The Turing Test

A computer requires many things to be able to pass a Turing test. First of all, a computer must be able to understand human languages, and be able to communicate with humans on an equivalent level. Advanced Turing computers should account for all types of spoken language, including all dialects and irregularities. This means understanding human language grammer and syntax as well as any intelligent person, so that there would be no difference between the two. Of course, in order to store these types of information, the unit must have a rather large storage system with the ability to hold an amount of information equivalent to the human brain. Beyond this, a personality and emotional senses are also required, as it would merely appear as a inhuman machine with a large capacity to store and memorize information without any other human qualities. This memorization displays a sheer ability to copy an intelligent person rather than being intelligent itself. The computer would have to be able to use logic to make rational decisions like a human being, and should show an ability to learn from mistakes and change.

hackers ruin everything

1. People clearly seem to be unhappy with the state of electronic voting methods, and for good reasons. The Diebold machines, which are widely used in American elections, seem to have been built with little thought as to the possibility of being hacked. There are in fact two separate ways that a Diebold machine can be hacked. First, in the documentary Hacking Democracy they displayed how the Diebold machines can be tampered with through the easily accessible memory cards. They show that most machines can easily be taken apart with a screwdriver or similar tool, and access to the memory card is obtainable to anyone with motor skills. To skew the votes, you simply need to write a program to your replacement card and slip it in place of the Diebold card. When the receipts for the precinct are printed out, the results do not show any signs of being tampered with. Thus this form of hacking is the most basic, yet the most effective, and least detectable. The second form of hacking the Diebold machines are highly vulnerable to involves the program that it uses to count the votes. The program, "GEM", is easily hackable in minutes even without the correct codes, and they proved in the documentary that you do not even need a password to access the program files. With this type of hacking, however, there is a chance that the altered program would print out a different receipt than the result. Therefore this method is slightly more susceptible to suspicion.

2. This whole dilemma seems to be causing a lot of issues, and I don't quite understand why we cannot create some kind of solution to all this hacking. For one, if I was in charge of changing our current election process, I would either find another company other than Diebold to manufacture voting machines, or demand that Diebold make their machines with a more secure system of storing voter data. I would recommend that they devise a system where, rather than having individual memory cards in each machine, they make a seperate unit, similar to a server or large external hard drive, that would store the voter data, and could only be accessed by cleared voting officials. For the hacking problems with GEM, I would sugest several things. First, I think the interface of the Diebold machines allows users to interact with the GEM software too much. Voters should at no point have access to administrtive areas that require passwords. Beyond this, any administrative procedures that may need to be accessed via the machine should be done in an alternate fashion from the way a normal voter can access the machine. If this cannot be achieved with the GEM program, I would propose to have another program developed that eliminates any public access to adminstrative material or data.

mashups

The first mashup site that i have found useful is called musicloacted.com. It is a website that uses google maps to let users search their area for other musicians who want to play music, music venues looking for musicians, or practice spaces available for musicians. It also uses youtube API to connect the user with another musician's videos that they may have posted on youtube to display their style of playing. This is valuable to me, since i am also a musician who struggles to find others who live nearby to play music with.

A second mashup i like is LastTube (http://flex2colombia.wordpress.com/lasttube-lastfm-meets-youtube/), which combines last.fm and youtube. It basically links up the music you have scrobbled on your last.fm account with youtube videos of the artists you listen to the most. I like this because i have recently been using last.fm a lot and have been discovering tons of new artists i would have never heard of otherwise. The problem is that all i can do is listen to the songs they have on last.fm, when i would also like to see videos of them performing, so this mashup is very helpful in my search to find new music.

A third mashup that i have found useful is BicyclePortal(http://veloroutes.org/), which uses google maps technology to let users enter in bike routes. they can specify the distance of the route, the elevation/topography of the route, and even show traffic photos of the route. This is pparticularly useful to me since my only mode of transportation is a bicycle. I am constantly disappointed when an event happens in a far away part of the city that i know is particularly hilly because i don't know of a flat bike route to get to that location. by using this helpful mashup, i can now easily find a route to get me to a certain area with much less effort.

