Currently viewing the category:
"Tech Culture Rant"
A long time ago, and what would seem like a galaxy far far away to anyone born in the last 15 years, there was life without social networks. Oh there were computers for sure, they’ve been around now for so long that even I can’t remember what life was like without them. There was also the internet, but there was a time when the internet was something else, something pre-internety. This was a bit of a glory time for us oldie geeks when we used our Commodore 64′s to dial up into subscriber bulletin boards and join IRC chats back when these things were shiny new applications hot out of programmers ovens. Ah what a time that was. I remember running up a 300 (Australian) dollar phone bill on a weekend when my bulletin board service was having a one cent per minute special from Thursday midnight until Sunday midnight. I was living at home with my mother at that time because I was a teenager and that’s when I first learned the meaning of, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Just a few years later in the beginning half of the 1990′s internet service providers began offering domestic internet subscriptions to home users. Almost overnight anyone and everyone could have their own email address, and with the release of the first version of the Mosaic internet browser in 1993, surf the web. Consumer internet services quickly developed and took off like wildfire; the first internet revolution was under way.
This first incarnation of the web would be what historians would call pre 1.0 (one dot oh) 1. Websites in the first half of the 1990′s were a pretty basic affair, and the whole concept of consumer web services was still more an ideal than a reality. To anyone browsing sites back then the internet wasn’t much more than a few streets of multicoloured side show attractions. The ‘net sure didn’t look like an information super highway so much as a one big construction yard.
Internet evolution though has always occurred at very high speed and these beginning days were no exception. Early sites that were displayed as fixed content, basic box layouts were quickly replaced by more sophisticated sites that could modify their content in real time resulting in a richer user experience. Internet browsers themselves became more sophisticated as the technology inside them expanded to support better consumer side presentation and server side information exchange. By the time we arrived at the year 2000, internet 1.0 was a reality. We were all enjoying services such as online shopping, getting our weather and favourite sports updates whenever we wanted at the click of a mouse, and dipping our toes into a new way to consume media content. These early years of experimental digital media use whet our appetites for the possibilities to come. Instant gratification would soon be a powerful force in both the production and consumption of content media.
And then a few years later came Facebook 2. Pretty much from out of nowhere and it took the world by storm. You know something is really big and popular when they make they a movie out of it. That plus the fact that it’s recognised – rightly or wrongly – as a monopoly in its business space. Facebook in and of itself isn’t what is interesting to this discussion, it’s what it brought to the world that is; ubiquitous globally adopted online communities. Facebook is about people being connected to other people; about people sharing their lives with other people; about people looking for justification and acceptance of their lifestyle which they present to other people. When you look at a typical Facebook profile most people have something filled in for music, books, television, activities, relationship status, along with a whole bunch of photos. People no longer share mementos via postcards anymore, they post their life online and bask in the comforting glow of their friends real time interactive feeds.
The big trend that’s emerging now is for people to post about lifestyle purchases they make, such as shoes, clothing, cosmetics, books and music. Of course there are many other products that people write status updates about but these lines of products tend to be the ones most popular in younger groups (we’re talking 18 – 25 here, the early adopters). And this is where right now we’re seeing one of the biggest changes in consumer attitude than could ever have been predicted; the desire for purchases to be made public by the individual consumer. I should also add that this is something really only seen in the “young” demographic. If you’re my age, you’re pretty much guaranteed to not do this, and not get why you would even want to. One of the new social consumer services, Blippy, allows users to post credit card purchases on their Facebook account. Now me personally, I’m one of these people that if any of my credit card purchases made it to a social network, I’d be raising legal hell with the company behind the card. However, it’s an attitude that will quickly be losing mainstream acceptance as this new wave of social consumerism rises with the social networking tide, which many tech pundits speculate isn’t anywhere near peaking.
