Dear Professor Brooks,
I always get a little worried whenever I give away my personal information, which is why I don't do it so often. I've had some bad luck in that area. About a year ago, I left my credit card at a bar in Daly City. I went on a trip the next day, so I wasn't able to pick up the card for a whole week. A month later, I noticed that $250 had been charged on it at some pizza place in Daly City that I had never even heard of, much less spent that much money there. I marched to the Richmond police station and demanded that they find the bastards that did it, but they told me that the police only got involved when tens of thousands of dollars were at stake. Thankfully, the credit card company came through and refunded me completely, yay! I also learned never to get so drunk at a bowling ally that I forget my credit card at the bar.
I always feel nervous whenever I give out my social security number. I don't even know why we still use those darn things. I'm not going to see a dime of my social security, yet it's still the easiest way for someone to steal my identity. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Anyway, last month when I was applying to rent an apartment, I refused to put my SSN on the form. Knowing landlords, they would probably just throw out the application without shredding, leaving all my personal information for Johnny the bum to find in the trash can. Eventually, my roommate made me start writing it on the forms, because she thought it was the reason we weren't getting offered any houses. My question is, why would a landlord need that information anyway, especially when we gave them current credit reports? That reminds me, I had to give my SSN to the website that I got my credit report from. In that case, I was okay with giving away my information because otherwise I would probably be homeless.
The only organization that I feel completely comfortable with having my information is my bank. If I can trust them with my millions of dollars, surely I can trust them with my SSN. I suppose having USF know my information isn't so bad either. Although, because USF employs students, the door is opened for any undergrad with a school job to possibly stumble across all my info. College kids these days are so tech savvy and broke, they have all the know-how and nothing to lose by stealing my identity and signing up for some credit cards. Thankfully, I'm three and a half years in and nothing has happened, knock on wood.
Whenever I sign up for something on the internet, such as a new e-mail address, a JTT fan club, or a Harry Potter message board, I always give false information. My go-to pseudonym is Sammy Clems, I'm from Alaska (zip code 99501), and I'm ninety-seven years young. I'm also a woman. It's foolproof I tell you.
Love,
James
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Week 9 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
I download music. Lots of music. Before this whole high speed internet thing, I bought albums. I think at my peak (right before coming to college), I had nearly 1,000 actual compact discs (LPs, EPs, singles, etc). Then I got some speedy internet. Suddenly, downloading a single song took a couple seconds versus a half hour. Needless to say, I currently have about 100 GBs on the old external hard drive committed exclusively to music. Now, do I download music because CDs are too expensive? Obviously if I was able to amass a collection so large in my high school days, money is clearly not a huge issue (besides which, used CDs can be as cheap as three or four bucks, you just have to know where to go). No, the number one reason that I, and perhaps many others, download music is because doing so gets me the music months earlier than the official release date.
They call it a leak when an album is put on the internet before its actual release date. I would estimate that 90% of the music I've downloaded would fall under this category (with about 3% being something I could have purchased at a store, the other 7% being live bootlegs or unreleased/b-side material). So, am I really even stealing when the music I'm downloading isn't even available in any format to the public? Shoplifting a CD from a store, for example, would constitute stealing in my book. In the end, I would have stolen something tangible: compact disc, plastic casing, liner notes. Furthermore, I would have stolen something that the store owner has already purchased.
Downloading music however is completely different. You don't get a tangible thing; you simply get files that contain the music. Usually, these files will be of a quality that is far below a compact disc. For example, iTunes sells music files at 128 kbps for $0.99. While this might seems like a fair deal for the buyer, the quality of such a file is about 1/10 the quality of an actual CD. Let's say I buy a twelve song album from iTunes. The price would be around twelve dollars, which is a little bit cheaper than an actual CD (depending on where you go, it could be a little more expensive). However, all I've gotten for my twelve dollars are some horrible quality music files. Shouldn't the price directly reflect the product? If the CD is fifteen dollars, than the music files should be 1/10 that price ($1.50), minus the dollar it would have been to produce a compact disc and those other things that come with it. So really, the actual worth would be fifty cents, which I would gladly pay.
