Bonus Mission #2 : Game or no game, it sure is fascinating

Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by a total of 5,316,688 people from around the globe (www.secondlife.com). Abbreviated SL, Second Life residents can personally express themselves through an avatar. It is so personalized that it allows residents to intricately change their avatar from the tip of the nose to the tint of the skin. SL boasts many features from setting up one’s own business to dancing in a club of one’s choice. It is really not very different from real life. Residents can engage in practically everything they do in real life and the one difference would be that instead of the real ‘you’ a virtual you in the form of an avatar would be living in second life.

In the article discussing if World of Warcraft(WOW) is a game, it states that players of the game enjoy a form of community rarely seen in the real world; higher-level players go out of their way to tutor newbies and accompany them on quests. Deep friendships are forged. Relationships begin that flower into marriage (Levy, 2006). Likewise in SL residents are able to choose from a vast list of activities which include discussions, sports, commercial, entertainment, games, pageants, education, arts and culture and charity/Support Groups (SL, 2007). In SL residents are also able to communicate with each other through local chats and IM’s. Thus, I would consider SL to own a feature of an online community as well.

Games are played for amusement, diversion and entertainment. SL does not have points, scores, winners or losers, levels, an end-strategy, or most of the other characteristics of games (Second Life, 2007). Although people do play SL for entertainment and diversion they are also able to earn real money by opening a virtual shop and converting their Linden Dollars (L$) to real currency. Many real world companies also advertise and have set up virtual headquarters in SL like Adidas and Reebok (Businesses and Organizations in Second Life, 2007).
In SL residents can do what ever they want (apart from flying!). You would not have anything to hold you back and people really do things that they would not do in real life. Residents meet fascinating people, fulfill long buried fantasies and pretty much live a second yet, fantasized life.

The mere fact that over 60 of us are arguing whether SL is a game or not in this class alone, should be a major factor in determining if SL is really more than a game. For some of the SL residents who live life on SL more than they do on real life, I suspect SL is definitely more than a game. However, how much more can ‘more than a game’ be? Although people do confuse virtual reality and actual reality, SL, WOW or any other virtual world cannot be compared to the real world. Therefore, with all its innovative structure and realest of virtual realties, SL in the end is still a game.

Reference:

Businesses and Organizations in Second Life, (2007). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businesses_and_Organizations_in_Second_Life

Steven Levy (2007). Newsweek Technology, MSNBC.com. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14757769/site/newsweek/page/3/print/1/

Second Life, (2007). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life

QotW9: Can ‘Stomp’ stomp out newspapers?

As I have reiterated in every blog assignment I have posted so far, the Internet has become a highly dependable tool for people today. Of one of the many services it offers, it has helped us look for information through our computer screen without having to shuffle through a million books or sources and has opened doors for a whole new communication era. The Internet has not only taken over early technology like the television and the telephone but is now on its way to over take newspapers and other reliable sources of news.

Citizen journalism has paved the way for citizens to contribute to journalism without professional training (Citizen Journalism, 2007). Due to the advancement of technology today, such citizens are able to capture news and distribute it globally.

Stomp a Straits Times Interactive website, is a Singapore-based online portal by Singapore Press Holdings. Through the three platforms of online, mobile and print, Stop is said to enable Singaporeans to interact and engage in current affairs of Singapore (Wikipedia, 2007).
Stomp enables Singaporeans to SMS, MMS or E-Mail with any news to be posted on the website. It also boasts features like Star Blog where viewers comment in reaction to blogs posted by bloggers, live webchats and TalkBack, which invites readers to post their views in threads ranging from technology to food.
Some of the hot topics it features range from ‘J-Pop babes walking down the street’ and freak accidents to ‘Talk of the Town’ topics like ‘noisy students at library tells other to shut up.’

As Gillmore (2004) states in his book ‘We The Media’, journalism is traditionally one of the least transparent industries. However, because the public demands more transparency from this field, they report on their own when journalists fail to respond in satisfying ways.

There would be two contradicting factors answering the question of whether Stomp is an ideal form of citizen journalism in Singapore.

Firstly, I feel that the content in Stomp lacks a certain kind of reality. In a country where there seems to be little or no unrest (which is a great thing), it is understood that the opportunity for exciting or controversial news is scarce. However, by posting superficial articles like mentioned above, I believe that people would still prefer the old fashioned newspaper to Stomp, to get their daily doze of trustworthy and significant news.

