HW #9 - Viral Marketing Campaign

For the viral marketing campaign assignment, I have also chosen Wikipedia.com.

Wikipedia is the only website worth choosing, because other "Web 2.0" social websites are more than society needs for the most part. Sites like Amazon are useful, but should not replace stores like Barnes and Noble, where you can go and purchase a needed book in a hurry. In the example of Netflix, what happens when you make a spur-of-the-moment decision to rent a movie to watch on any given night, and you can't see that movie until the following day, because Netflix has taken over, and Blockbuster no longer exists? With wikipedia, however, you can find information on any topic you desire, be it historical, scientific, or just based on the most obscure pop culture, and no convenience is lost. While the Encyclopaedia Britannica may be considered the more reliable, Wikipedia is still moderated by professionals, so very few glaring errors will ever reach your eyes, and Wikipedia will help you to obtain more information on a wider array of topics than you will ever find on Britannica.

HW #8 - Social Website

Whenever I am searching for general information about a topic I do not understand or am curious about, I search on Wikipedia.com. I chose this site because it is one of the few "Web 2.0" social websites that I believe deserves even partial precedence over a more traditional means of finding what one is looking for. The site provides useful information on just about any topic you can think of, with a long, detailed, user-written description and definition of whatever you search for. It obtains its information via other Wikipedia users, in that a user can post or edit any topic or subject they desire for others to read. The website gives only information about what you search for on any particular page, but, if in the detail of the encyclopedia you find a subject that might be further defined, it will be shown as a hyperlink, and clicking on it will take you to another Wikipedia article on that word or phrase. A competing website would be the Encyclopaedia Britannica. A major way that Britannica may be deemed a better source of information than Wikipedia, is that Britannica is not user-written, and therefore will contain more reliable information.

HW #6 - Thank You

For his homework, John Jwarecki-Maxwell should have posted a link from his blog to my own. This post is in thanks to him. Thanks dude. Thanks.

Apparantly, Maydayfitz (whose blog can be found in my sidebar) has a link to my blog, and because it is confusing, and I'm not sure if John is going to post mine as well, I'll leave the thank you up there just in case. This one is in thanks to Maydayfitz, although, I don't know his actual name. Sorry. But thanks, dude, thanks.

HW #5 - Table

I installed Google Analytics on my blog. I have had only one visit so far.

Date Range	Visits	Page Views
10/03-10/09	1	1

HW #4, question 4

For my two companies in the homework 4 assignment, I chose Target and Barnes & Noble. Target I chose because I've found a lot of cheap items there that proved useful in the construction of NakedOwl.com. Barnes & Noble I chose because a lot of the material that I place on my blog or anywhere is from information I get from books, which I generally purchase from Barnes & Noble. What I notice about this path is that it seems that two skinnier people, (the ones connected to my two companies) are then connected to two much fatter people who are connected to eachother. This seems the most likely scenario for any two companies, because even though there are many offshoots in companies that are not quite as big or on which the board members are not quite as diverse, they may be connected to others who are even bigger or have board members who are members of many different companies.

HW3 Blogs

I chose the following blogs for the HW3 assignment:

• Pure Pwnage


• BU Squirrel Mail


• Naked Owl

I chose the first one because.. well the stuff on that site just sounded like it would be funny. I chose the second, because I've come to find that navigating anything on any BU operated website is pretty ridiculous, and you'll get lost easily because the pages are set up so poorly.

The third page I chose was my own, Naked Owl, which is a site that me and my friends made (and are still constructing), as you can see here:
I suppose it couldn't hurt to promote it.

Creative Commons License

I chose the following creative commons license: Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivative Works. I decided that if somebody is to repeat these arguments, wether it's in appreciation or attack, that it be known that I am the author, and also that I don't want my work profitting another person. Finally, I chose no derivative works because I don't want people changing what I say in order to oppose it, like some Michael Moore b.s.

Evolution is a crock.

Evolution is the biggest heap of balogne in the world. Sure, slight evolution among species may be possible, but inter-species evolution? That not only has been shown to be false, but could never explain the origin of life. Clearly the existence of a higher intelligence is the only sound way right now of explaining the origin of man and the variations of different species. For further evidence, look at my friend's webpage, here. Now what boggles my mind is why schools refuse to include the study of creationism in their classes because it 'doesn't qualify as science' seeing as it isn't observable, testable, or provable, which is so strange considering it is no less observable, testable, or provable than evolution. Not only that, but it offers an explanation for more things than evolution can, and so should not be completely overlooked based on anti-christian prejudices. The President agrees that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. Some though, have the nerve to say that evolution and creationism don't need to be opposed, and can actually be molded together in a belief that accepts both theories working cooperatively. As politically correct and tolerant as this sounds, it's also ridiculous, as research into Christianity will tell you that no such cooperation is possible.

A rebuttal of a pro-gay marriage argument.

Reasons People Have For Being Against Gay Marriage

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, liposuction and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without both a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans...


Copy/Paste this to your journal or myspace bulletin if you support Gay Marriage and believe that the majority of those who don't are unwilling to recognize what it means to love another person regardless of any prejudices

Reasons people have for being for gay marriage:

1) Those who are against gay marriage are clearly just afraid of what popular opinion might think, regardless of the fact that it seems to be the new, trendy, hip thing to support the blasphemous institution similar to the backing surrenderred to rap music and teenagers who commit suicide.

2) Obviously if God could rewrite the Holy Bible, He would change His views to keep up with the times, and allow His holy sanctity to be disgraced by those who give in to animal-like pig lust.

3) We, the liberals of America, are firmly against the undeniable truth that this country was founded off of purely Christian values that simply allowed for a freedom of religion; that the phrase "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" was not actually written into the constitution and actually has no historical background in American government, and repeatedly ignore the threat of Sodom and Gemorrah, 'cause, hey! Christianity is a crock anyway, and, to tell you the truth, we aren't all that afraid of fire and brimstone. Jump on the bandwagon!

4) The fight against homosexual marriage is nothing more than an immature, old-fashioned prejudice against people who clearly have the judgment and right to be married against everything written into not only the Bible, but the Big Book of Common Sense (seeing as a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring which proves its unnaturality). While we're at it, why not just allow 35-year-old fathers to marry their 14-year-old daughters when they fall in love, and how about cats too! Some people happen to be in love with their cats, and, hey now, we wouldn't be called the conjurers of prejudice based on age, family, or species, heck no!

5) It's a perfect argument that homosexuality is not a changeable feeling, because, contrary to not only genetic testing, but the fact that homosexuals have been converted to heterosexuals, and vice versa (in an 80-years-to-life prison sentence example), homosexuality is written into the very DNA!

All this is obvious if you understand that the country doesn't have to be a theocracy to base laws on religious values, and that it's not only a religious, but a logical argument that homosexuality is not only wrong, but unnatural.