The big story in the music industry right now is the way in which Radiohead released their newest album, In Rainbows. After a four year hiatus of sorts (during which they toured new material, released various solo records, started a blog), the band announced on October 1st that it would be releasing its seventh record two ways. Option one: $80 for a deluxe version (titled Disc Box) that includes two versions of the album (CD and vinyl), a bonus CD, and original artwork, all of which would be shipped sometime in December. Option two: a downloadable version of the album made available a mere ten days after the announcement (Oct. 10) for a price to be determined by the consumer. Well, people went a little nuts about this, claiming that Radiohead were striking a final blow to the record industry. In reality, that was not the case. Currently, Radiohead do not have a record contract, and therefore they have very little means of distributing the album. The download was a way for them to get the music to the fans in a speedy fashion rather than have it sit while they negotiate a record deal. The $80 Disc Box is obviously not something every Radiohead fan will be able to afford, so WASTE, their merchandise company, will be able to handle the orders themselves. It has been estimated that by early 2008, In Rainbows will be available in stores, most likely brought to us by a major record label.
So how much did I spend on the download? Nothing. Aside from the quality not being so great (160 kbps, better than iTunes at least), I'll buy the CD when it is eventually released (CD quality is a must for Radiohead albums). In addition, I try to attend their concerts whenever possible. Last summer I saw them five times at $50 per ticket. It's fairly well known that bands reap their biggest earnings from their concerts, which is the main reason I condone downloading music, regardless of major or independent label. With television, networks play shows to lure in viewers, but the real money comes from the advertisements played during the commercial breaks. In theory, viewers are supposed to be loyal enough to sit through the ads. In the same way, putting music on the internet is a way to lure people to the concert. By getting the music for free, I'm being exposed to more music and I have more money, both of which add up to me attending more concerts. So in my mind, the cosmic and ethical balances even out in the end.
If a band can distribute its music for free, where does the record company stand? Well, not every band can afford to record their own album, right? Wrong. Stephen Malkmus and his cronies (collectively known as Pavement) had a four track, and they made Slanted & Enchanted, one of the most highly revered albums of the 90s. So I guess you don't need super expensive recording equipment to produce something amazing. In fact, I've heard fantastic albums made solely with Garageband and a thirty dollar computer mic.
I do think record companies have a place in the future of the music world, but by condemning file sharing, they're fighting against evolution. In the end, some will still pay for CDs in lieu of downloading music for free, merely to get the best quality available. People still buy and collect expensive vinyl records for this very reason. Maybe by getting a larger cut of the concert revenue, the loss of CD sales wouldn't be felt as much. I don't know, I'm not a record executive.
If you're actually still reading this, bravo. As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about this whole debate. In regards to the scenarios you suggested (as I did get slightly off topic), I'm only ethically opposed to one (shoplifting a CD, as I previously mentioned). I think all music should be made available on the internet for free, and I would gladly share my music library if I didn't have to worry about being sued.
Love,
James
I download music. Lots of music. Before this whole high speed internet thing, I bought albums. I think at my peak (right before coming to college), I had nearly 1,000 actual compact discs (LPs, EPs, singles, etc). Then I got some speedy internet. Suddenly, downloading a single song took a couple seconds versus a half hour. Needless to say, I currently have about 100 GBs on the old external hard drive committed exclusively to music. Now, do I download music because CDs are too expensive? Obviously if I was able to amass a collection so large in my high school days, money is clearly not a huge issue (besides which, used CDs can be as cheap as three or four bucks, you just have to know where to go). No, the number one reason that I, and perhaps many others, download music is because doing so gets me the music months earlier than the official release date.
They call it a leak when an album is put on the internet before its actual release date. I would estimate that 90% of the music I've downloaded would fall under this category (with about 3% being something I could have purchased at a store, the other 7% being live bootlegs or unreleased/b-side material). So, am I really even stealing when the music I'm downloading isn't even available in any format to the public? Shoplifting a CD from a store, for example, would constitute stealing in my book. In the end, I would have stolen something tangible: compact disc, plastic casing, liner notes. Furthermore, I would have stolen something that the store owner has already purchased.
