Just brilliant. Perhaps the only reason why I watch a BBC program is because of a particularly, tall, reckless, and moronic man named- Jeremy Clarkson. For those who don’t know much about cars or have little interest in all things four wheels you might as well skip this article- actually keep reading.

He has been called a, racist, homophobe, even a baboon, but for some reason the BBC wont let him go, and neither will I. The main host of the most watched show in the world, Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson’s provocateur attitude is most likely the only feature that appeals to his audience. However, this provocateur is a Journalist by heart.

Sadly I have most likely read all of Jeremy Clarkson’s car articles. But why? Unlike the majority of automotive journalist, Jeremy Clarkson gets it. When people read an article they don’t want to sit down and read some dry article where the reviewer explains how wide the door opens or how many empty boxes you can fit in the trunk. And that’s where Clarkson differentiates himself. You may not be a car buff but his car articles will still pull you in. For example, Clarkson’s article might be on the brand new Toyota Corolla, but the entire article will go on talking about a new toaster oven, and how it bakes bread, and then briefly compare the two at the end.

His style of writing is creative to say the least, his reviews are perhaps the only newspaper articles I prefer to follow online. However, he is not so much a mentor, rather an exemplar of new and creative journalism.Collection of Jeremy Clarkson Articles.

The movie Catfish is a real life documentary, filming the journey of Yaniv “Nev” Schuman, and his unseen relationship with “Megan” on Facebook. His relationship started by an unexpected message by Megans younger sister, Abby. Abby first contacted Nev seeking permission to paint a picture based on Nevs photo he posted on his Facebook. Once the painting was complete Abbys mother Angela sent the painting to Nev. Nev was really impressed by the painting and started to build a relationship with the two online. The relationship started by the exchange of paintings, then of information, and then soon became close friends with Abby and Angela as well as several other family members.

Soon Nev connected with Abbys sister, Megan on Facebook. She was an attractive 19 year old. Falling in love with one another their relationship quickly evolved into a long distance romance. After a couple traded phone calls, texts, and e-mails they soon decided to meet in person. Nevs brother Ariel decided to film the journey of meeting Megan, primarily to highlight the use of technology with a relationship of this sort. However, encountering many barriers along the way, and finding out more facts about Megan, Nev started to doubt the existence of so called “Megan.” Nev ultimately finds out that Megan, and the twelve other Facebook profiles of Megan’s friends and family he added were fake.

Catfish ultimately highlights the intrinsic trust that many people place on their online footprint. It further highlights the ability to manipulate information and present lies that can be trusted. Evidently this can be viewed as a precedent for future societal interaction. Perhaps future relationships will evolve into interaction independent from reality, where online manipulation of ones character is seen as the true relationship.

Ask your self what day is it today? Did you come up with the answer by checking your electronic device such as your mobile phone, or did you seem to find the answer by remembering yesterdays date? Well if you remembered because of yesterdays date congratulations, because it may not be long before naturally remembering something will be the thing of the past, at least that’s what Mayer-Schonberg claims in his book, Delete: Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age.

 Forgetting is a scary concept; no college student would want to forget what he or she studied for on a test, and no man would dare forget his anniversary. So wouldn’t remembering everything be great? Of course, however, it is theoretically impossible to remember everything in our lives.  Depressed? Well don’t be, because that’s where online digital memory such as the “cloud,” come into play by storing much of our lives good or bad memories. In Schonberg’s book, the human use of ‘external memory’ has been used for centuries, either by carvings on a wall, writing in scrolls or the basic diary entry. However, Schonberg notes, “Even though we have may have stored it, analog information that cannot be retrieved easily in practical terms is no different than being forgotten. In contrast revival from digital memory is vastly easier, cheaper, and swifter . . .”

