revisiting this semester...

While there are many things I've learned in this class this semester, one of the topics I find most surprising are RFID tags. I was familiar with this technology in stores as a means to discourage theft as well as way to protect valuables if lost or stolen (the technology has been used in automobiles and pets to track in case of theft). I was unfamiliar with the frightening prospects RFID technology provides.

Once again RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tags can be placed anywhere and carry a diversity of information. While in the past the technology has been utilized to somewhat harmless extensions, the future of how RFID tags is unclear. They could be used as a way to increase convenience for consumers and travelers. If everyone wore an RFID tag somewhere on/in their person their lives could be slightly quicker and personalized. Somewhat like the scene in "Minority Report" when consumers have news, advertising, communication and travel catered to them as they live out their routine, RFID tags promise this lifestyle. On the other hand, unconsciously transmitting your personal information to the world might not be as gloriously simple as many expect. What I found most disturbing during my research and contemplation on RFID tags was that anyone wearing an RFID tag would be susceptible to personal invasions of privacy at almost any time. Travelers might be warranted to less travel delays due to red tape and customs. However, techno-savvy thieves would be able to easily retrieve personal information such as addresses, phone and social security numbers simply by passing and scanning someone with an RFID tag.

Of the many interesting things I've learned in this class (and I mean that with absolute sincerity), RFID technology is by far one of the most interesting. I hope I will be techno-savvy enough to be informed on RFID developments.

The Futurism of Technology...

In a rapidly changing age, it is difficult to focus on anything but the immediate future. My generation is arguably the first to be totally immersed by technology. Literate in the vernacular of personal computing we are more than previous generations more comfortable with changing technologies. Following this pattern, you can expect that subsequent generations will be even more technology and media savvy and will expect their technology to keep up with them: make their lives more comfortable and convenience, which is after all what well made technology should do. Because we have grown up expecting prompt technological growth, it is of no surprise to me that Bill Joy mentions in his article "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," that many major technology changes will be subtle and incremental, that it will not be jarring to us. I discuss futurism, I agree more with Ray Kurzweil's argument about 'The Singularity,' roughly that technology will only encourage longer life spans, encourage creativity and greater ease of life for most people.

While examining technology advances of the past, I am reaffirmed that I should not fear technology, but rather fear what we may do with technology. The practicality of the steam engine provided thousands with jobs world-wide and for the first time in history made transcontinental travel relatively easy and convenient. Technology that does what it should, serve humanity in the best possible way, making our lives easier. However, you should also examine innovation for war's sake. What might these upcoming advances in technology hold for humanity's ability to hurt? While I am a big fan of science fiction, and fear the opportunity for imposing technological integration/alteration, such as the borg in the 'Star Trek' universe. I must also persist to believe that some of humanity will endure to seek justice and an ethical way of life, much like the crew of the Enterprise. We subsequently should not fear technology (as rapid as those advances may be), we should only fear what we may do with technology.

Questioning the Turing Test

I think the Turing Test is NOT a reliable way to test intelligence, as intelligence is so much more than being able to respond to what someone is saying. As I learned when I was working with Python, it is easy to program a computer to respond to a set of commands. While it is impressive that some contemporary programs are able to adapt to different conversational prompts, the ability to communicate exclusively does not dictate how we measure intelligence. Several factors must be taken into consideration.

What classifies intelligence? I think the primary litmus test must be considering what makes humans intelligent. What makes us superior to animals? Besides the presence of opposable thumbs, the ability to create makes us intellectually superior to most animals. There will always be arguments to this assertion (like that elephant who paints). However, en masse, most animals have not proven the ability to create in the same way humans have. In addition, I believe some animals have displayed a less intellectual level of creativity and imagination. For example, I have four large dogs at home in Arizona. If you watch any of them sleep, you can see them act out their dreams: paws twitch, snouts growl and whimper, etc. As far as I know, no artificial intelligence has demonstrated an ability to create, dream, etc, an essential part of measuring intelligence in my opinion.

There is also something to be said for emotional intelligence. Sure the Turing Test measures a program's ability to respond and communicate with other humans, but can these programs emote? You could argue that there are plenty of bachelor's that cannot emote so surely this cannot be a measurement of intelligence. However all of humanity has emotional potential, the diversity of experiences in our lives is what determines how we maximize this potential. Computer programs on the other hand, do not have this kind of potential and therefore do not have emotional intelligence. Both emotional and creative intelligence must be acknowledged in determine what programs do or do not have intelligence.

