Imagine your signing up at a new website, you enter your information and then it asks you to click the button saying that you've read the terms of use agreement. You having skimmed one agreement a while ago, assume this one is the same as every other one, and just click the button. Congratulations! You've just sold your soul to the website! This apparently happened this April fools day on an UK game site. The site added the text:
"By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions. We reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction."
Obviously if you saw this is an agreement you would click the link to op out of this. As it turns out most of the people that had transactions on the site that day either did not care about selling their souls or were just lazy and didn't read the terms agreement. My opinion in the latter. Your probably wonder what this has to do with pop culture or mass media past the obvious of a person using a website or partaking in video games. I'd point out that the people that didn't click the link were probably not paying attention to what the screen actually said and were just trying to "get their video game fix" as quickly as possible. I am just as guilty of not readying a sites terms of use agreement as the next person and I think I would probably have fallen for this joke as well. I have no defense for it other than, who has the patient to read that much fine print? I think this little incident showcases the level of trust society has in a business entities practices. The good news is that the website emailed all the customers that had not opted out of the soul sale to tell them that they were not going to enforce the clause. And let this be a lesson to myself and everyone else: read those terms of agreement and don't agree to sell your soul.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Finaly finally a large study about cell phones causing cancer
FOXNews.com - Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? We'll Know Soon
Posted using ShareThis
So by now we've all heard the that there is a possibility that cell phones could cause cancer. I've always thought that the fear wasn't justified since the phones hadn't been in long term use when the accusations were first made. Finally a group in Europe are doing a wide scale study to see if there is causation between cancer rates and cell phone usage. My line of thinking is that this study is supposed to last 30 years, by the end of 30 years cell phone technology will be radically different than it is now. It's very different than it was even just 10 years ago. And by the time the study is over this kind of mobile message will have pervaded society so much that if they do find that cell phone usage causes cancer is anyone going to be willing to give up their cell phones? It's become widely accepted in our culture to own a cell phone with text messaging capabilities that to not have one is viewed as being weird. I myself had a cell phone for a time but currently do not have one. I very rarely miss having it, the only time I have is when my husband and I got lost on the way to a friends house for the first time, other than that it hasn't been a great loss to me not having one. I remember when having a cell phone was a status sign, they here huge and took a couple of D-cell batteries (yes that was the 80's) then in the 90's they became smaller but where still the size of today's average cordless phone. My question is, is it really that important to be connected all the time? Isn't it better to wait to have that conversation with your best friend, so anticipate calling your boy/girl friend from a land line? In this way you'll have saved up things to say to them and you'll have thought about what to talk about, rather than just rambling on about unimportant things because you called them just to exchange a small bit of information that probably could have waited. So the next time you feel the urge to call your friend take a second to imagine what it would be like if you couldn't contact them at the drop of a hat, and the consequences if the study turns out to prove cell phones lead to cancer.
Posted using ShareThis
So by now we've all heard the that there is a possibility that cell phones could cause cancer. I've always thought that the fear wasn't justified since the phones hadn't been in long term use when the accusations were first made. Finally a group in Europe are doing a wide scale study to see if there is causation between cancer rates and cell phone usage. My line of thinking is that this study is supposed to last 30 years, by the end of 30 years cell phone technology will be radically different than it is now. It's very different than it was even just 10 years ago. And by the time the study is over this kind of mobile message will have pervaded society so much that if they do find that cell phone usage causes cancer is anyone going to be willing to give up their cell phones? It's become widely accepted in our culture to own a cell phone with text messaging capabilities that to not have one is viewed as being weird. I myself had a cell phone for a time but currently do not have one. I very rarely miss having it, the only time I have is when my husband and I got lost on the way to a friends house for the first time, other than that it hasn't been a great loss to me not having one. I remember when having a cell phone was a status sign, they here huge and took a couple of D-cell batteries (yes that was the 80's) then in the 90's they became smaller but where still the size of today's average cordless phone. My question is, is it really that important to be connected all the time? Isn't it better to wait to have that conversation with your best friend, so anticipate calling your boy/girl friend from a land line? In this way you'll have saved up things to say to them and you'll have thought about what to talk about, rather than just rambling on about unimportant things because you called them just to exchange a small bit of information that probably could have waited. So the next time you feel the urge to call your friend take a second to imagine what it would be like if you couldn't contact them at the drop of a hat, and the consequences if the study turns out to prove cell phones lead to cancer.