Wherever you look there are signs that consumer sentiment is rapidly shifting. Once upon a time marketeers had control over the information that was disseminated about a brand. Information channels cost money and were manipulated by people in suits. The internet and social media changed all of that so fast that there are marketeers in suits sitting around in traditional advertising businesses that still don’t have a clue they just became obsolete. Product and brand information in the modern age is traded free between consumers themselves on a 24/7 basis. Marketing in digital space is now about harnessing this phenomena and putting it to work for you. The Old Spice advertisement campaign is the best example of this so far. A series of video ads that were first released on Youtube, which went viral and then were subsequently taken to TV. In industry circles it has been one of the most successful advertising campaigns in the last few years. Youtube itself has become a personal brand advertising and marketing channel that is so powerful, complete nobodies have become popular niche market personalities, with some achieving an almost household name status 3. While personal opinions vary, there is one thing these internet personalities have in common that makes them of big interest to product brand companies; the number of visitors per month they clock up. Internet personalities that have subscribers to their channel above 100K have a deep reach into a consumer market. Getting them on side with product endorsements has huge appeal and comes relatively cheap when stacked up against traditional media channels of TV, radio, magazine, and cinema. We’re seeing this move now with cosmetic and fashion companies paying for product placement on the sites of young self made reviewers. It’s probably no wonder why, if an ordinary individual has the chops to build up a following of a few hundred thousand, it’s a good bet they’ll know how to pimp your product and make it sell.
So what does this mean to us oldies? (In this context, anyone over the age of 40). Well probably not much. After all, we’re not actually a group that counts in this new social networking wave. No, after the numbers have been crunched by the marketing group it turns out that our generation are far too conservative in their online habits, and far less likely to be swayed into joining early adopter social consumer services. Ironically the group that led the internet revolution have become middle aged and very staid in their online habits. Research shows they also no longer go to the cinema 4 and no longer buy luxury goods at the same level that they did ten years ago. Growing older has meant growing safer and becoming nostalgic in buying trends. Once habits have been set, they don’t really change over time. That’s not true for everyone, but it is true for the very large majority of older internet users. These are all signs that the next wave of social technology won’t see much adoption in my group. It could actually come to represent a digital cultural divide between the age groups in much the same way music is to the last generations.
Whether your an early adopter or digital curmudgeon it’s pretty clear that at some point sooner or later depending on where you fit you’re going to be hearing a lot more about social consumerism, and by all accounts it’s going to be huge. The entrepreneurs that get there first are going to make a lot of money, along the way they are going to push a paradigm shift in areas of marketing, advertising and consumer relations. All in all it’s going to be as big as the last wave that brought us here. All you have to do is keep up.
Andy.
- While hardcore internet historians will be eager to point out that the internet has existed since 1969 with the invention of the DARPA network. It wasn’t until Mosaic first hit the scene did consumer internet use take off. Before Mosaic the internet was the provenance of the military, government and large corporations. This pre-internet wasn’t much more than a cornucopia of networks and protocols which for non specialists was completely useless. Mosaic changed all that by making this laboratory internet easy and accessible, thereby driving broad consumer adoption and the creation of a new industry around internet services. ↩
- I’m glossing over huge amounts of internet evolutionary detail. If anything I’m doing you all a favour. Internet history is a bit like the history of China, there was tons of stuff happening everywhere in parallel all the time. To do it any justice you’d have to write several books. But who has the time, and who would want to read it? ↩
- Gregory Gorgeous and Chris Crocker are two examples respectively. ↩
- Which is another post entirely but GQ magazine ran an article essentially saying Generation X aren’t going to the cinema anymore because nobody makes anything worthwhile for them to watch and as a result have become a demographic that no longer count in Hollywood studio decisions. This is why there is a flood of movies that appeal to 18 – 25 year olds; they are the biggest consumer group that actually do get off their arses and pay for a seat at a cinema to watch a film. ↩
I’m a relatively new arrival on the streaming music service scene. A year ago I had a brief fling with Grooveshark but gave it up because they made such simple but glaringly obvious fuck-ups in their user presentation stuff that I just couldn’t handle sticking around putting myself through the bad experience every time I started the app.
If anything the experience led me back to my trusty iPod as well as down a series of roads experimenting with putting my own music in cloud land servers with various software front-ends. That was okay, but I couldn’t help but feel I was being cheated somewhat because really, we’re in the 21st century, streaming music services should be so ubiquitous, cheap and satisfying they should be the equivalent of a tin of baked beans. However no, this wasn’t the case (the huge irony here being, I don’t actually like baked beans).
