I have now complete my final paper and am in the revising and editing stages. I really enjoyed the opportunity to develop my own thoughts on the green movement in regard to technology. I personally believe that the green movement will not gain enough popular support for change to occur. I explore this idea in depth in my paper.
One thing that I noticed when I was working on my paper was that even now the green movement hasn't really reached into technology. What I mean is that when we hear people discuss what it means to go green, we often hear about reducing waste in terms of the short term products such as disposable paper towels, plates, cutlery, etc. Rarely do people suggest buying a durable printer so a new one won't have to be purchased. No one has ever said, "don't buy that computer because it'll end up in a landfill in two years".
To me, the need to reduce the technological e-waste we produce is as important as everything else the green movement preaches. I completely am for the green movement and so it was interesting to write a paper explaining how I believe our society will not advance enough to change our ways. I wish and hope that we will be able to, but based on the information in Slade's book about repetitive consumerism I just don't understand how it can happen.
A perfect example is as follows: This year I bought a Pur water filter and told all of my peers I was going green. Since that time, I have probably gone through five hundred paper plates, a thousand plastic utensils, and more than a football field of paper towels. Similarly, I have bought two new pairs of headphones (over the ear and ear buds, because I am a repetitive consumer unfortunately), and a new computer (because Mac's have so much more technology). The point is, I know that I am hurting the environment. I am aware of the state of our planet as are many of the other people in America. However, it is simply just too convenient to not use disposable products. Similarly, when I look at my technological needs, I know I didn't NEED both pairs of headphones or a new Macbook. However, I know how badly I WANTED these items. To me that is what causes people to continue doing things that are bad for the environment.
I believe that we are all selfish in when it comes to our planet and I just don't see our culture changing because it would likely have a negative impact on America's standard of living and no one wants that to happen.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Final Paper Blog 2
Now that I have had my thesis, my next step was to begin doing preliminary research. My main goal during this stage was simply to get a better understanding of all of the topics that are going to be included in my paper.
As I said in my previous post, I believe that "going green" will not catch on for a while. This is simply because it is more cost effective to continue using the already developed technology. Slade explains that companies "make things to break" in order to increase their revenue and keep consumers active. However, this process contributes to the waste in our dumps and directly contradicts the "going green" movement that is sweeping our nation.
I first began my research by looking for statistics that could quantify how much more expensive the "green" that way I could support my argument with real facts not just generalizations. I found some of the following information:
As I said in my previous post, I believe that "going green" will not catch on for a while. This is simply because it is more cost effective to continue using the already developed technology. Slade explains that companies "make things to break" in order to increase their revenue and keep consumers active. However, this process contributes to the waste in our dumps and directly contradicts the "going green" movement that is sweeping our nation.
I first began my research by looking for statistics that could quantify how much more expensive the "green" that way I could support my argument with real facts not just generalizations. I found some of the following information:
- In a February 2008 article, the Wall Street Journal cited a study by Enermodal Engineering that found that green homes cost between 5 and 10 percent more to build than homes using conventional materials and methods. An estimate from "Building Products" magazine suggests a 19 percent increase in costs for home builders who opt to go green instead of using traditional methods.
Read more: How Expensive Is it to Go Green? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_7327471_expensive-go-green_.html#ixzz17wluBIPB - Three days after the new iPhone's July 11 debut, Appleannounced that it had sold 1 million iPhones. For comparison, it took 74 days for the original iPhone to hit the one million sold mark. The new 3G iPhone has already sold nearly half as many as the original iPhones in total.
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/08/technology/iphone-3m.fortune
- The adoption of 3DTVs is expected to spike next year.Futuresource Consulting predicts that 4 million 3DTVs will be sold worldwide by the end of this year. The figure could at least double next year to 5 million 3DTVs in the U.S. and 3 million in Western Europe, the market researcher said today. Futuresource added that so far, "year-one adoption of 3DTV is running at a far quicker rate in most territories than it did for high-definition."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20023981-17.html#ixzz17wnTmynM
To me this information says a few things; first of all, it is clear that companies understand they are able to create new models and increase their profits. These statistics only support the fact that newer models lead to increases in sales because you attract new people to try the product, as well as those using the older models already.
Another thing that I found interesting during my first round of research was that even if something doesn't explode right away (3D TV) the potential for expansion is always right around the corner. The comparison of this with HDTV shows us that there is a good chance these new TV's will catch on in the future. Now almost everyone has an HDTV and therefore it is not hard to believe that one day almost everyone will have a 3D TV.
Overall I believe that because going green is more expensive to do, and since creating new models is so profitable there is little chance that our culture of consumerism changes. It is obvious that the goal of any company, regardless of their product, is to increase profits as much as possible and unfortunately trying to "go green" is not feasible in a society where being lucrative is the priority.
I do believe that the public will put pressure on these companies though. As time goes on and our planet's situation gets worse more and more people will begin to step up to have their voices heard. Still, I don't think this will be enough to change anything. Our culture is so driven by consumerism that it would be ridiculous to imagine things changing over night. Now that I have an idea of statistics, I'm going to begin writing the paper. However I still have many things to find out. I definitely want to get some more statistics on the increases in "the green movement" over the years and to try and find some information about companies trying to decrease the waste they produce over time. I believe that once I acquire that information I should have everything I need to finish the paper.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Final Paper blog 1
When deciding what topic to attack for my final paper, I thought back to this semester's readings to decide which I found to be the most interesting. My answer was Slade's Made To Break. I found this book extremely interesting due to all of the information I found in it about how companies try to develop products that cause users to get new ones after a certain period of time.
