Collective Intelligence Podcast

Unknown

Collective intelligence is the collaboration and contribution of different minds, perspectives, and knowledge on the one idea.

light bulbs sketched on chalkboard Many small ideas make a big one

An example of collective intelligence could be Wikipedia; where users accumulate their intelligence on a particular subject, and from there ‘gatekeepers’ come into play, to edit the users information.

wikipedia_2

An argued site of collective intelligence could be Facebook, users comment and like uploaded material, being the subject. Users form their opinion on the subject. I would argue that Facebook isn’t intended as a collective intelligence site, but factors such as commenting, contribute as collective intelligence.

facebook-logo-2

These ideas are discussed in the linked podcast by myself (emma congdon) and Paige Whitfield.

http://www.co-intelligence.org/CollectiveIntelligence1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

http://www.beamsandstruts.com/bits-a-pieces/item/795-facebook

Transmedia explained through The Matrix.

Transmedia can be defined as one story scattered across many channels(such as film, web, comic ect), with each element telling its own part of the story in its own way. This requires participation from the audience and involvement with the story or culture.

The element of transmedia differs from that of multimedia in the sense that multimedia is the same story or information over many platforms. Multimedia requires no involvement from the audience, they are simply a receiver of information. For example, if there was to be a story on the news, this story could be spread over different platforms such as the news website, but it would still be the same story.

An example of transmedia could be the movie ‘The Matrix’ created by Larry and Andy Wachowski in 1999. The movie explains the general plot and one story about the main character Neo, but to completely immerse yourself further into the detail of why everything is the way that it is in the Matrix world, you would need to dig deeper, to different platforms of the Matrix. ‘The Matrix’ is the story of Neo, a computer hacker who lives a life online, and in what he thinks is the real world. This movie is a classic example of falling down the rabbit hole. Once Neo discovers that he had been living a false reality, he is pressured by his companions to be ‘the one’ and help save the real world.

Screen Shot 2015-05-03 at 2.36.05 PM   Screen Shot 2015-05-03 at 2.31.53 PM

The comic book of the matrix is a branch off from the movie to explain further information about the vast detail and experience about the matrix world. Created by the Wachowski brothers collaborate with Geof Darrow there were a total of three series in both web comics and the physical comics based on the Matrix journey.

Screen Shot 2015-05-03 at 2.35.22 PM

The story continues in the games ‘Enter the Matrix’, and ‘The Matrix: The Path Of Neo’ to give light to aspects of the untold story. It is discovered in the game how the enemy (the machine robots) came to power. The machines are big octopus looking robots, which are a constant danger and threat to the survival of the Matrix world and its inhabitants.

The-Matrix-Online

Short film animations of the matrix, called ‘The Anamatrix’ also tell more of the matrix world. The combined animations introduce how the matrix world came to be, after the war between man and the machines.

The_Animatrix_-_The_Album   the_matrix_large_05

The combination of all these platforms and their extended story of the original movie explain in detail, and branch out further into the matrix universe. The transmedia, or branching out of stories, involves the audience with their participation and concentration throughout and across platforms.

http://athinklab.com/transmedia-storytelling/what-is-transmedia-storytelling/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/plotsummary

http://convergenceishere.weebly.com/the-matrix-and-avatar.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix

http://thematrix101.com

http://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html

Does Remixing Something To A Parody Really Have Any Boundaries?

Creators of remixes or remediation’s take an idea such as a song or a video, and add, remove, or change its original to create something almost new. Specifically, a parody does this to the idea in a humors way. For example, the Miley Cyrus video clip ‘Wrecking Ball’ received a lot of attention and demonstrated controversy from the media. Cyrus was once ‘tween queen’, from the Disney show ‘Hanna Montana’, but transformed into a sexual role model for the young girls who idolized her Disney show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2FRPA3Gf8

Unknown

In Cyrus’ video clip she is seen sexually licking a hammer (which is just odd on a whole new level), riding a wrecking ball naked, and only in her underwear for the rest of the time. To some the video is seen as pornographic and sexualized, but Cyrus responded by claiming “that her nakedness in the short film is a metaphor for how vulnerable she feels inside.”