Digital Divide

The issue of the increasing digital divide both nationally and globally has certainly caused massive panic in terms of the effect it will undoubtedly have on many facets of our lives. As we continue to rapidly create newer and newer technologies to make things "easier", it seems inevitable that we will become fully dependent on these technologies, thus creating serious problems for those not up to speed. The first area that this divide seems to create an issue is in the workforce. With the increasing elimination of paper media and the availability of the same information online, those who either don't know how to use a computer or don't have access are left in the dust. They cannot access online job postings at places like Craigslist, nor are they qualified to be hired for the majority of available jobs today that require some form of computing familiarity. Health care is effected on many levels by the digital divide. First, as newer and more effective technologies are developed for fighting sickness, the more we see the poor being excluded, as these services are reserved for those willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, those who do not have access to a computer cannot look up valuable information regarding symptoms of illnesses or household remedies for example. The digital divide effects entertainment in our culture particularly in relation to the rise of blogs, bitTorrents, and peer-to-peer sharing. Friends of mine have often commented to me that they feel left behind in the shadow of all this Internet file sharing. They feel as if they are out of the loop in terms of what is "hip" these days in terms of films, music, literature, etc. because they don't read blogs very often or spend enough time online to read all the information that is available. Educational systems are likewise disrupted by the rapidly increasing digital divide. Certain school ofer degree programs completely online, while other schools rely heavily on online registration and other web based programs like moodle or blackboard to relay information to students. Even beyond this, mostly all classes at some point or another will require an assignment to be typed on a computer and either printed out or e-mailed to a professor, both of which require knowledge of computers and access to a computer. Lastly, our federal government is also vastly changed from these technology advances. One of the recent big issues associated with the government and technology has been the use of electronic voting machines in election, which came in response to the 2000 election's "hanging chad" mishap. Not only is this new form of voting causing just as many problems for senior citizens, but it also has led to hacking issues with the electronic booths and other security problems. Filing taxes online, applying for a passport, or even finding out about a state law, you can do it all online through government run websites. However, despite the appearance of ease of use and availability, millions of people across the country are being excluded from the same information.

Self-Promotion, Mass-Consumption

File-Sharing has certainly played an huge role in the development of music and the music industry in general. Personally, file- sharing has affected me in multiple ways, and just like its affect on the music, some of the changes are good, some are not so good. Obviously there are two sides to the argument over file-sharing. The anti-piracy group's most strong claims are that file-sharing is an illegal usage of copyrighted content, which not only breaks laws, but also causes a significant loss of profit from an artist's work. The "pirates" are made out to be criminals, and the RIAA states that "downloading is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local convenience store". The supporters, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, use a very similar rhetoric to that of the anti-net neutrality crowd. They claim that the RIAA's war on file-sharing is pointless, not generating money for the artists, and has made file-sharing even more popular, now with more sharers than presidential voters in the U.S. Their goal is to find a happy medium where the artists receive payment and the fans can still download without a guilty conscience. Most of all, though, the supporters claim that stopping file sharing cuts off "innovation", the same thing the cable-model supporters claimed the phone-model people were doing by not letting tiered pricing and content control become the new way of the web.
For me, all of this downloading mess seems a bit chaotic. I am personally a strong believer in vinyl recordings, and the artistic quality that comes with a physical LP. I don't purchase music unless it is an LP because otherwise i feel as though i am being ripped off. A CD is small, easily ruined with scratches, and the artwork is virtually non-existent. Beyond all of that, a CD is a digitized version of the music, and consequently the warmth humanistic side to the recording is lost in the format. I do download music, but only when i want to "try it out". I hear about a new band, and based on if i like it or not, i will decide to support the artists, either through purchasing the recording or attending their performances. I would say 90% percent of the time i download anything it is either posted on a blog approved by the artist, or has been uploaded as a bitTorrent file with approval of the artist. Most independent artists cannot afford to press large quantities of records/cassettes/CDs and instead focus on making D.I.Y. packaging that displays the artist's devotion to their craft and release limited numbers of recordings. Then, they upload their recordings on blogs, simply asking the downloaders to comment if they like the album. From this information they can then monitor how much of a demand their is for any particular recording and can decide to do a second pressing if their is a high enough demand. This is not at all the same as stealing from a store, because the store has already purchased the recording from the artists. Thus in stealing from a store, you're just taking money away from the store, not the artist. Therefore, in allowing your material to be released online, you are sacrificing a minuscule profit in return for wide exposure which in turn will lead to
As a musician who records extensively myself, i don't quite understand how independent artists are hurt from this form of downloading. For any struggling artist, the number one form of "payment" received is exposure. Anytime a person who cares about art downloads recordings from these artists, they are simply become exposed to something they otherwise would not have ever heard or purchased. They same goes for small scale sharing, whether it be through the copying of purchased material for friends, or posting the material on your blog for download. To me, i feel as though only those who are truly interested in doing the digging and searching through small blogs and by word of mouth with friends are interested in pursuing new music and supporting artists who actually make real art, and in this scenario the process of illegally downloading is legitimized in my eyes.
On the other hand, major label artists are a different matter. I personally do not support most major label recording artists, at least the ones currently producing "music", and so in my opinion i feel that downloading music from major label artists and spreading it in any form is wrong solely because in the uploading/downloading of their music, people are just furthering the vitality of really bad music, and continuing the destruction of our culture's perception of musical art and performance in general. Also, this mass downloading of major label artists is just perpetuating the notion of music as a commodity to be consumed by the listener and spit out. People download 50 albums a day, eat them up, and then drag it off their external hard drives into the trash to make space for the next 50 albums. The "digital death" that music has seen from its format transition to the CD was hard enough, but now i'm afraid that the whole idea of a recording existing as a physical piece of art work that you can feel, hold, watch, and experience will be destroyed with this current hyper consumption.