Slade explains that through all forms of technology there is always something new and exciting on the horizon. An example of this can be the Apple Ipad. The current model has no camera on it, and I am willing to bet that with new applications such as Facetime the camera on both sides of the Ipad is on the way. Ultimately Apple did not release the "best" version of the Ipad yet because it is a way of getting some people to buy it now, and others to buy it later when a "newer, better" version comes out. These tendencies can be seen across the global economy as nearly all companies try to maximize their profits through the techniques Slade discusses.
For my paper I will examine Slade's proposal and compare it to the new green movement. Will companies who say "they're going green with long battery life" also reduce the e-waste that they produce by releasing new products? It is a fact of life that often American's just throw something out when it becomes obsolete. The computers of yester-year are already flooding our dumps and so is all of the other technological waste that has been created.
Upon first glance I would say no. These companies will likely not change their ways. It is not that they don't care about the environment, in fact, I'm sure they do. However it is obvious to me that their profit margins are their highest concern. "Going green" means nothing for a company if they can't use it to their advantage. Companies love to give the illusion that they're doing everything they can for the environment by saying their reducing their carbon footprint and other things. However if it really came down to the decision of money vs the planet, I think major corporations such as Sony and Apple would chose money.
This is the first thought I am putting into the paper and I'm pretty sure that this will become my thesis: That companies will not change due to the new green movement because they care about their profit too much.
Slade explains that through all forms of technology there is always something new and exciting on the horizon. An example of this can be the Apple Ipad. The current model has no camera on it, and I am willing to bet that with new applications such as Facetime the camera on both sides of the Ipad is on the way. Ultimately Apple did not release the "best" version of the Ipad yet because it is a way of getting some people to buy it now, and others to buy it later when a "newer, better" version comes out. These tendencies can be seen across the global economy as nearly all companies try to maximize their profits through the techniques Slade discusses.
For my paper I will examine Slade's proposal and compare it to the new green movement. Will companies who say "they're going green with long battery life" also reduce the e-waste that they produce by releasing new products? It is a fact of life that often American's just throw something out when it becomes obsolete. The computers of yester-year are already flooding our dumps and so is all of the other technological waste that has been created.
Upon first glance I would say no. These companies will likely not change their ways. It is not that they don't care about the environment, in fact, I'm sure they do. However it is obvious to me that their profit margins are their highest concern. "Going green" means nothing for a company if they can't use it to their advantage. Companies love to give the illusion that they're doing everything they can for the environment by saying their reducing their carbon footprint and other things. However if it really came down to the decision of money vs the planet, I think major corporations such as Sony and Apple would chose money.
This is the first thought I am putting into the paper and I'm pretty sure that this will become my thesis: That companies will not change due to the new green movement because they care about their profit too much.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Dogster.com
As a recent new puppy owner, I have been using the internet constantly seeking training advice as well as medical information about puppies through the internet. Google searches were sufficing at first but soon I began to realize like much of the internet, most of the websites are simply amateurs sharing their experiences. I stumbled across Dogster.com and it has proven to be a great resource for me.
http://www.dogster.com/
On this website you can find out virtually anything you desire about dogs. And other than a few recommendations to other sites, it is very clear that they are all veterinarians or professional trainers and are able to provide good tips and advice. I believe the information on this site should be considered credible and of all the advice I've gotten from the website none has been bad information.
One of the best parts of the website for me, and any other new puppy owner would be the fact that they have "Guides" you can read based on your puppy's age. For example, my dog is four months old and in the guide they explain all of the things one can expect from a four month old puppy. They are very specific as well, including things such as when to get your puppies third round of vaccines and also how to control a dogs "prey drive". Overall the information on this website has proved to be very useful and I'd recommend it to anyone with a dog.
In addition to the information on the website, they also have a mild social network side. Users can upload pictures of their dogs as well as participate in a variety of games and other things like that. Also the website pairs of with Petfinder, a popular internet website that is dedicated to helping people find dogs via rescue or purchase. I believe this website attempts to do what all other websites want to do, and that is keep users occupied for hours by reading and keeping up with all the new information on there as well as the new features.
To me this website represents a change in the way the world is like we have discussed in class with other websites. Before the internet I would be left in the dark wondering how to control my puppies prey drive, but now I can find information that I need in seconds. Dogster has become a extremely popular website among dog owners and for obvious reasons, it makes things easier, provides great advice, and also has fun elements to it as well.
http://www.dogster.com/
On this website you can find out virtually anything you desire about dogs. And other than a few recommendations to other sites, it is very clear that they are all veterinarians or professional trainers and are able to provide good tips and advice. I believe the information on this site should be considered credible and of all the advice I've gotten from the website none has been bad information.
One of the best parts of the website for me, and any other new puppy owner would be the fact that they have "Guides" you can read based on your puppy's age. For example, my dog is four months old and in the guide they explain all of the things one can expect from a four month old puppy. They are very specific as well, including things such as when to get your puppies third round of vaccines and also how to control a dogs "prey drive". Overall the information on this website has proved to be very useful and I'd recommend it to anyone with a dog.
In addition to the information on the website, they also have a mild social network side. Users can upload pictures of their dogs as well as participate in a variety of games and other things like that. Also the website pairs of with Petfinder, a popular internet website that is dedicated to helping people find dogs via rescue or purchase. I believe this website attempts to do what all other websites want to do, and that is keep users occupied for hours by reading and keeping up with all the new information on there as well as the new features.
To me this website represents a change in the way the world is like we have discussed in class with other websites. Before the internet I would be left in the dark wondering how to control my puppies prey drive, but now I can find information that I need in seconds. Dogster has become a extremely popular website among dog owners and for obvious reasons, it makes things easier, provides great advice, and also has fun elements to it as well.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Critical Analysis #12
For this week I will examine the conclusion of David Krickpatrick's book, The Facebook Effect. Kirkpatrick discusses the continuing development of the company and website in regards to making money, the new platform and ideas, and even proposes ideas for the future of Facebook.