Miley-Cyrus-Wrecking-Ball-Caps-12

I really think that this video is just weird. But the controversy about this video created a sum of parody’s poking fun at Miley Cyrus and her ridiculous video. The specific parody that I have looked at was created by Bart Baker on YouTube. Baker has turned Cyrus’ video into a parody by changing they lyrics of the song and acting as Miley himself in the video. And this is pretty funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLtmauJLP-A

maxresdefault

Bakers lyrics really depicts what a large public sphere really thought of Cyrus’ transformation to sexualisation. They lyrics look at her impact as a role model on female youth when Baker sings –

“I’m basically a wrecking ball for the youth of America

All I want is to brainwash them all with my massive nipples under my, tee”.

The lyrics are really quite blunt and get straight to the point, there is almost no line to cross or limits for dark humor with parodys in this case.

And notice how Miley has been licking every thing lately, or just had her tongue out at most chances she can get? Well another line of the lyrics talk about how this is found quite disturbing by some –

“Time for me to lick this hammer like it’s a big metal pen1s

I’ll lick anything for more attention”

Baker really highlights everything that has been discussed about Cyrus or her video. He even gets into talking about the video is porn when he gets another actor in the parody with him –

“Excuse me I’m here for the p0rn

Bend over girl let’s make this quick.

What do you mean? This is not p0rn.

Then why the hell are you naked?”

Screen Shot 2015-04-21 at 5.17.05 PMScreen Shot 2015-04-21 at 5.17.21 PMScreen Shot 2015-04-21 at 5.17.39 PM

Barkers example of a parody perfectly demonstrates the different lengthy boundaries when it comes to remixing or remediating a video into a parody by making fun of the artist.

Click on the above link to seem my youtube video – remixing remixes of Wrecking Ball

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2013/sep/10/miley-cyrus-wrecking-ball

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2418231/Miley-Cyrus-defends-controversial-video-Wrecking-Ball–reveals-hidden-message.html

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bartbaker/wreckingballparody.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/09/10/miley-cyrus-sex-crazed-wrecking-ball-video-shatters-records-earns-lots/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parody

How does convergence affect the relationship between media technologies and audiences?

Convergence is defined as the state of converging, or the coming together. But when in relation to media convergence, it is defined as the merging or branching out of different companies to produce their communication content over different popular platforms. Technology is constantly evolving, and because of this, it is crucial for large communication organizations to evolve (or converge) along with it, or they risk fading out.

Media convergence was described by Henry Jenkins as “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who would go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they wanted”

http://henryjenkins.org/2006/06/welcome_to_convergence_culture.html

To explain a generally broad example –

Before modern technology really started to boom, Newspapers were the way of the news, just about the only way to find out what was going on in the world. Newspapers were the popular media platform. Of course, obviously, this has changed now. Nowadays there are different platforms circulating across the Internet and television, and there are so many more ways to access this information, such as smartphones, apps, tablets, computers and TV’s, there are just so many more ways to access the news and from different perspectives such as different blogs or independent sites, not just the one newspaper. Obviously, newspapers still exist of course, but they are in great competition and constantly declining due to new media platforms such as Google. I find this statement from ‘The Brookings Essay’ very relevant and in some cases harsh, “Now, however, in the first years of the 21st century, accelerating technological transformation has undermined the business models that kept American news media afloat, raising the possibility that the great institutions on which we have depended for news of the world around us may not survive.”  http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news#

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 8.49.57 AM

This is a demonstration of natural selection through communication and media platforms, everything is constantly evolving.

In relation to audiences, this creates a divide, for example, the younger generation has grown up with all this technology and generally has an account for most social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. (This is a very broad perspective on how the different generations function with media convergence) It is the older generations that tend to struggle with evolving technologies and converging media, they grew up with newspapers. Maybe this is just a stereotype, and I know that I am wrong with some people, but I know for a fact that my grandparents don’t really have a clue when it comes to social or media technologies. There are many people who have grown up without modern technology and have learned to use it flawlessly. But in relation to media convergence to modern platforms, one of the divides in audiences and platform preference is the age gap.

