Virtual Worlds Educate Kids

A BBC-sponsored study shows that children can benefit educationally, socially, and developmentally from virtual worlds.

The study, carried out by professors at the University of Westminster, involved the BBC's own Adventure Rock, aimed at children ages 6-12. The world allows children to explore it on their own, but provides message forums, where they can share their findings and chat with other members. The virtual world is loaded with interesting features and creative workshops where the kids can create their own content.

By studying the forums and interviewing players, the study concluded that children benefited by "practicing" things they will do in the real world (IRL, or In Real Life). They largely fell into one or more of eight roles:

• Explorers
• Inventors
• Social Climbers
• Fighters
• Collectors
• Power-users
• Nurturers
• Life-system Builders

"Rehearsal" in this virtual world allowed the kids to explore different roles and facets of their personality that wouldn't be possible IRL.

© C Harris Lynn, 2008

Stating the Obvious: Yahoo! vs. Microsoft

I have stayed away from the whole Yahoo! vs. Microsoft w/ Google story so far because it keeps changing - pretty much by the day, if not by the hour - no sense in writing 34904739 posts when half of them will be "updates" and changes to posts already made.

But a recent article concerning billionaire, Carl Icahn, made me want to state the obvious:

Microsoft taking over Yahoo! is terrible for the Web and we Netizens, but excellent for investors.

If you did not know that, then very little else I have to say is going to make much difference.

Microsoft, like Google, is a monopoly that does not care about customers, end-users, or people, in general. Microsoft has a long-standing and unswerving record of poor customer relations, terrible performance, unfair trade practices, and basically... Evil. The thing about corporations is that they are legally recognized as individuals, yet never held responsible as such.

While America convicted Charlie Manson of murder - though Charles Manson never actually committed any of the murders for which he was imprisoned - no corporate CEO or president has ever been convicted of murder because of the corporate policies they dictated while in charge. In effect, corporations and those that run them are above the law and do not answer to anyone; they can do whatever they want and they always do. Doing whatever you want without regard for how it affects others is Evil - that's the very definition.

Doing whatever you want when you know it will negatively affect others is a crime, yet corporations are exempt from committing crimes because they, as individuals, are simply "killed-off" (closed). Were the laws applied to the people who "told [the corporation as an individual] what to do" in the same fashion as they were to Charles Manson, almost every CEO, President, and boardmember of almost every corporation in the world would be forced to stand trial for the most heinous of crimes, including murder, torture, trespassing, embezzlement, extortion... if you can think of a crime, most every corporation has committed it. But, again, corporations are individuals with total immunity; the law does not apply to them.

Now all of that is not really an aside, but it also isn't the thrust of this post. I want to get back to this Mr. Icahn, who knows exactly dick about the Web, the Internet, Cyberculture, or anything else - and does not care. All Mr. Icahn cares about is making money and he does not care who is hurt, what advancements are retarded, nor how much damage he causes so long as he makes money.

If Microsoft overtakes Yahoo!, you will be forced to purchase a computer with Microsoft software pre-installed. You will use Microsoft's Internet Explorer to access the Web (because you cannot remove IE from the Windows OS, even though that is in direct violation of the law), where you will go to Microsoft-controlled websites to search for things that reside on Microsoft-owned servers. Microsoft can then assume ownership of said property specifically because it exists on their servers; sure, you created the content and you "own" the intellectual "rights," but Microsoft just made a few dozen copies of it and those copies exist on their servers, so they are now "co-" owners, because they can be made to remove it from their servers, though they cannot be held responsible for it (read your TOS, people!).

Further, did you know that Microsoft's next Windows "innovation" is for the OS to be completely hosted from their servers? Yes: instead of Windows being installed on your computer (because that's in violation of the Fair Trade Act, but the US government will never actually do anything about it), you will buy a computer with a WinModem that is hardcoded to connect to Microsoft's servers, where all of your preferences, information, files, and data will be stored. For a low, monthly fee (save money by paying annually, or buy a Premiere Lifetime Membership!), you no longer have to pay for Internet access or upgrades! Microsoft Windows is now your computer, OS, ISP, browsing platform, roaming hard drive, search engine, social network, webhost, and part-time lover.