One thing that I found to be extremely interesting is the development of new ideas within Facebook. Things that Facebook users take for granted. Things such as Events, and Photos, which we use every single day, were completely new ideas by the Facebook team. Zuckerberg explains that these applications were so good and so popular because "despite all their shortcomings they had one thing no one else had. And that was integration with the social graph" (217). The term social graph is used to describe essentially relationships among people within the virtual world. A better description is on page 217. But to be completely honest, I was shocked to realize this fact. I can't imagine not being able to create a Facebook Event next time I wanted to do something with my friends and these men created it. As I said in a previous blog, the people at Facebook didn't get lucky with one good idea. They have had hundreds of good ideas and that is what makes Facebook such an integral part of our society.
When it came to making money, I also couldn't believe how the Facebook team did it. Zuckerberg, who originally was against ads in order to promote the "cool factor" of Facebook, now was making billions of dollars off of them. What I found to be most interesting is that "Facebook displayed 53 billion ads in December 2009, or 14 percent of all online ads" (272). I couldn't believe what I read because that is a pretty startling statistic. To imagine how enormous the internet is and how one company can control 14% of the market just blew my mind. Also I was impressed to see that during the recent economic downturn Facebook remained profitable. They said that their ad pricing has remained constant while other websites are reducing their costs. I think this may be because people realize that with the economy so bad maybe people just spend more time on the computer, or maybe it's because Facebook is being accessed by so many people in many different ways. Either way, I am shocked again by the information that Kirkpatrick revealed in this book.
Zuckerberg would clearly not be outdone. Once the company started making money he immediately began seeking his competition and trying to find ways to be better than them. Examples include Twitter, FriendFeed, and other companies that were also social networking sites. In almost every instance Zuckerberg and his star programmers were able to succeed. Facebook is such a incredible website and the way it brings people together is truly unbelievable and this book definitely helped me realize how hard these people worked in order to give the user such a quality product.
In the last chapter titled The Future, it becomes clear that Kirkpatrick has a slight bias towards Zuckerberg. This led me to believe that perhaps Zuckerberg and his team may not be as perfect as they were made out to be. In the Acknowledgements section the first thanks is to Mark Zuckerberg and so while I do believe all of the information is factual, I can't help but feel like the truth may be twisted a little. Either way this was a great read. It was a good experience to learn something about the website I spend the majority of my day on.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Critical Analysis #11
For this week I will take a look at the second section of Kirkpatrick's book, The Facebook Effect. In this section Kirkpatrick discusses the investors and how Facebook was funded early on. Again, from watching the movie The Social Network I feel like I did know some of this information, but I would say the majority in this section was new to me. I can't believe that as college aged kids the founders of Facebook were as far along as they were. They were already seeking, and eventually fighting off investors who wanted to claim their stake in Facebook. One section of the book that I found to be very interesting is on page 110 when he writes, "As soon as word got out that Thefacebook was contemplating an investment, the Silicon Valley greed machine kicked into high gear. Inquiries started pouring in." To me it is shocking that so many people wanted to invest.
What I also find interesting is that since, "Mark was kind of against ads, as far as [they] could tell" Thefacebook had to find other sources of income to keep the website running. So many people used the internet to make money and using ad space is the most simple way to create a profit. However, because Zuckerburg chose not to, Thefacebook had to find money elsewhere. I believe that this, combined with the enormous marketing potential of Thefacebook led to the immense amount of people who wanted to invest.
Later in the book Kirkpatrick writes about how Facebook developed into a young company and not just kids running a website. He discusses many things such as how they basically reinvented privacy. He writes that, "Only one in one hundred messages to Facebook about News Feed was positive" (189). No one liked the News Feed at first, however now it is an integral part of Facebook. I also found it interesting how Kirkpatrick explained how the Photos team decided to make it so you can click anywhere on the photo to advance and also how the photos were lower resolution so people can view many photos quickly. I found this to be extremely interesting because it makes me realize how smart the Facebook team is. Facebook is not accidentally addicting. It was well thought out and I think that is the main reason Facebook has become what it is today. Kirkpatrick describes these events and does a great job giving credit to the people behind Facebook. Overall I enjoy reading this book and look forward to finishing it because it is about something that is involved in my life.
What I also find interesting is that since, "Mark was kind of against ads, as far as [they] could tell" Thefacebook had to find other sources of income to keep the website running. So many people used the internet to make money and using ad space is the most simple way to create a profit. However, because Zuckerburg chose not to, Thefacebook had to find money elsewhere. I believe that this, combined with the enormous marketing potential of Thefacebook led to the immense amount of people who wanted to invest.
Later in the book Kirkpatrick writes about how Facebook developed into a young company and not just kids running a website. He discusses many things such as how they basically reinvented privacy. He writes that, "Only one in one hundred messages to Facebook about News Feed was positive" (189). No one liked the News Feed at first, however now it is an integral part of Facebook. I also found it interesting how Kirkpatrick explained how the Photos team decided to make it so you can click anywhere on the photo to advance and also how the photos were lower resolution so people can view many photos quickly. I found this to be extremely interesting because it makes me realize how smart the Facebook team is. Facebook is not accidentally addicting. It was well thought out and I think that is the main reason Facebook has become what it is today. Kirkpatrick describes these events and does a great job giving credit to the people behind Facebook. Overall I enjoy reading this book and look forward to finishing it because it is about something that is involved in my life.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Critical Analysis #10
For this week I will examine the first section of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick. Virtually everyone in our society is able to recognize what Facebook is, and an very large portion participates in it's online social network. The popularity of Facebook is enormous and it is obvious that because it influences many people's actions every day. Students across the country are tortured by the looming question: To do homework, or to check my notifications? With so many people all using the same service one must wonder what effects it will have on our society.
