How technology killed (and then saved) music

by Cody Kitaura

Years from now, people may look back and say that technology both ruined music and saved it.

Over time, there have been many controversial developments in technology that have drastically changed music, and not everyone has been happy about them. Now, there have been major technological advancements that may forever change hip-hop, rock and classical music for the better.

Hip-hop
The house of hip-hop was built on a foundation of sampling, and it’s why some people have a fundamental problem with the genre. It’s debatable, but some might argue that rapping over a lick from a Motown hit takes less creativity than writing the initial song did.

Now, increasing costs mean more and more artists are abandoning sampling – or at least cutting back. Spin magazine reports that the average cost to clear a sample from its original owner is about $10,000.

"In the old days, samples were $2,500 or $1,500," the Wu-Tang Clan’s RZA told Spin.

And artists hoping to sneak a sample from a lesser-known musician without paying now have the Internet to consider.

“You'd be surprised who's out there Googling themselves," Eothen Alapatt, general manager of Stones Throw Records, told Spin.

Because of these high costs, hip-hop of the future may sound very different than the sample-based albums of the past. According to Spin, Kayne West’s latest album, 808s and Heartbreaks, features no prominent samples – his last, Graduation, used samples on 10 of its 13 tracks.

So if this trend threatens to change the fundamental basis of hip-hop, how can it be good? Because hip-hop was never supposed to be about the hook. It was supposed to be about one thing: the lyrics. Somewhere along the line, record companies took over and hip-hop became about pumping out mindless club hits. If this trend takes hold, maybe it will draw attention to what really matters: the lyrics (even if it does mean enduring some meager electronic production).

Rock
Today, it’s hard to tell who’s really playing the music heard on the radio. Advancements in recording studio technology have made it easy to stretch an off-beat drum fill, clean up a sloppy guitar riff or straighten out an off-pitch singer.

Now, the Internet is helping musicians find more ways to focus on the most pure form of music: live music.

eJamming’s AUDiiO software is a peer-to-peer network that allows musicians to use Web connections to jam online with other musicians – no matter where they are. The company emphasizes the service is focused on allowing musicians to jam with each other no matter the distance between them, but its real strength may be the revival of the jam session.

In a live jam, there is (usually) no studio trickery available to hide missteps. In the CES demo of eJamming, Smash Mouth’s Steve Harwell sings a few wrong notes as he jams online with his band mates. But that matters a lot less in a live jam, where the energy and spirit are the focus.

If eJamming takes hold, perhaps musicians and listeners will stop focusing so much on artificial studio perfection and rediscover live music.

Classical
Classical music has been confined to conservatories and stuffy concert halls, and YouTube is hoping to change that with the YouTube Symphony Orchestra. The project allows musicians to download sheet music for an original composition by Chinese composer Tan Dun, practice, and upload their video auditions.

Once musicians upload videos of their tries at the piece, judges will select semi-finalists, with the final musicians (who will perform the piece in Carnegie Hall in April 2009) to be chosen by YouTube viewers.

The LA Times’ Meghan Daum thinks letting the average YouTube viewer is too ignorant to be trusted with the final choice.

“How, after all, can an audience raised on Auto-Tune vocal enhancement and digital sampling be expected to tell one violinist's pizzicato technique from another's?” she wrote.

Daum is missing the point. If Dun wanted his piece to be performed only by the best of the best, he would have left it at the demo video recorded by the London Symphony Orchestra. In fact, he doesn’t seem too concerned about perfection. He encourages musicians to enter videos using “any instrument . . . or without any instrument,” like kitchen utensils, rocks or paper.

“Anything could be the way – could be your language to talk to the people,” he said in an interview posted to the site. “But all this sound is the language of your heart – nothing related to the technique. That’s the future of the expression of music.”

If enough people enter videos and become involved with the selection process, the YouTube Symphony Orchestra could be a revival of classical music – not in terms of technique or virtuosity, but in terms of the way people appreciate it.

