When You Die In The Game, You Die For Real

I'm anti-anxious to write this post. Why? Because it's about Second Life and at this point in my life I could give two craps less about it.

The first article I read about Second Life (in my real life) was Even in a Virtual World, 'Stuff' Matters written in.. get this, the New York Times.

I've confessed my love for games to many of my classmates, my World of Warcraft-ing, my love for The Sims, and you can't leave out all my Time Management games that keep me up until the wee hours of the morning. But Second Life, as of now, I just don't get.

After reading that first article I decided the best way to understand the game was to play it, so I downloaded the software, created my avatar, and logged on. After "walking" a good 30ft in-game it crashed. That's a pretty good description of my feelings towards it for now.

It may even be that if I could've actually 'played' it for a little bit longer I could've gotten into it. BUT. a) the graphics aren't very good b) The rendering takes too long for my attention span and c) the pseudo tutorial wasn't working/making any sense.

Maybe you all will argue with me about this but I feel like it's an insult to my intelligence when the NY Times is writing about Second Life and treating it like more than entertainment and people are getting PAID to write books and blogs about it. Come on.

I am one of the few people in our class who can actually appreciate the 'starting a new life/image' aspect of it and I still can't treat it like real life.

From what I understand real business is being done from the Second Life platform, not just the selling of it's virtual goods, and not even the selling of real life virtual goods (images, mp3's etc) but of real life touch it and feel it goods. Nothing wrong with that as long as you're either enjoying it more than you would selling it "irl" or in real life OR you're making just as much money as you would irl and saving on the costs of actual real life American Dollar rents. This does make Second Life differ from most MMO's because even in World of Warcraft the only sales that occur (even when real American Dollars are being exchanged) are with in-game virtual goods. When Blizzard want to sell WoW products, maybe a t-shirt or specialized keyboard they do it through their website, not through in-game vendors. Though I wonder if it's something they've actually considered.

With this being said, my message to everyone is to stop treating SL like it's important!

Name Your Price

Today I am asking the question:

At what point are your opinions worth something?

In my social networking class today we were discussing "outside visitors" to our blogs. One student in the class had gotten a comment from a semi-famous blogger/author, Shel Israel. Someone in the class then asked what Shel does besides go around looking for people who have mentioned him in their blog and comment on that. My Professor then explained that such people are often paid by companies for their opinions on products/services etc.

That got me thinking.

In College most often you are graded on how well you can memorize facts and then how well you can articulate those points with only fact to back it up. When you use opinion in your writings you are usually graded down because "who the hell are you to say ... ".

I suppose everyone thinks their own opinion is the right one, although some people are more open to adopting others opinions.


Can one opinion ever be right? I guess not, not for everyone in every situation at least. What does one have to do to have their opinion be worth something? I suppose you could go and get many college degrees or do lots of research on lots of topics, but does that mean you're right? Or more right than someone who hasn't done those things? Isn't that discrediting natural intelligence? This reminds me of the moment I realized adults aren't always right aka the day I began mouthing off to adults. The moment wasn't amazing so I won't go into the detail of it, but when it happened I realized that just because someone is 10,20, or more years older than me it didn't necessarily mean they knew better than me.

So if age isn't an indicator of wisdom then what is?

What I'm getting at and what I'm wondering is when will my opinion mean something to more than the immediate people around me (who probably sometimes take me with a grain of salt)? I love writing about what I believe or don't believe in and I try when I can to back that up with fact. Is my love for voicing my opinion something unique or does everyone feel the same way? If they don't, does that mean it's "meant to be" for me to do this? Who knows. Maybe you do?

Skype versus Vonage -- a Fight to the Death!!!

There are two matters at hand that I need to gripe/complain/explain and lots of other descriptive words about. I don't care if I should make it into two separate posts, because gosh darnit I will MAKE IT WORK!