The Facebook Effect begins with the history of Facebook. I was pretty well aware of a lot of this information after seeing the movie The Social Network where they follow Zuckerburg from his young days at Harvard. To me it is truly amazing that one person could be creating such amazing computer programs such as Facemash. I have taken programming courses and the difficulty of them is almost unbearable for me and that helps me respect the work that The Facebook team has done in order to accomplish their goal so quickly. As a side note: it seems like every time I get used to Facebook there is a new template and new features. It baffles me that the company can remain ahead of the users so often.
A really interesting part of the book for me is how Facebook is largely considered the reason Myspace is no longer used. For me personally It has been forever since I have even used Myspace to listen to music or anything like that. After reading this section I began to think about what the differences between Myspace and Facebook were. I realized that essentially they were the same, a social networking tool that people could use to stay in touch. However, just like in the movie, I believe that Facebook was able to succeed because it was "exclusive". Unlike Myspace, Facebook used to require a collegiate e-mail address and that made it "cool". Myspace allowed anyone to use its website, and because of that a large amount of "creepers" joined the network thus making it less appealing than the exclusivity of the Facebook community.
The other thing that made Facebook last longer than other things was probably the fact that it began so simply. Unlike Myspace users could not create flashy backgrounds with music and annoying ads etc. Facebook only recently began using ads and they are not too cumbersome to be honest and due to the algorithms used the ads generally apply to the user. By creating a more simple website, Zuckerburg erased the opportunity for users to be overwhelmed by the Facebook "world".
Overall I have enjoyed reading Kirkpatricks book The Facebook Effect thus far because it is something that touches my daily lives. I look forward to continuing the book and hopefully will enjoy the rest of it as well.
The Facebook Effect begins with the history of Facebook. I was pretty well aware of a lot of this information after seeing the movie The Social Network where they follow Zuckerburg from his young days at Harvard. To me it is truly amazing that one person could be creating such amazing computer programs such as Facemash. I have taken programming courses and the difficulty of them is almost unbearable for me and that helps me respect the work that The Facebook team has done in order to accomplish their goal so quickly. As a side note: it seems like every time I get used to Facebook there is a new template and new features. It baffles me that the company can remain ahead of the users so often.
A really interesting part of the book for me is how Facebook is largely considered the reason Myspace is no longer used. For me personally It has been forever since I have even used Myspace to listen to music or anything like that. After reading this section I began to think about what the differences between Myspace and Facebook were. I realized that essentially they were the same, a social networking tool that people could use to stay in touch. However, just like in the movie, I believe that Facebook was able to succeed because it was "exclusive". Unlike Myspace, Facebook used to require a collegiate e-mail address and that made it "cool". Myspace allowed anyone to use its website, and because of that a large amount of "creepers" joined the network thus making it less appealing than the exclusivity of the Facebook community.
The other thing that made Facebook last longer than other things was probably the fact that it began so simply. Unlike Myspace users could not create flashy backgrounds with music and annoying ads etc. Facebook only recently began using ads and they are not too cumbersome to be honest and due to the algorithms used the ads generally apply to the user. By creating a more simple website, Zuckerburg erased the opportunity for users to be overwhelmed by the Facebook "world".
Overall I have enjoyed reading Kirkpatricks book The Facebook Effect thus far because it is something that touches my daily lives. I look forward to continuing the book and hopefully will enjoy the rest of it as well.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Being a Wikipedia Auditor
Last week a large portion of my time was dedicated to Auditing the JFK Assassination Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination
I thought this was a really interesting project because I spend so much time reading and using Wikipedia that it was great to finally do some research and understand where all the information is coming from. Since Wikipedia has been popular people have said that it is not a very good scholarly source, however learning that first hand definitely affected my view of the website. Our group decided to split the work up into five different sections. My sections of the Article were the Intro and the Assassination.
My first step was to read the whole article so I had all of the knowledge it could provide on the subject. Then I re-read my own sections a couple times in order to check for bad grammar, syntax, and other clues that would indicate an "amateur" without proper knowledge was writing them. Everything seemed to be in good order so I moved onto my next step. One by one I began going through the citations in my section, clicking on each and every link in order to verify a few things:
1. That the sources information coincided with the information on Wikipedia
2. That the sources information was from a legitimate source and credible
3. That the source was not an amateur site without citations etc.
Of all the citations in my section I only found one that I had issues with. John McAdam's site appeared to have no citations on it and while the information on his site appeared to be good, there was nothing that I could find proving the legitimacy of John McAdam's website. The website itself looked poorly put together as if an amateur had done it and a google search did not return any results on John McAdam's that would make me view his information as credible. Because of those things I believed that the website cannot be trusted. This was the only site in my section that was an unacceptable source. Our group then rated each of our sections out of 5 and I awarded my section 4/5 stars. While it is certainly a good place to get an overview of the events, and despite many of the good sources, it would simply be irresponsible to recommend using this article as a scholarly source if even one of the citations is bad. For a scholarly source we want everything to be perfect essentially and this was not.
Overall I really enjoyed the process, I learned first hand that while Wikipedia is accurate, it cannot be used scholarly because one tiny portion (which may be the portion you are using in a academic paper) can be filled with wrong or potentially wrong information. Ultimately we gave the article a 4/5... it was a great place to start research, however should not be used as a scholarly source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination
I thought this was a really interesting project because I spend so much time reading and using Wikipedia that it was great to finally do some research and understand where all the information is coming from. Since Wikipedia has been popular people have said that it is not a very good scholarly source, however learning that first hand definitely affected my view of the website. Our group decided to split the work up into five different sections. My sections of the Article were the Intro and the Assassination.
