Monday, March 08, 2004
Presentations:
So far I found that most of the presentations have been really interesting. I found the site about file sharing and MP3's to be really interesting. I think that it was a neat site because you can really relate to the information that the site has to offer and it really hit home with me. I do use MP3's on a regular basis and I definitely still file share. It's just interesting how much it seems like the government is trying to crack down on this but I haven't seen any changes yet. Another interesting site was the copywriting and motion picture site. I found it really interesting how easy it is to obtain a movie that in many cases is still in the theatre or not yet out on video. It just seems like with the internet boom, it became so much easier to obtain illegal copies of movies and usually for free. I think that the motion pictures make such an extreme amount of money that even with the piracy that has seemed to increase with the internet, they are still making a ton of money. I don't necessarily think that it is right, but I think that they are spending too much time and money prosecuting people for this crime.
So far I found that most of the presentations have been really interesting. I found the site about file sharing and MP3's to be really interesting. I think that it was a neat site because you can really relate to the information that the site has to offer and it really hit home with me. I do use MP3's on a regular basis and I definitely still file share. It's just interesting how much it seems like the government is trying to crack down on this but I haven't seen any changes yet. Another interesting site was the copywriting and motion picture site. I found it really interesting how easy it is to obtain a movie that in many cases is still in the theatre or not yet out on video. It just seems like with the internet boom, it became so much easier to obtain illegal copies of movies and usually for free. I think that the motion pictures make such an extreme amount of money that even with the piracy that has seemed to increase with the internet, they are still making a ton of money. I don't necessarily think that it is right, but I think that they are spending too much time and money prosecuting people for this crime.
Monday, March 01, 2004
"Smart Mobs" and Mobile Computing
After being in lecture on Thursday, it really hit me how much cell phones have changed our culture. Today almost everyone that I know owns a cell phone and uses it on a very regular basis. A lot of times I may call a person on their cell phone when they may be home and could easily be using their land line. Also a lot of people have stopped even using land lines and resort only to cell phones. This technology seemed to hit the world at such a fast pace that I don't really remember when it came to be such a world wide phenomena. The thing that really puzzles me is how we did anything before cell phones. How did we meet up with people or find each other at certain places? What happened when we got lost or our cars broke down in the middle of nowhere? How did we tell people we might be a little late and to not wait around? And most importantly how did we have the money to call our friends and families around the country and chat for hours and not get huge phone bill in the mail the following month? It just seems like with the emergence of the cell phone it not only changed the way we communicated with people but it changed our culture. The cell phone culture has lead us to focus less on time, less on how long we spend on our phones and more time on communicating with the outside world. We have made cell phones an extension of who we are. It is no longer a tool for convenience, but an extension of ourselves and our abilities.
After being in lecture on Thursday, it really hit me how much cell phones have changed our culture. Today almost everyone that I know owns a cell phone and uses it on a very regular basis. A lot of times I may call a person on their cell phone when they may be home and could easily be using their land line. Also a lot of people have stopped even using land lines and resort only to cell phones. This technology seemed to hit the world at such a fast pace that I don't really remember when it came to be such a world wide phenomena. The thing that really puzzles me is how we did anything before cell phones. How did we meet up with people or find each other at certain places? What happened when we got lost or our cars broke down in the middle of nowhere? How did we tell people we might be a little late and to not wait around? And most importantly how did we have the money to call our friends and families around the country and chat for hours and not get huge phone bill in the mail the following month? It just seems like with the emergence of the cell phone it not only changed the way we communicated with people but it changed our culture. The cell phone culture has lead us to focus less on time, less on how long we spend on our phones and more time on communicating with the outside world. We have made cell phones an extension of who we are. It is no longer a tool for convenience, but an extension of ourselves and our abilities.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Computer Games:
I found the lecture on computer games to be one of the most interesting discussions that we have had in class so far. I think that computer games are really easy for people to relate to because everyone has either played computer games or knows friends and family who play computer games. I think that computer games and especially internet games are really allowing people to experience an entire new form of gaming where people are extending their realm of what is real and what is virtual. Today people can get online and find other real players whom they can compete or form alliances with. These combined players then compete in what seems like real battles where emotions are high and the feel of the game is all but fake. However I have to ask myself what do these online games with high violence and killing doing for the people involved in it? People say that there can be a line drawn between what is real and what is virtual and that people will always be able to know the difference. But can people who feel the same emotions in the real world and the virtual world maybe forget where the line is crossed? Could physical violence spring due to the fact that it is so easy to kill and be killed in the virtual world of gaming? I don't think that there is anyway to tell at this point if violence is or will increase due to online gaming, but I think sometime in the future we may better understand whether there really is an ability to draw the line between the physical and the virtual world.