First off, I just read chapter 3 .. or at least most of it in Naked Conversations by Shel Israel and Robert Scoble they were discussing ICQ and Firefox and how both took off like wildfire (no pun intended) they attributed ICQ's and Firefox's success to it's Word of Mouth advertising, whether it be through actual mouths or blogs.

But I have to question this.

Firefox and more so, ICQ were revolutionary, so does it or did it really matter how they were marketed or advertised? When there's a need for a *USEFUL* product that hasn't existed yet does it matter if it's advertised through blogs or through TV commercials? Will it have the same effect?

WITTY TRANSITION...

This brings me to Skype versus Vonage (in a fight to the death, on Pay Per View tomorrow!) As I understood it Israel and Scoble insinuated that because Vonage took traditional route in advertising and not word of mouth like Skype, that that's why Skype grew and possibly is growing faster than Vonage. But that doesn't quite make sense to me.

I understand that less marketing costs is better, but as far as I know, Skype and Vonage are two separate products based off of the same VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) technology. I've heard that Skype is expanding their product line (in order to charge their users $$) which would cause them to actually resemble Vonage a little more than before. But in the beginning isn't it true that Skype was a free, use it on your computer calling service? And isn't Vonage a you pay monthly, use your phone bought at Best Buy calling service?

If so, how can they be compared? Not to mention who didn't love Vonages' first commercials with people doing stupid things and the goofy music behind it??? You know you loved it!

If my understanding of each product is correct then it makes perfect sense why Skype grew faster than Vonage ... -People don't want to pay (for anything) especially per month, people are afraid to switch from traditional phone service to VOIP phone service (diff 911 system?!?!), and as mentioned in Naked Conversations, people do like the newest tech thing (downloading Skype)

So there, apples and oranges right?

SHOUT OUT!!!!

Hey:

Rachel

Erin

Tim

The 34 Commandments!

It seems like everyone has their rules of thumbs for every topic and Robert Scoble and Shel Israel are no different. In their book Naked Conversations they have what they call "The Corporate Weblog Manifesto", a somewhat detailed list of 34 rules to blog by for the big wigs of the world. I hate to admit it but I agree with most of what they say. Here are a few quick excerpts with comments by moi:

"Use a human voice. Don't get corporate lawyers and PR professionals to modify your speech"
I really appreciate this "commandment" as I've been calling them. As a head of company/blog writer the first goal in writing a blog is to be readable and honest to who you are. Loads of legal jargon and P.C. talk is not only boring to me but incredibly impersonal. I'll admit it may be tougher for a company head to write a blog than a well-informed/well educated person with no legal ties. They have to balance honesty, opinions, and positive information with the truth and do so without doing harm to the goodwill of the company.

"Know your influencers ... if you can't connect to them during a crisis, you shouldn't try to keep a corporate weblog. (...because they often know when you're under attack before you do.)
That last quote kind of ties the last few weeks of class up as to why social networking within a physical group of people is important. Social networking within social networking in order to socially network. Very meta.

"Be nice to everyone.... You never know when a janitor will go to school, get an MBA, and start a company."
Very Jesus-y of them.. kind of. My feelings on this, on a non-business level is to only be nice to people who deserve it. Not to say if someone talks smack about you, your company, your product, your mom, etc that you should retaliate, but I wouldn't recommend feeling obligated to be nice afterward. After-all, when the CEO, mail room boy, and even the janitor go home, they still have to deal with their personal feelings towards those people who weren't so kind to them. If you couldn't live with it in your personal life why should it stand in your business life? Isn't it harder to respect a pushover than someone who stands up for them self?

All in all, the list was pretty agreeable. It really allows you to appreciate the balancing act a CEO or similar person-in-charge must endure in order to "keep up with the times"

Screw The Drama -- Reality TV Edition

As a fan of reality shows that revolve around a trade (i.e. Cooking, Clothes Design, Hair Design, etc) of course I've been watching Top Chef the day it airs. I must say, this season is certainly different from last season in a few ways:

The major thing I've noticed is that Bravo has to actually fake drama because the final bunch (about 6 chefs) all actually get along! The last bit of animosity that was on the show was from Howie who had formally acted very pig-headed and certainly not like a team player, but once he turned himself around the drama was gone from the show.