On the other hand, it is an interactive site and the first of its kind in Singapore. Credit should be given to the fact that the initiative was taken to jump start this new era of journalism. Stomp might carry more significance and cater to a bigger audience if it reduced on its frivolous content and concentrated on more controversial and substantial news.

Personally, with the term citizen journalism I would expect trustworthy and significant news, content that I would not have access to in other print media due to filtering or censorship issues. However, if Freak accidents and Hoax shark attacks in Sentosa are what Singaporeans want to read, then I suppose that Stomp would be an ideal form of citizen journalism in Singapore.

References:

Citizen Journalism, (2007) Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism

Stomp, (2007) Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOMP_(online_portal)


Gillmor, D. “We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People” (July, 2004). Retrieved March 31, 2007 from

http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap3

STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 29, 2007 from

http://www.stomp.com.sg/

QotW8: Death Penalty for Political Blogs? - PAP Style!!!!!!

URL: http://rockson.blogspot.com
Title – Talk Rock
Blogger’s Name- Rockson Takumi Tan
Occupation- Citizen Blogger
Blog’s Date of Birth – May 8th 2005
Rank: 22,784 (277 links from 167 blogs)



Most of the Singaporean political blogs I found online were quite satirical and sadistic. This I believe is due to the fact that many citizens mock what they cannot express aloud. In this case, it is the actions of the government.

In the blog ‘Talk Rock, Rockson goes to ‘diss’ everything from fellow political bloggers like Mr Brown to the Singaporean politicians and the day to day happenings in the country. Although the posts are written in pure ‘singlish’ and filled with crude language, Rockson manages to cover the political arena in Singapore in a rather unconventional manner.

To show an example of a post of Talk Rock , Rockson posted on May 1st, 2006, on his post titled, ‘(Singapore Election coming, time to f*** off from A...)’,

“I try to read the internet news website of Channel News Singapore (but not Strait Time one, because they charge money what the f*** who want to pay to read their sh**). But the more I read the more I toolan. How come out of 10 news, 9 news is PAP one? And the 1 news of Opposition is say their bad thing? Might as well they call themself Channel News PAP!”
*(certain words have been censored their vulgar nature).

Out of the 152 comments for this post some of the more decent comments said,

“nice to finally be able to read about some other kind of view other then wat is always repeated in the PAPers...”
“we need a change. don't vote the PAP. Finding underhand means to blackmail the opposition. tt ain't right”

I would not attempt to talk much about the government of a country that I am not familiar with. However, it is apparent that the government and politicians of Singapore have quite a stand (ahem ahem) on how the country should be run. Therefore, I feel that bloggers like mrbrown and Rockson, although making a mockery of situations, actually do help the masses to interact with each other in a political context without any restrictions.

The Internet has paved the way for the silent voices of Singaporeans to be heard. It has helped them push the political boundaries and attempt for greater democracy.
Most forms of media that bring information and news to the public is government owned, thus, the content has been filtered to such an extent that people no longer regard its content to be accurate and unbiased.
Censorship casts a long shadow over the Internet's potential as a tool to revitalize the public sphere (Thornton, 2002).

Blogs have become the new newspapers; they have become the people’s voice. The information is not filtered and people are able to exchange their opinions freely.
Unfortunately, the government is trying its best to shut down anti- government blogs and free speaking individuals who blog and influence the masses.
While websites and blogs are already under strict control and must be registered with the government, BBC reported on April 6th 2007 that the government of Singapore has extended censorship laws to ban podcasts and videocasts that carry political content.

As such, although I believe that blogging would definitely allow for greater democracy, in a country tied together by stringent rules and control as Singapore, the goal for greater democracy through blogs seems unclear.


References:

Giam, Gerald (31st December 2006), Review- The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006. Retrieved March 23, 2007 from
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/31/review-the-politics-of-singapores-new-media-in-2006/

Talk Rock (2006). Singapore Election coming, time to f*** off from Australia. Retrieved March 23, 2007 from
http://rockson.blogspot.com/2006/05/singapore-election-coming-time-to-fuck.html

Thornton, A. (October, 2002). Does Internet Create Democracy? Retrieved March 23, 2007 from
http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/

Singapore attacked over blog gag (April 6, 2006). BBC News. Retrieved March 23, 2007 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4882746.stm

QotW6: Privacy........What?