My first step was to read the whole article so I had all of the knowledge it could provide on the subject. Then I re-read my own sections a couple times in order to check for bad grammar, syntax, and other clues that would indicate an "amateur" without proper knowledge was writing them. Everything seemed to be in good order so I moved onto my next step. One by one I began going through the citations in my section, clicking on each and every link in order to verify a few things:
1. That the sources information coincided with the information on Wikipedia
2. That the sources information was from a legitimate source and credible
3. That the source was not an amateur site without citations etc.
Of all the citations in my section I only found one that I had issues with. John McAdam's site appeared to have no citations on it and while the information on his site appeared to be good, there was nothing that I could find proving the legitimacy of John McAdam's website. The website itself looked poorly put together as if an amateur had done it and a google search did not return any results on John McAdam's that would make me view his information as credible. Because of those things I believed that the website cannot be trusted. This was the only site in my section that was an unacceptable source. Our group then rated each of our sections out of 5 and I awarded my section 4/5 stars. While it is certainly a good place to get an overview of the events, and despite many of the good sources, it would simply be irresponsible to recommend using this article as a scholarly source if even one of the citations is bad. For a scholarly source we want everything to be perfect essentially and this was not.
Overall I really enjoyed the process, I learned first hand that while Wikipedia is accurate, it cannot be used scholarly because one tiny portion (which may be the portion you are using in a academic paper) can be filled with wrong or potentially wrong information. Ultimately we gave the article a 4/5... it was a great place to start research, however should not be used as a scholarly source.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Critical Analysis #9
For the past three blogs I have been taking a look at Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade. In the first two sections Slade has talked mostly about how our society has conditioned us to need new things after a certain period of time. Manufacturers have done this through new models, and items that are made to break after a certain period of time.
In the third section of his book Slade continues to talk about the development of obsolescence becoming normal in our society. He writes, "By this time, the rapid pace of technological obsolescence was an accepted fact in software design. Application packages were updated every eighteen months or so, in a spiral of repetitive consumption" (214). With this quote we can see one of Slade's main points; that since technology was advancing so quickly our society was growing to accept obsolescence because without it we could not advance. Ultimately I agree with Slade's point here. I think this because I personally accept the fact that things go obsolete because I know in the future I will get another version of the product. A perfect example is the Ipod. When a new one comes out everyone either gets it or decides to wait for the next one. This type of behavior is exemplified by many in our culture.
Slade also talks about how the industry of video games was advancing quickly as well. As someone who enjoys video games a lot I can see effects of this still today. For example, every year there are new versions of the best games and because of that unless you buy a new one you lose out on many of the features. The premise is the same in that in all aspects of life we expect to have to buy new versions of things when they come out because our culture has conditioned us to.
Another thing that Slade talks about is e-waste. He says that in terms of cell phones, "The number of these discarded miniaturized devices now threatens to "exceed that of wired, brown goods [in landfills]" (276). Because with new technology people buy new things very often there is a lot of e-waste. I know for me I get a new cell phone every six months and so every six months I'm also throwing one away. All of this trash including cell phones, computers, lap tops, etc. it has to go somewhere and we are filling up our landfills with it.
Overall I thought Slade's book was very informative but I did not find it to be very interesting. I feel like I definitely learned from it, but it is not a book I would recommend to others. One thing that I will point out though is that I really never thought of the idea that things are "made to break" before. But now that seems like a feasible option. In fact it seems like a profitable option so I don't know why they wouldn't do that. Giles Slade provides a very strong argument for this and his other claims.
In the third section of his book Slade continues to talk about the development of obsolescence becoming normal in our society. He writes, "By this time, the rapid pace of technological obsolescence was an accepted fact in software design. Application packages were updated every eighteen months or so, in a spiral of repetitive consumption" (214). With this quote we can see one of Slade's main points; that since technology was advancing so quickly our society was growing to accept obsolescence because without it we could not advance. Ultimately I agree with Slade's point here. I think this because I personally accept the fact that things go obsolete because I know in the future I will get another version of the product. A perfect example is the Ipod. When a new one comes out everyone either gets it or decides to wait for the next one. This type of behavior is exemplified by many in our culture.
Slade also talks about how the industry of video games was advancing quickly as well. As someone who enjoys video games a lot I can see effects of this still today. For example, every year there are new versions of the best games and because of that unless you buy a new one you lose out on many of the features. The premise is the same in that in all aspects of life we expect to have to buy new versions of things when they come out because our culture has conditioned us to.
Another thing that Slade talks about is e-waste. He says that in terms of cell phones, "The number of these discarded miniaturized devices now threatens to "exceed that of wired, brown goods [in landfills]" (276). Because with new technology people buy new things very often there is a lot of e-waste. I know for me I get a new cell phone every six months and so every six months I'm also throwing one away. All of this trash including cell phones, computers, lap tops, etc. it has to go somewhere and we are filling up our landfills with it.
Overall I thought Slade's book was very informative but I did not find it to be very interesting. I feel like I definitely learned from it, but it is not a book I would recommend to others. One thing that I will point out though is that I really never thought of the idea that things are "made to break" before. But now that seems like a feasible option. In fact it seems like a profitable option so I don't know why they wouldn't do that. Giles Slade provides a very strong argument for this and his other claims.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Critical Analysis #8
For this week I will take a look at the second half of Slade's book, Made To Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. The first half of this book is largely about how manufacturers essentially plan for things to go wrong with their products after a certain period of time. The reason that a company would want to do this is plain and simple: to generate more revenue. In addition to planned failure, companies also use things such as model updates as another way of getting consumers to purchase another product of theirs.