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 9.13.06 AM

Media convergence to technology is aimed at the majority of the public audience. Organizations use specific platforms to target specific audiences such as newspapers or online sites.

Am I wrong with this stereotype?

http://blog.distinctstudios.com/?p=429

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/3-media-convergence-and-transformed-media-environment/media-convergence-and-transform-0

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring03/Mallard/

http://www.ask.com/world-view/examples-media-convergence-ea643c0060281a80

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1425043/media-convergence

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-23/google-vs-entire-newspaper-industry-and-winner

I dont even like Christmas.

A public sphere is generally a group of people discussing or giving an opinion on common concerns such as social issues, events, or ideas. For a small example, if a new prime minister was elected, certain groups of people interested in politics would discuss the change in government, how it affects them, and their opinion on it.

The public sphere has become very mediated over time and now certain shows or concerns target certain audiences. Therefore, the mediated public sphere.

Another example of something causing debate in the public sphere is the web series by Kate McLennan and Kate McCartney, called ‘The Katering Show’. ‘The Katering Show’ is a show about cooking to say the least, but in a very full on way, poking fun at the issues involved with each episodes theme, and the food itself.

maxresdefault

‘The Katering Show’ targets the popular culture or comic types of public spheres and delivers legitimate issues or life problems.

I watched the Christmas episode of ‘The Katering Show’ to analyze the different issues that the show actually delivers to its public sphere audience. I found, that when I re watched the episode to specifically look for addressed issues, that there are disguised both personal and life concerns.

One of the main general issues that the show looks at is the personal family problem that most people face over Christmas. I only ever have Christmas with my immediate family of four people, but I still understand the idea of unwanted family with theamount that everyone complains about people. On ‘The Katering Show’ Kate and Kate perform a role play of the typical pestering ‘auntie Ruth’.

“Hi Kate”

“Hi auntie Ruth”

“So Kate when are you going to start having babies?”

“I had a miscarriage.” “that one shuts them up every time.”

Bad-Family-Christmas-portrait

This dialogue demonstrates the typical annoying auntie or relative that just wont stop asking questions, but the dialogue would also involve another public sphere discussing the concerns of having a miscarriage.

Another issue that the pair address is battery farms when the pair engage in a conversation of what a turkey makes them think of.

“McCartney what does turkey remind you of?”

“Battery farms.”

Their dialogue just forces the problem into the open so quickly. Battery farms are like factories, containing thousands of birds inside crammed into miniscule cages, these cages are stacked on top of each other and go along the whole factory. It is cruel and inhumane.

Pitts Farm

Throughout the Christmas episode of ‘The Katering Show’ different kinds of issues arise that spark debate between different public spheres, yes the show is comic, but it forces these underlining problems on to the audience and creates discussion. For example, the concern of family Christmases would apply to most people who despise a family member, a pretty general public sphere. But they discuss the battery farm and miscarriages which sparks much more passion from the public sphere who feel strongly about these issues such as animal rights activists or parents who have suffered the trauma of a miscarriage. Overall, ‘The Katering Show’ has made me laugh, but has also made me angry that I have now analyzed these cruel issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwoR3fkcJ9g

http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/habermas.htm

http://thekateringshow.com

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/the-katering-show-how-comedians-kate-mccartney-and-kate-mclennan-are-serving-it-up-to-foodie-culture-20150220-13kfdf.html

http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalsusedforfood/g/What-Is-A-Battery-Cage.htm

Does it really matter who owns what you think you know?

Does it really matter who owns the media? Um… yes!

The media is mass communication to the public. When this mass communication is owned and controlled by specific people or groups, it can censor or alter the news to control what the public think that they know. The truth can be easily twisted by the owners of the media to form a bias opinion for the public on specific issues or events. The owners of the media have the power and control to decide whether or not they want to share information or news, or keep it hidden from the public for their own benefit, or any reason they see fit.

