The Race Towards Virtual World Domination

It all began with Sputnik. After the first artificial satellite was launched into space by the U.S.S.R. in 1957, not wanting to be left behind in the technological race, the U.S. counteracted with an aggressive development of its science and technology. U.S. President Eisenhower issued a directive for the creation of two agencies tasked to develop state-of-the-art space technology, communication networks and weaponry: the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ARPA coordinated with some of the most brilliant minds in the military and academe for the development of an experimental network of time-sharing computers, which was later to be called ARPANET. Before the creation of the ARPANET, different computers could be connected to each other through a hub, or a central computer. The challenge was to connect all of these central computers to each other through the means of a host-to-host network. It was in 1969 when the first host-to-host connection was established between and among four universities in the U.S. ARPANET’s first international connection was made in 1973 to Norway and England. From then on, the ARPANET served as the packet switch prototype for TCP/IP or Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, the backbone of the internet as we know today.

ARPANET was originally conceptualized as a means to keep communications between key departments of the government open and free from interception in case of nuclear or space-based attacks. Through the years, internet technology gradually morphed from a purely text-based platform for the exchange of information and research sharing networks, into the World Wide Web utilizing Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) and ushering in the era of electronic commerce.

Seeking to exploit this brand-new, almost limitless territory called the internet and to milk the proverbial cash cow, companies were born and operated in the virtual sphere --- the dot-coms. Confident that they could capitalize on profits by focusing on brand awareness first and reaping the rewards later, these dot-coms expended huge sums of money in advertising. The dot-coms relied too heavily on a cash windfall through venture capitalism and initial public offerings. This marketing strategy proved to be fatal for many dot-coms as the expected profits from its customer base were not enough to salvage the huge losses incurred. The bursting of the dot-com bubble (or the dot-bomb) put a number of internet-based companies out of business. Pets.com, said to be the most popular of the dot-com bombs, launched a wide-scale advertising campaign, even shelling out $1.2 million for a thirty-second commercial during the 2000 Super Bowl. Although the pets.com puppet enjoyed a cult status, the company itself faced liquidation in the latter part of 2000.

However, not everything ends with tragedy, as the launching of Sputnik showed us. Around fifty percent of the dot-com bombs survived or were restructured and bought by more established companies operating on traditional business models: Paypal and Skype were bought by eBay; Geocities was bought by Yahoo, a fellow dot-com bomb survivor; and Network Solutions was acquired by VeriSign which further trimmed out the fat by outsourcing peripheral services to companies operating in low-cost areas such as India and the Philippines.

Eight years have passed since the 2000 dot-com bubble phenomena and internet businesses are still sprouting up like mushrooms. The top three players today, as cited by TIME Magazine’s Josh Quittner, are Google, Facebook and Apple. These three behemoths, unlike your stereotypical Starbucks-toting, Gen-Y dot-com executives, operate on different principles on how to corner their respective share of the market. Google focuses on the sharing of information and tweaks its ever-expanding services to cover everything that you will ever use the internet for; Facebook focuses on social networking and interaction by providing virtual replacements for things that you can do in the flesh --- like poking, hugging, kissing, gaming, watching videos or listening to music; and Apple markets its products to ensure that consumers will use its platform to access different applications on the internet..

The most aggressive of the three, Google seems to be plotting a full-scale domination of the internet, acquiring rivals of Facebook and encroaching on Apple’s domain by developing cellular phone-based platforms for internet services. With $ 16.5 billion in revenues, Google is a formidable opponent capable of pureeing its competitors into mushroom soup at a mouse click. With its awesome power, Google should step into the shoes of Jim Carrey as the erstwhile-God in Bruce Almighty and ask itself this question: How would you handle the most awesome responsibility in the universe?


-------------------
An exercise in SEO. Keywords: state-of-the-art, weaponry, hub, prototype, God, cow, Starbucks, Philippines, mushroom soup, Jim Carrey.

Ergo Proxy

The Visuals

woooow. Ergo Proxy visuals are sooo pretty. So episode after episode of thinking whatthehellishappening couldn't stop me from lapping up the eye candy albeit rmvb version of it. I can only imagine how prettier it would look in a different format. Apparently, the creators used a combination of 2d, 3d and other digital special effects to achieve that industrial future look.