Another interesting point that was raised in class was the idea that this online gaming community that has been rapidly increasing may in fact be forming a type of sub-culture. I think that this idea is very legitimate. First and foremost computer games extend beyond the computer itself. I hear people talking all the time about different games that they play and how far they are or how much they have accomplished in a certain game. I see groups of kids playing together at one computer all talking about the game and feeling like they are connected because they both understand exactly what is going on. Also in many cases people can spark long and drawn out conversations due to the fact that they both play a certain online game. Other sub-cultures form in the exact way. Take for instance a band that someone really likes. If they find someone else who really enjoys the same band they feel a certain bond with that person. They can spark up conversation with them and just the fact that they have the same common interest leads to a connection. I think that computer games give people that same sense of connection and forms bonds between people because of the common interest.
I found the lecture on computer games to be one of the most interesting discussions that we have had in class so far. I think that computer games are really easy for people to relate to because everyone has either played computer games or knows friends and family who play computer games. I think that computer games and especially internet games are really allowing people to experience an entire new form of gaming where people are extending their realm of what is real and what is virtual. Today people can get online and find other real players whom they can compete or form alliances with. These combined players then compete in what seems like real battles where emotions are high and the feel of the game is all but fake. However I have to ask myself what do these online games with high violence and killing doing for the people involved in it? People say that there can be a line drawn between what is real and what is virtual and that people will always be able to know the difference. But can people who feel the same emotions in the real world and the virtual world maybe forget where the line is crossed? Could physical violence spring due to the fact that it is so easy to kill and be killed in the virtual world of gaming? I don't think that there is anyway to tell at this point if violence is or will increase due to online gaming, but I think sometime in the future we may better understand whether there really is an ability to draw the line between the physical and the virtual world.
Another interesting point that was raised in class was the idea that this online gaming community that has been rapidly increasing may in fact be forming a type of sub-culture. I think that this idea is very legitimate. First and foremost computer games extend beyond the computer itself. I hear people talking all the time about different games that they play and how far they are or how much they have accomplished in a certain game. I see groups of kids playing together at one computer all talking about the game and feeling like they are connected because they both understand exactly what is going on. Also in many cases people can spark long and drawn out conversations due to the fact that they both play a certain online game. Other sub-cultures form in the exact way. Take for instance a band that someone really likes. If they find someone else who really enjoys the same band they feel a certain bond with that person. They can spark up conversation with them and just the fact that they have the same common interest leads to a connection. I think that computer games give people that same sense of connection and forms bonds between people because of the common interest.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Hypertext and Digital Aesthetics:
This lecture seemed very confusing to me. First of all it was really hard to relate to this topic, because I have never seen a online book that has used mostly hypertexts to illustrate things. However if we ever reach the point where most books are made in that manner I think we will loose a large part of our imagination. Books are what let us form places and people in our heads. They allow us to make a imaginary world in which anything is possible and where we are the only ones who know what this place is like. If we read books with hypertext everyone would see the same pictures and everyone would have the same image of who the characters were and what the places looked like.
However I do think that there are positive attribute to hypertexts. I think that they allow people to discover more information and to really find out more info about topics that are of interest to them. Before hypertext and even the internet people usually could only read just one piece of information about a topic of interest, and it was usually hard to find more information on topic without having to search in other areas or having to go to different libraries to find things. This was a huge time constraint and people often gave up after only finding a limited amount of info. The internet has allowed us to find some much information in such a short amount of time and with just a click of the mouse. Hypertexts have even shortened the amount of time it takes to find information and gives people a huge amount of information to choose from. I think that the internet has allowed us to become much more intelligent humans and lets us learn about our lives at such a fast pace.
