Browsing articles in "internet"
Mar 6, 2009
Amber

To TV or not to TV?

So it seems like people are abandoning their TVs. I can’t count the number of times I’ve tried to complain about a commercial or missing my favorite show when I am reminded how out of fashion I am. Who watches TV anyway? Well, at least, on a TV. Yesterday, a guy in one of my classes was looking at the newspaper and someone asked what he was reading. “Oh just the TV guide, looking to see what’s on tonight,” he responded. Someone scoffed at him, “just watch them online!”

Now-a-days all the cool kids watch their favorite shows online shortly after, or sometimes even while, they premiere on the cable channel. Who needs constant commercial breaks highlighting various products when they can have a few short ads for just one product. All the stations now have their shows streaming on their Web sites: ABC, Spike, and Comedy Central to name a few. Or, if you’re looking for all your favorite shows from the various channels in one place, Hulu is for you. Not only does Hulu have TV shows, it also has feature length movies like Liar Liar and Rocky; whatever you’d expect to be playing at some point in time during the day while you’re at work or school. Continue reading »

Feb 25, 2009
Amber

The been had feud

It all started with a video (this post is going to be YouTube heavy).

Ju from D4L (the guys that did the “Laffy Taffy” song) posted “Been Counting Money”:
Where he coins the phrase “been had money” over and over again.

A young, nerdy guy named Cody Clarke decided to one up Ju with his own version, “Been Had Movies”:

Where he shows off his plentiful collection of DVDs.

Ju, not to be shown up, responded himself with “Been Had Bootleg Movie”: Continue reading »

Feb 11, 2009
Amber

Blizzard v. WoWGlider /v. Everyone who breaks a ToS

tuxThe Initial Case
Blizzard Entertainment, creators of the ridiculously popular World of Warcraft MMORPG, are singing praise and patting themselves on the back because of their victory over the creators of WoWGliderBot. WoW Glider was a software that would essentially play your character in the game for you, doing all of the menial tasks like gathering items and killing mobs in order to level.

So Blizzard went on the offensive and, looking for some real life gold, sued the creators of WoWGlider, winning $6 million back in October. However, Blizzard took it a step further and dragged them back to court this last month in a case to determine whether the creators broke the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Judge finds WoWGlider in Violation of DMCA
Somehow, Arizona Judge David G. Campbell ruled that the WoWGlider software violated the DMCA. Meaning that because they violated the Terms of Service/Use put in place by Blizzard they were infringing their copyright. So even though the program is not at all used to extract Blizzard’s copyrighted material, they have been found to be in violation of their copyright. Continue reading »

Feb 5, 2009
Amber

Government priorities — the Rickroll?

You know an Internet meme has come full circle when the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is using it or, as I suspect, one of her interns.

What am I talking about? Feast your eyes on:

Just some cats around the capital, oh wait what’s happening to the music? A familiar 80s tune appears, this has happened to me before…but the Speaker of the House? I look at the channel again, it says NancyPelosi and it looks official. How can this be? Continue reading »

Nov 23, 2008
Amber

Great deals can be found online

The holiday season is always a crunch on people’s wallets. You go from Halloween candy and costumes to Thanksgiving feast to Christmas gifts, food and decoration to New Year’s fireworks and alcohol. This year is especially tight with economic and financial woes.

I often visit the coupons section of my favorite forum, keeping an eye out for a great deal, and there are plenty of Web sites that are willing to help.

Bantler.com
Many of you have heard of the deal-a-day savings on Web sites like woot.com, which offers a different product each day at a severely discounted price. It now includes sub-sites such as shirt.woot.com that has a different shirt every day for just $10.

I found Bantler.com, which very conveniently compiles these deal-a-day sites onto one page. Bookmarking that page, I check it daily for great savings on sites like the various Woot! pages, Amazon, Yugster, and SteepandCheap. Deals include clothing, electronics, jewelry, wine and cheeses, DVDs, mystery boxes, outdoors equipment and much more. On Bantler, you can sort by category or site, and you can add them to your Facebook for updates. Continue reading »

Mar 13, 2008
Amber

Thumbs up/Thumbs down: Silencing Thought?

I’ve been thinking about comment ratings. It seems most Web sites now have some sort of ability for people to rate (+/-, thumbs up/thumbs down) people’s comments. I think it was originally created as a way for users to self-police their communities. It’s nice to not have to read spam and incredibly offensive diatribes that have nothing to do with the conversation because some other users have kindly rated them down to the hidden status.

However, what about all those comments that are rated down simply because a lot of people don’t agree with them? Are we silencing voices on the one plane that has traditionally been truly free in terms of speech and conversation? I am guilty of this myself. I don’t like what someone says and without thinking twice I give them a thumbs down/ a negative/ a 1 star. Not only does this kill the conversation and silence thought, it makes for lazy users. People who could have addressed the comment in a reply now lazily show opposition to the statement with a simple click of a button.

Let’s take a look at a few examples of “thumbs downed” comments on Digg:

  • Regarding an article about a lawmaker in Kentucky who is trying to pass a bill in his community disallowing anonymity on the Internet.

mdude85 posts: “I think some form of internet accountability is very important, but this particular bill leaves a lot to be desired. I guess it’s a step in the right direction though.

Anyway, as I interpret it, requiring non-anonymity on the Internet is not a violation of 1st Amendment privacy rights. If you consider the Internet as a public place (accessible by right or invitation, expressed or implied), then posting on-line is akin to making a comment in public. The right to privacy only holds in private places, not public ones. So requiring an ID to make an internet post would not be an invasion of privacy (even if you are using the Internet from a private place such as your home).”

-Negative 18 Diggs Continue reading »

Pages:«12345