Mash-Ups Favoritos

Internet mash-ups take the most innovative applications on the Internet and combine them into one surprising and new service. www.programmableweb.com features thousands of such websites.

One of my favorite Internet mash-ups is weatherbonk.com. It features API's from almost a dozen websites including information from Google Maps and Google AdWords, several Yahoo applications including Yahoo Traffic, NASA, and the NOAA Weather Service. Not only is the convenient and highly visual weather information relevant and interesting, allowing me to instantly to check the regional weather of San Francisco, my home state: Arizona, the East Coast and abroad, but it provides links and illustrates other information as well. I can easily define what web cams I want to use to report my weather service and by clicking on one tag I can view a detailed 7 - day weather.com report. Check out the link here: http://www.weatherbonk.com/weather/index.jsp .

Another cool site is liveplasma.com. While it only uses information from Amazon E-Commerce, it vividly illustrates a web of commerce. For example, if I type in my favorite band: No Doubt a large pink orb appears with three golden circles appear around the No Doubt orb to signify relevance. An intricate and colorful web of orbs representing related artists and bands with varying sizes appears next. The user is able to click on any orb to learn more about that artist or band, and a column on the left provides a direct link to that item's page at the Amazon.com store. You can also search by movie title, actor, director, and country. I like this website because it is a highly visual way to shop. It take a conventional experience and makes it feel new and cutting-edge. Check out the link here: http://www.liveplasma.com/ .

One of my favorite Internet Mash-Ups I discovered recently is called "If I dig a very deep hole, where do I stop?" Which of course proves to answer that age-old question. As it turns out, digging a hole through the earth's core doesn't quite take me to China. The website uses Google Maps technology to map the world. By clicking on your point of origin on the world map, the site calculates where a direct hole would emerge. A hole in my family's backyard in Paradise Valley, Arizona leads my to somewhere off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. I like the website because it's simple and illustrates an answer to a fascinating and fun question. Check out the link here: http://map.pequenopolis.com/ .

A User-Friendly Guide to File-Sharing...

The line between what is and is not ethical in regards to file sharing is not clear. I believe there are very few instances that can justify stealing or sharing music online because it is never necessary. It is easy to argue for stealing food or water if someone can’t afford to feed themselves or their family. It is an entirely different story however to steal music you never have the intention of actually buying.

Downloading a song you don't own from a major label artist.

I assume this means illegally downloading (as in not paying for the song via a service like itunes or napster). This is wrong and should be illegal. An artist (and even the chain of people who actually profit from their work) should be paid for their work. While it may seem impractical to some people to support everyone associated with one song or album despite having nothing to do with the music’s creative process, these people still have some work invested in this product. I totally support artist-user web access sites, or collectively shared access sites like the one suggested by the EFF.

Downloading a song you don't own from a struggling independent artist.

The same argument applies here, except now illegally downloading from independent artists seems more offensive because the fact that they support themselves is more transparent.

Downloading another copy of a song you already own.

I’m not sure exactly why someone would download another copy of a song they already own, however, if they have bought the song once, they should not need to buy it again. I consider digital music like a license, once you buy an album or song you have purchased the right to do with it what you see fit, within reason. This doesn’t entitle you to make multiple copies of a song to hand out, however, if you’re using a song or album for your own consumption in it’s purest form, then you should have every right to do that. There is something to be said then for supporting file-sharing networks that normally cater to illegally downloaded music in this situation. This should be avoided. If possible, just burn the CD or copy the digital files you already have.

Shoplifting a CD from a store.

This is totally illegal and inappropriate.

Downloading a song to "try it out" - if you like it enough, you'll buy the CD.

While I want to say this is acceptable, the easy of use to preview most songs online (via artist websites, last.fm, fan sites, and legal music downloading sites) doesn’t warrant illegal downloading in this situation.

Copying a CD from a friend.

Its one thing if a copied CD is a gift (although still probably not ethical), but to ask and copy a CD from a friend probably isn’t ethical. I would and have done this, but that doesn’t make it right.

