Monday, December 24, 2007


My system of enclosure stands as thus:

thank you.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007


I took a survey asking 15 pierpont and duderstadt inhabitants their utilization of technology when listening to music. Here are the results:

Q#1 - By what means do you typically obtain new music?

File sharing - 9
iTunes music store - 3
Don't obtain new music - 2
Music store -1

Q#2 - By what means do you typically listen to music?

iPod - 11
radio - 6
Car stereo - 4
mp3 player - 3
Computer - 3
smartphone - 1
Discman - 1

Clearly, the preferred method of obtaining and listening to music is by illegal downloading using some sort of p2p or torrent server software. Thats kinda gross.


Monday, October 22, 2007

I have finally decided on a project for youtube! I had a realization the other night as I drunkenly attempted sleep: I HAVE BECOME A PRODUCT OF THE INTERNET.

You see, I make music. And I record it using a digital music recorder which allows me to put my recorded music on to my computer. Additionally, applications are now available to make such music public via my facebook profile, therefore skyrocketing my ability to share my music with friends, family, or those to whom I am not even acquainted.

FURTHERMORE! I can check the statistics of my play count, how many downloads have been made and on what songs. This way, I know which songs people are enjoying without them even having to tell me!

One more reason to tirelessly check the status of my facebook life every five minutes.


Monday, October 15, 2007

Sick animation.

These very, very funny cartoons are quickly spreading through the internet popularity polls. Already, the creator of these simple cartoons has got a pilot going for comedy central. This is something I keep seeing more and more of - shows starting on the internet and then making their way to television. Stella comedy tour, Flight of the Concords, Don Herzfeld.

In a way, this is improving standards of television. Although right now the process can be limited to comedy niches and shorts that only last a few minutes, the internet has become the new proving ground for many tv shows. Concepts that have already gained popularity on the internet get turned into real shows, already loaded with the fact that it is popular. It is the new darwinism of television. Instead of a group of corporate executives determining which shows are worthy of being on their networks, the public decides by popular vote. It really is a revolutionary idea, and it's beneficial for both the tv companies and for the viewers. The Networks get to pick up shows that are already popular, guarenteeing to a certain extent their success, and the puplic gets an official, half-hour version of a show they already enjoy. Let the public decide!

By the way, that website IS pretty sick... in a... weird way. Enter at your own risk.

Monday, September 24, 2007


"... we are describing a regime that allows the government to collect data about us in a highly efficient manner—inexpensively, that is, for both the government and the innocent. This efficiency is made possible by technology, which permits searches that before would have been far too burdensome and invasive. In both cases, then, the question comes to this: When the ability to
search without burden increases, does the government’s power to search increase as well? Or, more darkly, as James Boyle puts it: 'Is freedom inversely related to the efficiency of the available means of surveillance?' For if it is, as Boyle puts it, then 'we have much to fear.'"


This is an excellent question. In a law class I frequented at the Professional Performing Arts School, we studied a case whereby a cultivator of a crop of Marijuana was arrested for said illegal practice. However, the case was overturned because the police gained evidence by using a heat camera to sense heat lamps on the defendant's grounds without a warrant. The practice was deemed unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Lessig describes a situation whereby the police HAVE a warrant and use technology to infiltrate the hard drive of a suspect. Should this be allowed? I believe so, because, as Lessig points out, it is a cost-efficient and non-invasive means of gathering information about a suspect, and also guarentees a clandestine investigation into the affairs of the accused. However, it does bring up some questions. Lets go back to the marijuana case - lets say that in the future, a device is developed which allows police to detect only the existence of marijuana or other drugs through physical barriers. Lets say the suspect is in no way cultivating or distributing drugs but is in posession of mild amounts, would that then give the police the right to charge the suspect?

Lets put this into cyberspace: A man is suspected of murder. Investigators use a worm to tap into his computer and discover no evidence of conspiracy to murder, but instead discover child pornography. Would this then give the police the right to charge the accused?

It is no doubt that the fruits of technology have been endlessly helpful in the persuit of justice - any avid watcher of a tv series like CSI can tell you this. However, to tap into a suspect's computer can be a dangerous proposition, as any number of personal files may be stored on the hard drive of the accused. And then of course is the fact that we currently live in a country under the protection of the patriot act. Who knows what limitations the government has in searching our computers? If eastern-european hackers can send out spam that infiltrates thousands of civilan consoles within days of its release, the government certainly has the ability to search through the entire contents of any civilian computer at will. In a Bush-controlled society where the CIA claims "above the law" status in our state of perpetual national emergency, is this type of investigation practice something that we want to exist? After all, who determines which computers will be selected for search and on what grounds?

Friday, September 14, 2007

Dead Heads in CYBERSPACE

"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come
from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of
the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sover-
eignty where we gather."

-John Parry Barlow

Now, not only was I thrilled to see a quote from one of my favorite lyricists of all time in a required text for a class, but this quote really struck a chord with me. It's so true! In a way, the internet has become something of a backdoor to many of the resources which the government would normally control. For example, WIKIPEDIA - Let's be honest, who likes public libraries? Nasty old women constantly "shushing" you, desperately trying to grasp on to some element of authority to make up for their mind-numbingly mundane existances. Not to mention, the library can only hold so much information, and books decompose, requiring expensive and rather unnecessary re-furbushing of entire stacks. Now, don't get me wrong - libraries serve their purpose (fiction, theater and poetry are inaccessable on the internet) for that day when the communist cells growing in eastern Georgia launch a full-scale electronic attack on the American cyber-network, plummeting us into the 1930s. Then, libraries will be the only place for Americans to find Fleetwood Mac singles and the 3rd edition of Martha Stewart's "Living".

But until that fateful day arrives, the internet will continue to make a mockery of all reference institutions that have been in place since the dawn of literacy. The ever-increasing usefulness of Wikipedia alone is enough to justify cyberspace's dominance over these institutions, and it's "wiki" element, whereby independent users can add or modify information at will, has given the world something that has never existed: Socialized Information. What a concept.


Tuesday, September 4, 2007

The Trapezoid Farce

A Trapezoid Farce has embarked upon my being.

Many people have expressed concern about the phenomenon of file sharing in regards to the music industry. In my opinion, the current selection of popular music is so horrid and distasteful that it should be socialized rather than sold, and that any corporate element claiming that the 7th rate garbage they peddle is protected by some government entity sould be dismantled or opposed in a court of law. In a time where Avril Levine has a "new sound", the concept of exchanging money for recorded music is comparable to being taxed for ingesting animal feces. I for one fully embrace the file sharing revolution.

Of course, this declaration is not without its fallacies. What motivation is there for musicians to create if monetary returns are non-existant?


Love tom.