cyberape should be allowed in cyberape muds

The reading that I choose is Dibbell. The reason I chose Dibbell is because I find the whole idea that cyberspace may often seem to be a place that is supposed to be free of physical constrictions, and yet people naturally have a tendency to put their physical presence into their avatar a very interesting one. The main reason I find it interesting is because people, in real life, project an image of themselves. The image is projected through the clothes they wear, the way their hair looks, and many other characteristics. In real life, some projections may not be chosen such as facial structure, etc. (although it can be changed), but the reason I find this fascinating is because many times, when people enter these MUD’s, they don’t realize that they are actually putting themselves (meaning their real life selves) out there through a digital space.

When Moondreamer ended up crying after she was raped by Mr. Bungle, it shows just how clearly she was attached to her avatar, even though she didn’t realize it at first. I find the fact that people get attached to their avatars even when they don’t mean to a very interesting concept. In the article, there is one quote that fully illustrates the unique space that divides the digital world with the real world: they are trying to figure out how to punish Mr. Bungle for the rape. They wonder if he could be punished for making obscene phone calls, or perhaps by contacting administrators at the university. I am more on the side of the anarchists in the room, believing that when it comes to the digital world, there should be no punishment for crimes unless they transfer over into the real world. If, however, there is a rule on the site that states there is to be no foul language, and one swears, then they must pay the consequences for that action, but the digital world as a whole, if it were to start being policed by the government for example, the digital world would lose all its attraction in my opinion.

Turkle Response 2:Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and Voices within the Computer Culture

This essay mainly focused on how each person can use a computer in a different way, especially when it comes to programming. By detailing people’s backstory and training (ie playing piano), etc and by analyzing people’s learning styles, we are able to see why people may succeed or fail at certain computing tasks, and how almost all learning styles can be accommodated by computers.

This article is really good in explaining no only why certain people program in certain ways, but it really gets into why it’s ok for them to program that way. For example, on page 137, it describes Alex as he makes a robot rather than a car.

I really identify with the analysis of learning in this article. I really feel like I often times have a unique learning style which changes with each problem I am given. I often can come across as a smart ass because of the odd questions I ask (and sometimes I do this because I think it’s funny), but most often, it’s because the way I address problems is to find what is interesting about a problem and solve it from the perspective that addresses the unique problems of the issue, not just figure out the answer.

So, for example, I, like Alex, would rather build a robot that uses the tires as feet rather than make the same car that every kid around me makes. Facing the problems of making a robot, which no one could assist me with (because it is a new approach and a new idea), is what having fun is all about. Of course, if I was getting a grade, I would probably make a car, but if I was given the freedom to do WHATEVER I WANTED and didn't have to face the pressure of getting a grade, I would most definitely take the robot approach.

So I encourage YOU, to be like Alex, and take the Robot Approach.

English. What? Do You Speak It.

One of the arguments that I found most compelling arguments in chapter 3 was on page 100 when she makes the argument that black people stand for “cool” and for an “authenticity” that whites obviously don’t stand for. I find this interesting because I can see a lot of truth in it, yet it still remains a somewhat taboo subject. This idea that black people are “authentic” is especially shown when the black people in the Matrix are dancing at the rave, mentioned on page 109, and they are dancing around and stomping their feet to the music, thus showing their “mojo” and this “mojo” is shown through a multitude of ways that makes the black people more “rebellious” and “cool”.

If you asked any given person off the street who the coolest black person was, I have no doubt that the most common answer would be Samuel L. Jackson. Simply no doubt. Samuel L. Jackson played one of the lead characters in the movie “Pulp Fiction” and in this particular role, describing him as “cool” doesn’t even do him justice. Who else could say the line “English motherfucker, do you speak it?” except Samuel L. Jackson. So yes, I totally agree with the concept that black people are portrayed as cool in cinema. I am not here to comment on whether this has any grounds in reality or that it is appropriate, but I definitely agree that blacks are portrayed as cool and authentic in cinema.

i prefer the phrase "prolonging publishing" rather than "procrastinating posting"

In standard style of attempting to write this, I’ve prolonged long enough to actually be more than half a day late. I apologize for letting my team down, and I’ve got a boatload of excuses, some of which include a rave, a dance, working late overnight, and the death of a family friend’s young son. And the Super Bowl tomorrow (which I won’t be watching).

So one thing that I would like to bring up first and foremost about the article I chose, which was titled “Artificial Intelligence and Psychoanalysis”, was that it was published in a journal called Daedalus which as we all know bears the name of a Greek mythological character who was known for being extremely crafty and cunning (look him up on Wikipedia like I did…). The only reason I bring this up is because Daedalus was the one who warned Icarus to not go too close to the sun lest the wax on his wings melt. This is sort of a private joke with me and myself and my blog readers that has to do with the dangers of when technology…goes…too… far.

But moving on to the actual text rather than just the title of the academic journal, look to page 251, she brings up the juicy stuff: a perceptron, “A pattern recognition machine designed in the late 1950’s and a good first example of emergent AI.” This machine reportedly, when asked to identify a triangle only needed to be told whether or not this or that was a triangle, and it would eventually learn what not a triangle was, and what it was. As it also states on page 251, “Perceptrons are not programmed, but learn from the consequences of their actions.”

This is referred to as “anti-Lovelace” technology because there was some famous dude scientist named Lovelace that said computers couldn’t act biologically and couldn’t learn, but this shows that computers can potentially evolve into more complex machines than they were originally designed for. Similar to human brains, computers may eventually be able to withstand certain traumas that injure, but do not completely destroy all functions. At current, often a computer will not function at all when it is damaged, meaning it will not adapt to the damages it acquires and continue operating, but rather quit operating completely.