This lecture seemed very confusing to me. First of all it was really hard to relate to this topic, because I have never seen a online book that has used mostly hypertexts to illustrate things. However if we ever reach the point where most books are made in that manner I think we will loose a large part of our imagination. Books are what let us form places and people in our heads. They allow us to make a imaginary world in which anything is possible and where we are the only ones who know what this place is like. If we read books with hypertext everyone would see the same pictures and everyone would have the same image of who the characters were and what the places looked like.
However I do think that there are positive attribute to hypertexts. I think that they allow people to discover more information and to really find out more info about topics that are of interest to them. Before hypertext and even the internet people usually could only read just one piece of information about a topic of interest, and it was usually hard to find more information on topic without having to search in other areas or having to go to different libraries to find things. This was a huge time constraint and people often gave up after only finding a limited amount of info. The internet has allowed us to find some much information in such a short amount of time and with just a click of the mouse. Hypertexts have even shortened the amount of time it takes to find information and gives people a huge amount of information to choose from. I think that the internet has allowed us to become much more intelligent humans and lets us learn about our lives at such a fast pace.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Intellectual Property and Copyright
If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our minds? And, if we can't get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of such work?
Serious writers, whose books have ever taken longer to sell, were especially affected. They denounced unauthorized editions -- and were denounced back by the people who printed them. Writers, the pro-copying forces argued, had long considered themselves vehicles for inspiration from Heaven. How could they lay claim to what had come from God? "Piracy" helped keep the price of books down, benefitting the public and facilitating the spread of ideas. Was it moral to restrict the flow of knowledge for writers' private gain?
If all property was made available for free on the internet and there were no rules or regulations stopping people from using and copying and redistributing all of the free information, do you think that music artists, authors, movie producers, etc. would stop crating any works that were of any meaning, knowing that what they were creating would make them no money? Are people only inspired through money and power or would people continue to make great works even if there was no hope for great wealth? What truly drives people to do things?
How we resolve this latest tension between copyright and technology will define our future ability to communicate, create and share information, education and entertainment. Indeed, if the play button becomes the pay button, our very ability to raise the world's standard of living and education will be jeopardized.
The above quote is a very strong statement about how the future of copyright laws may be linked to education and the ability to learn. Is there any truth to this idea and if so how will our society be able to maintain the education level that our future needs?
Downloading a copyrighted product does not diminish the product, as would be the case of taking and using tangible property such as a dress. At worst, it is depriving the copyright owner of a potential sale. The truth is, it may be causing a sale (through familiarity) or, even more likely, have no impact on the sale. My son often will become familiar with artists through downloading their music on the Internet and then will go out and buy the CD. Indeed, recent studies by independent organizations have shown this to be the case.
Is the impact of downloading copyrighted material completely different from actually stealing a material possession, or are the two very similar?
Do you think that we can relate downloading music to shoplifting or stealing and punish people in the same way? It seems as though we may be trying to use old laws for a completely different culture. The laws that were created for actions committed in the world before the internet is now also being used for actions committed in there. Do we need a whole new set of rules and regulations for the internet, ones different from the real world?
A time may soon come when what is available for free on library shelves will only be available on a pay-per-use basis. It would be a simple matter for a copyright owner to impose a requirement that a small fee be paid each time a digital book or video documentary is accessed by a library patron. Even the student who wants even the most basic access to only a portion of the book to write a term paper would have to pay to avoid committing a crime.
What do you think about that idea of having to pay to read books? Is there something wrong with this idea? With the ability to charge for all knowledge and education, do you think that it will draw an even more distinct line between the class with money and the class without money? Are we heading toward a world created and maintained purely through the upper class and with the lower class having neither a say in the matter or the knowledge to know what is happening to them? Would we be moving completely away from democracy?
For over 150 years, the fair-use doctrine has helped stimulate broad advances in scientific inquiry and education, and has advanced broad societal goals in countless other ways. In this emerging digital era, we need to return to first principles. We need to achieve the balance that should be at the heart of our efforts to promote the interests of copyright owners while respecting the rights of information consumers. We need to rewrite the law for the benefit of society as a whole before all access to information is irreversibly controlled. In short, we need to reaffirm fair use.
The idea of the fair-use doctrine is to help advance society as a whole, however the internet is a whole new field with completely different ideas, so should the fair-use doctrine extend to the internet and the downloading of music, movies, etc?
