whoops i forgot to write a title lol

Sites such as the controversial (as far as I've been told) JuicyCampus.com¹ that depend upon user-generated content always seem to fall victim to a very brief media hysteria about their real-world effects. The idea that I think most people fail to consider is that nothing on the Internet guarantees the validity of anything posted on it². Anyone is able to lie whenever they'd like to, similarly to in what's called real life³. That said, nobody without some superhuman critical skills is going to discount 100% of what they read on the Internet as fabrication. There's a sort of honor system that exists when people are able to create their own content without much intervention from an authority⁴ (like there's no reason to be cynical or something; there's nothing to be cynical about).

So since people are motivated to tell the truth and everything, all the ethical concerns that arise when college kids discover that they can say bad stuff on the Internet are just souped-up versions of ethical concerns that arise when college kids discover that they can say bad stuff on the walls of bathroom stalls⁵.

¹ Aside: URLs aren't case-sensitive, so why are they always spelled with capitalized letters? Is it just a company name with ".com" at the end? If so, shouldn't a website that I imagine came about recently be created with the dot-com bubble in mind and have the good taste not to stick on a ".com?"
²Yes, I realize the irony. No, I will not mention it.
³ The Internet actually is a part of real life. Real life hereafter colloquially refers to life separate from the Internet*.
*I mean for all posts in the future, since I don't use it again in this particular post.

⁴...especially when the authority isn't even that much older than them, which is the case for most social networking websites (or at least the ones that are popular).
⁵ I did not mean for this to rhyme. There was no immediately evident way to avoid it.

Rachel Blake May Have Stolen a Few Months of My Life but Her Story Sure is a Potent Warning

I could cite the oft-cited and refer to the number of advertisements that any average high-school-aged student views in one day to establish my argument. Instead I am going to set myself up for serious moting and say that the overt commercials I take in affect me more than the vast number of subliminal ones that I'm exposed to all the time¹.

ANECDOTE DETAILING THE WAY IN WHICH THE MOST OVERT ADVERTISEMENTS AFFECT ME SIGNIFICANTLY (1): The summer of 2006 saw the enormous corporate cooperation between ABC, Coca-Cola, Monster.com, and various other brand names that manifested as an "Alternate Reality Game" (hereafter, ARG) for the immensely popular ABC serial drama Lost. The Lost Experience was an online game spanning the internet and even some physical places that merged the universe of the viewer with that of the show's story itself (i.e. the consumer followed Rachel Blake (was that her name?) on her quest to expose the coverup of the crash of flight 815 (the plane containing the main characters of Lost that crashed on an island in the pilot episode) by the shady Hanso foundation (another element of the television show)). The ARG required that viewers trek all over the Internet/world to get clues related to the show's mysteries while being offered products by the game's sponsors. The overly commercial nature of the game proved endearing² and fans found ironic pleasure in pretending to be easily swayed by the ads. Especially relevant part: During a giveaway of Apollo bars (a brand originating from the show), I unquestioningly went to the mall to receive my free share (and the box they were in (possible collector's item?)) of the illogically-conceived (Rachel Blake somehow infiltrated the Apollo factory and printed a URL on all the bars?) candy, which would amount to nothing more than some frozen chocolate and a couple of wrappers that I once halfheartedly tried to preserve. But I most definitely did tune in enthusiastically to view the show's season premiere on October 6, 2006.

So these viral campaigns are really the things that get me excited to be sold stuff (Examples: Aqua Teen Hunger Force bomb scare in Boston, ilovebees.com, Trent R.'s campaign for his new album, Arcade Fire's Neon Bible website, etc.). And whenever there's a new one my appreciation of commercialism rises noticeably.

¹Like I could be any sort of authority on whether subliminally-absorbed messages affect me or not.

²Endearing in the way that the commercialism of the Oscars is endearing, although decidedly less cool.

The Following Blog Post Was Written Under the Assumption that Abercrombie and Fitch Advertisements are Actally Parodic

As though any progressively minded American citizen could buy the idea of one of the wealthiest and most widespread¹ brands based in the United States disseminates advertisements that endorse such a limited range of lifestyles. The Abercrombie and Fitch advertisements are brilliant in the way they so overtly exaggerate the abstraction of substantive content from modern commercials so that nothing is left but an exaggerated aesthetic ideal. Another fantastic meta-advertising jab is that the ads depict few non-white, non-athletic² models, as if the majority of Americans couldn't see through their appeal to the dominant Privileged WASP culture. I'll not even approach how the ad in question cleverly broadcasted a 6:1³ ratio of males to females.
Like it's even possible for the American public to not appreciate the ironic appeal of Abercrombie and Fitch's appeal to people whom its demographic will never be.

¹(with the exception of Wyoming)
²And let's not even attempt to discuss the skillful way in which they made every model look like wealthy kids trying desperately to relate to the lowest common denominator through unrefined physical activity (e.g. football without need for shirts, etc.)
³About half of one lady is visible in the advertisement.

I Might Consider Buying Your Product, Sony, if Your Ad Included a Man in a Poorly-Made Giraffe Costume Speaking to a Quirky Girl about Walkmen

If television viewers can't avoid¹ having things sold to them while they're watching the latest episode of Justice or The West Wing, then it's pretty much in everyone's best interest if the advertisements are entertaining. The growing trend of absurdity in commercials is one that, while yeah, really exploitative of the whole awkward mainstream/indie mentality, I think I can readily support. Those commercials with deadpan acting, intentionally shoddy special effects, &c. that are intended to make people rethink² things when really all they do is appeal to the already established love of weird, offbeat humor couldn't please me more when they show up on the tube. It's too obvious that they're engineered to be endearing, but you wouldn't be able to quote³ me as saying that I'm not won over by their deliberate awkwardness.

The following Skittles ad totally exemplifies what I'm talking about:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qp0WBiME_fM


¹ I'm not any sort of expert but I assume that the popularity of digital video recorders (e.g. TiVo) sort of confounds the whole practice of making televised advertisements.
² (E.g. commercials that start out with the brand being advertised and then taking you on a crazy voyage where absolutely nothing is commercial-like or even "mainstream"^* media-like.)
^{*Keep in mind that offbeat humor/indie mentality is now as much a part of the mainstream culture of the United States as Prison Break.
3} Barring any sort of creative citation on your part

Picture The Youth as Those Doing Their Precalculus Homework While I'm Here Typing All This or, A Test Post to Set The Tone for The Rest of This Blog

Solution to problem 11 on page 253:

The quantity of x minus three all over x, minus three over the quantity of x plus one, plus 3 over the quantity of x squared plus x equals zero. Multiply all of this by the least common denominator (i.e. the quantity of x plus one, all times x). You 'll get the quantity of x minus three times the quantity of x plus one, minus three x, plus three, which is all equal to zero. Once you multiply out the two binomials, the negative three and the positive three cancel, leaving you with (once you add like terms) x squared minus five x (which equals, again, zero). You can factor an x out of this, making it x times the quantity of x minus five (zero). Some intuitive steps can be omitted here, but they involve setting both x and x minus five equal to zero and then solving for two different values of x. You'll end up with x equaling zero and x equaling 5. But if you look back at the original equation, you'll see that x cannot equal zero because x is a denominator in the original equation. Since a function can never be legit with an x in the denominator, zero is an extraneous root, which leaves 5 as the only possible value of x.<sup>1

1</sup> This is what I'm pretty sure is the best way to illustrate how I think the youth looked at the article about the whole snow day/superintendent's wife/Facebook thing (i.e. "Or, for something so obvious to the limit, you could say it in a way that's tons more appropriately efficient...").