Making your music available online to share with a couple of friends.

I am completely in support of sharing music, because unless you’re stealing the music, it is still somewhat remote and thus encourages legal music downloads to ensure portable music. You need to be on the same network as someone else, ie: you both need to be connected, unless you’re traveling together, you’re stuck in one physical space. Sharing music is a great way to broaden your musical paradigm. I have definitely listened to someone else’s music over a network and been motivate to pursue or purchase an artist’s music.

Making your music publicly available on the Internet, such as through KazAa or Limewire.

This I do not do and cannot agree with if it is encouraging massive illegal downloading. It’s one thing if you want to share original audio you created. However, you essentially bought the license, that doesn’t give you the right to distribute. If you want to share music with a friend who is not connected to the same network, you should find alternatives, or send them a link to the artist’s webpage.

the diversity of net neutrality

The fundamental issue underlying the net neutrality debate is the potential to privatize or eliminate the neutrality (free right to access the internet). If net neutrality is eliminated, several powerful internet service providers will be able to determine who has access to what. These ISP’s would have the potential to slow down service, or censor select emails and websites all together. Opponents of net neutrality claim that the privatization of the internet will encourage competition.

The Savetheinternet.com Coalition and the ACLU are two organizations that are openly in favor of net neutrality. The Savetheinternet.com Coalition claims that they are “made up of groups from across the political spectrum that have banded together to save the First Amendment of the Internet: network neutrality. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts.” On their website they have articles, a regularly updated blog, progress updates and ways for citizens to get involved in preserving the neutrality of the internet. Their stance is in support of the ‘the internet’s First Amendment,’ which they claim allows anyone to have equal access to the internet. As for the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), they are known for publicizing and lobbying on behalf of Americans’ civil liberties on many issues. In an article on cnet’s news.com, Caroline Fredrickson, the Director of the ACLU argues that: “the result [of privatizing the internet] is that fewer and fewer companies will have more and more control over what consumers see and do on the Internet. If the consumer does not like the services provided by his ISP, he or she will essentially have two choices: Take it or leave it.” Several other significant voices have emerged in favor of the net neutrality including Microsoft, MoveOn.org, in addition to several other media and consumer advocate groups.

On the other hand, several figures have emerged against net neutrality, including handsoff.org, and various government and corporate representatives including Richard Notebaert, CEO of Qwest Communications. Handsoff.org claims that “Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users united together in the belief that the Net's phenomenal growth over the past decade stems from the ability of entrepreneurs to expand consumer choices and opportunities without worrying about government regulation.” However, many of the member organizations sponsoring the organization happen to be the corporations and ISP’s that a have much to gain be the privatization of the internet including AT&T and Bell South. When I write ‘privatizing the internet’ what I mean is the introduction of a tiered internet access system by the major ISP’s. Notebaert publicly stated at the Voice on The Net Conference in San Jose last March that “he believes that network operators should have the option to charge content providers, such as Google or Amazon, higher rates for providing premium service over the Qwest network” (Marguerite Reardon for cnet’s news.com, http://news.com.com/Qwest+CEO+supports+tiered+Internet/2100-1034_3-6050109.html?tag=nl). As mentioned earlier, opponents of the neutrality of the internet claim that the way to ensure the healthy growth of the internet in America is to deregulate it and implement a more capitalist system to access the internet.

RFID Technology: A User-Friendly Guide to our next loss of privacy...

There is much controversy lately in regards to technology and privacy. The line between safety & convenience and privacy is becoming even blurrier because in many respects, it is too early to tell which technology is safe and which isn't. The discussion in regards to RFID technology is just heating up. RFID stands for radio frequency identification. Declan McCullagh writes on news.com: "RFID tags are miniscule microchips, which already have shrunk to half the size of a grain of sand. They listen for a radio query and respond by transmitting their unique ID code. Most RFID tags have no batteries: They use the power from the initial radio signal to transmit their response." Basically, these identification tags can be placed in or on just about anything and can be scanned to provide the scanner a variety of information. This information can be as simple as the price of an item about to be purchased in a department store, or as pertinent as the name, address, phone number, birthplace, and social security number from someone's passport. The technology promises a greater ease of use for consumers. However, it also allows for an even greater potential breach of privacy.

