Monday, February 25, 2008

See My Blog For References

Over the last few weeks of this course, we’ve picked up some snazzy lingo about social networking: crowd-sourcing, communities of practice, conversational marketing, and so on. But are you familiar with the term “dooced?” Apparently, the dangers of blogging on the job have warranted the creation of a whole new word:

Dooced: To lose one’s job because of one’s website.

The origin of the term is somewhat convoluted, but the basic idea is that a woman got fired from her job for writing stories about coworkers on her blog, http://www.dooce.com/. We’re all familiar with this phenomenon (think Jessica Cutler of Washingtonienne fame, or Mark Jen’s Google scandal), so it makes sense to have a word describing it. But what about blogging even before you’ve secured the job? Could it win you gold stars in a fiercely competitive job market? Or could it become the barrier between you and that coveted corner office?

According to Joshua Porter, “the blog is the new resume.” Advocates claim that given two identical candidates, the one who includes a blog address on his resume is more likely to win the position. I can see how this could work. Employers receive hundreds of resumes for various positions, so any means to stand out from the crowd should be utilized. However, considering the questionable quality of many blogs, I wonder if this is in fact an appropriate strategy. As graduate students who may not have grown up using the internet from a young age, we’re probably a bit more cognizant of what is and isn’t appropriate – and thus more reticent about what we post online – than the high school/college crowd. For example, teenagers accustomed to using the internet from the age of three tend to be more comfortable posting intimate, personal information on photo-sharing sites, Facebook, Myspace, and the like. In fact, the issue of unrestrained internet-use by teens has received considerable media attention in recent years. In a perfect world, teens and tweens would curb their virtual showboating, or at least step up efforts to delineate public vs. private information. However, how many 14 year olds really think about future career prospects beyond vague notions of wanting to be a doctor or lawyer? I would venture to say that very few consider the day when a hiring decision might rest on information gathered from a Google search or Facebook profile. And unless great pains are taken to delete or privatize blog posts, those diary-like entries could come back to haunt them.

Even for those of us who do practice caution, what exactly do blogs tell an employer about a person? Mine would inform someone of my status as a grad student, the fact that I took a course on social networking, and that I’m able to string words into sentences. But my writing here is hardly exemplary; I’d much rather submit a formal paper as a writing sample. If your blog highlights quantifiable skills and is somehow directly related to the position you seek, I would certainly consider it a resume-boosting tactic. But if your employable “skills” resemble that of Joey’s, blog with care…

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Cyber-Twins: Like You, Only Better

If you were offered the opportunity to start all over and begin a new life – including a new job, new location, perhaps even a new look – would you take it? I think I would. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy my life right now. I like grad school, love DC, and pretty much have come to terms with the fact that I won’t grow any taller. But every once in a while (usually around finals or when the red line runs on single tracks), I can’t help but wonder how cool it’d be to just pick up and leave – perhaps become an architect in Dubai. Apparently, the desire to start from scratch and recreate ourselves is actually quite common. Consider the recent story about John Darwin, who committed “pseudocide” in order to lead a new life in Panama.

The good news, however, is that you don’t need to go to such lengths to start over. You can create a whole new you right from the comfort of your home through computer programs like Second Life. I had heard and read about the program before; but as someone who spends only a requisite amount of time in front of the computer (Email? Check. Read the news? Check. Write a paper? Check.), I’d never been compelled to actually enter Second Life. However, this week’s readings (and our pending lab) got me interested. The level of complexity to this so-called game is really quite fascinating. You can create an avatar to look and dress any way you like, buy and sell property, start a business, or make and spend money. You can even be Michael Jackson and re-create the famous Thriller video. The possibilities, it seems, are endless. However, what’s even more interesting about the program is what it says about human nature.

In real life, you often hear people griping about social inequalities, income disparities, and the like. But apparently, we carry the same baggage into our virtual worlds:


“When people are given the opportunity to create a fantasy world, they can and do defy the laws of gravity (you can fly in Second Life), but not of economics or human nature. Players in this digital, global game don’t have to work, but many do. They don’t need to change clothes, fix their hair, or buy and furnish a home, but many do."

It’s incredible to think that given the option to look like anyone, or anything for that matter, most choose to conform and look “normal.” So essentially, it seems we don’t want to create some magical fantasy land where everyone frolics with wild virtual abandon. Instead, we choose to create the second life we wish we’d had in real life, and in this life, everyone is beautiful, fit, and rich. However, it’s nice to know that the Dwight Schrutes out there are so thrilled with their real life that they choose to live the same one in Second Life (without giving a thought to the irony of selling paper in a virtual world). Though it does raise the question – given our increasing dependence on technology and a declining preference for human interaction, could we see the day when most opt to check out of real life and live exclusively through their virtual alter egos?


Image from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeKtbhZ7BO1p02tzYUWxbYykdsDPyFqib8R89bwxt2ZoFX0Tl-9L95a-JE1nDsEUih0VAy599lwe5tmLQh6gVO9mcgT_Yy7uuAxc_bpiA7bBzKkuuo4P9dqXI0YVKiSwoJ6Fv8dVll4ns1/s1600-h/cyber+twin.gif

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Just testing Utterz...

