Kaleidoscope March 9th, 2007 - The Journalism of Attachment
Rob Bolton, Daniel Bernal, Nikki Macmillan, Remy Kalter
As news media becomes affected by pop culture increasingly, we are starting to see a journalism of attachment, where the stories we are told become viable not because of the facts but because of the individual saying them. This can be positive, but the trend towards trash talk journalism has gained momentum and is an increasingyl worrying phenomenon.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Climate Change & Urban Sprawl - February 23rd, 2007
Kaleidoscope February 23rd, 2007 - Climate Change & Urban Sprawl
Rob Bolton, Catherine Cyr, Meghan Lenchyshyn, Remy Kalter
Climate Change is of course something we hear about constantly nowadays. But it's been such a fashionable concept to bandy about, what does it actually mean, and what tangible measures are actually being put in place to do something about this issue. As well as this, what aspects of our lives in terms of where and how we live, is actually contributing to this problem, and how can we tackle that?
Rob Bolton, Catherine Cyr, Meghan Lenchyshyn, Remy Kalter
Climate Change is of course something we hear about constantly nowadays. But it's been such a fashionable concept to bandy about, what does it actually mean, and what tangible measures are actually being put in place to do something about this issue. As well as this, what aspects of our lives in terms of where and how we live, is actually contributing to this problem, and how can we tackle that?
Slavery: a phenomenon of the past? Not really.
- Daniel Bernal
You scramble through the classifieds, find a number, make a call and an hour later, your sexual thirst is sated and your wallet is a little lighter. Except, maybe this time you’ll ask her what her story is.
It could be the story of any young women in Eastern Europe being deceived by criminals to be trafficked to the West, or the Middle East. It could also be the story of Filipino women shipped to South Korea and Hong Kong to be served as a commodity in the sex-trade market. The locations change, the story does not; it’s like a cheap soap opera being replayed with different actors, over and over again. I say it could be, because not all prostitutes are victims of trafficking, but that it is a possibility should be worrying enough.
Human trafficking is the fastest-growing illicit activity worldwide. Most trafficked people are traded for the sex industry or for forced labour at sweat shops, construction sites and agricultural fields.
The U.S. State Department’s 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report, a common cited source for human trafficking figures, reports that 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked yearly. Of these numbers around 80 percent are women and 50 percent are minors.
In terms of profit, the human trafficking industry amounts to some USD$32 billion. This figure, released in 2006 by the Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), makes human trafficking the third most lucrative criminal undertaking, after the drug and arms trade.
As a commodity, people are quite possibly closest to the ideal product. Women can be resold over and over again. Because the “goods” are illegal, hence no regulation, they can be abused and maintained for minimal prices. Since resources are plentiful, once a women is no longer bringing in the desired profits she can be discarded and a new prospect will fill in the gap. In countries where people are desperate and fall into the trap of bogus jobs abroad, the raw materials—young, beautiful, educated girls—are in no shortage.
More numbers by Interpol tell that a single women can bring in anywhere from $75.000 to $250.000 per annum. The rest is simple math and one can easily guess why organized crime is exploiting this old source of revenue.
One problem highlighted by all parties trying to tackle human trafficking is that international law has focused on dealing with the issue as an organized crime problem. Thus, human trafficking falls under the jurisdiction of the Palermo Protocol. This protocol, adopted by the United Nations in 2000, has three specific focuses: prevention, protection and assistance of victims, and cooperation among nations to meet the aforementioned.
While these objectives were drafted undoubtedly in good will, they remain too general and don’t force countries to adopt any specific measures. Moreover, the Palermo protocol remains a tool for battling criminal activities, when the problem is much wider and in need of a more comprehensive approach.
Most resources are being put to combat the supply side of the issue, while very little is being done to curve down demand or too hold accountable those corrupted officials in host countries that make human trafficking possible.