Digital memory sounds great then, its fast, cheap, and easy to use. Just by going on your e-mail or Facebook you can find and be reminded of your last message you sent to that important person, or the obnoxious pictures of your spring break in Mexico. However, don’t be fooled Schonberg points out the nasty side of our growing use of digital memory by using the story of Stacy Snyder. Snyder was aspiring to become a teacher, but then her dream fell short when her mentors found a picture she posted on her MySpace page showing herself in a drunken state. She was then barred from becoming a teacher due to her past, ultimately making her want to forget what the Internet didn’t.

Today’s society is now an information-crazed culture, where to know more is better. The notion of knowledge excites us and pushes us to store and find more things, although even when its not justified. For example, the book alludes to governments using personal information to keep tabs on people for national security. Many would find this act intrusive and/or undemocratic. The same can be said when you go to a club in Victoria, where by a swipe of you I.D. the computer brings up all your personal information and stores it in a massive external hard-drive. This can also be seen as a good thing as the government can closely monitor alleged criminals or a club can keep out a thug, but ultimately it is seen as “societies ability to forget has become suspended.”

With ever growing reliance on digital memory, it is starting to make people think twice about the way they use it. Many people may now stop posting pictures or material that maybe unpleasant to other viewers on vulnerable digital memory services, in fear of its future repercussion or scrutiny. The major impact of such action is that it counters the exact purpose of digital memory, to not forget memories by uploading them digitally. The book points out; the concern of moderating material can lead to an un-natural “perfect memory.” To counter such un-natural memory, Schonberg suggest that to balance what we digitally remember, is to set an expiration date on the memories we capture, whether it be images, or texts.  The owner would ultimately decide whether how long to keep the item be only a year, to perhaps fifty years for very memorable items. Schonberg’s idea is for the operator to think about the act of forgetting rather than relying on a computer to remember for us. However, to counter this argument, the expiration date theory could be abused. Take for example, if this technology was around during the Second World War especially in the hands of the German Nazi’s what would happen to images and texts of the Holocaust or other atrocities? Ultimately not having an expiration on specific past events has led to us remember significant events far greater if we were to put on an expiration date.

Schonberg’s book Delete ultimately opens the thought of possible future human functioning by relying on the growing development of digital memory to serve as unlimited memory. This unlimited memory will not only deprive us from using are cognitive memory, but it will lead us into a path of forgetting to ‘forget.’

When I went down to Los Angeles a month ago, I witnessed for my first time a man wearing Google Glass. It was one of the most “what the h*ll” moments. Not only did it confuse me why someone would wear such a thing on their face, but the fact that he was driving. I though to myself, I would probably see him in a ditch down the highway.

That brings to point, what are the real drawbacks that come with augmented reality, such as Google Glass? Well for starters the first drawback by wearing Google Glass is that you will look like you escaped from the cyborg convention. Secondly, the distraction from ‘actual reality’ by wearing (AR) maybe fatal or problematic. With Google Glasses ability to project information right to lens, as well as the ability to place calls, is a real call for concern especially when behind the wheel. There have already been reported incidents where people using Google Glass while driving have been pulled over by police for using a “visual monitor.” The State of West Virginia has already considered a banning on Google Glass while operating a vehicle.

 There has also been concern over its picture and video function. While it may be cool to record your mountain bike ride with the heads up display of your speed, the use of the video and camera function can pose a concern of personal privacy. By not knowing what a person is capturing can really make some people uneasy. Places such as banks, movie theatres, bars, strip clubs and casinos have all banned the use of Google Glass. Perhaps the phrase ‘whatever you say may be used against in you in the court of law’ should be changed with ‘whatever you see may be used against you.’

Don’t Be A Glasshole video.

Alluding to last weeks brief discussion on Google Street View, I have found some interesting news articles that talk about the privacy concern that comes with the fairly new product and how countries are taking measures to prevent ‘Street View’ mapping.

Czech Republic bans Google ‘Street View’

Greece puts brakes on Street View

Hi my name is Alex Niketas, I am a second year student in the Business Program here at UVic! I have taken this class to learn more about the advancement of technology and the role it plays in our society, specifically towards business and political trends.