Censorship and South Park
FOXNews.com - Comedy Central Censors 'South Park' Episode After Muslim Site's Threats
Posted using ShareThis
South Park, a show known for it's gross humor and political incorrectness was censored last Wednesday because of it's depiction of the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. I'd like to remind muslim folks that this shows creators have mocked most major religions and violence or threats of violence do you and your beliefs a disservice. Are we now saying that mocking Christians and Buddhists is alright but mocking Islam isn't? You can't have it both ways, it's either all bad or it's all protected speech (it's an American show so it's protected under our 1st amendment rights). As long as the creators of the program don't incite violence against another person or group it's protected. If someone watches the show and commits a violent act against another person or group then the fault lies with the viewer not the other way around. There have been other controversies with South Park. I remember "Kick a Ginger Day" which some children instigated after watching an episode of "South Park" which depicted one of the shows characters kicking another character because he had red hair. My first question is what the hell are these children doing watching this show, it's on late and it's intended audience is young adults NOT children. My second comment is more a statement and not a question. In this case the children are at fault for the actions not some TV show which is clearly fiction and based in fiction. Where is the death threats against people who preform violence against red headed people? Are we saying that red headed people are any less important than someone's beliefs? Please if you've seen this or only read the news articles about this, keep in mind the other things the show has mocked and your reactions or lack of reactions to it.
Posted using ShareThis
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| South Park Death Threats | ||||
| ||||
South Park, a show known for it's gross humor and political incorrectness was censored last Wednesday because of it's depiction of the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. I'd like to remind muslim folks that this shows creators have mocked most major religions and violence or threats of violence do you and your beliefs a disservice. Are we now saying that mocking Christians and Buddhists is alright but mocking Islam isn't? You can't have it both ways, it's either all bad or it's all protected speech (it's an American show so it's protected under our 1st amendment rights). As long as the creators of the program don't incite violence against another person or group it's protected. If someone watches the show and commits a violent act against another person or group then the fault lies with the viewer not the other way around. There have been other controversies with South Park. I remember "Kick a Ginger Day" which some children instigated after watching an episode of "South Park" which depicted one of the shows characters kicking another character because he had red hair. My first question is what the hell are these children doing watching this show, it's on late and it's intended audience is young adults NOT children. My second comment is more a statement and not a question. In this case the children are at fault for the actions not some TV show which is clearly fiction and based in fiction. Where is the death threats against people who preform violence against red headed people? Are we saying that red headed people are any less important than someone's beliefs? Please if you've seen this or only read the news articles about this, keep in mind the other things the show has mocked and your reactions or lack of reactions to it.
"Educational Television"
I remember watching Sesame Street as a young child, and as a child of about 10 I remember after school programming on PBS that was educational. There were shows like "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?" there was also a show centered around math that I do not remember the name of. These shows are touted as being educational but are they really educational or are they just a structured form of babysitting? I would argue that they are both. They are educational in the sense that they present information about numbers, simple words, and basic geography, but they do not build on previous lessons which makes them just a game like a good babysitter might employ to keep children entertained. They are structured in such a way as to be entertaining as well as sneaking extremely basic concepts in so as to appear educational. It's neither a good nor a bad thing to watch these things, but if you are a parent you have to be aware of what these shows could really teach your children. Children don't have the mental capacity yet to understand that learning isn't always fun, you don't always get prizes for having the right answer, and there could be lasting consequences for your actions which isn't shown in these types of shows. Supplementing a child's education with these shows isn't a bad thing but the education shouldn't start with these shows.