What do you think about sharing files, whether it is music, movies, etc? Are we committing crimes that should be liable for 250,000 dollars or three years in prison? If these seems too extreme what do you think should be the punishment for sharing files, or do you think we should even be punished at all? Do you think it is wise to spend time and taxpayer money trying to convict people sharing files or would you rather want our tax money spent out on the streets looking for criminals like rapists?
What do you think would need to be done, in terms of the government, to stop the sharing of files on the internet? Although at this point it is illegal to share files, how many people does it really stop? There are still 4.1 million people using Kazzaa and sharing over 800 million files, how will the government have the manpower to stop something that seems to be used by so much of the population?
If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our minds? And, if we can't get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of such work?
Serious writers, whose books have ever taken longer to sell, were especially affected. They denounced unauthorized editions -- and were denounced back by the people who printed them. Writers, the pro-copying forces argued, had long considered themselves vehicles for inspiration from Heaven. How could they lay claim to what had come from God? "Piracy" helped keep the price of books down, benefitting the public and facilitating the spread of ideas. Was it moral to restrict the flow of knowledge for writers' private gain?
If all property was made available for free on the internet and there were no rules or regulations stopping people from using and copying and redistributing all of the free information, do you think that music artists, authors, movie producers, etc. would stop crating any works that were of any meaning, knowing that what they were creating would make them no money? Are people only inspired through money and power or would people continue to make great works even if there was no hope for great wealth? What truly drives people to do things?
How we resolve this latest tension between copyright and technology will define our future ability to communicate, create and share information, education and entertainment. Indeed, if the play button becomes the pay button, our very ability to raise the world's standard of living and education will be jeopardized.
The above quote is a very strong statement about how the future of copyright laws may be linked to education and the ability to learn. Is there any truth to this idea and if so how will our society be able to maintain the education level that our future needs?
Downloading a copyrighted product does not diminish the product, as would be the case of taking and using tangible property such as a dress. At worst, it is depriving the copyright owner of a potential sale. The truth is, it may be causing a sale (through familiarity) or, even more likely, have no impact on the sale. My son often will become familiar with artists through downloading their music on the Internet and then will go out and buy the CD. Indeed, recent studies by independent organizations have shown this to be the case.
Is the impact of downloading copyrighted material completely different from actually stealing a material possession, or are the two very similar?
Do you think that we can relate downloading music to shoplifting or stealing and punish people in the same way? It seems as though we may be trying to use old laws for a completely different culture. The laws that were created for actions committed in the world before the internet is now also being used for actions committed in there. Do we need a whole new set of rules and regulations for the internet, ones different from the real world?
A time may soon come when what is available for free on library shelves will only be available on a pay-per-use basis. It would be a simple matter for a copyright owner to impose a requirement that a small fee be paid each time a digital book or video documentary is accessed by a library patron. Even the student who wants even the most basic access to only a portion of the book to write a term paper would have to pay to avoid committing a crime.
What do you think about that idea of having to pay to read books? Is there something wrong with this idea? With the ability to charge for all knowledge and education, do you think that it will draw an even more distinct line between the class with money and the class without money? Are we heading toward a world created and maintained purely through the upper class and with the lower class having neither a say in the matter or the knowledge to know what is happening to them? Would we be moving completely away from democracy?
For over 150 years, the fair-use doctrine has helped stimulate broad advances in scientific inquiry and education, and has advanced broad societal goals in countless other ways. In this emerging digital era, we need to return to first principles. We need to achieve the balance that should be at the heart of our efforts to promote the interests of copyright owners while respecting the rights of information consumers. We need to rewrite the law for the benefit of society as a whole before all access to information is irreversibly controlled. In short, we need to reaffirm fair use.
The idea of the fair-use doctrine is to help advance society as a whole, however the internet is a whole new field with completely different ideas, so should the fair-use doctrine extend to the internet and the downloading of music, movies, etc?
What do you think about sharing files, whether it is music, movies, etc? Are we committing crimes that should be liable for 250,000 dollars or three years in prison? If these seems too extreme what do you think should be the punishment for sharing files, or do you think we should even be punished at all? Do you think it is wise to spend time and taxpayer money trying to convict people sharing files or would you rather want our tax money spent out on the streets looking for criminals like rapists?
What do you think would need to be done, in terms of the government, to stop the sharing of files on the internet? Although at this point it is illegal to share files, how many people does it really stop? There are still 4.1 million people using Kazzaa and sharing over 800 million files, how will the government have the manpower to stop something that seems to be used by so much of the population?