2008: The slow death of analog still drags on well into the 21st century. Just as it seems as though the ol' standard of media formats should be beginning to see its last days, we instead are beginning to praise and covet those archaic analog relics from the past. In both music and film there seems to be a fluctuation between analog and digital recording/equipment depending on there genre. With film, the majority of modern Hollywood classics, the action flicks, the megacomedies, young teenage horror dramas...it's all shot on digital equipment, edited with computer software, shipped off to major movie theaters like the Metreon via satellite connections, and projected onto the screen with fancy HD digital projectors. On the other hand, 2008 shows the underground film scene to be bustling with ambitious purist filmmakers determined to stick to the original beauty and warmth of celluloid by shooting with 16mm and 8mm, despite the increasing production costs of shooting with analog equipment. With music it's the same situation. The majority of popular music made today is produced completely digitally and with the highest digital sound quality, while the underground music scenes all tend to contain areas which appreciate the warm, lo-fi, sound quality of analog instruments/equipment.
For me, this whole digital vs. analog issue has played a significant part in my life as an artist. I consider myself to be a filmmaker and musician, and personally, i have always tended to enjoy the quality and reality that analog provides. I grew up listening to my parent's record collection, and always loved the entire vinyl experience, the rotating disk with the needle gliding in the grooves, the music melted into the hot wax, it's the only organic media format, it was what got me to love music. So when it came to making my own music collection, i stuck with vinyl, buying up both new and used LP's since the age of about 15. Even though CD's were making their way into the mainstream media, and cassettes were still widely used, i never bothered buying a compressed form of the original real recording. I commonly refer to the format of CD as the "digital death" of any form contained on it. Digital compression does detremental damage to a piece of music, and for me, all i want is to hear a piece in the form the artist intended. For instance, listening to a John Coltrane album that was originally recorded for vinyl formatting on a CD will be a completely seperate, more detached musical experiece.
I record electronic music as well, and i am aware of the divide the exists within the genre itself amongst analog and digital performers. Digital enthusiasts utilize MIDI controllers and software of virtual module emulators of classic analog synthesizers like the Arp Odeyssey or the Moog Voyeger to achieve their intended sounds. I, however, am dedicated to creating sound through analog equipment. I utilize circuit bending techniques to restructure old electronics to function on a more spuradic level, opening up the possibilities for artistic creation without the insertion of pretensions from the artist. With both my filmmaking and music creation, i see the pro sides of digital, and mostly, what they boil down to is that it is easier to create using digital. Everything is more effecient, more easily executed, and more "perfect". However, i do not think this represents the way the real world is, with all its imperfections, and rather instead I see digital as a virtual simulation of the real, a postmodern simulacrum of what real art is all about. So, overall, i embrace analog formats of media in an attempt to preserve the original, the organic, and the real that can be associated with artistic creation.