Is it the feeling of loneliness that makes us portray our personal details to the rest of the world via blogs and social networks on the Internet, or can it simply be argued that we actually do benefit from this act?

In real life, if a stranger were to come up to us and ask us for our personal details like telephone numbers, e- mail addresses, etc, other than running away from them, some people may even call the police. However, as double standard as it may seem, we unconditionally leave information about ourselves on the Internet, available for anyone’s viewing pleasure.

With the rapid progression of services that the Internet brings to us, we have begun to rely on it heavily. Be it to find friends or conquer boredom, social networking sites such as Facebook, Hi5 and Friendster are at the top of the list in terms of audience popularity. Although entrance and membership are free on these sites, people are required to provide information like their e-mail addresses and locations, in addition to the personal traits that would be displayed on their profiles.
Yet, when our bulk mail folder displays over a hundred spam mail, we wonder how they located our addresses!

In order to send spam, spammers need to obtain the e-mail addresses of the intended recipients. Toward this end, spammers gather huge lists of potential e-mail addresses. Since spam is, by definition, unsolicited, address harvesting is done without the consent (and sometimes against the expressed will) of the address owners (E-mail spam, 2007).

The situation we face could be almost a “give and take” trend. We trade in our privacy, in order for a slice of the expanding virtual reality and its limitless services.
As Rosen says in “The Naked Crowd,” a world where individuals have to prove their trustworthiness and value every day before the crowd, choosing among an infinite range of lifestyles, behaviors, clothes, and values, is inevitably a world that creates great anxiety about identity. Rather than conforming to pre-existing social roles, individuals are expected to find their true selves and constantly market themselves to a skeptical world (2004).

In today’s world, many people simply do not care or are not affected by the fact that “privacy” is on its way to extinction. Fortunately, I still value privacy and the sense of individualism it gives to us. I make it a point not to give out personal details about my self in social sites. It is also advisable to refrain from using real names and sticking to pseudonyms. Self Identity should be something personal. Thus, I only disclose information to good friends and relatives.
There have been numerous occasions where unwanted, unknown people have messaged and tried to contact me through sites like Hi5 and Friendster. However, by being ignorant and disregarding such messages, the problem would cease, at least temporarily.

As Sullivan says, everybody has secrets that they don’t want everyone else to know. Hence, it is our responsibility to be more aware and protect our privacy and our secrets. It is a “give and take” world. But humans always have and always will find means to give less and take more. Maybe we could find a way to trade just a miniscule of our privacy for the infinity of the Internet.

Reference:

Rosen, J. (2004). "The Naked Crowd" Retrieved March 10, 2007 from

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm

Sullivan, B. (2006). “Privacy Lost: Does anybody care?” Retrieved March 10, 2007 from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

E-mail Spam, (2007) Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spam

QotW5: You don't really know me

Since the time Michael started school he was never known to be a “very handsome” boy. He could never get a date and always ended up eating alone in the cafeteria. Michael used to despise the other guys who had everything, which in school consisted of popularity and of course, the girls.
“Friendster” had made its way to the high schools at this time and Michael was on top of it. He created a fool proof online identity, picking the best traits all the popular guys had and adding it to his profile. Using someone else’s picture and a whole lot of false attractive attributes he was able to become popular online and made a lot of friends in no time.

As you move around the internet, most of the people you encounter can't easily tell who you are. System operators and some technologically savvy, motivated users may be able to detect your e-mail or internet address, but for the most part people only know what you tell them about yourself. If you wish, you can keep your identity hidden. You can have no name - at least not your real name. Whatever you say or do can't be directly linked to the rest of your life. We don't have to own to our behavior by acknowledging it within the full context of who we "really" are (Suller, 2004).

Like my example of Michael many people choose to use a different identity altogether online. The anonymity that the Internet brings to us can be almost like a double edged sword. This may allow some people to share very personal things about themselves. They may reveal secret emotions, fears, wishes. Or they may show unusual acts of kindness and generosity. On the other hand, out spills rude language and harsh criticisms, anger, hatred and even threats. People are able explore the dark underworld of the internet, places of pornography and violence, places they would never visit in the real world, acknowledging their real identity (Suller, 2004).

An online identity is a social identity that network users establish in online communities. Although some people prefer to use their real names online, most Internet users prefer to identify themselves by means of pseudonyms, which reveal varying amounts of personally identifiable information (Online Identity, 2007).