Murdoch papers

With the rise of the Internet and digital media, it is my opinion that the public generally chooses not to fully trust the media or government in the news that they present. The Internet gives light on so many more uncensored issues than what is disclosed in the major corporations. An example of this is Julian Assange’s website ‘WikiLeaks’ (https://wikileaks.org ). Assange’s site proved to the public that we weren’t being told the truth about the government. An exampe of this was in 2010 when a military helicopter in Baghdad, Iraq killed civilians, this was known as the ‘Collateral Murder’. This was the first indication to the public not to trust the news.

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 12.32.59 PM

All trust issues aside, the two major Australian media ownerships of the current day are dominated by FairFax Media, and News Limited owned by Rupert Murdoch. With these two players, Australian media is one of the most concentrated in the world. There are other media giants at large, (eg. Gina Rinehart and others) but the main competition rests with these two organizations.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited owns 70% of Australian newspapers, also other news outlets such as television, magazinesand Internet or digital media sites. News Limited reaches over 15 million Australians. FairFax Media reaches over 10 million Australian viewers over mediums including newspapers, magazines, radio and digital media. These two giants control what the Australian public think that they know in terms of news, issues, events and ideologies.

Murdoch_owns_news          318634-aus-bus-pix-fairfax-media

The different mediums of media have evolved in terms of technology. These days the Internet is a much larger news platform, with younger and newer generations building their ideas and sites up with what is considered to be the way of the future. Fairfax is said to cut down almost 2000 jobs from newspapers due to a decline. The Internet is slowly replacing newspapers and this is sometimes just how competition works in terms of organizations progressing to future ages.

2897134-3x2-700x467

The influence that these media giants have is enormous; it exploits the ideologies of these organizations owners to gain control over public viewers in specific areas. Some people may still believe the media and everything that they broadcast, but I don’t think that everything that they speak is the truth. My words would suggest being cautious of what you trust in. But the times are changing and the Internet is evolving to produce more independent online journalists, so maybe there will soon be new players in the game of who owns the media.

Does anyone think that the Media is truthful? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

https://jeyashiri20.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/why-does-it-matter-who-controls-the-media/

https://media1.knoji.com/effects-of-media-ownership-1/

http://theconversation.com/media-ownership-matters-why-politicians-need-to-take-on-proprietors-3425

http://theconversation.com/a-premature-dance-on-the-grave-of-fairfax-16761

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ownership_in_Australia

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/concentrated-media-ownership-a-crisis-for-democracy,3259

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Collateral_Murder,_5_Apr_2010

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/fairfax-media-plans-to-axe-staff-from-regional-newspapers-and-websites/story-fni0fit3-1227258937502

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-18/fairfax-cuts-jobs-goes-compact/4076732

The Evolution Of Smartphones

In today’s society, the population has been very specific that technology is the way of life. It is the way in which the current generation is taught and it is what most know, and would not know how to live without. The most common object that seems to have taken over the world is the evolution of smartphone and what it has turned into. It is what drives society; these days everyone has a smartphone on his or her person all day.

The first smartphone, developed by IBM and Bellsouth, was Simon, released to the public in 1993. As you can imagine, Simon was very clunky and basically a brick, its dimensions are 8 inches tall, 2.5 inches wide, and 1.5 inches thick. In comparison to the smartphones of the current times, Simon is a massive brick that could probably knock someone out. Simon was seen at the time as a computer phone combination, it included an address book, calendar, fax, calculator, note pad, mail, filer, sketch pad, the time, and to do lists. All together the first smartphone, Simon, was worth $1100.

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 5.58.37 PM

It was a short life for Simon, the battery power was only about an hour, 50 000 units were sold, and Simon the smartphone had faded away. Although Simon had a short life, it paved the way for the generations of smartphones being manufactured today.

The term Smartphone was introduced by Ericson in 1997 and is now used for a generation of phones. Smartphones are supported by operating systems such as Android and IOS, and act as a mini computer and telephone. They consist of features such as GPS, Internet access, apps, movies, music etc. This differs to a ‘normal phone’, which is basically just a way of calling and texting with little uses on the side, like a camera or game.