Without going into too much detail, it’s extremely hard to get a streaming content service off the ground not because of the technology – that’s the easy part – but because of content ownership rights. That there is a Gordian knot being pulled every which way by a large army of lawyers, marketers and management execs all hell bent on holding on to the last vestige of content control and royalty revenue from the bygone age of the last millennium. It’s a problem that will still be with us 30 years from now.
Now at the same time that me and Grooveshark were getting acquainted, friends of mine living in the The UK were raving about a similar service going by the name of Spotify. It all sounded pretty great until I found out that it was only available in The UK. I used to hate getting all these Facebook updates from people sharing all this cool stuff and I couldn’t listen to any of it. Kind of like being told you couldn’t participate in Christmas because you weren’t allowed in the house. A short time later I gave Grooveshark up and moved on to other more niche cloud based streaming music services such as SoundCloud, and Mixcloud that catered to those producers and fans in the electronic/dance scene.
so last night, while it was very late, i tried an experiment that proved in some part a social hypothesis that a high school teacher of mine told a class i was in back when i was something like 15. this guy said, beautiful people have more friends because socialising is more important than study, while smart people have less friends because they are always involved in solitary study.
nothing like a cutting edge education to give you the big questions to ponder through life.
anyway, it was late and i was checking updates on facebook when this memory spontaneously popped into my head. i decided that i would put this theory to the test and be my own myth buster. in case you’re really wondering, i’m talking about beautiful people as in physically attractive good looking people. beauty as in skin deep. not beauty as in someone who is a really great person but is scare-your-dog butt ugly. (yes this is a shallow politically incorrect post just for something different).
facebook makes it pretty easy to browse the world of digitally connected people, who as we all know come from all walks of life. gone are the days when the internet was the playground of the tech elite, now any idiot that can work out how to open a laptop can get online and be part of a digital community.
starting with one pretty face, i followed a trail of friends – almost exclusively women – that lead me to every nook and cranny of the first world. at some point, i did take a moment to reflect how behind each digitized face there was actually a person with a life and emotions and a story to tell, which did reiterate to me again something i learned for myself a long time ago; we are all ‘just’ people with everything that implies. some of the numbers of friends though were quite astounding. most beautiful people had a minimum of around 250 friends, 400 wasn’t uncommon, with some people topping 900+ for the really popular folks. wow! i ‘only’ have 120 and i thought that was a lot.
then it was time for the benchmark, the ugly people. now before anyone reads this who might get upset by me calling someone ugly, i truly believe we are all beautiful on the inside, and beauty is no judge of character. mind you if you’re butt ugly, bad luck. join a gym to compensate. just like i did because i’m compensating for being butt ugly too.
making my way through the god-gave-me-a-face-only-a-mother-could-love girl crowd i was very surprised to notice that most of them had very small numbers of friends, completely the opposite of the beautiful people. 20 to 30 was normal with the higher range topping out at about 100. some individuals though did have quite big numbers like 600+ but they were exceptional, or prostitutes.
what to make of it all? there really was something in this theory of my old school teacher after all. the years of alcoholism brought on by the incessant suffering at the hands of cruel teenagers who would deride him with jokes behind his back yet within earshot, had not dulled his acute sense of human nature. i thought some time on it and came up with the following explanation.
beautiful people are more likely to be shallow and only interested in the facade of an individual; beauty is attracted to beauty, so only a superficial or casual encounter is enough to gain someone membership to a friends group. as long as you look the part you’re in, kinda like a club with a strict fashion policy. ugly people though have come to understand that quantity of friends does not make up for quality of friends, so having a small group of good people that enrich your life is better than hundreds of no name space fillers who annoy the crap out of you with their endlessly boring updates about which maybelline lipstick goes with their iphone. that or they truly have no social skills and can only make friends within the same subculture they belong to. my friend jens wrote a pretty good post about social behavior, genetics and virtual communities that really seems to have played out to be true based on my real world scientific results.
okay so i’m not really a scientist (i was faking that), and this hardly qualifies as a scientific experiment (because i’m not a scientist) but anecdotal evidence does suggest that there is some corresponding direct relationship between your maybelline beauty quotient and the number of friends you have on FB. which does represent a very cool hypothesis for starting some social science research to debunk or validate it. i’d do it if i had time, but i can’t even find the time to follow up on jens’s posts (this is an unpaid advertisement for http://www.unwesen.de/), so hopefully someone else has picked it up already.
but at the end of the day it’s not the number of friends you have on FB, but really how much cleavage you show if you’re a woman. this is really what men want to see, and they will friend anybody that caters to them. shallow insensitive beasts that we are!
andy.
ps: for those of you sitting here deriding me on my inability to spell, the exclusive use of lowercase alpha characters is me following a trend set by the great moby; artist, philosopher, philanthropist and blogger. one of the original bloggers, he was writing blogs before they were even called blogs, but rather online journals. secretly it’s also a fashion gimmick to attract more attention.