Anyway, it's soooo pretty that it's hard to miss its flaws --- there were parts where visuals degenerate or become sloppy, where Real Mayer ends up looking like a molten voodoo doll. After watching a couple of episodes, I started noticing how the once clean-cut rendition of the characters got fuzzy around the edges, except for some close ups and select scenes. Like Vincent Law's split personality, one moment you ooh and aah and the next, you wonder if someone changed the channel; then you realize, hell, the cable's got nothing to do with it, you're watching it on real player!

The Plot

Reminiscent of this Gundam movie (Garoad and those blasted newtypes) that I watched last year, there were parts which were mostly gibberish... you were left with crickets in your brain trying to figure out what the outpourings of emo-ness were for. The series can also be faulted with raison d'etre overkill. It's like they discovered this fancy new french term and went apeshit bandying it about. Despite that, the plot does unfold. By episode 9, you'll learn what the fuss is all about. And yes, it IS about raison d'etre or Rene Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum with a smattering of Plato. Rich in philosophical ramblings, themes of the movie also employed Derrida, Lacan and Husserl, if not in name only.

The Verdict

Interestingly, Ergo Proxy, in terms of characterization and scenes, has a lot of strong symbolisms and can be best described as a factoid-lover's wet dream. For that alone, Ergo Proxy is worth watching twice. The second time around, learn to block out raison d'etre and keep a copy of Philosophy for Dummies within reach. You might just find yourself saying, "COGITO ERGO SUM!"

*edited and reposted from author's personal blog.

300

AH HOO!

It was spectacular! All those hot Spartans with eight packs...

All the swirls, slow-mo and freeze frames. The freaks, the jocks, and only ONE, yes ONE hot woman who served as pretty meat for rancid and diseased old fogies.

Although I missed the first five minutes of the movie, I was blown away, no, annihilated by the visual assault of the remaining 1 hour and 90 minutes. It was almost perfect... it almost made me cry. Now if I ever get the chance to watch it on an iMax screen, i would probably drool and froth at the mouth for 2 hours.

F#ckin beautiful. Even Xerxes, although evoking thoughts of homoeroticism and B&D, was pretty.

Of course, I admit, there was hardly any dialogue or even depth to the movie. But that's what's so perfect (or almost perfect) about it.

I love action flicks. One of my top 5 favorite movies of all time is a zombie flick (go check out 28 days later ). Which is closely followed by Resident Evil, another semi-zombie flick. Although I appreciate movies which show a greater social dimension and/or pedagogical (ugh, a law school term!) value, at the end of the day, I'd choose an entertaining, non-draining action flick crawling with hot guys over a tear-jerking, life-altering movie starring an old woman who most likely dies before the film ends. If I should find any flaw to the movie, then that would be the drawn out scene between the Queen and her son, right after she got Leonidas' necklace back, and the Queen's audience with the council. But like I said, I'm not in it for the story. I'm in it for the eye-candiness of it all.

I loved the graphic novel quality of the film. I love blood, gore and violence depicted in a manner close to artistic as possible. I loved the colors (the sepia, crimson and blue-gray tones of the stills posted above). However, there were scenes which missed the mark, if we were to talk about perfect execution of slow motion employed in action flicks. The hot babe/oracle obviously looks like she was gyrating in water. But then it IS a huge improvement in film making, and I've never seen any movie coming close to having bright cotton candy value according to my standards (The Promise, Crouching Tiger... and House of Flying Daggers, although pretty in themselves, don't come close). But then again, I haven't watched a lot of movies and I'm hardly Roger Ebert. ;)

Anyway, who the hell cares? Half nekkid men thrusting their spears out and shouting ah hoo, need I ask for more?

Madness? This is Sparta!

- King Leonidas to the Persian Emissary

*reposted

Big Brother Should Be Watching

Law and Economics Paper #8

Human behavior may be analyzed according to the economic principle of cost-benefit. In committing a crime, a perpetrator analyzes whether the benefits exceed the costs of his punishable act. Cost may be measured according to the corresponding punishment for his criminal act as well as the chances of getting caught. Most of the time, the commission of a crime does not really depend on whether or not the perpetrator knows that what he is doing is wrong.

The cost-benefit principle, like all economic theorems, operates on the premise that all beings are rational. Thus, knowing that what he will be doing is wrong, the criminal decides to commit a crime because he thinks that either he will not be caught (or at least the chances of getting caught are slim) or that his needs outweigh the ramifications of his act. This mental process of analyzing the costs and benefits can be likened to a man's conscience. What spurs a man to do wrong? Perhaps the more important question would be, what could give the potential criminal the appropriate incentive to choose not to commit a crime?