Unknown

These days most companies have converted to produce smartphones. Two very large smartphone companies are Apple with the IPhone, and Android. The difference between the two is their design, but primarily Androids open system, and Apples closed system.

Android-or-iPhone

Androids open system allows the user to customize and control the interface, but this open system also makes it easier to have security holes, allowing viruses. Apples closed system means that the way that the phone is set out is staying like that (I don’t mind that, I think Apple is way easier with the way that it is set out), the user cant customize the interface. But the closed system has tightly controlled security for apps and the phone in general.

The progress that has been made from the first smartphone, Simon, to today’s smartphones has evolved to demonstrate howtechnology has revolutionised the way in which people live.

In my opinion, I side with Apple. I would never go back to any other company’s phone or computer. Apple is just simple, easy, and so clean in the way that everything is set out, it’s all so easy and continent to operate. Even though everything is stuck inside the walled garden, I’mhappy to keep it in its closed system, everything is there anyway, no fuss. Apple all the way.

iphone-cuota-android-estados-unidos-4

If you have a different opinion on Apple or Android, feel free to try and convert me in the comments.

Abbott Ate an Onion, or Two

Prime minister, Tony Abbott is possibly one of the most hated prime ministers in Australian history, according to some polls.And on the other hand some people (the extreme minority of the population) like the way that Abbott is running the country.

abbott_1agke1v-1agke2l

Abbott has broken countless promises since his time in parliament and my opinion on Abbott has been shaped by the Australian society’s hate of him, and since I have formed an opinion of him, I cannot view him in a positive light.

Since then the most interesting thing that Abbott has done in his time in office was eating a raw onion, then eating another raw onion. This is both hilarious and random.

The denotation of this photograph is the prime minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, eating a raw onion with the skin on, and his extremely big ears sticking out the side of his face.

The connotation of the image can mean different things to different social groups, or depend on the sides of government on which individuals back. For instance, a supporter of the Liberal party and Abbott, would suggest that the Australian primeminister is just eating an onion and showing his support to produce farms… in a rather odd way. Then on the other hand, an individual who hates Abbott running our country, and thinks that he’s running it to the ground with all of his broken promises, could think that the PM is being a spastic and eating a raw onion with the skin on. Is it even okay to eat the skin of the onion? Will it digest properly? Honestly, what mindset was he in when he just decided that he would eat an onion with the skin on?

Individuals have different perceptions and ideologies of Abbott, and on any topics altogether, this shapes the opinion and connotation of a photograph or image for the viewer. Sometimes an opinion cannot be changed depending on what one already knows and believes, this alters the way in which signs are read by different social groups or individuals.

PM was touring an onion produce farm in Tasmaina when he ever so casually picked up a brown onion, skin on and all, and took a bite. Mr Abbott didn’t even drop a tear according to produce farm owner, David Addison. Abbott responded to the circulating photos “I thought it was very important that I show my support for the great products that the Tasmanian agricultural industry produces and, you know, I enjoy onions. I normally have them cooked on the barbeque , but I enjoy onions”.

abbott eating an onion

And its very obviously clear that he enjoys onions because the PM made headlines a second time when he ate another onion in his office with Onions Australia CEO, Lechelle Earl.

Disney vs Deadmau5

One of the most powerful and controlling companies of the current times is Disney. Disney alone has curbed the copyright laws over the years from the original copyright law of the 14-year duration before entering the public domain, to in some cases, the copyright law lasting over a century.

Each time Disney’s iconic face of the company, Mickey Mouse, is about to enter the public domain; the corporation would fight their way to extend the copyright law. The most recent extension occurred in 1998 when President Clinton signed ‘The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act’ to extend corporate authorship to 120 years after creation, or 95 years after publication, whichever expired first. This extension kept Mickey out of the public domain until 2023. Disney is constantly attempting to alter the extension and protect their mascot, Mickey Mouse, from entering the public domain past the 2023 expiation.