Privacy, Ownership, Hacking, and Surveillance
There was a large discussion in class the other day about viruses and the massive effects they have on people's computers. It seems as though viruses have been increasing recently and have become not just a funny joke but a serious issue, where people's computers are being ruined and the viruses are affecting millions and millions of computers in just days. I think that this increase in virus activity has really lead people to wonder if there needs to be some sort of government regulation imposed on the internet. The fact that someone's computer can be destroyed all because someone puts a virus out on the internet is a very serious matter and there soon will need to be some protection to people. I think that the boundaries are definitely being crossed when people are having to spend money and time to fix something someone else has destroyed due to them being on the internet.
There however poses a huge problem with the idea of the government stepping in and trying to create regulations on the web. First and foremost the internet extends to all countries of the world, so how and which government will step in? Do will leave it up to the United Nations or does each country need to set their owns rules and regulations? This becomes a very confusing problem due to the fact that many of the countries may not agree on all the rules and regulations that should be enforced and what punishment should extend to each violation. I think if there were to be any regulation enforced the companies involved with the creation of the internet should be the ones to step in and form some sort of prevention methods for the viruses. This may take a lot of time and money but I think that people will soon force these companies to create some sort of protection for computers.
There was a large discussion in class the other day about viruses and the massive effects they have on people's computers. It seems as though viruses have been increasing recently and have become not just a funny joke but a serious issue, where people's computers are being ruined and the viruses are affecting millions and millions of computers in just days. I think that this increase in virus activity has really lead people to wonder if there needs to be some sort of government regulation imposed on the internet. The fact that someone's computer can be destroyed all because someone puts a virus out on the internet is a very serious matter and there soon will need to be some protection to people. I think that the boundaries are definitely being crossed when people are having to spend money and time to fix something someone else has destroyed due to them being on the internet.
There however poses a huge problem with the idea of the government stepping in and trying to create regulations on the web. First and foremost the internet extends to all countries of the world, so how and which government will step in? Do will leave it up to the United Nations or does each country need to set their owns rules and regulations? This becomes a very confusing problem due to the fact that many of the countries may not agree on all the rules and regulations that should be enforced and what punishment should extend to each violation. I think if there were to be any regulation enforced the companies involved with the creation of the internet should be the ones to step in and form some sort of prevention methods for the viruses. This may take a lot of time and money but I think that people will soon force these companies to create some sort of protection for computers.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Posthuman Dreams:
The lecture on posthuman dreams was one that really sparked a lot of emotions about what it is like to be a person and what our lives really mean. First and foremost the idea that we could be moving into a future were we are merged together with machines working in some kind of super-human form seems like a future were only the most elite survive and anyone less than super-human has no chance at life. For me the idea of living and being alive involves so much more than my abilities to calculate mathematic figures or remember things at overwhelming proportions. Life to me is the feelings that are felt, the experiences that change one's life, the relationships that are formed, not the powers on has. And with the idea of people moving closer to machines really makes me feel as though we would be losing the sense of what it is to be human and to be alive. Machines lack the ability to have emotions, to love or hate, to cry, to do anything that is worth any real meaning in life. Therefore by merging with them, we as humans could lose our sense of what it is to feel the emotions that create us.
I do believe that before we move into a complete merge with machines people will start to realize the consequence behind the merging of such a powerful thing and possibly take a few steps back. I do think that some merging would be a benefit to many people, especially since we already have begun to create artificial products to maintain our existence. Take for example the pacemaker or even the simplest thing like contacts. It aides many people in their everyday life and allows us to live longer and more convenient lives. However there needs to be some sort of boundaries set as to how far we can merge with the machine. I'm not sure at what exact point there needs to be a line draw, but I definitely know that there needs to be a boundary between machines aiding us in our everyday life and machines taking over who we are and how we act.