[completely irrelevant photo courtesy flickr user Orange_Beard]

What Marcos Breton missed: The tech tips you'll need to get a job as a journalist

by Cody Kitaura

Marcos Bretón means well, but he probably isn't the best person to ask for job-hunting help. The Sacramento Bee columnist spoke to our column writing class last week, and answered many questions from the hungry and apprehensive journalism majors the same way: with stories from his tooth-and-nail climb up the newsroom hierarchy and his “bullish” view on newspapers.

He had a lot of good stories, but he didn't seem to have much in the way of job-hunting tips. He clearly understands that journalism is changing, but his advice was more philosophical than concrete.

As many journalism students near graduation, they may face a more uncertain future than ever before. But there are a few things they can do to better prepare themselves for jobs in the real world:

1. Don't fear the reaper

Nothing is certain in the future of news. The Christian Science Monitor's 90-year history didn't guarantee its safety, and in April the newspaper will cease daily printing and focus on its website and a new weekend edition. Its editor called it “a leap that most newspapers will have to make in the next five years.”

The theme here is not the death of newspapers. It is the evolution of newspapers into new forms – many of which probably have not yet been developed. It's important for journalists to be flexible and to not be afraid of change.

2. Video, video, video

When readers hear about an event that has a great visual aspect (a protest, a fire, exotic locales, etc), they expect to see video. It might end up being part of the average journalist's job to carry a video camera and, when necessary, abandon a traditional story in favor of a video.

In order to be competitive in today's job market, it's more important than ever for journalists to become jacks-of-all-trade – and that includes video. Learning the basics of video doesn't take much specific training, but it does take time and practice.

One of the most important things for journalists to remember is that video is just another tool. A video won't add to every kind of story, so it's just as important to develop a sense for when to shoot video (example: A video of an elevator's grand opening = boring. A video of a skateboarder = visually interesting.).

3. Learn the tools, but don't focus on them

News organizations around the country are scrambling to form accounts with the micro-blogging service Twitter – a website many organizations use to post links and connect with readers. In the process, it's easy to get so caught up in the excitement of learning about shiny new web tools that you forget what you're going to use them for. Jeremiah Owyang, a web analyst, has a perfect analogy:

“Instead of honing in on the specific technology, you should approach developing your web strategy as you would building a house. Focus on who you’re inviting to come over to your property (websites) and what is it that they want (needs). Start there.”

The moral here is that new tools like Twitter, Facebook, blogs and RSS feeds are useful, but they are the means, not the end. Journalists should familiarize themselves with these tools, but focus more on how they can be used (NYU's Jay Rosen agrees).

4. Pay attention in journalism school

None of this matters if a journalist can't piece together a decent sentence. A tech-savvy journalist with no writing skills won't be much better off than a great writer with a 19th-century tech sensibility.

Out in the real world, journalists will be competing with crowds of bloggers and citizen journalists. Journalism school teaches a vital skill many of them lack – the ability to analyze.

As multitudes of smaller outlets compete for readers, it's possible that the role of newspapers will change to focus on more long-term, team-based stories that probe deeply into government policies or environmental issues.

In order to stand out, it's important for journalists to have a strong foundation in these skills.



These are just a few basic tips to help prepare journalists for the real world, but the most important thing to remember is that no one has all the answers. No one can predict what news organizations will look like in five or 10 years – but that doesn't mean we can't all be a little more prepared for that future.

[photo courtesy Flickr user from a second story.]

[disclaimer: I am not in the business of hiring journalists. These are just my personal opinions on what employers will probably be looking for in the near future. I don't have all the answers. If I did, I'd write a book and get rich.]

Obama's YouTube address misses the entire point of YouTube

by Cody Kitaura

The next Presidency has a face, but it isn't listening to you.

On Saturday, President-elect Barack Obama delivered the first of what will become weekly addresses – on YouTube. His first 3 ½ minute address touched on the grim future of the economy and urged Congress to take quick action to kickstart it.