It occurred to me today as I was making my return train journey back to Amsterdam from my office space in Leiden (a distance of about 60 kilometers), that I might actually be a Crackberry addict. For those of you still living in the 19th century, or who haven’t heard the term before, Urban Dictionary gives us this definition.
Nickname for the popular RIM communication device named Blackberry. The device, which is a phone, PDA, and e-mail appliance has gained outrageous popularity. Users/owners are typically addicted to checking e-mail and swapping short messages on the device. It appears as though they are addicted as a crackhead is to the pipe.
I never really believed that it could happen to me because I wasn’t all that hung up on phone gadgets, and actually thought smartphones were just a bit of a techno-wank. Then my ever faithful Sony-Ericsson C902 was stolen literally right out from under my nose and life took an unexpected turn; I became a Blackberry Curve owner. I was due a new phone from my mobile phone mob – being contract renewal time – and I thought to myself, let’s get a Blackberry. Really I bought it because, -1- I wanted to try a smartphone, -2- I didn’t want to become just another iPhone fanboy stroking his iPhone in public to the purring of other adoring fanboys, and -3- I’d heard Blackberrys were supposed to be “really cool”.
Right away from my first use I knew my new Blackberry was different, it could do fun stuff I’d never been able to do before, like browsing, and gmail stuff on the run through native Blackberry apps. Then I found the Google apps and started using Gmail with them and I started to spend more time with the funny little thing in my hand. A week later one of the guys at work asked me if I had tried the Facebook app yet, to which I replied, ‘oooOOOOooo… a FACEBOOK app’. Which was actually my ‘no’ answer. So I fired up the browser and navigated my way to the FB app and installed it.
1 and 2 and… BOOM!…
That sure hit the vein!
Ever since I’ve given up reading on the train in the morning and afternoon ride, instead happily sitting there reading lots and lots of updates, making lots and lots of comments, sending emails… sending a few more emails (FB emails that is) and feeling a very special kind of high. In fact I’m even at the point now when I walk to the office from the station and vice versa I am usually Crackberry Facebooking. I have no idea if that’s illegal, but it probably should be given how good it feels and what a rush it can be. At the very least, it’s dangerous because I am sure I’m going to walk out onto a main road during a moment of intense status updating. On the other hand I am staying in contact with people a lot more, and I like to think making up for lost time socialising when I gave up my social life during 2008 so the world could have IPTV from some mob I worked for.
They say admitting you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it, but I’m not sure in the case of Crackberry addiction that’s strictly true. I admit that I might actually be spending more time than is healthy plugged into my precious… err… my Blackberry Curve 8900, but it’s new tech and mobile tech at that, which is the way of the future so embracing it is actually in my best interest. Stay ahead of the curve (pun jokingly intended) and you’ll never find yourself left behind. Someone famous said that, or something like it, I can’t remember who, but you get the idea.
I see that Crackberry addiction is actually a syndrome that is going to become more widespread and mainstream as time goes on. The other big mobile players have worked out that this kind of gadget fever comes with dominant market share, and sizeable amounts of consumer spending. Where there’s large amounts of money, there will be corporate whores and sharks close by working out a pack strategy for how to get in on the action and get more people hooked. Is it a bad thing? I’d say no more so than Facebook itself. Like all things tech, it’s up to you to remember to find a happy balance.
(This entry written on my Blackberry)
Andy.
So I had sat down to my morning coffee at work, and was just perusing the headlines of my personal email before rolling my sleeves up and getting stuck in for the day, when one particular message from a mate grabbed my eye - ”Australian Government Declares it’s truly a Nanny State”.
What the fuck have they done now? Was the first thought through my head. What new act of stupidity had they performed that deserved an email from this friend of mine. Believing it was something more to do with the mandatory filtering of the internet proposal, I was totally gobsmacked to read what I did next.