ELECTRO WASTE-O

When evaluating the topic of e-waste in today' society, it seems to stand as one of the many hypocritical byproducts of globalization and the new techno-industrial revolution. The shocker comes when you see just what is being done with all our electronic waste while we find ourselves in the midst of a second wave of global ecological consciousness akin to the 1960's eco-awakening. All you have to do is look at a few photos or videos of this travesty and it will become clear that this certainly a pervasive issue.
So where do we start when evaluating the roots of the problem at hand with e-waste? I feel that it is essential to look at the way technological marketing and manufacturing has evolved over the past 30 years, and in doing so it will become clear as to what the catalyst of this issue has been. Henry Ford first introduced the notion planned obsolescense with his mass marketing of the Model-T. Planned obsolescense is basically the idea of a product being designed to deteriorate after a few years, forcing the consumer to constantly purchase a newer version of the product from the company, thus increasing the business's profits significantly. This idea of strategical marketing and production has carried over heavily into today's technology consumption, and in my opinion is the main reason for all our e-waste problems. Just look at all the ad's on TV for "newer, improved, longer-lasting products", which constantly make the consumer feel as if they are in need of a "better" version of something they already own. Companies like Apple add a built-in shelf life of a few years for their computers and electronics, and make repairing theur products such an annoying procedure that it appears to be worth it just to buy a new version of the product.
In order to make any sort of progress with all this e-waste piled around us, we must take matters into our own hands. Make yourself conscious of these marketing ploys and resist the temptation to buy the latest version of the iPod when your old one 's battery seems to be dead. When your product is done, try to find a good home for it where it can be propperly reused. Effective recycling methods do exist for electronic products, it is just highly priced and mostly utilized by businesses rather than individual consumers. On the larger side of things, companies need to understand that in order to function on our planet, we must be sustainable. Business's must account for their massive output of wasteful materials by possibly redesigning their products so that they might be more easily taken apart, separated, sorted, and recyced in a cheaper, more effective methods that would allow homeowners and small scale consumers to afford the recycling costs.

1.
1. 11
2. 42
3. 31
4. 18

2.
1. 11111
2. 110011
3. 111
4. 1100111

3.
1. 3 hours, 58 mintues, and 5 seconds (3:38:05)
2. 2 mintues and 40 seconds (0:2:40)
3. 1 mintues and 2o seconds ( 0:1:20)

4. You can upload 25 MP3's in one hour

The Swiss had the right idea...

When it comes to topic of neutrality, the classic example that comes to mind is Switzerland's neutrality stance during WWII. It's interesting when discussing the issue of net neutrality to at least brush upon the Swiss' (in)famous passivity. From several viewpoint, their decision to stay out of a war where most major powers at the time were taking sides was a wimpy cop-out; a way for the Swiss to save money, time, and effort on a cause the rest of the world saw fit to risk their lives for - fighting over Facism/Nazism. However, others saw the Swiss' move as one of calculated intelligence, one in which most of all, they potentially saved hundred of thousands of lives. More relevant to the topic at hand, the Swiss felt that they did not have the right to argue either side, and did not see themselves at liberty to say what was right or wrong; what could be controlled or censored in our world, and what could not. In debating net neutrality, the cause of all this ruckus is slightly less menacing than Nazism. However, the idea of being passive or active certainly comes into question. With net neutrality, Just as in the case of WWII, vast changes for the entire globe were on the horizon. Most countries saw it necessary to step in and take action, while the Swiss felt compelled to let things play out as nature had intended. With net neutrality, this same call to action is being felt almost everywhere, particularly in the political/economic arena. The main issue at hand when discussing net neutrality is that today, an internet exists where, for the most part, content is unrestricted, and attention to data is equal and unbiased. However, many in the business field claim that this model of the internet will not hold up in an increasingly demanding market. Using the growth and expansion of networks like telephone and television as models to compare the net's growth, they argue that there is a need to begin regulating and restricting the content on the web for the purposes of offering a better, smoother running service for those willing to pay the extra dollar. Many organizations are in favor of abandoning this old format of net neutrality. The Net Competition group states that their goal is to create an internet that is constantly growing and becoming more efficient, so that consumers can receive the most benefits technologically possible without "government micromanagement". their mission statement reads as follows:

• A constantly-improving Internet that functions most efficiently, effectively, and productively so consumers and the economy can enjoy maximum benefit, productivity, and growth;
• A consumer-driven, on-demand Internet where consumer demand, not government fiat, ensure consumers are not blocked from the legal content, applications, and devices of their choice;
• A vibrantly growing and competitive broadband market free of government micromanagement that maximizes economic growth, job creation, and U.S. competitiveness; and
• A win-win growth dynamic where everyone on the Internet: network operators, device makers, application developers, and content providers -- enjoy the freedom to innovate, invest and differentiate to best serve their customers and advance our economy.