Disney are so protective of their sacred mascot that in 2014, they filed a petition to block the trademark of Canadian DJ Deadmau5’s, ‘mau5head’ for being too similar to the Mickey Mouse head. The ‘mau5head’ is in someway similar to Mickey Mouse but easily distinguished. Deadmau5, real name Joel Zimmerman, had already registered trademark for the ‘mau5head’ in 30 other countries, and had been using the head whilst performing for 10 years before Disney took action against him. Deadmau5 responded to Disney’s allegations by tweeting, telling the powerful corporation to “lawyer up mickey”.

After Zimmerman had tweeted to his 3 million followers about the stupidity of Disney’s case, the corporation fire back by illegally using Deadmau5’s track “Ghosts ‘n’ Stuff” in their short ‘Re-Micks’ cartoon. After this, the DJ publically filed a Cease and Desist to Disney for illegally using his song in their cartoon. Zimmerman tweeted “anyone wanna see some complete pwnage?” along with the complete Cease and Desist letter attached to the post, making the case very public. Disney responded to this letter with a statement to the ‘Rolling Stones’ magazine “”Disney vigorously protects its trademark rights, and we oppose Mr. Zimmerman’s attempt to register a logo that is nearly identical to our trademarks for his commercial exploitation”, “Our opposition is not about the use of the Deadmau5 costume. The music was appropriately licensed, and there is no merit to his statement.”

This whole case was just an example of the Disney corporation’s use of power, and the amount of control that the companyhave over smaller artists of any kind. Another example of Disney boasting its control was in 1989, when the company forced three daycare centers in the US, to remove the mural of the cartoon characters from its walls.

Some of the allegations that Disney makes are just so outrageous in some situations. The company constantly boasts their power and control in any means to overly protect its characters, brands and titles. But it shall be interesting to see if Disney will be able to extend the copyright laws even further another time to protect Mickey Mouse, if not, it would be interesting to see the company react when Mickeys becomes part of the public domain in 2023

.

That Stupid Dress

I understand that the connotation of a complex image is what it means to the individual, but I have chosen to discuss ‘the dress’ that divided the public on its colour. It is an example of divided opinion across the globe. The denotation of this imageis the photograph of a coloured (white and gold, or black and blue) dress. The connotation of this dress is associated with the controversy that it has caused in a week on the Internet. This dress went viral after the question was asked if it was in fact gold and white, or black and blue. Personally I think that it is white and gold, no matter how dark I make the image, or how far away I stand from my computer, the dress is still white and gold. But I have had many opinions from other people, that they can only see the dress in black and blue

.

In just a week this dress raised a ridiculous amount of debate in the public on its real colour, and why people were seeing it differently. What is causing the divide in connotation?

According to online polls, the dress is mainly denoted as white and gold, but there is a minority that sees it as black and blue. This isn’t because of different screens or brightness, two individuals could look at the same picture of ‘the dress’ and say that they see two different colours. The difference also isn’t caused to the difference of red to green colour cones in the eye.

Individuals see the dress differently due to something called ‘colour constants’, this is where the brain doesn’t know the surroundings of an object and interprets its colour. In the image the brain doesn’t know the dresses surroundings because how close the photo is taken, therefore makes assumptions on what is visible.

If you see the dress in white and gold (the majority) – Your brain interprets the image in natural light, like near a window with blue sky.

If you see the dress in blue and black (the minority) – Your brain interpreters the image in artificial light, like a lamp. The yellow light causes a gold reflection off the black, whereas the blue remains unaffected.

In this sense, I find the dress and how people perceive it, metaphorical to different signs and symbols. An individual is uniqueand has their own ideologies and interpretations of anything, such as events, issues, or what they interpret something to be (eg. ‘the dress’), they can even just decode a message or sign differently. This just demonstrates the varying and changing ideals of society.

On many occasions, once you see the dress as a certain colour, either white and gold, or black and blue, it is hard to ‘unsee’ it. For myself, I can’t ever see the dress as black and blue unless there is a full photo of the dress on a model.

But to conclude, the dress is black and blue, even though I swear that in that photo the dress is white and gold, it is still, in reality is black and blue.

Does anyone else still see the dress as white and gold, unless on the model?

Or is it just me?