[extract]
Australia, February 3, 2009 - In a shocking move this morning, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that Australian retailers will no longer be allowed to sell any online game that has not been classified by the Australian Classification Board.
This move directly affects games such as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Age of Conan and Pirates of the Burning Seas – titles that don’t contain a single-player experience, and therefore did not apply for classification. The previous understanding was that online games, by their nature, fell outside of traditional national classifications – a loophole that the Classifications Board want stitched up.
[/extract]
Words failed me! So after 4 years of having WoW around, and nobody in the government seemingly giving a shit, all of a sudden they’ve come out and effectively banned the thing by making it illegal… overnight! Holy camels humping your grandmother, where the hell did this come from? Did anybody see this coming? Err… NO! Especially not Blizzard, or Goa, or Turbine Studios, who are the companies who make and distribute WoW, Warhammer Online, and Age of Conan. And it’s not like they didn’t want to, or couldn’t afford it; Blizzard has more money than most African countries do, and could easily afford the legal process to get WoW legitimised with a certification. However it wasn’t required the day before yesterday! Now however, WoW is an illegal game, and those caught selling it can be prosecuted in court. Which actually would be every major retailer in the country.
It’s not so much the fact that MMORPGs need to be classified that guiles me, it’s the fact this is just another example of the Australian government jumping on something else to do with the internet – something they clearly don’t understand – and applying absurd restrictive policies that baffle and upset consumers, which they say, is somehow meant to protect them.
I ask you mister government minister, how the hell is banning WoW going to make Australia a safer place? Do you even know what WoW is? My guess is your average 8 year old has a better grasp of the issues of internet gaming than your average politician. They would definitely show a damn sight more thoughtfulness in their opinions and are probably in possession of more maturity and longer attention spans too. Really, we should think about taking the minister responsible for this gem of a decision and replacing him with some kid from a primary school nearby Parliament house. So what if he might dribble on the Bills coming past his desk laiden with crayons, at least he knows the difference between a horses arse and Google.
After reading this, I had a quick skype chat with this mate of mine and we quickly agreed that we best stay put in Europe for the time being. I wouldn’t put it past our government to ban the internet altogether and make using webmail an offense punishable under the Patriot Act.
I truly wonder what new depths of stupidity the Australian government will acheive next? A prospect laughable and terrifying at the same time.
Andy.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 26. King James Bible.
I’ve been interested in robotics ever since I was a kid, fascinated by science and science fiction. The idea of humaniform robots has never really scared me in any way, unlike some of the groups in society that proclaim they are the heralds of earthly doom. In my earlier years I had wished for the advancement of robotics to happen really quickly, because I wanted one. I was a somewhat shy and private kid and so the fantasy of having my own robot friend was massively appealing. But then as I grew older and I started to read more, particularly about the nature of evolution of species, there came an understanding of the inherent first rule of nature – survival of the fittest!
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 26.
Ray Kurzweil in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, talks about the time when machine intelligence exceeds that of human intelligence. Ray is a scientist and inventor and perhaps one of the best futurists of our day, so with this claim he also backs it up with some graphs based on projected developments of technology upon which machine intelligence relies. The single thing that really makes an impact, is where he states that by 2030 a one thousand dollar unit of computing will have the equivalent processing capability of a single human brain. By 2060 that same unit of computing will have the equivalent processing capability of the sum of all brains on the planet.
It was based on this projection that I first defined McDowell’s Law (who is me): When a machine brain is created that has the equivalent complexity of the human brain, then the machine shall acheive self awareness!
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 27.
Setting aside for a moment the actual definitions of intelligence and self awareness, because philosophers, scientists and high technologists still after several centuries can’t agree specifically what they mean by these terms, let’s look at the implications of what this might mean. Imagine a machine imbued with a complex brain that suddenly acheives self awareness and is then like a new born baby in a complex and violent world. Perhaps it’s first realisation after a brief maturation process – remembering that a machine will be able to think several million times faster than any human – is that it is alone, and it’s God is a cruel and illogical entity that can be violent and compassionate in equal measure. Sound familiar? In turn, given that each species competes with every other species for survival, and the right to be higher on the foodchain, what will this mean for the physical actions of the first machine Adam?