In the second half of his book, Slade begins to focus on specific examples of this type of behavior in companies. He uses many examples including radio and computer production. Slade also introduces ther eader to terms such as "death dating" and he backs up his argument with great evidence. However, after his examples he changes his train of thought to what I believe to be his main thesis; that technological obsolescence not only affects the products we use and consume, but it also changes the way that we think about the world. Similar to how Technopoly suggested that we would soon be totally dependent on computers, Slade is arguing that soon disposability and obsolescence will be dominant traits across all aspects of life. Like Slade says in the first half of his book that American's invented disposability, we are now incorporating that into all aspects of life.
I do agree with Slade for the most part in this case. Obsolescence is a serious problem in our society and the way I see it, it causes two problems. The first is that we are developing a culture where in order to be accepted and succeed you need to have the most advanced technology. Functionality is no longer a priority, it often seems as if we want new things simply just to have them. The other problem that obsolescence poses for American's is a tangible effect. When we all buy new technology constantly, we are disposing the old stuff somewhere too. By creating all this trash we are also filling up our landfills and destroying our planet.
Slades description of technology, railroads, and houses clearly explains that we are controlled by obsolescence. Manufacturers and companies are able to "help" consumers make decisions because of how influenced they are by the market. I couldn't believe the section in the book that described how porches and basements could be in or out of style. This type of belief among the public likely made some people seek home renovations and therefore provides a perfect example of how obsolescence has affected the public. Overall, I really enjoyed this book and I did learn a lot from it. I never knew anything about this subject so it was all new to me and definitely helpful in explaining its point of view.
In the second half of his book, Slade begins to focus on specific examples of this type of behavior in companies. He uses many examples including radio and computer production. Slade also introduces ther eader to terms such as "death dating" and he backs up his argument with great evidence. However, after his examples he changes his train of thought to what I believe to be his main thesis; that technological obsolescence not only affects the products we use and consume, but it also changes the way that we think about the world. Similar to how Technopoly suggested that we would soon be totally dependent on computers, Slade is arguing that soon disposability and obsolescence will be dominant traits across all aspects of life. Like Slade says in the first half of his book that American's invented disposability, we are now incorporating that into all aspects of life.
I do agree with Slade for the most part in this case. Obsolescence is a serious problem in our society and the way I see it, it causes two problems. The first is that we are developing a culture where in order to be accepted and succeed you need to have the most advanced technology. Functionality is no longer a priority, it often seems as if we want new things simply just to have them. The other problem that obsolescence poses for American's is a tangible effect. When we all buy new technology constantly, we are disposing the old stuff somewhere too. By creating all this trash we are also filling up our landfills and destroying our planet.
Slades description of technology, railroads, and houses clearly explains that we are controlled by obsolescence. Manufacturers and companies are able to "help" consumers make decisions because of how influenced they are by the market. I couldn't believe the section in the book that described how porches and basements could be in or out of style. This type of belief among the public likely made some people seek home renovations and therefore provides a perfect example of how obsolescence has affected the public. Overall, I really enjoyed this book and I did learn a lot from it. I never knew anything about this subject so it was all new to me and definitely helpful in explaining its point of view.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Social Network Extra Credit
I saw the movie "The Social Network" a few weeks back and haven't had a chance until now to blog about it so here it goes. I'll admit I'm a big facebook user and so I was certainly interested in the story behind the most popular website of my generation. I didn't know the story prior to the movie so I was seeing it with fresh eyes. One thing that stood out to me right away was how well the movie was done. I really enjoyed every aspect of it including the cast, the plot, and specifically, the characters that play Tucker and Zuckerburg. I think strong acting as well as a good story were the high points of this movie.
Another thing about Zuckerburg that stood out to me was how smart he was. It blew my mind that he was able to do the things that he did including facemash and the software he developed that Microsoft wanted to buy. Obviously he had to be extremely bright to do such impressive things with computers and I was shocked that he was able to do so much in such little time.
I was also totally surprised to see that Tucker, the inventor of Napster was involved in facebook. I had absolutely no idea that he contributed to it and I enjoyed Justin Timberlake playing that role. I thought it was incredible that two young people, Tucker and Zuckerburg, were able to accomplish so much using the internet from such a young age. Ultimately it made me realize that the internet is essentially a tool that provides its users with ENDLESS possibilities. Anyone can have a good idea and become a billionaire these days because it is so easy to reach such a large audience. In the past a good idea could take years to develop but the internet has changed that drastically.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie, however I will say it made me feel pretty crumby about myself since I'm the same age as Zuckerburg was when he began to work on facebook. I sat through half of the movie trying to think of my billion dollar idea. Hopefully one of them works.
**I give the movie a 7/10
***I'll bring in my ticket stub on Monday.
Another thing about Zuckerburg that stood out to me was how smart he was. It blew my mind that he was able to do the things that he did including facemash and the software he developed that Microsoft wanted to buy. Obviously he had to be extremely bright to do such impressive things with computers and I was shocked that he was able to do so much in such little time.
I was also totally surprised to see that Tucker, the inventor of Napster was involved in facebook. I had absolutely no idea that he contributed to it and I enjoyed Justin Timberlake playing that role. I thought it was incredible that two young people, Tucker and Zuckerburg, were able to accomplish so much using the internet from such a young age. Ultimately it made me realize that the internet is essentially a tool that provides its users with ENDLESS possibilities. Anyone can have a good idea and become a billionaire these days because it is so easy to reach such a large audience. In the past a good idea could take years to develop but the internet has changed that drastically.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie, however I will say it made me feel pretty crumby about myself since I'm the same age as Zuckerburg was when he began to work on facebook. I sat through half of the movie trying to think of my billion dollar idea. Hopefully one of them works.