When I was younger and new to the Internet, the game of harassing innocent victims online seemed exciting and the “in” thing to do. I recall many of my friends had created different online identities that were very diverse from their real life identities. Assuming the identity of a girl and finally having the last laugh at some poor guy was one of the all time favorites.

Since I don’t enjoy the trivial pleasures of harassing people anymore and mostly use the Internet for education or legal transactions and communication, I use my real name on my e-mail, IM’s and other virtual communities that I am a part of. “Hi5” and “Friendster” have helped me track down most of my old friends. Since the community usually consists of people that are acquainted to each other the use of fake identities are futile.

In these communities it is almost effortless for someone else to steal another’s identity; real or otherwise. The information that is portrayed on your profile is not secure and can be copied or stolen. Impersonation and concealing information are some of the many types of deception that occur with online identities (Donath, 1996).

While we contentedly display our pictures and information online, it is not precise to say that it is in safe hands. As we spend more time online, we are indirectly putting ourselves in danger of being robbed of our identity. Identity theft is the crime of the information age (Schneier, 2005). Although the law is gaining in on the pace of the development of technology, it is our identity that is out there and available for those online felons.

As mentioned in my first paragraph, Michael made many friends after joining “Friendster.” His profile may seem impressive, but that is not who he really is. His online identity is a collaboration of others peoples’ identities. It is always safe to stay vary of such people. After all, you don’t really know them!

References:

Donath, J. S. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from

http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Schneier, B. (2005, April 15). Schneier on Security. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/04/mitigating_iden.html

Online identity (2007, February 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_identity&oldid=108207999

Suller, J. (2004, June). The Online Disinhibition Effect. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior. 7 (3): 321-326. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from

http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html

QotW4:Missing out!!!!

I believe that the ideology of Marxism has not been utilized to its full potential by people like me. “Survival of the Fittest” can apply to any aspect of life. Technology has advanced to such a level that it brings many goods and services to us. If we move with the pace of the development of technology and hence be “fit” enough to be able to take advantage of the gifts that it brings to us, we would greatly benefit from it. Unfortunately, unlike most of my friends who use this to their advantage, I have been ignorant of this great innovation and am pretty much missing out.

A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo (the Latin term for the concept of "a favor for a favor"). Typically, this occurs in a cultural context where there is an expectation either of reciprocation—in the form of goods or services of comparable value, or of political support, general loyalty, honor to the giver, etc.—or of the gift being passed on in some other manner. The concept of a gift economy stands in contrast to a planned economy or a commodity-based economy. In a planned economy, goods and services are distributed by explicit command and control rather than informal custom; in commodity-based economies, an explicit quid pro quo is established before the transaction takes place. In practice, most human societies blend elements of all of these, in varying degrees (Gift Economy, 2007).

Some believe the Gift Economy to be a replacement for the Market Economy. Where the Market Economy tends to concentrate wealth, rewards distortion and abuse by the rich and powerful, is predicated on self-interest and scarcity, and is amoral, the Gift Economy distributes wealth, provides no significant incentive for abuse, is predicated on collective interest and abundance, and is profoundly moral (Pollard, 2005).

Gift economy is when help and information is offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quo. Even in more anonymous settings, such as Usenet discussion groups, there is a surprising amount of free help and information given out, often to complete strangers whom one may never meet again (Kollack, 1999).

Be it fashion, Free and open software, gaming forums or even cooking communities, the Internet opens the doors for people to share their views and help each other in their respective fields. As mentioned above since I have not yet ventured into this wide horizon of information I can only relate to Gift Economies through the experiences of my friends.

The passion of a gamer can only be described by a gamer. The tension levels and euphoria experienced whilst playing dismisses all humanely urges and keeps gamers at their game for hours and even days at an end. The “World of Warcraft” or “WoW” is a massive multiplayer online game that enables thousands of players to come together online and battle against the world and each other. This is one of the hundreds of online games that have behind it a huge and passionate community. They have their own forums which enable each of them to communicate with other players and help each other out in their quests to kill and destroy. Such exchanging of information (I was told by my gamer friends) are vital to succeed in this field. They are secure that if they ever encounter a problem, their “gamer buddies” would help them out. In turn they did disclose to me that they would most certainly give out information on that particular game to another gamer if the need arises. One of my friends even proudly brands himself as a “known and popular” gamer in the forum.

Gift Economy is primarily due to a combination of human creativity and innovation, applied to create enabling and sharing technologies (Pollard, 2005). Online gaming and the forums which they bring about, as one of the gift economies many examples does just this.