The Wonders of Facebook
On a Tuesday at the university I go to, there was a chemical scare. Some dried acid was found, which is explosive like TNT when it's dried. Part of the campus was evacuated and classes were canceled for the day (yay for us). I was at home since the class I had that morning wasn't meeting that day. And I bet your wondering where facebook comes into this, well.....since I didn't have any classes until noon I was playing facebook games and watching national news. My roommate posted an update to her facebook that simply read "the buildings are evacuated" my comment to her was "what?!?". She then says that there was a chemical spill and that the campus was evacuated and she was on her way home. Then I get a phone call from school security. Security was looking for my other roommate since they work for security. and here in lies the joy and wonder of facebook. Without the campus emergency text messaging system or being on campus I had learned that the campus was evacuated and classes for the day were canceled all without having any official contact with the school. After the excitement of canceled classes and hunting the local news sites for the story, I started to think about the speed at which the word had gotten around and what would have been the consequences if the word had been incorrect. We trust that what people update their statuses as is correct and factual but what happens when it's not? And in the case of the school, what would have happened if it was an organized effort to keep people from going to school? Following that line of logic what would happen if someone where to post nasty rumors about someone. Most of us have probably heard about Phoebe Kates, the young lady in Massachusetts that was unmercifully bullied both at school and on the internet. Her story is the dark side of what someone or a group of people can do with facebook when they have it out for someone. I personally think we have a responsibility to tell as much of the truth as is safe and to watch what we say to people on the internet as we do in face to face meetings. In this way the post of the chemical scare at my school can be trusted and not doubted, and what happened with Phoebe Kates could have been prevented by that sense of responsibility.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Dehuminizing Commercial Campaign
We see commercials everyday (unless we're completely unplugged) and we might take a half second to think about what we just saw and say something like "I didn't like that" but we don't stop and take a critical look at all the commercials we see. I've had this thought more and more lately and the Old Navy commercials have been the icing on the cake of some of the worst commercials that I've seen. In the video above you see people trying to be as inhuman as possible (acting like plastic statues) to win a contest for money. I find this dehumanization greatly disturbing, not just to women (who are the majority in these commercials) but to people as a whole. So, first I'd like to answer a few questions that examine these commercials more closely. First Who is the author? Well, it's pretty clear that Old Navy is trying to sell clothing so we need to connect the mannequins to Old Navy. Does the Author have credibility? As a successful clothing line I'd say that covers their credibility. What is the ad trying to accomplish? This ad is trying to sell Old Navy clothing . Second; What is the simple message of the media? Old Navy is trying to sell clothing. What is the true message of the media? If a person does not have Old Navy clothing then that person isn't pretty. What ideologies or values does the piece of media invoke? To be a "Modlequine"(term used in the commercials) you have to be pretty and "plastic". How is the message presented? Mannequins are used in place of people to represent living people while living people are pretending to be mannequins. Third and finally; Who is the targeted audience? Women seem to be the intended audience, women who shop or would be inclined to shop at Old Navy. Is the media having the desired affect on the targeted audience? This is hard to know, the fact that the commercials are still running and haven't been pulled could be an indicator that they are working for the store, but for me this commercial line makes me less inclined to ever step foot in their stores. The last question asks if the desired message is coming across and whether there might be consequences for the receivers? I would say that if their message is coming across than there are consequences. What does the message of these commercials say about women to women? That they have to be skinny and perfect? or you'll never be skinny and perfect without Old Navy clothing? I say think about it for yourself, as for me? I'm not shopping at Old Navy. I don't like what they have to say.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Celebrities really DO look like the rest of us!
FOXNews.com - More Stars Without Makeup - Slide 86 of 86
Posted using ShareThis
ok, so we look at these women (and one man) and we think "wow, they are beautiful" and we wish we looked as good as they do. Well here's a picture slide show to prove that celebrities really do look like the rest of us. The question then becomes, does it really matter if they look like that when we know know that they really don't? It also brings to mind the transition of radio stars to the cinema screen...you could probably take it one step to the side with silent movie stars transitioning into "talkies" and how some of the stars didn't do so well because they didn't have that great of a speaking voice. We could also think about how some of these people have become relevant for merely for being pretty. Back when our media consumption was made up of primarily printed sources these types of people, and the content they create, would either have a very small following or no following at all.
Posted using ShareThis
ok, so we look at these women (and one man) and we think "wow, they are beautiful" and we wish we looked as good as they do. Well here's a picture slide show to prove that celebrities really do look like the rest of us. The question then becomes, does it really matter if they look like that when we know know that they really don't? It also brings to mind the transition of radio stars to the cinema screen...you could probably take it one step to the side with silent movie stars transitioning into "talkies" and how some of the stars didn't do so well because they didn't have that great of a speaking voice. We could also think about how some of these people have become relevant for merely for being pretty. Back when our media consumption was made up of primarily printed sources these types of people, and the content they create, would either have a very small following or no following at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