In “The Natashas”, an inquiry into the global sex trade, Viktor Malarek, a renowned Canadian journalist, undertook the task of portraying the misery of those whose lives are taken from them, sold as commodities, while the most of us sit and let the status quo prevail.
In his book there are too many examples of how the human trafficking phenomena is not only reserved for unscrupulous criminals, but it is facilitated by corrupted or oblivious—one may wonder which of these two is worse—authorities in developed countries, the so-called “host nations.”
In Malarek’s book one can also find numerous examples of people doing exactly what it’s outlined in the introduction of these lines. Of course, most clients never go as far as asking for a story.
In these lines, I barely scratch the surface of the issue at hand. I have not even touched upon one of the key issues to tackle; the demand side of the problem. And why do I miss that? Because there is little research done on it, and few conclusive results have arisen. One thing that is clear is this is a crime that needs to be tackled from numerous angles at research isn’t available, or perhaps, it doesn’t exist.
That tells you how unprepared—even unwilling—we are to tackle the problem. After all, it’s countries like Canada that are prime host countries, and it’s the men in our societies, our fathers, brothers, sons, husbands who fuel this whole business. Maybe it’s time to ask them for a story.
You scramble through the classifieds, find a number, make a call and an hour later, your sexual thirst is sated and your wallet is a little lighter. Except, maybe this time you’ll ask her what her story is.
It could be the story of any young women in Eastern Europe being deceived by criminals to be trafficked to the West, or the Middle East. It could also be the story of Filipino women shipped to South Korea and Hong Kong to be served as a commodity in the sex-trade market. The locations change, the story does not; it’s like a cheap soap opera being replayed with different actors, over and over again. I say it could be, because not all prostitutes are victims of trafficking, but that it is a possibility should be worrying enough.
Human trafficking is the fastest-growing illicit activity worldwide. Most trafficked people are traded for the sex industry or for forced labour at sweat shops, construction sites and agricultural fields.
The U.S. State Department’s 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report, a common cited source for human trafficking figures, reports that 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked yearly. Of these numbers around 80 percent are women and 50 percent are minors.
In terms of profit, the human trafficking industry amounts to some USD$32 billion. This figure, released in 2006 by the Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), makes human trafficking the third most lucrative criminal undertaking, after the drug and arms trade.
As a commodity, people are quite possibly closest to the ideal product. Women can be resold over and over again. Because the “goods” are illegal, hence no regulation, they can be abused and maintained for minimal prices. Since resources are plentiful, once a women is no longer bringing in the desired profits she can be discarded and a new prospect will fill in the gap. In countries where people are desperate and fall into the trap of bogus jobs abroad, the raw materials—young, beautiful, educated girls—are in no shortage.
More numbers by Interpol tell that a single women can bring in anywhere from $75.000 to $250.000 per annum. The rest is simple math and one can easily guess why organized crime is exploiting this old source of revenue.
One problem highlighted by all parties trying to tackle human trafficking is that international law has focused on dealing with the issue as an organized crime problem. Thus, human trafficking falls under the jurisdiction of the Palermo Protocol. This protocol, adopted by the United Nations in 2000, has three specific focuses: prevention, protection and assistance of victims, and cooperation among nations to meet the aforementioned.
While these objectives were drafted undoubtedly in good will, they remain too general and don’t force countries to adopt any specific measures. Moreover, the Palermo protocol remains a tool for battling criminal activities, when the problem is much wider and in need of a more comprehensive approach.
Most resources are being put to combat the supply side of the issue, while very little is being done to curve down demand or too hold accountable those corrupted officials in host countries that make human trafficking possible.
In “The Natashas”, an inquiry into the global sex trade, Viktor Malarek, a renowned Canadian journalist, undertook the task of portraying the misery of those whose lives are taken from them, sold as commodities, while the most of us sit and let the status quo prevail.
In his book there are too many examples of how the human trafficking phenomena is not only reserved for unscrupulous criminals, but it is facilitated by corrupted or oblivious—one may wonder which of these two is worse—authorities in developed countries, the so-called “host nations.”