There are many of those who are so ideologically obsessed with privatizing everything, making everything property, and undermining public belief in public institutions, government and self-regulation. There are also those who are trying to destroy and undermine Open Source, the Creative Commons, the Internet and the electronic freedoms, 'price-less' sharing of assets and information, self-sufficient individuals and communities, collective effort and collaborative innovation. If Gift Economy is going to make a stand it would have to fight against doctrinaire corporatism, against lawyers who are trying to patent and copyright everything forever, and against ignorance that there are workable alternatives to an untrammeled Market Economy (Pollard, 2005).

By doing a lot more discussion, research and education about what the Gift Economy is, and what it could be, I believe that this could indeed give new heights to the concept of sharing and exchanging information. I, for starters am going to finally venture into this sea of information sharing and use it to its full potential and contribute to others in the process.

References:

Kollock, P. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/eco

Pollard, D. (2005) How to save the world: How can we make the gift economy work? Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/07/31.html

Gift Economy, (2007) Wikipedia: The Free Enclycopedia.
Retrieved on February 10, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Cognition and Learning in Massively Multiplayer Online Games: A Critical Approach. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Acknowledgements:

Special thanks to my friends who helped me understand the vast amount of information buried within.

Alex Liu (Gamer)
Ruchit Kalra (Gamer)
Yang Landen Woo (Gamer)
Arvind Mohan (Gamer)

QotW3: Copyright vs Copyleft

I do not believe in spending a colossal amount of money in buying original records or movies when the cheaper version is available, most of the time for ‘free.’ Unfortunately, for the artists that produce goods and fortunately for the existence of file sharing and high speed internet connections, many people shamelessly share my ‘free-bie’ attitude.
While creator’s feel that without copyright laws their ‘creations’ are not been protected, the public feel that copyright laws restrict their access to such materials. Hence, it is a ‘tug-of-war’ between the context creators and the public.

Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation (Wikipedia, 2007). The purpose of this law is to advance the progress of science and the useful arts to benefit the public (Russell, 2003). Not all work is protected by copyright and this falls into the public domain. Here we would not need permission to use the material in any manner. However, if a person reproduces or publicly displays a piece of work that is exclusively owned by an author/creator, that person would be infringing on the author’s copyright (Ovalle, 2005). If the author were to sue the person this would result in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

If one were to argue from a copyright holder’s perspective, it seems unjust to have to share material one has created and owns the rights to, with the public, without getting any income. It is believed that, regardless of contemporary advances in technology, copyright remains the fundamental way by which authors, sculptors, artists, musicians and others can fund the creation of new works, and that without legal protection of their future income, many valuable books and artworks would not be created. Thus, it is practical and fair that copyright laws exist and are so stringent. On the other hand, critics say that the concepts of the public domain and the freedom of information are necessary precepts for creators to be able to build on published expression. But they say that these are gradually being eroded, as copyright terms are repeatedly extended to last beyond the lifetime of the audience which experienced and knows of the original work (Wikipedia, 2007).

In recent times, with more people adapting to the ‘virtual world’, copyright holders are less keen on making their copyrighted material available to the public in digital formats unless the law is revised and access to material is controlled. Due to file sharing, which is the practice of making files available to other users over the internet or smaller networks, copyrighted works copied into digital media are easily and exactly copied. Producers of copyrighted material blame this for the decline of their sales, although they generally continue to produce material and make profits. Some artists are even known to support file sharing saying that this expands their popularity and audience. Since many users use file sharing to download copyrighted materials without permission (piracy), copyright owners have begun to attack file sharing in general. Ironically however, studies have shown that album sales have increased in this most recent past while the growth of file sharing has continued abated (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005).

To satisfy both the context creators and publics’ interests relative to copyrighting, a compromise has to be reached. Unlike copyright, copyleft is the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.
Authors use copy left to allow anyone to use, share and improve the work as a continuing process, disallowing people from sharing derived works with any new restrictions (Stallman, 2006).

Technologically the world has advanced to an extent that anything possible. Although the debate between the copyright holders and general public is hot at the moment, it would be accurate to say that people will find some means of satisfying both groups and subsiding the issue. Even though we see that firm measures have been taken to punish “breakers of the law”, “piracy” is at its best form and artists have not stopped producing quality goods. Would it be a battle between “All rights reserved” and “All rights reversed” or would technology win over and make peace between the parties?