Enter punishment. Is punishment a sufficient deterrent? Most modern criminal systems view imprisonment of a criminal or the meting of penalties as forms of retribution, reformation or deterrence. Is the cost to the state or society of inflicting punishment commensurate to the degree of deterrence or reformation? Imprisonment entails certain costs to be shouldered by the State. So is the execution of a criminal. Some statistics show that the possibility of being subject to the corresponding penalty for a crime does not adequately serve as a deterrence. Neither does incarceration serve as an effective means of reforming a prisoner. In Middle Eastern countries, commission of a crime comes with immediate and drastic punishment, a thief ends up having his hands cut off no matter how high or low the value of the object he stole. However, in the Philippines, the re-imposition of the penalty of death a couple of years ago did not drastically reduce the commission of crimes punishable by death.

Perhaps the key lies in effective enforcement of the law. In Singapore, even a minor infraction of the law is dealt with --- from jaywalking to spitting on the streets, to chewing gum. A perpetrator is more likely to commit an unlawful act if he knows that the probability of being apprehended is slim. This fear of being caught would appear to be more effective than the fear of being meted the appropriate penalty. Hence, in a room full of valuables, a thief would be more likely to steal if there weren't any security cameras than he would if the room didn't have any other form of security. This is not to suggest that we would be better off having a totalitarian government where restriction consists in careful surveillance of the citizens. The deterrence of a crime must not solely be left to the conscience of the criminal. The state must take an active role in ensuring the public and in warning the criminal that any unlawful act would be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.

"He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it."
-Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Right to Free Expression vs. Intellectual Property Rights

(A Blog Reaction to the Article, "A Chinese Blogger's Tale", published in BusinessWeek on March 2, 2006.)

par•o•dy (păr'ə-dē)
n., pl. -dies.
1.
a. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
b. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.

It was written in the stars. Hu Ge, by his name alone, was destined for infamy. Although perhaps not in the same league as Weird Al Yankovic who liked to star in his own parodies, Hu Ge made quite a big splash in the vast and unchartered place called the internet. How could he have survived that feat alive without being gunned down by operatives of China’s Secret Service is a mystery. But he survived.

Without the name or the unbelievable luck, would Hu Ge still be able to hide behind the mantle of free expression or would he be hung with the noose of Intellectual Property Law?

Hu Ge is fortunate indeed. He must’ve been born on an auspicious day. There has been a growing trend in the relaxation of the fair use principle espoused by many jurisdictions. Influenced by our colonizers, we copied the fair use doctrine and incorporated it into our Intellectual Property Code* as Section 185 reproduced in part hereunder:

Sec. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. -
185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright…In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
(a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit education purposes;
(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. x x x”

Hu Ge was saved by his caustic tongue, eye for details, and artistic prowess. By the mere fact that he wanted to scoff at Chen’s The Promise, he was given a virtual license to morph something that was distasteful in the first place, to something that was actually funny. Not only was his parody a lawful exercise of free speech, it may also fall under the mantle of “criticism” which specifically is defined by law as “not an infringement of copyright.” American Jurisprudence qualifies the fair use further by categorically stating that a parody is a defense to copyright infringement and falls under the fair use principle.**

Is it good policy?

Should we import the Acuff-Rose doctrine to our sunny shores? It might have disastrous consequences. Not all jurisdictions concur with the Acuff Rose doctrine. In England, Japan and Canada, parody does not serve as a valid defense in infringement cases.***

Adopting the Acuff-Rose doctrine might result in the obsolescence of an author’s moral rights.**** It also detracts from the effectiveness of the fourth fair use principle (The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.).

Intellectual Property Rights were codified into law in order to avoid a tragedy of the commons. The Intellectual Property Code serves to strike a balance to rights that an author might keep in relation to his works as well as to diversity and incentive for the creation of new works. A parody, no matter how funny, expresses disrespect for an author’s work and must properly be made only with the author’s permission. To relax our laws drastically so as to encourage the distortion of original work would be a Hu Ge mistake.

-----------------
*Republic Act 8293
**Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 114 S. Ct. 1164 (1994).
***http://www.cll.com/articles/article.cfm?articleid=25#fn3
****Article 193, RA 8293