In Malarek’s book one can also find numerous examples of people doing exactly what it’s outlined in the introduction of these lines. Of course, most clients never go as far as asking for a story.
In these lines, I barely scratch the surface of the issue at hand. I have not even touched upon one of the key issues to tackle; the demand side of the problem. And why do I miss that? Because there is little research done on it, and few conclusive results have arisen. One thing that is clear is this is a crime that needs to be tackled from numerous angles at research isn’t available, or perhaps, it doesn’t exist.
That tells you how unprepared—even unwilling—we are to tackle the problem. After all, it’s countries like Canada that are prime host countries, and it’s the men in our societies, our fathers, brothers, sons, husbands who fuel this whole business. Maybe it’s time to ask them for a story.
Microsoft does Terminator:Hasta la Vista User Control
- Daniel Bernal
Wow? Is it about: Wow, this looks incredibly like Apple OS X? Or more like, Wow, you really can’t get it right?
Let’s decode “wow”. And I'm not referring to the acronym one uses to refer to World of Warcraft—a game said to take over your life. The little palindrome “wow” works as an interjection and expresses a feeling of strong surprise. The three letter word has been springing up all over our city (haven’t you seen it at the subway stops?) thanks to Microsoft’s marketing team who have decided “wow” is what better describes their new operating system: Windows Vista.
Vista was released on January 30 to the general public and is set to distance itself from its predecessor, Windows XP, by its elegant looks and improved security and has been dubbed my Microsoft as the most exciting OS since Windows 95. Yes, the looks, even if sometimes very similar to those long enjoyed by Mac users, are nice. However, such attractiveness comes at a cost. Most PC users won’t be able to simply upgrade to Vista, because the fancy graphics demand a lot of internal power in the form of hardware. According to research done by SoftChoice, an IT consultancy group, only 6 percent of all corporate PCs are ready to handle Vista requirements.
But, the problems don’t only come with its appearance. More troubling is what hides beneath gorgeous façade, the End-User License Agreement (EULA) or fine black print to which users usually click “agree” without even reading it.
“Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge,” says Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and technology columnist for the Toronto Star. And this is only the beginning.
According to research done by Peter Guttman, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland, Microsoft added a series of limitations to Vista in order to serve the movie industry’s interests. In his paper “A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection,” Guttman tells us about how new DVD technologies such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, which are mostly about better image quality, the picture will be downgraded because Vista will not allow to play the new format because most computer monitors aren’t licensed to play such content.
Vista’s EULA cautions the user that Windows Defender, the anti-virus that protects the system from spyware, adware and other threats, will automatically delete certain software that it somewhat arbitrarily classifies as harmful. As a result some software wanted by the user could malfunction or be permanently removed from the PC.
Microsoft’s new OS sells in five different categories: home basic, home premium, business, enterprise and ultimate. The cheapest version, which comes as an upgrade can set you back $129, while the “ultimate” experience will cost $499.
If you don’t want to spend much money you’ll have to expect even more limitations. The EULA of the home basic and home premium versions doesn’t allow users to use Vista “virtually,” which means they won’t be able to run Vista on Macs, or have multiple sessions of Vista running at the same time.
But ultimately, why should we care about Microsoft’s user agreements? According to OneStat and Net Applications, both Internet research companies, Microsoft controls more than 85 percent of the operating system market share. As PCs are starting to sell with pre-installed packages of Vista, this new EULA will take over and with that will go a lot of user’s liberty and privacy.
There’s no arguing the important role of computers in our everyday life. According to the Computer Industry Almanac there were 822.15 million PCs in use in 2005. If global distribution of these figures was equal, that would mean one PC for every eight people.
IDC, a leading IT market analyst, estimates the PC manufacturers will ship 257.1 new units into the market in 2007. The growth of the market is calculated just above 10% and is set to remain at that rate thanks to great demand by emerging markets such as China, India and Russia, and the slowing demand in other saturated markets such as Europe and the United States.