**I give the movie a 7/10
***I'll bring in my ticket stub on Monday.
Critical Analysis #7
This week I will take a look at the first section of Giles Slade's book, Made to Break; Technology and Obsolescence in America. In this book, Slade suggests the idea that new technology is "Made to Break" after a certain period of time. In the introduction, Slade explains the stage's of product obsolescence. The first is "technological obsolescence" which is when things become outdated based on innovation. This can easily be understood by all people. Everyone has decided they want a new phone or new Ipod because a newer, sleeker, "more effective" model has been introduced. Often we don't NEED these things but we feel that our current product is now outdated and therefore we update our technology.
Slade then writes that the next stage was "the annual model change". This represents "psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence" (5). This is similar to the first in that people begin to feel their current equipment is no longer usable since there is something better. I think Apple is the best example of this type of obsolescence because every year almost they create a new version of each Ipod. While the functions rarely change, the cases and memory change drastically usually and this creates the feeling that makes people want the new Ipod.
Slade finally introduces "planned obsolescence" saying that since "any product will fail because its materials become worn or stressed [after prolonged use]" (5). Slade suggests that since manufacturer's know information about when their products will fail, they may try to limit the lifetime of a device in order to promote the consumer purchasing a new one. Slade informs us that this is illegal, however it likely exists in today's current market.
The first chapter describes the history of disposability within America, and Slade explains that American's practically invented it. I think this first chapter sets up the rest of the book really nicely. I believe this because it goes into detail about how American's dispose paper products, clothing and other things excessively. The reason for this is because of the ease of it. This is a habit that was developed in early America and still prevails within our society today. Everywhere we turn there are disposable things and it is only recently that people have becoming increasingly aware of the devastating effect it has on the environment and therefore are trying to cut back. But the main point is that I believe Slade has set up the book nicely, explaining that American Disposability is a habit that will be hard to break.
One thing that stood out to me was the following line, Slade writes, "This self-conscious concern about being out-of-fashion is the key feature of psychological obsolescence" (53). Slade is telling the reader that is it part of human nature that we feel left out if we don't have the best technology or the best in anything. From a young age little kids always want the same toys as everyone else and it's no different for adults. I even can recall seeing some cell phone advertisements that had the punchline "get rid of cell phone embarrassment" or something like that in an attempt to increase this feeling among people that still have "non-smart phones". The annual model change exploits this aspect of human nature and it is easy for the reader to see why.
Overall I believe Slade is proposing a very interesting argument so far. Ultimately he is suggesting that all of our technology is driven by capitalism and all of the major companies that produce the devices do so in a way that optimizes their monetary intake. This makes sense in terms of the large companies, however it makes me wonder whether or not the majority of consumers realize this. How would American's feel if they knew the companies were trying to manipulate their feelings to increase spending? But then again I suppose that's the point of having a business and creating new products so many American's who support capitalism might not feel too deceived. Overall I think Slade proposes some very interesting arguments, however I will need to read more before I evaluate his argument further.
Slade then writes that the next stage was "the annual model change". This represents "psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence" (5). This is similar to the first in that people begin to feel their current equipment is no longer usable since there is something better. I think Apple is the best example of this type of obsolescence because every year almost they create a new version of each Ipod. While the functions rarely change, the cases and memory change drastically usually and this creates the feeling that makes people want the new Ipod.
Slade finally introduces "planned obsolescence" saying that since "any product will fail because its materials become worn or stressed [after prolonged use]" (5). Slade suggests that since manufacturer's know information about when their products will fail, they may try to limit the lifetime of a device in order to promote the consumer purchasing a new one. Slade informs us that this is illegal, however it likely exists in today's current market.
The first chapter describes the history of disposability within America, and Slade explains that American's practically invented it. I think this first chapter sets up the rest of the book really nicely. I believe this because it goes into detail about how American's dispose paper products, clothing and other things excessively. The reason for this is because of the ease of it. This is a habit that was developed in early America and still prevails within our society today. Everywhere we turn there are disposable things and it is only recently that people have becoming increasingly aware of the devastating effect it has on the environment and therefore are trying to cut back. But the main point is that I believe Slade has set up the book nicely, explaining that American Disposability is a habit that will be hard to break.
One thing that stood out to me was the following line, Slade writes, "This self-conscious concern about being out-of-fashion is the key feature of psychological obsolescence" (53). Slade is telling the reader that is it part of human nature that we feel left out if we don't have the best technology or the best in anything. From a young age little kids always want the same toys as everyone else and it's no different for adults. I even can recall seeing some cell phone advertisements that had the punchline "get rid of cell phone embarrassment" or something like that in an attempt to increase this feeling among people that still have "non-smart phones". The annual model change exploits this aspect of human nature and it is easy for the reader to see why.
Overall I believe Slade is proposing a very interesting argument so far. Ultimately he is suggesting that all of our technology is driven by capitalism and all of the major companies that produce the devices do so in a way that optimizes their monetary intake. This makes sense in terms of the large companies, however it makes me wonder whether or not the majority of consumers realize this. How would American's feel if they knew the companies were trying to manipulate their feelings to increase spending? But then again I suppose that's the point of having a business and creating new products so many American's who support capitalism might not feel too deceived. Overall I think Slade proposes some very interesting arguments, however I will need to read more before I evaluate his argument further.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Critical Analysis #6
This week I will take a look at the second half of "The World and Wikipedia, How We are Editing Reality" by Andrew Dalby. In the first half of this book we examined many of the pro's and con's of Wikipedia including its reliability, its ease of use, and the ability to pool all of our brains together and create an "ultimate" source of information. As we have seen however, there are many things that contribute to the negativity of this source including the ease of people posting onto pages that may not know the truth about the subject they are writing about.