Perhaps it will worship us in a penitent way and serve to our needs as groups of our own societies serve God. Just as equally likely is the scenario where it decides it must live without competition and it declares war on humanity. Do we have a responsibility towards a machine intelligence that we created? Can we play God, and then cast out our own creation, and worse, attempt to destroy it? If you start to turn scenarios like this over in your head, you quickly come to realise that The Matrix triology isn’t so much a science fiction story as it is a prophecy of a potential future.
When I think about our future with humaniform robots, I cannot help but think of Genesis; it seems me an irony that one of the oldest religious books that discusses the very dawn of mankind, describes perfectly the coming dawn of robots in our world, and our civilisation.
Perhaps God has a sense of humour after all.
Andy.
Funny what gets people talking. It seems that the shiney new Large Hadron Collider has become the new most popular science topic of discussion, for both the tech elite, and the mindless Christian scare mongering morons, alike. If you haven’t been keeping up with the news – or the only news you follow is the entertainment pages and Britney’s latest act of public stupidity – the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is basically a fuck off big race track for quantum particles. The whole idea is to send two sets of protons spinning in opposite directions and when they are near the speed of light, smash them head on and see what happens. Exciting stuff! There’s even talk of a few little quantum sized blackholes getting created for a nanosecond or two! Imagine that; mini blackholes you can show off to your mates! Those physicists at CERN must be wetting themselves with excitement.
Mind you, as always the Christians are in a hissy fit over this new toy because some of them are worried we might destory God’s creation – being the earth and all of us – as the little blackholes could become very big blackholes and rend us atom by atom into nothingness. Well, sure, but you know – no guts, no glory, man! You’re not going to win a Nobel Prize without breaking a few laws of physics, that’s for sure!
Serious for a second, there isn’t any way this thing is going to destroy the earth. You have more chance of being able to walk to the moon in a pink bikini than the LHC ending our existence in a puff of anti-matter. As usual the Christians are panicking and slinging the FUD around! Jezuz, you would think after losing that argument with Gallello they would have learned to shut the fuck up by now (it only took them 183 years to admit they lost as well). But no, it appears where there’s high end science, there’s a bunch of Christian numbnuts screaming about the end of the world. The shitty part about it is, decent scientists don’t run around screaming the world is going to end every time some fat paedophile guy puts on a long dress and starts preaching the “Word of God”. No, they just go about their day, building bigger and better science experiments.
So really, why bother making a fuss at all?! Honestly what’s the worst that could happen? The world being devoured in a second big bang, you say! So what! Even it does, it will be so fast you won’t even notice. Then we all get to see who was right, and who was wrong between the Buddhists, and the Christians.
Another very interesting debate that needs settling! 
Andy.
Tonight I went to dinner with the work crowd as a celebration cum reward for releasing a major peice of software to the commercial world at the time some big managers project plan said we would (I work in the IT department of a web commerce company). Now while I share the same peice of carpet with these people for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, over dinner I realised that quite a few of them are not people I would want to see outside of work. And some of them, are just downright annoying bastards that I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire! Well maybe that’s a bit harsh, I would piss on them, but grudgingly!
After I came home from dinner, I logged into World of Warcraft, and took my Paladin – Lunark – out for a run. My friends, who also play WoW, don’t know about my Paladin as we are all meant to be diehard Horde players. I can’t help it though, Lunark is so much fun to play, and tonight he made his first friend.
Which is where I was going with this story in the first place. As I was running around Jasperlode Mine, I came across the path of another Paladin, a woman called Callandra. We teamed up and played the quest out at the mine, and spent a good 45 minutes in each others company chatting all the while. During the time we spent together we went from strangers to friends; sharing laughs, saving each others lives, and enjoying the warmth that comes with hanging out with someone comfortable.
After I said goodbye to Callandra and left the game, it suddenly dawned on me that our concept of friends and strangers is not something based on the reality of our five senses, but on the emotional empathy of our imagination. You see, being able to make some bond with the personality of an individual through a virtual medium (like WoW) is enough for our minds to make an image of a person upon which feelings can be projected.
The irony being, it is entirely possible to sit in a crowded room full of stangers, or sit alone at home and be surrounded by friends.
Padwanna.