Downloading music however is completely different. You don't get a tangible thing; you simply get files that contain the music. Usually, these files will be of a quality that is far below a compact disc. For example, iTunes sells music files at 128 kbps for $0.99. While this might seems like a fair deal for the buyer, the quality of such a file is about 1/10 the quality of an actual CD. Let's say I buy a twelve song album from iTunes. The price would be around twelve dollars, which is a little bit cheaper than an actual CD (depending on where you go, it could be a little more expensive). However, all I've gotten for my twelve dollars are some horrible quality music files. Shouldn't the price directly reflect the product? If the CD is fifteen dollars, than the music files should be 1/10 that price ($1.50), minus the dollar it would have been to produce a compact disc and those other things that come with it. So really, the actual worth would be fifty cents, which I would gladly pay.
The big story in the music industry right now is the way in which Radiohead released their newest album, In Rainbows. After a four year hiatus of sorts (during which they toured new material, released various solo records, started a blog), the band announced on October 1st that it would be releasing its seventh record two ways. Option one: $80 for a deluxe version (titled Disc Box) that includes two versions of the album (CD and vinyl), a bonus CD, and original artwork, all of which would be shipped sometime in December. Option two: a downloadable version of the album made available a mere ten days after the announcement (Oct. 10) for a price to be determined by the consumer. Well, people went a little nuts about this, claiming that Radiohead were striking a final blow to the record industry. In reality, that was not the case. Currently, Radiohead do not have a record contract, and therefore they have very little means of distributing the album. The download was a way for them to get the music to the fans in a speedy fashion rather than have it sit while they negotiate a record deal. The $80 Disc Box is obviously not something every Radiohead fan will be able to afford, so WASTE, their merchandise company, will be able to handle the orders themselves. It has been estimated that by early 2008, In Rainbows will be available in stores, most likely brought to us by a major record label.
So how much did I spend on the download? Nothing. Aside from the quality not being so great (160 kbps, better than iTunes at least), I'll buy the CD when it is eventually released (CD quality is a must for Radiohead albums). In addition, I try to attend their concerts whenever possible. Last summer I saw them five times at $50 per ticket. It's fairly well known that bands reap their biggest earnings from their concerts, which is the main reason I condone downloading music, regardless of major or independent label. With television, networks play shows to lure in viewers, but the real money comes from the advertisements played during the commercial breaks. In theory, viewers are supposed to be loyal enough to sit through the ads. In the same way, putting music on the internet is a way to lure people to the concert. By getting the music for free, I'm being exposed to more music and I have more money, both of which add up to me attending more concerts. So in my mind, the cosmic and ethical balances even out in the end.
If a band can distribute its music for free, where does the record company stand? Well, not every band can afford to record their own album, right? Wrong. Stephen Malkmus and his cronies (collectively known as Pavement) had a four track, and they made Slanted & Enchanted, one of the most highly revered albums of the 90s. So I guess you don't need super expensive recording equipment to produce something amazing. In fact, I've heard fantastic albums made solely with Garageband and a thirty dollar computer mic.
I do think record companies have a place in the future of the music world, but by condemning file sharing, they're fighting against evolution. In the end, some will still pay for CDs in lieu of downloading music for free, merely to get the best quality available. People still buy and collect expensive vinyl records for this very reason. Maybe by getting a larger cut of the concert revenue, the loss of CD sales wouldn't be felt as much. I don't know, I'm not a record executive.
If you're actually still reading this, bravo. As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about this whole debate. In regards to the scenarios you suggested (as I did get slightly off topic), I'm only ethically opposed to one (shoplifting a CD, as I previously mentioned). I think all music should be made available on the internet for free, and I would gladly share my music library if I didn't have to worry about being sued.
Love,
James
Friday, October 5, 2007
Week 7 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
Although it appears that we're still a few years away from flying cars and robot servants (which in turn will become robot masters), the future that all those sci-fi writers thought up isn't so unimaginable when considering radio frequency identification. As the name suggests, RFID is an identification system that harnesses radio frequencies to identify things. What things you might ask? Lots of things. With RFID, Information is transmitted by a tiny microscopic tag when read by an RFID reading device. The data is processed, and depending what the chip was programed for, some sort of reaction will ensue. It sounds broad because RFID can conceivably be incorporated in most aspects of every day life.