Using YouTube to deliver weekly addresses like this is a great step forward. More people are likely to watch these addresses if they're sitting on the front page of YouTube – a site they likely already visit – rather than on that dusty, boring other site: WhiteHouse.gov.

But Obama's first address is missing out on the most important feature of YouTube: interaction. Comments and ratings are not allowed on the video, and video responses cannot be posted. By barring interaction with his addresses, Obama is using YouTube more like a buzzword rather than a new type of openness.

Members of his “transition team” have been treating policies like the weekly YouTube addresses as great leaps forward in transparency, under the assumption that when people hear earnest, frequent messages from the government, they will trust it more.

Well, it worked for FDR.

The last time a president made such a radical shift in the way he communicated with the public was during the first term of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he began a series of informal evening radio addresses – the fireside chats.

Obama's promised weekly addresses have already drawn many comparisons to Roosevelt's, and with good reason. The first of Roosevelt's fireside chats started, “I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking . . .”

That was 1933, and the country was buried in economic turmoil. Now, as the country again faces deep economic problems, Obama is hoping to use a similar approach to communicate with the public, but there's a problem – Obama is using a 1933 approach to a 2008 medium.

Roosevelt's fireside chats were over the radio. Radios only work one way. Obama's weekly addresses will be broadcast around the world via YouTube. YouTube is a social media website – it is at its best when videos are accompanied by thoughtful comments and intelligent response videos.

But wait – that's not the YouTube you or I know. The real-world YouTube is full of trolls, comments begging for viewers to take a peek at someone else's video, and responses luring viewers to unrelated videos with screenshots of plump, barely covered breasts.

Maybe there just aren't enough people in the “transition team” to filter out all the noise created by the more juvenile members of YouTube. Maybe Obama doesn't want his weekly addresses to be bombarded with video responses that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. That's only natural, right?

Well, there's only one way to find out – and so far, the team behind Change.gov seems willing to dip its toe into the waters of new media, but it's not ready for the full plunge into – (gasp!) – allowing comments.

Obama has always been a master of controlling his message and not allowing too much open conversation, according to Chris Parsons, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. He told NPR that a perfect example of this was Obama's carefully prepared response to the fiery remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"Part of the power of it, I think, was that he hadn't spoken to that issue over and over again, every time a reporter showed up with a microphone," Parsons told NPR. "He saved it for a moment where he could craft it and tell it in his way, without being interrupted or filtered."

Obama is a powerful orator, and waiting for the right moment to speak allows his words to have maximum effect on all of us. But without embracing the true strengths of Web 2.0 technologies and encouraging open dialogue, Obama is simply continuing age-old strategies for delivering a message down a one-way pipeline.

Mr. President-elect, we need dialogue. It's 2008 – we don't need a 1933 message in HD. We need a message that will spur conversation and debate – the kinds of debate that should be shaping your policies to begin with.

High-megapixel camera phones won't make you a better photographer

by Cody Kitaura

The megapixel war is on, but it's not where you might expect it – among high-end camera phones.

With the 8-megapixel phones slowly filtering onto the scene, cell phone manufacturers are trying to do for photography what the iPod did for music: take it everywhere, just in a slightly lower-quality package.

It's nothing consumers haven't done before. It used to be that if someone wanted to listen to music on the go, he or she had to lug around a pile of extra cassettes or CDs. Then came the iPod: Thousands of songs could be stored on a single device that would fit in your pocket. The quality wasn't great, but no one seemed to mind. In fact, compressed, so-so-quality mp3 files and tiny, white earbuds became the norm. Music didn't have to sound good anymore – it was convenient.

Music has become simply a backdrop for our daily lives, and a dropoff in sound quality has become an acceptable tradeoff for convenience.

Now cell phone manufacturers are trying to do the same thing: make consumers accept decent quality snapshots in exchange for great portability.

Phones with 8-megapixel cameras are already in the works from LG, Samsung and Sony Ericsson, and many have advanced features like Xenon flashes, manual ISO adjustment and face-detection – all of which would have been completely unheard-of in a phone just a year or two ago.

