZn SnIpEr", these players created characters with personalities and walked around newly created city-like places conversing with other characters, spontaneously creating story lines while using realistic first and last names. In addition, people created forums to keep track of the events that went on in each server, as well as to talk to the players behind the characters about the game or other topics. Eventually (and keep in mind that almost everyone involved was in their early to mid teens) people learned to code for the game, creating role-play modifications like economies with money, items and property and the all-important TalkArea that only displayed chat messages within certain ranges (narrative "/me" statements, normal talking, shouting, whispering, and phones)--useful not only for realism, but for reducing the inevitable spam of 32 players talking simultaneously. As a major figure in the development and administration of most of the successful TSRP communities, there's much history I'd like to share (especially events in-game and on the forums) but if I get started, I won't stop. As a side note, it's a shame how the Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything about how each community shaped the game and led to the creation of other communities.

But yeah, back to the whole anonymity thing, with the deceptive and harmful behavior. With this, I'm in total agreement. Since people are interacting online using such methods as text in a forum or in-game chat or through actions in a video game, it's very easy to forget that you are dealing with other human beings. The lack of face-to-face interaction makes it easy to ignore the consequences of one's actions.



Therefore, it's real easy to be a dick to others, considering how the people you're pissing off can't retaliate in any real way.



In my experience with TSRP, most of the griefers I had to deal with were DMers, who blatantly ignored the role-play rules and ventured into our servers with the sole purpose of intentionally disrupting the gameplay of others by killing them repeatedly in a Deathmatch-like fashion.

But that's just easy in-game asshole stuff that can be remedied with a quick slap of the banstick. The really interesting problems come from people who have problems. Such people confirm French philosopher Paul Virilio's (some dude in the chapter) opinion that "there is a serious social problem afoot when able-bodied people assume a home-bound existence to conduct their social life online and through media." Yes, I know what the RP in TSRP stands for; does it really mean that it's OK to roleplay everything? I've seen many screenshots and demos of people who have caught other members having cyber sex. The indefensible part is that these weren't in-character relationships that have been developing over a relatively long period of time--it always seemed to be the same set of people whose sole purpose seemed to get together online using random names, find a place on the map where they think no one can hear them, and amaze each other with how fast they can type with one hand. The LOL-worthiest part of it all was how, since I knew everyone pretty well and used administrative software to keep track of peoples' Steam IDs, IP addresses and character names, I noticed that the female character in the cybering sessions was always controlled by a dude and as far as I could tell, the other player had no idea--



--which reminds me some more things about deception. Lying about your gender in-game isn't very hard at all. What I found to be most impressive was this one guy (with whom I later led a community) who created and used over a dozen forum accounts simultaneously, each with a unique personality. Eventually he was outed by someone, and I confirmed his trickery by matching the IP addresses of the posts. He had so many names that in the thread debating his actions, no one knew what to call him. Don't get me wrong, Scar (if you ever read this): you're a great guy and have done a lot for the community, but with this debacle plus your long rap sheet of cybering as both a guy and a girl, there's something not quite right with you (or maybe you are, as Turkle suggests, a person whose self is "multiple, fragmentary and complex").

Oh, man. Looking back, it's hilarious how many people were caught cybering. I think the most controversial cybering-related event involved one of the server owners and one of the other administrators, who he conveniently replaced me with as top admin. Everyone knew what was going on, but considering the powers admins had, no one got close enough to get any proof. All I did was publically ask "Hey, isn't cybering with a minor illegal?" and bam--permabanned, admin stripped. Funniest. Shit. Ever. I'd link to it, but I'm trying to distance myself from anything related to TSRP--including contributing to its Wikipedia article.

Although TSRP was an online community and had the unique symptoms of anonymity-inspired assholishness, it's also almost exactly like real life. Sure, deceptive and harmful behavior may be more common, but that's only because getting caught has no real repercussions; people still do them IRL. As an admin I had all the responsibilities one could expect in an actual business environment, with each day testing my managerial and people skills, as well as my judgment and morals with each problem that arose or decision that had to be made. I also had to deal with incompetent and abusive coworkers, dumbass customers and office politics, including people who sleep their way to the top.

It's funny how a game can be so much like real life. It's probably because to some people, it is.