The lecture on posthuman dreams was one that really sparked a lot of emotions about what it is like to be a person and what our lives really mean. First and foremost the idea that we could be moving into a future were we are merged together with machines working in some kind of super-human form seems like a future were only the most elite survive and anyone less than super-human has no chance at life. For me the idea of living and being alive involves so much more than my abilities to calculate mathematic figures or remember things at overwhelming proportions. Life to me is the feelings that are felt, the experiences that change one's life, the relationships that are formed, not the powers on has. And with the idea of people moving closer to machines really makes me feel as though we would be losing the sense of what it is to be human and to be alive. Machines lack the ability to have emotions, to love or hate, to cry, to do anything that is worth any real meaning in life. Therefore by merging with them, we as humans could lose our sense of what it is to feel the emotions that create us.
I do believe that before we move into a complete merge with machines people will start to realize the consequence behind the merging of such a powerful thing and possibly take a few steps back. I do think that some merging would be a benefit to many people, especially since we already have begun to create artificial products to maintain our existence. Take for example the pacemaker or even the simplest thing like contacts. It aides many people in their everyday life and allows us to live longer and more convenient lives. However there needs to be some sort of boundaries set as to how far we can merge with the machine. I'm not sure at what exact point there needs to be a line draw, but I definitely know that there needs to be a boundary between machines aiding us in our everyday life and machines taking over who we are and how we act.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Virtual Bodies:
I think that the discussion on living in a virtual world was one of much interest. A very thought provoking point was the fact that how we are growing up in a world that shapes who we are. That was very interesting because I have never really thought of all the things that have influence who I am. I think that much of my teen and college years have began to be shaped around the need for knowledge and the different ways to obtain that information. In school we are taught to think outside of the box and to look beyond everything that is told to us. I really think that the cyber culture we are growing up in helps to facilitate that. We are now able to find many sources of information at our very finger tips and have the ability to look at many different points of view about any idea, theory, or any question we have about life. I believe that the internet is shaping us into different people of the future.
Another idea brought up was the idea of whether the virtual world is better than the real world? I think that this is a hard topic to cover, because in many cases it is hard to feel many of the emotions that are felt by the real experience. For instance the emotions provoke by actually riding down a river in a raft is incomparable to the feeling of playing a virtual rafting game. Also in a more physical sense, just the act touching real objects is something that cannot be felt in the virtual sense. Granted there can be a lot of emotions sparked in the virtual world. As has been proven before, people form very strong emotions in the virtual sense. They form bonds and relationships that are of as much importance as in the real world. However is there so sort of physical connection that is lacking with these relationships? Something that can't be compensated in the virtual realm? However, I do think that in many cases the virtual world allows people to go out of their comfort zones and experience things virtually they never would in the physical sense. Also many fascinating experiences that the real world has to offer may not be possible to experience because of lack of money or time to do them. I know in my life there are many things that I wish I could experience or have the option to see. However because of my money limitations I am unable to do many of the things I wish I was able to experience. I think that the virtual world allows me to experience so many things even with the wealth limitations.
I think that the discussion on living in a virtual world was one of much interest. A very thought provoking point was the fact that how we are growing up in a world that shapes who we are. That was very interesting because I have never really thought of all the things that have influence who I am. I think that much of my teen and college years have began to be shaped around the need for knowledge and the different ways to obtain that information. In school we are taught to think outside of the box and to look beyond everything that is told to us. I really think that the cyber culture we are growing up in helps to facilitate that. We are now able to find many sources of information at our very finger tips and have the ability to look at many different points of view about any idea, theory, or any question we have about life. I believe that the internet is shaping us into different people of the future.
Another idea brought up was the idea of whether the virtual world is better than the real world? I think that this is a hard topic to cover, because in many cases it is hard to feel many of the emotions that are felt by the real experience. For instance the emotions provoke by actually riding down a river in a raft is incomparable to the feeling of playing a virtual rafting game. Also in a more physical sense, just the act touching real objects is something that cannot be felt in the virtual sense. Granted there can be a lot of emotions sparked in the virtual world. As has been proven before, people form very strong emotions in the virtual sense. They form bonds and relationships that are of as much importance as in the real world. However is there so sort of physical connection that is lacking with these relationships? Something that can't be compensated in the virtual realm? However, I do think that in many cases the virtual world allows people to go out of their comfort zones and experience things virtually they never would in the physical sense. Also many fascinating experiences that the real world has to offer may not be possible to experience because of lack of money or time to do them. I know in my life there are many things that I wish I could experience or have the option to see. However because of my money limitations I am unable to do many of the things I wish I was able to experience. I think that the virtual world allows me to experience so many things even with the wealth limitations.