Last week, an ad campaign set to run in men's magazine FHM for the Sony Ericsson C905 phone was revealed. It's the standard “busty woman holding the phone being advertised” photo, but with a catch: The full-page photo was shot using the camera phone being displayed in the ad.

British website Marketing Week reports that Sony Ericsson is claiming this as the first-ever ad shot with a cell-phone camera, and writes, “It aims to show that the C905's camera is as good as an ordinary digital camera.”

The 8.1 megapixel camera crammed into the C905 is certainly a step in the right direction, but don't expect to replicate the photo in this ad with every shot. Marketing Week also explains, “Bauer Media, the publisher of FHM, says it developed the idea of . . . of testing the camera for a photography shoot, and bought in a fashion photographer to take the pictures.”

Just because a camera (or a camera phone, for that matter) has a lot of megapixels, it doesn't mean it will make you a better photographer. The photo in this ad was illuminated by studio lights that probably cost more than the phone itself, and it was shot by a professional photographer who likely spent hours retouching it in Photoshop afterward.

A camera phone does not encourage this type of thoughtful approach to photos at all. It screams to hurry up and take the picture so you can get back to calling or texting your friends, surfing the web or checking your e-mail. With so many other features beckoning for your attention, it seems unlikely that anyone will bother to take the time to carefully frame each shot, consider shadows, or any of the other things professional photographers do each time they snap a photo.

So if the phones from LG, Samsung and Sony Ericsson are any indication, more megapixels are the future of cell phones. Consumers seem to love the idea of “one device to rule them all,” as shown by the explosive popularity of the king of all-in-one, Apple's iPhone, but what they're really getting may be compromised versions of each device in exchange for convenience. If we don't want to lose our appreciation for quality in photography like we have with music, we can't let quick, decent-quality snapshots from camera phones replace the thoughtful process allowed by high-quality, dedicated cameras.

[camera phone picture courtesy Flickr user Travallai]

SanDisk's slotMusic is almost perfect for my mom

by Cody Kitaura

My mom has no idea how to use an iPod. She was overjoyed when I passed down my white iPod Shuffle to her a couple years ago when I upgraded, but she had no clue how it worked.

I painstakingly went over the process with her several times, showing her the nuances of Apple's iTunes software as she took careful notes.

A few days later, she asked me to explain it again. And again. And again.

What my mom needs is an mp3 player without the complicated software, downloads and playlist-syncing. Something she can just pick up, hit play, and take with her out into the garden.

Something like SanDisk's new slotMusic Player – a simple, no-frills mp3 player that plays high-quality mp3s from micro-SD cards.

There's only one problem: SanDisk isn't trying to sell slotMusic to my mom. It's trying to sell it to me.

The slotMusic system eliminates mp3 downloads and the need for physical CDs by selling music pre-loaded onto 1 GB micro-SD cards, like the ones already found in many cell phones. These cards are then loaded into SanDisk's own player, released earlier this month.

The player is a small, sleek brick about the size of a pack of gum with no LCD screen and only minimal controls. Just pop in the music and go. No confusion over which bitrate to choose when ripping mp3s from CDs. No wrangling with big-brother DRM technology found in downloads from iTunes and other online music stores.

As an added bonus, the cards are also playable by many cell phones, and can be read by any computer using the included USB adapter (or many SD card readers). The SanDisk slotMusic system has the benefit of enjoying a huge pre-existing infrastructure of compatible devices, but there are two problems: the price, and the music.

Simply put, no one under 30 years old will buy a SanDisk slotMusic player or card. Although the player is a reasonable $19.99 (and, of course, isn't needed if you're planning on listening with your cell phone), the cards retail for $14.99 each – $5 more than an album from most online sources, including mp3 goliath iTunes.

SanDisk would be quick to remind skeptics that extra $5 will also get them a 1 GB micro-SD card, which later could be packed with videos, pictures, documents, as well as much more than one album's worth of music.