The benefits to consumers are numerous. Adopting RFID technology (although RFID tags are currently active in the marketplace in several forms) encourages a greater ease of use to consumers in several ways. First, adopting RFID tags to products consumers buy frequently could expedite the entire consumer process from keeping and tracking inventory to providing consumers the opportunity to check themselves out independently. In addition, if RFID tags were adopted in mass, such a practice could potentially decrease theft dramatically. Theft would decrease because RFID tags allows us to track whatever it is attached to. This is beneficial outside of the consumer world as well. The ability to easily track an item or being is a great opportunity to ensure the safety of people and animals. Applying an RFID tag to a pet, elderly person, child, or hospital patient ensures that if they are ever lost or kidnapped, locating them would be easy. My mother recently bought a puppy that came with a sensitive RFID tag already implanted beneath her skin. While it is reassuring to know that if she ever ran away we would be able to find her, the prospect of installing a microchip beneath the skin of an animal to be easily tracked is unnerving.

Which raises one of my biggest concerns with RFID technology. Call me old fashioned, progression-averse...whatever you may desire, but the ability to easily access information or locate a being make me uncomfortable. While I definitely appreciate the opportunity to reclaim my mother's lost puppy if need be, what if that was me? What happened to the luxury of anonymity? Privacy is a commodity that is increasingly less accessibly by the powers that be, ie: media saturation (online communities in particular) as well as government. It appears that with our fast technological sophistication, our society is being blurred to submission. This technology allows anyone to easily register information via a nearby scanner. While this is convenient for consumers, it provides a frightening loss of privacy. I don't think I want just about anyone to scan my passport or cell phone for my personal information. I would rather wait in a longer line waiting for US Customs than risk exposing my social security number and contact information. If RFID technology is applied in mass like many are predicting, I fear there is an opportunity for a severe loss of privacy and anonymity.

About Electronic Balloting...

Among several concerns about the Diebold electronic voting machines, the primary distress stems from lax security protocols within the machines’ software as well as the privatized implementation of these machines. Foremost, these machines are not considered secure because anyone who comes into contact with them can easily upload a malicious protocol into the system. As if this weren’t bad enough, if the infected memory card comes into contact with another machine, the virus/protocol is easily passed. Because there is no paper trail with this system, such an interaction is virtually unnoticeable and untraceable. In addition, many states have provided Diebold and other electronic voting companies free reign to implement these systems bypassing standard laws that require state and county approval throughout the process. Essentially, the privatization of elections is the greatest risk to electoral integrity.

If I were monitoring elections in California, I would primarily ensure that elections be conducted by public or not-for-profit entities to ensure just and unbiased election polling. The fact that the US is one of the only major world democracies that privatizes their elections is cause for alarm. High-level policy and organizational reform is necessary for the United States to attempt for elections. In addition, as archaic and environmentally unfriendly as it sounds, I think traditional paper ballots (you know, the kind that can be recounted and leave a trail), should be used until a more efficient form of electronic balloting is made. Citizens should have faith in their electoral reliability, something not guaranteed with electronic ballots.

Outsourcing and me...

The mass outsourcing of IT jobs to other countries is explained less by economic rationality (which is one way to explain outsourcing), but more to do with a lack of interest in the US IT job market. There are less qualified students coming out of American schools, and the working IT Professionals are being spread even thinner by a rapidly expanding job market. Drew Robb in Computerworld: Careers notes that "according to the Computing Research Association, the percentage of college freshmen listing computer science as their probable major fell 70% between 2000 and 2004." Furthermore, the appetite for skilled IT Professionals is only growing. Mark Hanny, vice president of IBM's Academic Initiative outreach program notes that "according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, one out of every four new jobs between now and 2012 will be IT-related." This illogicality between supply and demand is encouraging American corporations to look toward other countries to supply skilled specialists, and with good reason.

