This wiki concerning the videogame 'mass effect' is rather accurate, if not lacking in content in certain areas. It is good that there has been note made of the sex scene that featured in this game, as it shows the controversy that surrounded this game and the criticisms launched upon it by certain members of authority (like Spitzer can talk). This wiki does cover all the basic topics that you would need to understand what the article is about. It is very lengthy, with a very lengthy explanation of what happens in the plot. This article is clearly written by a gamer and therefore it regards the issues of censorship and the controversy over the sex scene in an incredulous tone.
If I could change anything, I would expand the characters section, giving more detailed background. After all the story is the best part of Mass Effect (the combat is horrible, the menu system has been simplified to the point where it is ridiculously simple and although there are claims of huge worlds to explore, most of the planets look the same). I would also maybe mention that, but then that would be bias. A fair spat of reviews is given from various online "professionals", i would have removed these, because most of them are unreliable (Iup.com for example, the site which claimed that Sega Superstars tennis was a better game than Assassins creed. Come on.)
Gs:12,350
Monday, April 14, 2008
Wikipedia Analysis 1:Radiohead
The article is very accurate and concise. The opening paragraph explains, in brief, a history of Radiohead. There are then subsections, each one dealing with a different album from the band. these subsections are also named after the style and approach to music that Radiohead are taking at that time. For example one such subsections reads- Ok Computer,fame and critical acclaim, while the next section reads- Kid A, Amnesiac and a change in sound. This is helpful to get a general overview of what the album sounds like and what is happening with the band at the time. This article covers all the baselines for a useful wikipedia article. It is thorough and informative.
There is not a particularly large amount of bias in this article but it does show the band in a favourable light, making note of lead singer Thom Yorke's charity work and the bands concerns over carbon emissions as a result of their touring.
I don't see much that could be changed about this wikipedia entry. It is accurate and provides a useful overview of the history of the band and their various recordings.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohead
There is not a particularly large amount of bias in this article but it does show the band in a favourable light, making note of lead singer Thom Yorke's charity work and the bands concerns over carbon emissions as a result of their touring.
I don't see much that could be changed about this wikipedia entry. It is accurate and provides a useful overview of the history of the band and their various recordings.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohead
Monday, April 7, 2008
We need to talk, Benjamin you sly dog!
When Benjamin referes to the "aura" of a piece of artwork, he is describing the effects of the process of removing a piece from the domain of tradition by reproducing it. So in fact the aura is the sense of tradition and authenticity that a piece of art has. Once it is reproduced it loses this aura.
The realm of music and music production is an area in which we can see great leaps forward in reproduction. Orignally one would have to go to see a musician play live, or later listen to the radio or buy a floppy, highly breakable "45 from a record shop if they wanted to hear the latest art. But now it has all changed, music is accesible at the click of a mouse ( both illegally and legally) Artists have a much greater access to their audience. Is this a bad thing for art? Sure it may have lost the intimacy and authenticity of been right there at one unqiue performance, but now musicians have a way of pushing their art to a greater amount of people.
I don't think this is entirely bad for art. There is still a certain area for art that is painted, that is created by hand and still retains some sort of "aura". But this aura does not apply to digital art forms, even less than it did to print, photographs and the other aura-less art forms that Benjamin described. The digital age not only allows for the reproduction of art, but for this reproduction to be performed by almost anyone with access to a computer and some photoshopping programs. Skilled proffesionals do still have a market though, sure by Benjamins reasons we should look at something created digitally as being aura-less, but why cannot we not see it as being original under a completely new set of rules?
A photoshopped photo would not be considered authentic. It is a digital representation of a piece of art that is being tampered with, altered from it's original authentic state, plucked from the very domain that made it a traditional piece of art.
So it can be seen quite clearly that digital "things" would not have an aura in Benjamins terms, in that they are reproductions of an original piece, even more so they are based on a set of templates that are based on reality. But does this make them products of the domain of the unskilled? Methinks not. There is still alot of skill required in digital arts. Sure everyone can use the technologies, but they doesn't mean they use them well, just like even though I can go out and start painting, I might not be very good at it. Interesting.
GS: same as below.
The realm of music and music production is an area in which we can see great leaps forward in reproduction. Orignally one would have to go to see a musician play live, or later listen to the radio or buy a floppy, highly breakable "45 from a record shop if they wanted to hear the latest art. But now it has all changed, music is accesible at the click of a mouse ( both illegally and legally) Artists have a much greater access to their audience. Is this a bad thing for art? Sure it may have lost the intimacy and authenticity of been right there at one unqiue performance, but now musicians have a way of pushing their art to a greater amount of people.
I don't think this is entirely bad for art. There is still a certain area for art that is painted, that is created by hand and still retains some sort of "aura". But this aura does not apply to digital art forms, even less than it did to print, photographs and the other aura-less art forms that Benjamin described. The digital age not only allows for the reproduction of art, but for this reproduction to be performed by almost anyone with access to a computer and some photoshopping programs. Skilled proffesionals do still have a market though, sure by Benjamins reasons we should look at something created digitally as being aura-less, but why cannot we not see it as being original under a completely new set of rules?
A photoshopped photo would not be considered authentic. It is a digital representation of a piece of art that is being tampered with, altered from it's original authentic state, plucked from the very domain that made it a traditional piece of art.
So it can be seen quite clearly that digital "things" would not have an aura in Benjamins terms, in that they are reproductions of an original piece, even more so they are based on a set of templates that are based on reality. But does this make them products of the domain of the unskilled? Methinks not. There is still alot of skill required in digital arts. Sure everyone can use the technologies, but they doesn't mean they use them well, just like even though I can go out and start painting, I might not be very good at it. Interesting.
GS: same as below.
Web Questions
- ask.com – Onel De Guzman – gathered info from CNN.com, reliable news website. http://premium.asia.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/06/29/philippines.lovebug.02/index.html
- William D. Middlebrook http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/paperclip.htm
- Named after the Ebola River In Zaire http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/history.html
- Chile, 1960 http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question63269.html UNRELIABLE
- 1,000,000,000Kilobytes
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060607174017AAcnTPV
- Dave Crocker http://www.livinginternet.com/e/ei.htm Not to sure, seems like many hands passed through emails creation.
W32.Storm.Worm is a worm that seeks out Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) systems that have not applied the proper security patches. Any such systems that it finds are then infected with the worm. The payload of this worm performs a denial-of-service attack on http:/ /www.microsoft.com between between one million and 50 million estimated. UNSURE
- http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm Fill out a form and send it away.
- http://www.blackassassins.net/
- http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)