Of course, they're doing us a favor: saving us from ourselves. After all, we're all two stupod to work our own computers, and we're bound to screw it up along the way, so Microsoft is just making sure we can access our information from anywhere without any hassle. Besides, with everyone's data in one, convenient place, it will make searching for it so much easier! After all, Microsoft will now handle all of our SEO needs for us - they come with the ISP/webhosting Premiere Lifetime Membership (but cost monthly subscribers a little extra) - so we needn't worry.

At this point, Google and Microsoft will literally control the Web. They will, by proxy, "own" everyone's content - after all, what good is content if no one can find it, and if you want it to be indexed in their engines, you will need to sign-over a few "rights." But don't worry - just keep pressing "OK" until you're done. And since both companies use proprietary programming which they refuse to share with the public, they will shut-out all competition and we will be forced to "choose" one or the other.

That's going to be tough, since Google software isn't always compatible with Microsoft's platform and until Google starts offering Internet service, we will have to comply with MS, because they are our collective ISP. A (very) select few will remain adamant, working through Linux platforms with direct T1 links or through (very) small, local ISPs, which will further splinter the Web, making much of the world's knowledge proprietary by nature.

Meaning you will have to pay a monthly fee to use your own computer and access your own data, which will be co-opted by a major corporation that has no liability and follows no law.

© C Harris Lynn, 2008

Social Networking Goes Mainstream

That's a paraphrase from some pinhead; as though social networking were the Web's dirty little secret.

Social networking is inherent to the Web, in general. Sure, there are sites (The Weirding is one) which are not necessarily inherently social by nature; many exist purely to provide information. But most, including The Weirding, were developed with social features in mind. Our own forums boards have been closed due to rampant spamming and no activity, but forums boards have been on their way out for years, thanks to chatrooms and (now) social networking.

Still, social networking has been as mainstream as the Web gets since at least about 2005, so that little quote is kinda stupid. Like Facebook and MySpace are some underground movement for the haute monde of the Web...

But the quote was in response to Google's announcement that they are going to offer "third-party" social networking, so any site can include a snippet of code which will allow users of their new Friend Connect function to share favorites and discuss them, etc. And though Google is, by any stretch of the imagination, a monopoly run amok, Friend Connect is a perfectly acceptable advancement of their search engine.

You have to understand that Web 2.0 was supposed to be about encouraging and supporting "porting." Porting is simply a term that means aggregating information from several sites and sources into one, generalized area, or portal. Yahoo! is the premiere portal and has been since around 1998; Google is, and always has been, a search engine - and now a monopoly.

Technically, it would be perfect form for Yahoo! to include Google search as one of its functions, since the former is a portal and most people use Google for search. Likewise, Yahoo! offers a Facebook module (very similar to other sites' "apps," modules are rarely actual functions in and of themselves, but port other sites' functions to the user's page) because it is one of the premiere social networking sites.

Under My Yahoo!, one can collect RSS feeds from blogs and sites which offer them, so they can read entries without leaving their user page; include their Facebook module to see if they have any mail, or activity on their profile; pick and choose news feeds, weather reports, horoscopes, TV listings, and more; send all his mail to his Yahoo! address and see it in a preview box; and much more. This is what a portal is and is supposed to be: an aggregate, allowing a user to collect all his personal profiles and information into one, convenient place/page - a personalized webpage allowing him access to all of the many sites and functions he uses across the Web.

Friend Connect is yet another of Google's ploys to move into the portal arena without actually doing so, yet I have no problem with Google "porting" itself into a portal; I have a problem with Google buying up the Web and becoming a single-source for everything. That Google offers IM is great; that Google offers its own IM is a monopolizing tactic. That Google offers video search is wonderful; that Google owns YouTube is not (you can substitute blog/Blogger in this one, too). You feel me? But Friend Connect - at least ostensibly - is nothing like any of this.