I don't think that it's a matter of foreign workers being more or less skilled than American students. Companies need staff to meet increasing technology needs, whoever meets the need should be the first one with the job. According to Lezlee Westine and Scott McNealy in USA TODAY, "By 2012, it's projected that the demand for technical jobs in science and engineering will increase by more than 25%, and 39% in math and computer science. Factor in the tech rebound, and the need will be even greater." Many American students are not encouraged academically or culturally to pursue education and subsequently careers in math or computer science, presumably because these skills are not encouraged by the American school system in addition to the decreased social stature associated with these fields. On the contrary, many other cultures are encouraged to practice a strong foundation curriculum that strongly enforces math and science in addition to rewarding academic discipline and hard work. Simple investigation of the general values of different cultures explains technology outsourcing, and importation of foreign professionals.

As for me, I think there is a very low probability that my career will be drastically affected by outsourcing in the future. I want to be a Television Producer, working in Programming or Development for a major network or production company. My observation (and logic) has proven that creative positions are difficult to outsource as they are regional, require a working knowledge of culture and vernacular, in addition to requiring a certain degree of experience/skill. While I see many aspects of the entertainment/media industry being outsourced, creative professionals will remain regional because of what their job requires. The same goes for creative professionals throughout the world, if you want to act, produce, design, or direct for a project in India, you need to have significant amount of experience with Indian culture.

E-Waste, Government Export Policy, and the Dumping of the Developing World

Disclaimer: I apologize that this is late. I forgot that these were due by Saturday night/Sunday morning. I will accept a lower score if necessary.

Dumping our e-waste on rural areas in developing countries is a practice that is controversial and challenging to reverse. The primary reason that the issue is not more widely discussed is because not many people really know about what's going on. When was the last time you heard someone talking about US Export Policy to China, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa? If you ask the average American, they could tell you very little about the so-called 'third-world,' and probably even less about what happens to their electronic equipment after they dispose of it. Jim Puckett, director of Basel Action Network, an environmental advocacy organization that tracks hazardous waste noted in a salon.com article, "exploiting low-wage countries as a dumping ground is winning the day" (qtd. by Elizabeth Grossman on salon.com). In addition to constituent ignorance to the problem, it is far too easy for American, Western European, and Japanese governments to ignore the problem.

While most of the EU supposedly has fairly strict electronic recycling and exporting policies, the United States leaves most of the electronic recycling to independent organizations that despite best efforts (in many but not all cases) sell to buyers who intentionally plan on stockpiling electronics in the developing world. Essentially, another major factor is lax national/international policy. If the US, EU, and Japan had better defined policies on what to do with their e-waste, the drastic environmental and health issues affecting the ecosystems of the 'dumpees' would not be as dramatic a problem.

I think the only thing I can and will actively due as a responsible consumer is dispose of electronics with organizations I know do their best to correctly recycle or reuse used electronics. One of the seemingly more legitimate organizations I would pursue is the Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition (READ) Services, a US government-run portion of the Environmental Protection Agency. There are several other independent companies that sell or recycle used electronic equipment. Many of these companies are regional and sell to different parts of the world. My suggestion would be to look into what you're trying to get rid of and what condition it's in. Could some of it's components be reconfigured to be used by a school or non-profit? Also, notice the manufacturer, many companies offer responsible reuse/resell/recycle programs. I know Apple and Alltel engage in these programs, while Dell and several other computer manufacturers do not. Until these governments enact more strict policies, the most you can do is independent research into what you're buying, who you're buying from, and what will you do with this electronic when you're done with it? One of the safest things we can do currently is donate gently used equipment to people who need it most: schools, non-profits, prisons, etc.

The ICANN Controversy

ICANN is an acronym that stands for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and one of their primary objectives is to determine what countries and corporate entities are licensed certain domain names. The non-profit (American-based) organization is also somewhat responsible for shaping internet standards and practices. According to Paul Twomey, President and CEO of ICANN, ICANN is:

a public-private partnership that has representation from the technical community, the business community, governments, and representatives from the users of the Internet. It is tasked to help manage the coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers-in particular, Internet domain names, IP address numbers, protocol parameters, and port numbers-which are essential for the Internet to function. It also helps coordinate the stable operation of the Internet's root server system (Mark Frauenfelder as qtd. in Technology Review).

In other words, ICANN has in the past and continues to be the first place the global community looks in regards to internet policy and etiquette. While ICANN’s effectiveness has been satisfactory in the past, there is substantial concern as of late that the influence of American and Westerfn European countries and companies reflects an unfair advantage for the more economically powerful nations. This concern mirrors past cultural and political debates on orientalism and colonization.