But $5 more (currently $21.59 for SanDisk's version) will get a card with twice the capacity, which would make much more sense in a cell phone, especially considering most phones' memory cards are surprisingly difficult to swap.

But back to my mom. This all sounds like something that would be perfect for her, right?

Well, as long as she's into Usher, Young Jeezy or Nelly, sure.

The slotMusic library launched with about 30 different albums (11 were in stock recently at the Arden Way Best Buy), and while my mom might enjoy Elvis' “30 No. 1 Hits” (which I think my dad already owns on CD) or maybe even ABBA's “Gold” or Jimmy Buffet's “Songs You Know By Heart,” I doubt she'd be too interested in the latest offerings from the Pussycat Dolls, Rise Against or Rihanna.

Since it seems unlikely that young mp3-aficionados would suddenly flock to again buying music in a physical form, SanDisk's best chance at success will come from its older, less-tech-savvy customer base. The absence of albums these people would buy is a huge misstep, but it's still early in the life of slotMusic.

SanDisk's website brags, “The first slotMusic cards are here. Check back soon to order your favorites.”

Let's just hope they talk to somebody's mom before they finalize their next wave of releases.

Ultra-cheap netbooks won't go away when the economy recovers

by Cody Kitaura

As the global financial crisis worsens, people are cutting back wherever they can – cheaper food, less driving, and, apparently, smaller, cheaper computers.

Meet the netbook – an emerging type of ultra-small, ultra-cheap and underpowered laptop computer that's gaining popularity all around the world. They're great for surfing the web, and that's about it.

Analysts say amid the shrinking paychecks and tightening credit being felt around the world, consumers are being drawn to netbooks.

The UK's Telegraph newspaper writes that netbook sales are “helping the sector remain buoyant despite (a) global financial crisis.”

While it seems logical to assume that economically pained consumers would be drawn to these ultra-cheap machines for their basic surfing needs, some say it's unclear whether people actually want computers like this, or if they just happen to have the right price tag.

CNET writer Erica Ogg says it's too early to tell:

“Perhaps because of consumers' economic worries, a lot of sub-$500 computers sold in the third quarter. Whether it's a new worldwide netbook market that's being created, or they're cannibalizing cheap laptops, isn't quite clear yet, according to Gartner PC analyst Mika Kitagawa.”

But history says the U.S. economy will eventually recover. When it does and we all have a little more money to spend on our computers, will these tiny surfing machines still sell?

In a word, yes. In the short time netbooks have been around, they've already stormed onto the market and filled several key niches that will ensure their longevity.

Like with any new technology, as soon as netbooks began to appear, there was a frantic race to see who could be the first to crack open his or her cutesy, underpowered rig and beef it up with extra features.

The current crop of modded netbooks boast increased storage space, custom touchscreens, bluetooth and GPS. Some of these have already turned into standard features on some netbooks, but for now, the challenge of cramming the guts of a USB GPS dongle into the already-crowded innards of an ASUS netbook is more about the thrill of the hack than a practical way to add features.

This level of tinkering is inherent in the very definition of a netbook: cheap and underpowered. If they were expensive and well-equipped, there would be nothing left to cram inside, and they might be too expensive to risk frying on the operating table.

But experienced hackers and modders aren't the only ones buying netbooks.

Netbooks also represent an affordable, practical way to spread technology to the developing nations of the world. In fact, one of the original catalysts for the netbook movement was One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a sub-$100, durable laptop for educating children in the world's poorest nations.

Brad Linder, of netbook-portal Liliputer.com, writes:

“While adoption of the (One Laptop Per Child's) XO Laptop has been a bit slower than expectations, and the price has risen well above $100 (but still below $200), (founder Nicholas) Negroponte and his group demonstrated that you could make a low-cost laptop that is capable of performing many of the most common computing tasks. It could be portable, lightweight, durable, and low-power, yet still surf the web, handle Office documents, and even let you write your own programs.”