Companies like Comcast and Verizon have also agreed with dropping the neutrality, and have taken matters into their own hands by recently blocking Bit torrent traffic in order to give their customers better service.

Obviously, with any argument there is an opposition, and in this case, the pro net neutrality side out weighs the anti neutrality side by a large portion. Pro net neutrality enthusiasts wish for the internet to be free from regulations and restrictions from large corporations, while the pro net neutrality extremists rally for net neutrality to be embeded as a law. We see this strong urge from the pro net neutrality side manifested in several 2008 presidential candidates, both on conservative and liberal sides. Barack Obama appeared on MTV recently, and when possed the question of his stance on the neutrality issue, he responded:
"I am a strong supporter of net neutrality. And in case folks weren’t following exactly the question I just want to make sure everybody’s clear.
“Right now the speed with which and quality of your downloads or links are the same if you’re going to the CNN or Time Warner website as if you were going to barackobama.com. But what you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different websites and webcasts. So now what you’d have is, potentially, you could, you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you’d be getting rotten service from some mom and pop site. And that, I think, destroys one of the best things about the Internet — which isthat there is this incredible equality there".
Interestingly enough, the conservative candidate Mike Huckabee, when he wasn't boning up on his bass-playin' skillz, also took time to debate the issue of net neutrality, and eventually concluded that net neutrality was something to support, despite his republican association with big business and corporate gain. Huckabee shed some intellectual insight on the subject, likening the web to a sort of "information superhighway", if you will. He explained to his fellow republicans, "The Internet is a highway, and we don't restrict highways to 18-wheelers. If it's a car, an SUV, or a truck, you use the same highway."

Personally, i see problems with both sides of the argument. The anti-net neutrality gang claims that neutrality is crushing the spirit of innovation. In their eyes, tiering the pricing of the web based on quality of service is a progressive move necessary, and is therefore deemed as an "innovative" step in the life of the internet. However, the pro net neutrality side is heavily favored in the political realm, and because it is so certain about setting neutrality in stone through law, i am equally in opposition. To me, the fate of the net seems out of my hands, and the debate is more a question of corporate vs. federal. Whho would you rather side with, the money grubbing, big business corporations looking to squeeze a couple more dollars out of the internet through "innovation", or the goverment. Trust...the government? 'nuff said? It's a lesser of two evils, who in my opinion are already so tightly entangled in each other that they're indestinguishible. However, in the end, i would have to say that i would side with the group who i can at least use a vote and have a voice as to what will happen. By voting for certain legislation and political candidates who support net neutrality, i will be able to have some influence, which is more than i would have trying to connect with some inhuman corporation.

And besides that whole element of control the pro net neutrality side posses, i also have a seperate bone to pick with those anti-neutrality freaks. I was living in SF this summer, and had just relocated to the NOPA area of the city. As i peeled open my macbook sitting indian style on the hardwood floors of my empty bedroom, i browsed the wireless connections for any potential clueless neighbors with unprotected wifi for the taking. Soon i came across a connection entitled, "freetheNET", and i clicked with curiosity. just like that i was submerged in the world wide web. Aand who did i have to take but Google, who had launched a city wide free internet program earlier in the summer. What a generous gesture, i thought to myself, and almost felt a humanistic connection with a corporation who otherwise i would not feel any personal compassion. And then who comes along to crush my temporary moment of free-internet-bliss but another corporation, Comcast, who saw the oppurtunity to make bank off the net just as it was tettering on the edge of breaking into a new dimension of radical selflessness and universality. It inevitable that these corporations will battle back and forth over these issues of regulation, profit, restriction, and "innovation, but really, all i have to say is, if the internet is a resource that we are all well aware posesses serious benefits for our society, why not make it available to as many people as possible instead of tiering access to it based on your level of income and your stance in the world.