In regards to the global community’s concern that ICANN reflects too much the interests of the Western World, Twomey asserts “Undoubtedly, part of the reaction of some of the developing countries is an anti-American sentiment and a broader desire to wrest the levers of international economic power from the North. The irony is that ICANN has been established to internationalize and privatize the functions that were previously being performed by the U.S. government in the original founding of the Internet” (Mark Frauenfelder as qtd. in Technology Review) Regardless of who founded the internet, the objectives of ICANN could not be more apparent. However, the concern of the international community is worth acknowledging and not entirely unfounded.

The reality that ICANN is still run by the U.S. Department of Commerce reflects not only the sluggishness of internet reform, but the American paradigm of ‘cowboy colonialism’ (most famous by the Bush and first Roosevelt Administrations). The solution proposed by several academics is less than ideal for quelling concerns of Western e-domination. Several American and British corporations are at the top of the list of successors if ICANN is stripped of internet regulation privileges at the end of September 2006. According to Gene J. Koprowski in eweek.com, “there are serious business, technological and political consequences that may emerge if the U.N. takes command of the Internet.” In addition, although there are several arguments for the ‘decolonization’ of the internet, Koprowski notes that “experts say that ICANN has actually empowered small ISPs to start up, on a shoestring budget, in small villages in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and the current system has served those nations well.” Only time will tell if the world’s best internet interests are served by ICANN.

e-freedom today...

One of my favorite films released in the last year was a film by the Wachowski Brothers (known for The Matrix series) called V for Vendetta. In Vendetta, we are exposed to a totalitarian government that actively monitors and enforces a system of routines and rules on the oblivious British population. The film is shown from the perspective of a fanatical political terrorist and a seemingly naive young woman who works for the country's only media source, which is coincidentally enough controlled by the government. Although there are many social and political parallels I made between the film and our current state, one of the strongest (and eeriest) predictions is in regards to the government's access to and control of media and information. While not a contemporary reality, I undeniably would consider this a probability.

I have always been skeptical releasing information to third parties, even when the school paper came to interview me I couldn't help but feel a few minute pangs of anxiety. Alas The Foghorn's staff was not attempting to steal my identity or catalogue my information for storage or for sale to the highest bidder, but the existence of entities that will is a reality, and it freaks me out. Even though I try to exercise responsibility and restrain when disclosing personal information such as my social security or credit card numbers, I cannot help but feel like there is more I should be doing to keep my information private.

While I may give out this information for the occasional job application, it worries me that various companies have access to a whole lot of me. Internet companies accessing my click stream is perhaps the most frightening concept of e-access, next only to identity theft. The fact that myspace.com (recently acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.) now has advertising targeted exclusively for each user's friend list, interests, and even comments is distressing. Similar phenomena can be experienced by google.com, and just about any other search engine in the web. I'm all for consumerism, but I believe there is a point where demographic information should be only so individualized. Though the concept is frightful, I do feel as though there is a certain level of truth to our government's declaration of protection against terrorism. The internet is too effective a medium of communication and research to not be used by terrorist or offensive interests, however, does that give the government, or corporate entities for that matter, the privilege to monitor my e-activity in the interest of my 'benefit?' Where do my rights as an American citizen grant me privacy above protection? I agree with the call to action to monitor the internet, but when does the concern for terrorist prevention end and the execution of totalitarianism begin? Perhaps the stark reality proposed by V for Vendetta is not so foreign after all.

Post 1

see.DB.talk

The objective of this blog is to introduce myself to this class. My name is Dave Binegar, I'm 20 years old and I'm from Scottsdale, AZ....Which is basically Phoenix, but nicer, well, at least superficially. I'm a third year student here at the University of San Francisco with a major in Media Studies with minors in Film Studies and Graphic Design.

In my free time, I like to do stuff...seriously. To be more specific, I like to be proactive in my community, which here has manifested with my serious involvement with various organizations on campus. I am really interested in video media and plan on being a television producer, so founding and working with Usf-TV was a natural progression. Outside of Executive Producing Usf-TV, I enjoy watching TV and film, trying new restaurants (especially in San Francisco), and being social. As vague as most of that sounds, my interests (much like myself) are simple contradictions...