Blogjects!

What is blogject?

Does it sounds familiar? Blogject is actually a combination of two words which is blog and object. Blog is where people can write their electronic diaries, comments and share thoughts. As for blogject, same concepts apply but one thing different is that instead of human blogging, it is the "object" that is blogging.

This term is created by Julian Beecker earlier in his discussion.

Blogjects in the near-future will participate in the whole meaning- making apparatus that is now the social web, and that is be Julian Bleecker comming the "Internet of Things". The most peculiar characteristic of Blogjects is that they participate in the exchange of ideas. Blogjects don't just publish, they circulate conversation

Like what it meant in the paragraph above, instead of playing the passive role, blogjects are the active one. It is so much like a human but the only different is that they are non-living things. For example, the Pigeon that Blogs. It is a project by Beatriz da Costa in order to study the quality of air in certain areas. The Pigeon that Blogs is made up of a flock of pigoens that equipped with a sensor to allow them to communicate with the Internet wirelessly. Besides, they also have a GPS (Global Positioning System) on them which enable the researchers to track the exact location of them. More importantly, an environmental sensor so as they fly, it'll record the toxin and the pollutants in the air.

There are three characteristic of the blogject which is

- it can be track or trace the places they went and the exact location of them now.

- it have self-contained of all the things/events they went through and embedded within themselves.

- it is assertively passive where they act and participate in conversations.

One of the example found online is this,

Isn't this cool? You're literally communicating with your home. It might not be something we'll get instantly but I'm sure with the advanced technology, it will definitely come true.

So is blogject benefiting us? I would not say yes nor no to this question because there are still flaws in it. Like, what if false communication occurred? Everyone's interpretation to everything is different. How to ensure communication breakdown won't happen? Just like my previous post, now that human can communicate not only with the smartphone/Google but also the house, the car, the computer and et cetera, will be world still remain the same as how it used to be?

Think yourself! =)

Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web

A wise choice back then bring us benefit today.

When Rubin wants just an imprimatur of Google, Page came out with a better idea : Buy Android.

In fact, today, Google is one of the biggest search engine. I won't be surprised if they claimed that they got the highest visitor rates everyday. Their wide coverage of websites helped the netizens so much on finding the websites. What's even better is that because Google helps in so many things, now that whenever there is a problem, first thing we think of is..."GOOGLE it!"

So, now that they know the world is so advanced and most of the people have a smartphone on hand, Page figured out what is his next step.

The company's theory was that if you make browsing by phone easy and fun, people will use it just like a desktop browser, with Google search as the main port of entry. Christmas Day 2007 offered Google proof that the strategy could work.

Now, you can do anything on an Android phone. Google Map (Commandro) , Recipes of cooking (Cooking Capsules), Music player (Tunewiki), Android scan and et cetera. Isn't it useful? The phone has almost the same function as the computer right now, best of all, it is portable!

In the whole article, Roth focuses on the process of how Android and Google collaborates and it benefits the world. And personally, I think they did something really great. From a big heavy computer that needs to take a minute to boot so that you can surf the net, to just a slide/tap to the internet. It is just making everything works better in shorter time. It even have map navigator, weather forecast, music player and more!

Yet, there are still downsides to this change in my opinion. It's true that the technology makes our life easier but when changing enhancing the pace of life, don't you think it change something else too? What is, you asked. Attitude it is. Now that everyone is just a tap away from the Internet, instead of looking at a friend's eyes and chat with them, they'll choose to face the phone.

Whenever there are no topic left among friends, they'll face the phone and check updates of Facebook. Got lost in the middle of a city? Use Map Navigator. Wants to cook? Check on cooking capsules. People don't even bother to ask anyone about things anymore. Instead, they'll just depend on the gadget. Where the communication between human went?

But at the end of the day, that's not what Google or Android concerned. At a developer's eyes, bring Google and Android together is a success. Like what's mentioned in Ruth's article,

"If the only thing android achieves is getting more people to spend more time online, then Google still profits. More users mean more people viewing pages with Google ads. If they're doing that from an Android phone, great. If not, but they're on a phone made more Web-friendly thanks to competitive pressure from Google, that's also fine."

So, do you know who is the biggest winner now? Wise decision, brought him the best profit. Google's creator, Larry Page, is the biggest winner in the game!

Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go

Today's topic: Cyber-utopians who believe the Arab spring has been driven by social networks ignore the real-world activism underpinning them

True much? I'll let you decide yourself.

Ever since the Friendster, Facebook, MySpace et cetera are on business, it somehow made is as if it's a must for everyone to have at least "an account". (There are people with more than an account, I don't know how that works but somehow it just turned out this way). But, that is not the problem. What we concern here is the adherence thought of the cyber-utopians. They pointed out that these digital tools are now the platform to summon up a revolution. Do you think the same?

To a certain extent, I do agree that it is the platform to summon a revolution. Take Facebook as the example. Majority of the citizen has a Facebook account, and if there were a revolution to be raised, Facebook is definitively targeted by the activist. Reason is simple. We, are not fully practicing freedom of speech. Most of our printed media (Newspaper) and TV channels are govern by the authorities. Do you think there is even a slight chance the activist can "advertise" on the newspaper/TV channels?

For example, if the revolution has something to do with The Star, and the activist were to "advertise" on the Star to gather the members, what will happened? I think The Star won't be that dumb to even post it on the newspaper to help the activist to recruit member so that they can raise a revolution don't they? Isn't it ironic if the hot issue of the day on The Star mainpaper be "Member recruiting for The Star's revolution!!"?

So, it's clear enough that the only way to reach the other members are social networking sites. However, that doesn't mean anything. Like what Morozov mentioned in his article,

" This is not to suggest that neither of these communications devices played a role in these decades-old uprisings - but it is to note that the people directly involved may not have the most dispassionate appraisals of how these watershed events occurred."

You posted something online, doesn't mean people sees it.

People sees it doesn't mean they are interested in it.

People interested in it doesn't mean they will take any actions.

Besides, internet is the only platform with freedom of speech. Anyone and post anything on it. Take it serious or not, it's all depends on the reader. If someone said something like "Oh my god, so-and-so race is just so stuck up" and the next day, a protest raised, does it means that the person who said that line should take the blame?

We practice freedom of speech on social networking sites. Just like the name it self, it is a social site. Not some sites that contains all kinds of provocations. Hence, it is not wise for the cyber-utopian to put the blame on social media for all the summoned revolution. Even though it might have influences to it just because everyone is on the site, it doesn't mean that this is the media that driven the Arab Spring like what it is mentioned earlier in this post.