Now that the race to develop the best ultra-cheap, ultra-small laptop is between multi-national corporations with deep pockets and not just charities, developments should come faster. Charitable organizations will be able to piggyback off the companies' innovation and succeed in spreading technology to the world's developing nations.

These purchases will only fuel the netbook market more, as companies battle to have a hand in netbooks that will be sold to entire nations at once.

Even if the current exploding netbook market is the result of the crumbling economy, sales of netbooks will not fall when the economy recovers. When American consumers eventually regain their purchasing power, netbooks will still make sense – but for different reasons.

[photo courtesy Flickr user whurley]

---

FAQ

What is a netbook?

A netbook is like a mini laptop computer. Its screen is 10 inches or smaller, it has no disc drive, its processor speed is much slower than most laptops, and many include solid-state, flash-based storage instead of conventional hard disc drives (although netbooks with conventional hard drives up to 160 GB are available).

Why would anyone want such a slow computer?

Netbooks aren't made for activities that require beefy processors and huge amounts of RAM. They're made for light-duty functions like surfing the web or maybe some typing.

The benefits of the underpowered specs include:

• increased battery life (sometimes up to 7 or 8 hours on a single charge)
  
• lower weight, portability (most netbooks weigh in around 2 pounds)
• increased durability (solid-state drives are more resistant to drops and shakes)

How much do they cost?

Most netbooks are around $400, although some are more expensive.

Who makes them?

Right now, the most popular netbooks are made by ASUS and Acer, the two pioneers in the market. Dell and HP also offer netbooks, as do tons of smaller companies none of us have probably ever heard of.

GPS should evolve into a helpful tool, not an overbearing leash

by Cody Kitaura

Our makeshift search party lay spread around the room, the exhausted four of us sprawled across the couches. The sun was barely up, and we had found our missing friend after about an hour of looking. Or, rather, he had found us.

“Hey, babe,” he had said casually as he called his girlfriend and said he was ready to come home. She was, understandably, less calm.

She had been crying, sure that this was his way of breaking up with her – leaving in the middle of the night, leaving behind his two dogs and everything he had brought with him to the party that night.

His explanation: He had passed out in the field of a nearby elementary school during a late-night drunken walk.

His answer had the same calm demeanor he always carried, but he didn't look as cold as I imagined someone who had just spent a few hours lying in a field in a thin white sweatshirt and painter's hat would. I didn't bother to question his explanation, but his girlfriend, curled up and arms crossed, seemed to feel differently.

Perhaps she still carried the same suspicion she had woken me up with at about 3 a.m. – that he was with another girl. I had struggled to calm her with my groggy words, my thoughts slurred by exhaustion. I had told her how I saw him leave after giving directions to the house to someone over the phone. She had cried onto my shoulder, pouring out a thousand impossible questions and dialing his cell phone repeatedly.

As I wondered if we would ever know the truth behind what he had really done that night, a friend who had driven out from Downtown to help in the search offered a revelation as he poked at his new cell phone.

“If we all had iPhones, we could link them together and see where we all were on a map.”

Of course, if the missing friend's story was true, a GPS tether of some kind would have helped us find him. But if his girlfriend's hunch was right and he hadn't wanted to be found, he would have just turned off the GPS device and we'd have been no better off.

But we shouldn't really need GPS devices or other surreptitious technology to help us hunt down our friends and check their stories. We should be able to trust their explanations. Technology can create great shortcuts and safety nets for rare situations like this, but is it really an area of our lives we want constantly mapped and monitored?

Do we want the role of technology in our lives to be more George Jetson or George Orwell? Do we want evolving tech like GPS to eventually end up as a helpful tool used occasionally when we get lost, or do we want it end up as a heavy-handed way of keeping tabs on our friends, family and employees?

Companies like T-Trac will allow you to track the movements of a car in real-time for about $50 a month. Since technology like this is useless if the person being tracked knows about it, the only way to use it properly is to hide the tracking bug, James-Bond-style.