Friend Connect will allow we webmasters to copy and paste some JavaScript to our pages which will then allow other users/visitors access to a series of social networking functions - including galleries, invitations, message "walls," and more - without ever leaving the site. Actually, this is more Web 2.0 than portals, since we all want visitors to stay on the site itself rather than only visiting when changes have been made, and I commend Google for their bold step away from the Darkside.

But Friend Connect is far from innovative; similar functions and applications have been available for years. One such had a name like "StickyNotes" or something and went all the way back to at least Win98, if not 95. An EXE program each user installed on their own computer, it allowed users to leave notes behind on a website for others with the program installed to find when they visited. Recently, Trailfire offered much the same through a browser add-on. Still, Friend Connect is boosted by the Google brand-name - or is it?

There is no question that Google is a monopoly, regardless of what anyone else says; it neatly checks every box beside each criterion. There is no question that Google's business practices are decidedly Evil: self-serving to the point that they oppress and harm others and Google cares not, so long as it prospers. The question then is whether or not Friend Connect will be boycotted by those of us who despise Google's oppressive monopoly.

© C Harris Lynn, 2008

A Word and My Agenda

Going into this, I told myself I wouldn't be posting "excuse" entries - that's my term for the posts that say, "Sorry I haven't posted in a while, but..."

But the thought occurred to me that this is the perfect blog for such entries - as many of them as I like, in fact - because they perfectly illustrate the Cyberculture. After all, my everyday is spent online, so whatever I do in general offers some glimpse into this culture. In actuality, this is really, really cool and I'm sorry I didn't see it before (a "can't see the forest for the trees" conundrum): blogging is a corruption of the term, "weblog," which came from "online journals" people began keeping (and sharing). When these Web-based diaries became popular in the late 1990s, many webmasters added their own "site diaries," or weblogs, which were usually just about what they were working on, what was coming-up, and how to work the site, etc. Soon, all online journals were referred to as "weblogs" and, ever true to the Cyberculture, quickly became abbreviated to 'blogs. Recently, the apostrophe has been dropped.

So, when you get right down to it, The Cyberculturalist is as true to the original concept as you are ever going to get: this is an online journal about life online - every, little thing I do or think about has some significance because it elaborates on the point!

Thus, I figured I would tell you what's going on:

A couple weeks back, the cyst on my wrist (that's not a lyric so just go with it) became too painful to handle. Though it is usually sore, it had gotten to where it was hurting all the time and it's from being online constantly, so I took the entire last week in April off. That is the longest I have been offline since 1999, when I moved into one of the roughest ghettos in Memphis, TN and was afraid to bring my computer over there (not a bad idea, by the by - there were at least three attempted break-ins in the six months I lived there!). Technically, I was also offline for about six months in 2005 because I had no phone, but I spent most all of my days working on my website and then uploading the finished product when I visited friends and relatives. It's definitely the longest I've been offline in the last three years, at any rate.

And I wasn't completely offline the entire time; I still posted a handful of entries on The Rundown (which, FYI, is where you can always find me because it gets the most hits of all the site), checked my e-mail, and so on. In March, I missed almost an entire two weeks due to a stomach virus, as well.

I will have to have the cyst excised, which means I'll be out for another several days when that goes down, but now that Blogger supports future posts, that won't be a problem; I'll draft and schedule a slew of entries so that you'll never know I'm gone.

What I am going to do - because The Cyberculturalist is as much an historical document (a real piece of journalism, actually) as a simple blog - is go back through and backdate several posts between now and when last I posted. This is "cheating," but I bookmarked a lot of articles to get to here when I wasn't actively blogging, so technically, had I been in better health, they would have appeared on-time. That out of the way, I accept that some of the things I may say in these backdated posts are going to be tainted by hindsight, but I will try to keep it to a minimum and add a comment when I feel it appropriate; if I say, "I told you so," I really did know - or think - it at the time I read the article.

But I'm trying to get back in the saddle across the boards, so enjoy!

© C Harris Lynn, 2008