Bravo and pretty much any network with a reality show constantly try to create drama through their editing. It's hard to blame them for it, that's what gets ratings as a rule of thumb. But for me, I don't need it! I'm enjoying this season, I think more than last season purely because the contestants are all getting along so well. On the last bunch of challenges each contestant went out of their way to help another contestant. I love it! Perhaps I love it so much because with each person doing so well (due to the added help) the judges can't say anything mean and have an incredibly hard time voting someone off, and rationalizing it.

The Prediction

In the last episode C.J. was sent home by the judges and rightfully so-- he created a meal which the judges all said was inedible and hadn't done anything amazing for the last few challenges.

I believe Brian will be the next one sent home, he was one of the three at the bottom last challenge and on top of that he hasn't been doing so well in the challenges before that. Remember him as team captain recently? It appeared he appointed himself that position to get glory if everyone succeeded but if they didn't, he wouldn't take the blame stating that "...they are not my Sous Chefs...". The judges saw through him and unless he really cooks something amazing next challenge he's home

For Hung I don't think there's anyway he can win it. I'm surprised he's stayed in this long in the competition. It seemed that in the beginning of the season he was taking risks left and right, which the judges seemed to have appreciated enough to send him on to the next round after round. But recently he has been playing it safe, too safe to win I think. Also he just doesn't seem to have enough depth as a person, or perhaps that's just how he's portrayed but he seems like a one trick pony to me.

Casey... she boggles my mind. In the beginning of the season she did really well, then towards the middle she was taking the bottom place over and over again. Now she's stepping it up again. I can't tell what her issue is that is causing her to flip flop from the top 3 to the bottom 3 constantly. Is she getting lucky when she does win? Or is she really better than these other guys? It's hard to tell with her.

Sara: I think she has potential to win the whole thing. I used to not like her very much -- this is when she was letting Howie push her around and she just didn't have much presence. But that one day when she finally stood up to Howie and told him to "do them over" I developed a whole new respect for her. She has become much more assertive and it shows in her food I think, she's not forgettable anymore. And as long as she thinks things through from now on I think she can make it.

Dale: He's another one who one day is on the top and the next on the bottom. But I would say lately (last 3-4 episodes) he's been on the up and up. I'm pretty sure the only reason he didn't win the entire elimination challenge last time is because he forgot that ONE steak, otherwise it seemed flawless.

In Conclusion I think Dale, Sara, and Casey will be fighting to the death this season, sorry Hung! But my money, specifically is on Sara ... and NOT just because we share a name (minus the H)

HEY GOV'T, STAY OUT OF MY BED!

I just saw a commercial on TV put out by our Government with the message for parents to tell their kids to wait until they are MARRIED to have sex. I am blown away.

I'm all for kids waiting until they're out of High School to have sex but how freaking antiquated is it to tell them to wait until they're married. They should add into the commercial the side note that if they actually wait that long they probably won't ever have sex-- Unless they're Mormon in that case they'll be having tons of sex.

But that's not even the point, MY point is how dare our government put out commercials like that. "Wait until marriage". How about .. use a condom or go on birth control or just don't sleep around. Those would be words of wisdom. I honestly believe that every year that passes it's harder and harder for kids to wait to have sex, and probably for multiple reasons: 1) it's more acceptable as time passes 2) there's more sex in the media 3) all the hormones we get from food is making kids develop sooner and sooner

Just so you all know, this commercial upset me so much that I actually paused my Warcraft II game to post about this. We need to do something about the government sharing a bed with us, they want us to wait until marriage to have sex and never have an abortion and they don't want women to be protected against cervical cancer (they're reasoning is that it will encourage young women to go out and do every man in their line of sight).