Currently, the most practical use for RFID is tracking. As you know, RFID tags can be surgically implanted into pets. When they stray too far from home, all someone would need to do is scan them with a reader to determine its owner. Of course, a cheaper way to keep from losing your cat would be to just put a collar on it, but that's hardly as cool as a microscopic chip embedded in its shoulder. The same type of tracking could be used with consumer products. In lieu of a serial number (who remembers those anyway?), an RFID chip could be placed inside the product. This way, if someone stole your TV and tried to pawn it, the shop keep could immediatley determine that it was "hot." You'd have your TV back and the crook would be in jail. Sounds good to me.
The last time I was in Chicago, the 7-Eleven by my brother's house had one of those paypass devices for credit cards. I bought so much crap from that store just so I could use it. Of course, this is also a form of RFID technology. Eventually, it will get to the point where you can just grab an item and walk out the store. Through RFID, your credit card (which will probably be a chip embedded in your skin) will automatically get charged when you leave the store. Think of how much faster our lives will be when we don't have to stand in lines.
Of course, along with such advanced technology comes some concerns. With RFID, there is the potential for privacy invasion. Anyone with an RFID reader could find out exactly what is held within your house. This is good news for career thieves, who could target houses that contain expensive electronic equipment. Burglars aside, through tracking your whereabouts, RFID could lead to a "Big Brother" dystopia. I like to keep my tracks covered; I sure don't want someone aware of all my whereabouts. I'm also not too keen on getting a computer chip surgically put into my skin. However, the idea of being able to walk up to my door and have it unlock is pretty cool.
In some ways, the privacy issue doesn't bother me too much. Surely a line will be drawn, and if the government or a corporation should choose to cross that line, they would have to prepare for some heavy duty lawsuits, as privacy is protected by the 14th Amendment.
Love,
James
Although it appears that we're still a few years away from flying cars and robot servants (which in turn will become robot masters), the future that all those sci-fi writers thought up isn't so unimaginable when considering radio frequency identification. As the name suggests, RFID is an identification system that harnesses radio frequencies to identify things. What things you might ask? Lots of things. With RFID, Information is transmitted by a tiny microscopic tag when read by an RFID reading device. The data is processed, and depending what the chip was programed for, some sort of reaction will ensue. It sounds broad because RFID can conceivably be incorporated in most aspects of every day life.
Currently, the most practical use for RFID is tracking. As you know, RFID tags can be surgically implanted into pets. When they stray too far from home, all someone would need to do is scan them with a reader to determine its owner. Of course, a cheaper way to keep from losing your cat would be to just put a collar on it, but that's hardly as cool as a microscopic chip embedded in its shoulder. The same type of tracking could be used with consumer products. In lieu of a serial number (who remembers those anyway?), an RFID chip could be placed inside the product. This way, if someone stole your TV and tried to pawn it, the shop keep could immediatley determine that it was "hot." You'd have your TV back and the crook would be in jail. Sounds good to me.
The last time I was in Chicago, the 7-Eleven by my brother's house had one of those paypass devices for credit cards. I bought so much crap from that store just so I could use it. Of course, this is also a form of RFID technology. Eventually, it will get to the point where you can just grab an item and walk out the store. Through RFID, your credit card (which will probably be a chip embedded in your skin) will automatically get charged when you leave the store. Think of how much faster our lives will be when we don't have to stand in lines.
Of course, along with such advanced technology comes some concerns. With RFID, there is the potential for privacy invasion. Anyone with an RFID reader could find out exactly what is held within your house. This is good news for career thieves, who could target houses that contain expensive electronic equipment. Burglars aside, through tracking your whereabouts, RFID could lead to a "Big Brother" dystopia. I like to keep my tracks covered; I sure don't want someone aware of all my whereabouts. I'm also not too keen on getting a computer chip surgically put into my skin. However, the idea of being able to walk up to my door and have it unlock is pretty cool.
In some ways, the privacy issue doesn't bother me too much. Surely a line will be drawn, and if the government or a corporation should choose to cross that line, they would have to prepare for some heavy duty lawsuits, as privacy is protected by the 14th Amendment.
Love,
James
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)