Reference:

Oberholzer-Gee, Felix & Strumpf, Koleman. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales, An Empirical Analysis. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf

Ovalle, C. (2005). “What is copyright?” University of Texas at Austin, Course INF 312. Information in Cyberspace. Retrieved on February 2, 2007, from
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.php

Stallman, Richard. (2006). “What is copyleft?”. Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. Retrieved on February 2, 2007 from
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

Russell, Carrie. (2003). Libraries in Today's Digital Age: The Copyright Controversy. Retrieved on February 3, 2007, from
http://www.michaellorenzen.com/eric/copyright.html

File sharing: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia foundation Inc. (2007). Retrieved on February 2, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing#Copyright_issues

COM 125 Week 2: E-mail

Technology is so advanced today that it is hard to comprehend how dependent humans are on it. It has managed to penetrate into our lives and simplify our daily chores, saving more time for us to tend to other things. The computer followed by the Internet was a major breakthrough in the development of technology and communication. As a part of this revolution in high-tech communications, electronic mail or E- mail has gained popularity and gathered an incredible number of “practitioners” since its emergence in the 1980’s. From smoke signals to posts, exchanging messages have long since been practiced by humans. Message sharing has also existed in one form or another since the early days of computers. However, Electronic mail, developed along with the evolution of the Internet, has become a powerful technology that is the most widely used application on the Internet today (Living Internet, 2007).

E-mail, is a method of communicating whereby an individual uses a computer or other electronic device to compose and send a message to another individual. Messages may be sent through computer systems linked by a network, through modems using telephone lines, or, in some cases, through wireless transmissions (Answers, 2007). Although in many companies e-mail is linked only within that company’s system, users of it are able to send mail to anyone in the world. Exchanging messages through e- mail has become a norm in society today. It would be accurate to say that everyone you and I know have if not one, but two or three e- mail addresses. People may argue that e-mail is a virtual thing and therefore does not have the “warmth” of a posted letter. However, an e-mail can be sent free of charge and the receiver would get the mail in a matter of minutes if not seconds. Postage or walking to the post office would not be required. One needs only to have access to a computer with an Internet connection. Google mail, Yahoo! and Hotmail are some of the more popular sites that offer free mail services. E-mail not only comes free but it also comes with a number of complex services. An address book to store contacts, the ability to send pictures and attachments, the forwarding, replying and deleting of messages and the automatic sorting out of junk mail are some of these features.

Just as it is easier to send an e-mail message than to mail a letter or, in many cases, to attempt to phone someone, the amount of time allowed for a response has also decreased. While a letter may take two to three days to travel to its destination, an e-mail message is transmitted almost instantaneously. Few would expect an answer to a letter within a week of sending it. Seldom would a person sending an e-mail message expect to wait two to three days for a response (Encyclopedia of Business, 2007).

Like most things that are “too good to be true”, e- mail also has its weaknesses. It is not as secure as traditional mail although there are many laws protecting its unauthorized tampering. In some cases where privacy is invaded for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction, or private commercial gain—it establishes fines of up to $250,000 and prison sentences of up to one year. As with traditional mail, law enforcement agencies can seize e-mail as evidence in criminal investigations and civil lawsuits (Legal Encyclopedia, 2007).

E-mail with all its users would be a major reason for most people who are not that “IT-literate” to use computers and the Internet. You are not required to know the complex programming of a computer to be able to use it. From organizations to personal usage, this technology has proven to bring new heights to the concept of “the global village”. As mentioned earlier, it may have its limitations of satisfying the human mind. But, one thing that is certain is that with such development in such a short period of time, we can definitely expect more limitless advances in the field of high-tech communication in the years to come.

References

E-mail: Science and Technology Encyclopedia (2005).
Retrieved January 27, 2007 from
http://www.answers.com/topic/e-mail

E-mail History: Living Internet
Retrieved January 27, 2007 from
http://www.livinginternet.com/e/ei.htm

E-mail: Legal Encyclopedia (1998).
Retrieved January 27, 2007 from
http://www.answers.com/topic/e-mail

E-mail: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2007, January, 25).
Retrieved on January 27, 2007 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_mail

E-mail: Encyclopedia of Business (2001)
Retrieved January 27, 2007 from
http://www.answers.com/topic/e-mail

History of the Internet (2006, August 20). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Retrieved January 27, 2007 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_World_Wide_Web&oldid=73974490