GPS technology is great, and is useful for all kinds of navigational help, but as technology continues to evolve we'll continue to be faced with the choice of just how wired we want our daily lives to be. Will we live in a society based on trust and integrity, or will we have to plant GPS tracking devices in the clothing of our significant others (as Vanessa explains) to truly determine whether they spent the night lying in a field or lying in the arms of another lover?



(note from Cody): Here's an awesome video example of tech invading places it doesn't belong. I wanted to use it in this column but couldn't work it in:

In it for the lulz: The only way to stop trolls

by Cody Kitaura

On Friday, a somber Oprah Winfrey addressed her audience. “Let me read you something that was posted on our message boards from someone who claims to be a member of a known pedophile network,” she said with a careful, measured pace.

“It doesn't forgive. It does not forget. This group has over 9,000 penises, and they're all raping children.” She paused, took a breath, and continued with her warning.

She had taken the bait. She had seen a sarcastic troll's post on her forum and thought it was legitimate. The video shot to the top of Digg.com as the Internet rejoiced.


These users, who exploit others just for laughs, are called trolls. They cruise the Internet, dragging their bait like troublemaking fishermen waiting for the naïve to bite. When someone does, the trolls will exploit them as much as possible, hoping to earn some lulz – laughs at someone else's expense, no matter how cruel.


Publicity like a successful troll of Winfrey only encourages more troublemaking trolls, like the hacker who last week gained access to GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account with only the help of Google and a few minutes of research.

There's only one true way to stop trolls – ignore them. Trolls often unleash relentless harassment and death threats upon victims, but it's all empty talk in hopes of earning a sensationalist response – like the Fox affiliate report calling them “hackers on steroids.”

The person who cleverly gained access to Palin's e-mail wasn't an expert hacker trying to exploit her family or steal anyone's identity. He claims he was looking for any evidence that she had been inappropriately using her personal Yahoo! e-mail account for government business, and when nothing was to be found, he decided to hand out the password and let some Internet hooligans have some fun with it.



The trolls rejoiced. Photos of Palin's family were posted, and prank calls were made to 17-year-old Bristol Palin's cell phone.

Trolls don't target public figures exclusively. When seventh-grader Mitchell Henderson committed suicide in 2006, trolls joked that it was because he lost his iPod, a fact he had noted on his MySpace page. When friends remembering Henderson called him “an hero,” the trolls set to work creating mountains of mocking animations, videos and pictures; they also prank-called Henderson's parents for a year and a half, claiming to be his ghost.

“They’d say, ‘Hi, this is Mitchell, I’m at the cemetery.’ ‘Hi, I’ve got Mitchell’s iPod.’ ‘Hi, I’m Mitchell’s ghost, the front door is locked. Can you come down and let me in?’ ” Mitchell’s father, Mark Henderson, told the New York Times.

Trolls congregate in various online forums, such as a notorious section of 4Chan.org called /b/. Posts are littered with racial slurs, nude photos and occasional child pornography. Almost all posts on the board are signed “Anonymous.”


Many trolls, including the Palin “hacker,” claim an allegiance to a group called Anonymous. The group claims many of its exploits are for a noble purpose – with a no-nonsense, anarchist-style approach. The flashing images Anonymous members posted on an epilepsy forum, causing seizures? A lesson in taking web-surfing precautions (and also an attack that divided trolls, some saying it went too far). The rampant racial slurs? A lesson in “sticks and stones.” A commenter on Wired.com explained “through satirizing these terms they lose their power.”

The solution to trolls is similar: ignore them and they lose their power. If we learn to be more wary of what we read online, and if we let the trolls' teases and empty threats roll off our backs, they'll run out of options.

The reality is that it's unrealistic to expect our society to readily brush off blatantly insensitive attacks and words that have hurt so many for so long. But it's also reality that it's unrealistic to try to stop trolls like the members of Anonymous. The more publicity the group gets, the more juvenile its attacks will become, and the more its numbers will swell. The publicity from some of its exploits is already causing growing pains within the ranks of the trolls. Veteran posters in /b/ and other forums bemoan the “newfags” – Anonymous' bandwagoners and rookies that have flooded the boards, wanting in on the fun.