BE SUBVERSIVE

From what i've read on cybersquatting, i think that this is certainly an issue worth discussion. So far, it seems as though the people fighting this issue aren't making much headway in terms of stopping this "epidemic". In my opinion, it seems like all this fuss is over nothing. First of all, i do not think it is fair that cybersquatters are thrown into the same cage as other subversive cyber pirates like phishers or spammers. Cybersquatting is not done with the intention of plopping nasty viruses on your computer like spamming or phishing, and from what i can see, it is not done to harm the individual. Rather, Cybersquatting seems more like a method for making a statements aimed toward corporations and posing social commentary on our capitalist, consumer culture. A large portion of pirated domain names seem to follow the format of (your company here)sucks.com, or _____blows.org, which to me, stands out as a mere format of expressing your voice as a person living in a capitalist society. If a person wants to shell out the money to own and maintain this "anti-site", i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. More importantly, even when squatters grab up common-place domain names with the intent to sell them off, i don't see the harm in it. If the internet is going to be a public place where anyone in the world can have access and the ability to mold it through open-source, i don't think it is fair to let corporations bully these domain buyers.
At most all they are doing is working the system in a manner most corporations would make most corporations proud. That is, jumping into the market when it is young and profiting by taking advantage of the uninformed masses. However, this time, the roles are reversed and its the cyber-slow corporations who are the victims of scheming tactics.

Tangled up in the Inter Net

Looking back on being a freshman in high school six years ago, i could certainly say that internet technology has come into my life in so many different ways. In terms of school, it was not expected of students to have obtain information for research papers online. My U.S. history teacher had banned the use of the internet as a resource, and others frowned upon it. At this point in time, the internet was still seemingly unreliable as a source of information. Books and libraries were the only way of "truly" getting information for research. Physical books and literature was still framed as the only "intellectual" way of obtaining information, while the internet looked more like a virtual mall where teens could hang out, chat with their friends, and buy useless crap, and less like a reputable source of information.
Obviously today things are almost the opposite. Most professors require a certain amount of website articles or other resources when doing research, and overall, academia has embraced the internet as a tool for gaining knowledge and processing important information. Books are now in the process of being digitalized, with thousands of classics already available for download or cataloged on Google books. As we also become more globally conscious it seems that this digital book craze is also a move to limit the use of paper and loss of trees.
In terms of how the internet has positively effected my life, i would say that it is most likely connected to this recent embracing of the internet as a wealth of information. For me, if there is any thing in the world that i am slightly interested in, i can immediately check it out, google it, wiki it, and absorb everything there is to know about that specific thing online. Before the internet's wide acceptance, i would have never been able to sit down and discover so much information on topics generally not written about or published very often. Specifically i have gained a large portion of my knowledge of music, film, theater, and art from time spent gazing into the google results, gobbling up every tidbit on theater of the absurd, or fluxus art, or yugoslavian films for example. I literally take notes because i am so interested in these topics, and attempt to teach myself about things i would have never would have been able to learn on my own. I have probably hundreds of blogs bookmarked, and if i ever feel the need to aquire more information, i could spend days reading WFMU's back posts, or sifting through the albums posted on Mutant Sounds with glee. Point is, i would not know half the stuff i pride myself with knowing without the internet, and i couldn't be more thrilled that it can provide me with all that it has.
However, as much as the internet has filled my head with amazing information, i equally despise and condemn what it has done to our culture. Technologies like SMS, AIM, myspace, facebook, etc. have presented themselves as a way for people to keep in touch with each other more frequently than any form of communication in the past, when in actuality, all they do is distance us from each other while making us feel like we're connected. It's this sense of hyper-connectivity with lures people into it, and in turn creates a social atmosphere that finds most college students "txtin' der frend 'bout how borinz der prof. is", while in class. Texting and these other products of our culture's neo-communication fixation are easier for people because it's a way to remove emotion from interaction. Yes, there are "emoticons", but come on...really. As if certain words and phrases weren't worn dead by our culture's overusage already, now texted phrases like "i'm sorry" and "i love you" are even more contrived, impotent, and inhuman.
All this said, i have unlimited text messaging, an AIM account, a Facebook and a Myspace. Hmmm...contradictyourselfmuch? Well, maybe, but the main reasons why i have these things are only because in this day and age our culture has become so immersed all these new social devices that i get hounded by friends caught up in the hype, and scorned by loved ones who complain that i don't " leave them enough comments, write on there wall enough, or text them". Apprently it's a sign of affection to text your friends every 10 seconds during class, but i guess i missed that. And in return for my non-compliance, I come off as inconsiderate, cold, and apathetic towards my friends and loved ones. At this point, i'm just trying to survive in a social world so caught up in their hyper-connectivity that they don't realize that they're actually isolating thmselves.

Welcome to my cyber web space!

Hello,

My name is Chad Corbi. I am originally from Philadelphia. I am an english major and a film minor, and am currently a sophomore. I have experience with HTML, Photoshop, and sound recording.