With corporations like Microsoft writing their user agreements in a manner that benefits the content providers and not the consumer, it’s very important that the user keeps control of what goes on in their PCs. As PCs perform more of our daily tasks and are used by more people, we should be wowing about the loss of control over our desktops, rather than to stare open-mouthed at the sleek graphics of Vista.
Wow? Is it about: Wow, this looks incredibly like Apple OS X? Or more like, Wow, you really can’t get it right?
Let’s decode “wow”. And I'm not referring to the acronym one uses to refer to World of Warcraft—a game said to take over your life. The little palindrome “wow” works as an interjection and expresses a feeling of strong surprise. The three letter word has been springing up all over our city (haven’t you seen it at the subway stops?) thanks to Microsoft’s marketing team who have decided “wow” is what better describes their new operating system: Windows Vista.
Vista was released on January 30 to the general public and is set to distance itself from its predecessor, Windows XP, by its elegant looks and improved security and has been dubbed my Microsoft as the most exciting OS since Windows 95. Yes, the looks, even if sometimes very similar to those long enjoyed by Mac users, are nice. However, such attractiveness comes at a cost. Most PC users won’t be able to simply upgrade to Vista, because the fancy graphics demand a lot of internal power in the form of hardware. According to research done by SoftChoice, an IT consultancy group, only 6 percent of all corporate PCs are ready to handle Vista requirements.
But, the problems don’t only come with its appearance. More troubling is what hides beneath gorgeous façade, the End-User License Agreement (EULA) or fine black print to which users usually click “agree” without even reading it.
“Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge,” says Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and technology columnist for the Toronto Star. And this is only the beginning.
According to research done by Peter Guttman, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland, Microsoft added a series of limitations to Vista in order to serve the movie industry’s interests. In his paper “A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection,” Guttman tells us about how new DVD technologies such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, which are mostly about better image quality, the picture will be downgraded because Vista will not allow to play the new format because most computer monitors aren’t licensed to play such content.
Vista’s EULA cautions the user that Windows Defender, the anti-virus that protects the system from spyware, adware and other threats, will automatically delete certain software that it somewhat arbitrarily classifies as harmful. As a result some software wanted by the user could malfunction or be permanently removed from the PC.
Microsoft’s new OS sells in five different categories: home basic, home premium, business, enterprise and ultimate. The cheapest version, which comes as an upgrade can set you back $129, while the “ultimate” experience will cost $499.
If you don’t want to spend much money you’ll have to expect even more limitations. The EULA of the home basic and home premium versions doesn’t allow users to use Vista “virtually,” which means they won’t be able to run Vista on Macs, or have multiple sessions of Vista running at the same time.
But ultimately, why should we care about Microsoft’s user agreements? According to OneStat and Net Applications, both Internet research companies, Microsoft controls more than 85 percent of the operating system market share. As PCs are starting to sell with pre-installed packages of Vista, this new EULA will take over and with that will go a lot of user’s liberty and privacy.
There’s no arguing the important role of computers in our everyday life. According to the Computer Industry Almanac there were 822.15 million PCs in use in 2005. If global distribution of these figures was equal, that would mean one PC for every eight people.
IDC, a leading IT market analyst, estimates the PC manufacturers will ship 257.1 new units into the market in 2007. The growth of the market is calculated just above 10% and is set to remain at that rate thanks to great demand by emerging markets such as China, India and Russia, and the slowing demand in other saturated markets such as Europe and the United States.
With corporations like Microsoft writing their user agreements in a manner that benefits the content providers and not the consumer, it’s very important that the user keeps control of what goes on in their PCs. As PCs perform more of our daily tasks and are used by more people, we should be wowing about the loss of control over our desktops, rather than to stare open-mouthed at the sleek graphics of Vista.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)