Sure, there are dangerous hackers on the Internet – but the majority of trolls are just in it for the juvenile troublemaking, just like the bullies who teased the skinny kid in grade school. The solution to trolls is the same as the solution to the bullies – ignore them and eventually they'll get bored and play another game.

Let's embrace the technosexuals

by Cody Kitaura


The Japanese have a 4-foot-3-inch robot who can conduct an orchestra, and we have a lawn mower.

They have silicone-skinned “Actroids,” life-like robots whose chests rise and fall as if they were breathing, and who can hold a conversation with a human. And we have a hockey-puck-shaped vacuum cleaner.

They have an agile robot who can play the violin, and we … well, you get the idea.

The Japanese, the world's leaders in robots (more than half of the robots in the world reside in the island nation), have a much different role in mind for their mechanical creations. They want them to provide care and companionship for the nation's rapidly aging population, while here in the United States we want robots to clean our houses and check our sewer pipes for leaks.

In the technology-embracing East, robots conjure up warm memories of animated heroes and friendly companions. Here, they remind us of Hollywood's visions of once-loyal servants on a rampage and time-traveling killing machines.

So we tend to shy away from anything besides utilitarian hunks of metal and plastic – it's not that the United States couldn't make a violin-playing, conversation-holding robot – it's that we're afraid to.

“Deep in its heart, America finds the idea of technology with personalities to be ... spooky,” Asian culture columnist Jeff Yang wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005. “After all, the notion of objects with minds of their own runs counter to deeply ingrained Judeo-Christian values – creating devices that can move and think without human intervention veers a little too close to playing God.”

There is, however, a movement that feels otherwise.

All across the Internet, there are groups of people who dream about the perfect sexual encounter with a robot. Some fantasize about being transformed into cyborgs, some digitally manipulate images of celebrities to add in exposed circuitry and wiring, and some hunt carefully for robotic references and appearances in movies and television.

These “technosexuals” – members of the robot fetish community – first began to gather online in the newsgroup alt.sex.fetish.robots. The community later became known as ASFR in homage to the original group. They congregate online to share stories and finds, and to discuss preferences.

Here in the land of political correctness, we're taught not to have knee-jerk reactions to people who might be a little different. But it's likely that most technosexual conversation wouldn't exactly fit in around the water cooler; the robot fetish is still relatively unknown, and most fetishes are laughed off or ridiculed – in public, at least. So technosexuals keep to themselves.

“The common joke among Technos is that each and every last one of them at one point thought they were the ‘only one,’ ” technosexual expert Edward Gore writes.

But if we want true American robots to compete with the incredible innovations from the Land of the Rising Sun, we will have to embrace our country's most powerful technology incubator: the sex industry. By embracing and not shunning technosexuals, sex can do for robotics what it did for home video, streaming online video and pay-per-view TV: drive innovation.

Author and artificial intelligence expert David Levy agrees.

“When we create robots that are specifically invented with sexuality in mind, the level of interest and the desire to use them will, I believe, be beyond the wildest dreams of product designers and manufacturers,” he told About.com in 2007.

“I think that sexuality will be far more than an early testing ground for robots,” he said. “It will not only be the most popular use of robots amongst adults, it will also create huge social change.”

The demand is already there. Sex doll manufacturer Matt McMullen is experimenting with adding motorized, thrusting hips to his high-end RealDolls, which retail at prices starting at $6,500 and feature realistic looks and silicone skin.

There's no telling what innovations could come out of openly embracing technosexuals and allowing robot fetishes to go mainstream. More capable, smarter and more realistic robots could not only find uses in the bedroom, but in security, companionship, healthcare and other places Hollywood (or Japan) hasn't even imagined yet.

So let's embrace the technosexuals. I need a robot to write columns for me, and it's not going to invent itself.