To Party with the Mad Hacker

I tag administering internet hoaxes, spam, hacks, bots and chatroom jinxes as ’the waterloo of the 21st century’.  My cat would agree and for some reason think of a way to be in control of situations involving me and my PC.  Most web subscribers remain passive to these so-called ‘virtual viruses’ and that an antidote would either eat up 24/7 of your lifetime handling such intricacies or simply drive you nuts.

'Owned' (Image from Google)

So I jumped out of my virtual consciousness, brushed away some temporary remedies I have at hand and magnified the cataclysmic reality of technological advancement with a few handy therapeutic terminologies I could consume to cease myself from sourgraping.

• Bootism – a practice that commonly features a certain kind of ‘ritual’ exercised under symptoms of ‘emotional crisis’.   The aggressor is widely referred to as a ‘chatroom booter’ (translation:  chatroom mass murderer).  It is usually viewed as the brainchild of malignant depressive disorder that nurses angst. In idiomatic terms, it implies chatroom warfare’.  Which reminds me of the phrase ‘total freedom’ that my mind could think of nothing else but an image of psychosis.
• Hackonomy - a branch of study pursued by deranged technologists who flanked in their STS (Science, Technology and Society course) mid-term exams due to sudden attacks of schizophrenia.  It usually generates a hacker’s combat with his or her own encounter with a mistaken identity if not of his or her own existential crisis.  As a result, they go off looting other people’s identity to have one.
• Micmania – a generic term for mic freezer in voice chatrooms.  In contrast with voice chat addicts who simply play tug-of-war with chatroom talk buttons, micmaniacs exemplify themselves by revealing their own sour taste of oppression from freedom of speech.  It could also signify a serious indication of noise phobia, wherein victims fall to the idea that they are being chased by voices from unknown realms so that they demand complete silence.

Virtual toys often create an illusion of what some would affirm as cyber-terrorism.  But by disambiguating real-life scenarios lying beneath inflictions of these virtual disorders, we could go beyond the purposes of these toys to decide which is beneficial or harmful; utmost, entertaining or destructive.  Yet it seems to me that promotional regulations of these toys neglect to attach important reminders that young consumers have long grown up with, that is, ‘not suitable for kids below 18′.