Sigh

What's the Point? 101

Ironically this weekend I've been working on a Family Tree project for my mothers side of the family. My Great-Uncle has been doing a family e-mailing list for a few years now and I had never been apart of it. But when my mom forwarded me the e-mail talking about how one member of my extremely extended family had started a family tree on ancestry.com I had to take a stand and have my family start their tree on geni.com Not that the reasons matter much to you, but I didn't want to use ancestry.com because they charge you to use their site whereas geni.com is first of all FREE and it's a collaborative site-- Meaning you and your family can all go on there at the same time and update anything they want.

And today I've been attempting to read this weeks articles. I first tried to listen to Dr. Karen Stephenson's podcast, it sounded promising.. the introduction claimed it was a "fascinating talk" but no matter how fascinating the material might have been, she sounded as dull as safety scissors. So I pressed on and read Introduction to Social Network Theory by Charles Kadushin thankfully most of the article was readable but it started me wondering: Is this worth writing about?

To me, networks (of people) seem common sense, specifically the "points" Kadushin was stating, such as people who are geographically close to each other are more likely to be friends than those who aren't or that all it takes is one "tie" to each other for humans to give an excuse to forge a relationship (friendship or otherwise) such as going to the same school. I would say as a general rule, people are constantly looking for any excuse to create a relationship with another person.

What I am not understanding is why there is a need to study networks in this way. I completely understand the importance in recording networks and I can even understand what we can gain by studying the networks we record. But WHY oh WHY do we need to study these theories behind networks when they seem so obvious and first nature? We have studied human communication for reasons that I can agree with but to study this topic in these terms, I think is an unnecessary step.

What do you think? Leave a comment, let me know. Try not to be too harsh on me

Which is worse?

I've been watching the local news for the past few minutes in which abc7 has mentioned two different criminal cases both of which have sentencing as an outcome. The first case mentioned was about the metro bus driver who struck and killed two women last Valentines Day due to his negligence. He pleaded guilty and is receiving 3 years in prison. The second case was about a sports coach (and little league coach) who was caught downloading "kiddie porn" some of which was more sadistic then sexual, he will be receiving 7 years in prison.

Now I'm not implying that what the coach did wasn't worth 7 years in prison, viewing kiddie porn, especially the type that the news was describing is a disgusting, sad thing. BUT the bus driver KILLED two women, he didn't just injure them, he ended their lives. He left people without mothers, wives, and friends. And for that he gets 3 years in jail? They showed the video of the bus crash and the women had a crosswalk--a green light to cross, yet the bus driver drove into oncoming traffic (and caused another car to swerve out of the way) and plowed into the women.

So how is this fair? Luckily for the bus driver the husband of one of the women seems very forgiving. If it were me, I'd have him shipped to Texas and fried.

Kid Nation -- Possibly the BEST Show Ever

This is completely off topic as far as this class goes, but I can't help but post about it. I just read.. or rather skimmed an article talking about how horrible the show is and how the parents signed the kids up for basically slave labor at little more than minimum wages. And I guess the show isn't gonna be aired or they're deliberating about it... something like that.

In any case, I've always loved any show/movie where a group of people get stranded on a desert isle or get sent to some olde western town and have to start from scratch ... remember The Blue Lagoon with Brooke Shields? or Swiss Family Robinson? or that PBS show whose name I cannot remember for the life of me? ..this may explain why I can play Warcraft II for hours on end. So when I first saw the first commercials for Kid Nation, I nearly wet myself -- let me get this straight, Lord of the Flies ... on Television ... can life get any better? Of course I realized pretty quickly that due to all the laws we have to "protect" children in this country there is no way this show could reach it's true potential of being incredibly entertaining. I say they do the show, they forget the laws and leave the kids there for a few years and see what happens, that'd be awesome television ... and not a bad social experiment.