Mobile post sent by jpaul121 using Utterz Replies.


Mobile post sent by jpaul121 using Utterz Replies.  mp3

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Internet: Killing Brain Cells Since 1974


Al Gore invented the internet. Or so the story goes. It’s hardly true, of course, but while he may not have invented the internet, he did support the development of the internet as a Congressman from 1977 – 1985. More recently, Gore has been involved in an internet venture called Current that hopes to “transform television by plugging it into the internet.” What’s interesting about this is that Gore also won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on climate change. The fact that he served 8 years each as U.S. Vice President, Representative of the House, and Senator already says a lot about his capabilities as a government official. Add to that a Nobel Prize, and there’s no doubt we’re dealing with an intelligent person. Yet fellow Nobel laureate Doris Lessing firmly believes that “the internet makes us dumb.” If Gore managed to remain intelligent enough to win a Nobel Prize despite years of internet use and development, how do we come to terms with Lessing’s claim?

According to the TechCrunch article, Lessing’s primary complaint seems to be that people “read nothing and know nothing of the world.” She’s not alone – fellow sympathizer Andrew Keen believes that the internet is killing our culture since "without professional fact checkers, grammarians, and publishers,” internet sources are “by definition less accurate, reliable, and honest than professionally edited newspapers, encyclopedias, or books.” However, in light of recent scandals involving plagiarism by journalists, how can we be so sure of the sanctity of the printed word?

I’m not about to jump on my pro-internet soapbox and denounce the ideas put forth by Lessing or Keen. A lot of what is available on the internet is unfortunate – from mindless YouTube videos to pornography to trite blog posts about nothing, the internet can become a digital dumping ground for mediocrity. However, the key word here is can. The internet is a tool, and as such, it can be used for a number of inane/silly/stupid reasons. But that doesn’t mean it has to be. Think about the volumes of academic journals made available to students and teachers through resources such as Aladin. Or the countless newspapers that have created equivalent websites, including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Or how about Google’s initiative to digitize books through its Google Books Library Project? The internet is an amazing resource – it simply depends on what sites you visit and what you search for. Which makes me wonder – if Doris Lessing did use the internet even once, what exactly did she see to make her hate it so much? Oh if her search history could talk…

Image from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNfQ_9GaH81R1crQ-mpQPLxyS94tlgZtEIWXS-NvH3uENSi95NyeeSjh1lkXeDv4hHx20ki-Ar-dexVjBzClLt5QArSKK4tXujqfmE79Vu416ga_t_ErKnx9NNYQgdYtq-QJBUrAWF-QHs/s1600-h/successoryinternet400.jpg

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Another test...

This is just a temporary post for course purposes. A few of us have experienced difficulties with customer service lately (I have my own problems with Comcast). For more on one classmate's difficulties with Verizon, visit Hugh's page.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Man vs. Machine: Winner Take All?


Will people always remain superior to computers? Or does your paranoia of a global A.I. takeover resemble Will Smith’s in I, Robot? A quick search on google resulted in 12,100,000 hits for “computers will take over the world” and 12,800,000 hits for “computers will not take over the world.” My search was hardly scientific (and there was much overlap between results), but for the moment, let’s take solace in knowing that for now, we’re leading the robots by 700,000 hits.

Of course, there also exists the possibility of co-existence where the best of human and computer abilities are utilized for cooperation rather than competition. According to Amazon’s description of its subsidiary, Mechanical Turk, people “significantly outperform the most powerful computers at completing such simple tasks as identifying objects in photographs.” Computers, on the other hand, are better at “storing and retrieving large amounts of information or rapidly performing calculations.” This is easily demonstrated by conducting a Google Image search. The search engine will come up with thousands of images containing any relevance to your search terms, but our human eyes are able to quickly scan the page and determine whether the images contain exactly what we’re looking for.

It’s for this reason that crowdsourcing sites such as Mechanical Turk and ChaCha have cropped up in recent years. The concept is simple – computers are great, but can’t do everything perfectly; enter Average Joe who picks up the slack, all for a few pennies a day! Excuse my sarcasm, but I find it appalling that a human intelligence task, or HIT, yields only a few cents in compensation. Don’t get me wrong – I’m a huge fan of similar sites such as Wikipedia or Yahoo! Answers that allow people to contribute their thoughts or answer questions in an open format for the good of mankind (and maybe a bit of internet fame). But to pay people PENNIES per task is just sad. I once did a brief stint as an editor for Harley Davidson shop reports. People all over the country would visit the H-D store and submit a report on their experience; I would then edit it for content, consistency, grammar, etc. The job paid by the report, but not too much, so I was forced to edit a large number of reports to make this worthwhile. It wasn’t a primary source of income, but I was in college at the time and figured the extra cash couldn’t hurt. Eventually, though, the fear of worsened eyesight (plus animosity towards those who wrote so poorly) forced me to say goodbye to Harley Davidson. What’s frustrating about Mechanical Turk is that many people (particularly contributors from developing nations) probably don’t have the luxury of quitting, so I can’t help but wonder whether Jeff Bezos (creator of Mechanical Turk) couldn’t afford to pay a bit more per HIT. Or maybe I’m just being sentimental, which makes me suspect I stand no chance against future robot domination…