The second half of this book describes a few different things including why people don't trust Wikipedia, why we will continue to use it, and also why people love Wikipedia. Many people don't trust Wikipedia, namely professors and other professionals. The reason for this is obvious, many of these "upper level educated people" had to pursue research the hard way, that is, by going into a library and reading books, as well as conducting interviews themselves. However for the generation of those studying now Wikipedia is so easy that in many cases, it will suffice for our research purposes.
The first subject, "Why we love it", is a very long chapter in which Dalby provides a variety of different reason's why we love Wikipedia. The one that resonates most with me is when he says, "We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world" (120). He provides us with examples of people that say they enjoy contributing to it, and also that people enjoy discussing the articles and varying degrees of opinions on the website. Just like with Facebook, and as we have discussed in class, the internet is creating a place where we are becoming more isolated, however out of that isolation people are seeking a sense of community and Wikipedia provides that to its users.
Another thing that I found very interesting is that, in the section titled, "Why you don't trust Wikipedia" is when Dalby writes "In general... articles get longer because it's easier to go on writing than to compress what one has written... It's easier... to write than to edit what others have written" (181). This fact alone contributes to one of the major flaws of the website. Often, popular articles become huge pages and this is because of this fact. This also sometimes results in differing opinions residing on the same page. With so much information from many different sides of the argument it becomes clear that people are not sure what to believe. Dalby provides the example Sarah Palin's page, who had nearly 7,000 edits in two weeks. These edits show the constantly evolving nature of the articles and because of that it is hard to decipher what to believe and what not.
Overall I think Dalby's book was a great resource. The chapter names were obvious, "Why we love it, Why you don't trust it". These chapter names could be understood by any one with a knowledge of the internet, however, the depth that Dalby goes into in his explanations is greater than any that one could create on their own. After reading this book I feel I have a much greater understanding for the world of Wikipedia and the pro's and con's that come with it. Ultimately, this book has helped form my new perspective on Wikipedia, which is that it is a viable resource. I believe that despite the editing, numerous posters, and other factors, Wikipedia has created a world where anyone can get a basic understanding of any subject in the world almost. And like Dalby says, "I will trust Wikipedia" based on a "per article basis" by "[judging] each article for reliability on its merits" (220).
The second half of this book describes a few different things including why people don't trust Wikipedia, why we will continue to use it, and also why people love Wikipedia. Many people don't trust Wikipedia, namely professors and other professionals. The reason for this is obvious, many of these "upper level educated people" had to pursue research the hard way, that is, by going into a library and reading books, as well as conducting interviews themselves. However for the generation of those studying now Wikipedia is so easy that in many cases, it will suffice for our research purposes.
The first subject, "Why we love it", is a very long chapter in which Dalby provides a variety of different reason's why we love Wikipedia. The one that resonates most with me is when he says, "We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world" (120). He provides us with examples of people that say they enjoy contributing to it, and also that people enjoy discussing the articles and varying degrees of opinions on the website. Just like with Facebook, and as we have discussed in class, the internet is creating a place where we are becoming more isolated, however out of that isolation people are seeking a sense of community and Wikipedia provides that to its users.
Another thing that I found very interesting is that, in the section titled, "Why you don't trust Wikipedia" is when Dalby writes "In general... articles get longer because it's easier to go on writing than to compress what one has written... It's easier... to write than to edit what others have written" (181). This fact alone contributes to one of the major flaws of the website. Often, popular articles become huge pages and this is because of this fact. This also sometimes results in differing opinions residing on the same page. With so much information from many different sides of the argument it becomes clear that people are not sure what to believe. Dalby provides the example Sarah Palin's page, who had nearly 7,000 edits in two weeks. These edits show the constantly evolving nature of the articles and because of that it is hard to decipher what to believe and what not.
Overall I think Dalby's book was a great resource. The chapter names were obvious, "Why we love it, Why you don't trust it". These chapter names could be understood by any one with a knowledge of the internet, however, the depth that Dalby goes into in his explanations is greater than any that one could create on their own. After reading this book I feel I have a much greater understanding for the world of Wikipedia and the pro's and con's that come with it. Ultimately, this book has helped form my new perspective on Wikipedia, which is that it is a viable resource. I believe that despite the editing, numerous posters, and other factors, Wikipedia has created a world where anyone can get a basic understanding of any subject in the world almost. And like Dalby says, "I will trust Wikipedia" based on a "per article basis" by "[judging] each article for reliability on its merits" (220).
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Critical Analysis #5
For this week's entry I will be examining the first half of Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality". Dalby uses this book in order to discuss the history of the popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. He also discusses the many pro's and con's associated with an encyclopedia that is free to use but allows all people to edit the information on the page. As a current student, I have obviously used Wikipedia countless times. It is a source that I know may be unreliable, but truly is a great starting point if no prior knowledge of the subject is known. For me, it is a great place to learn the "basics" before I engulf myself into more serious research. I was excited to read this book before I began based on my usage of Wikipedia and Dalby did not disappoint as he creates a good read for all while discussing Wikipedia.
Dalby begins with two examples that are indicative of the main pro's and con's of Wikipedia. The first is a story about an Earthquake in Chile. This earthquake had a wikipedia page within an hour. Soon after more and more people and good sources contributed to the page and therefore a comprehensive article came to be. This article eventually had statistics, data, and other pertinent information making it a great source of information for free, and took much less time than printing an article in an actual encyclopedia. Dalby uses this example to show that Wikipedia can be a good source of information because of the ease that the internet provides.
On the other hand, Dalby provides the example of the user Keykingz13. This user set up his account and began editing and contributing information on pages that he knew nothing about. This shows the main problem with Wikipedia; there is no set of credentials needed in order to contribute information. Anyone, anywhere can edit information. The good information can be deleted and the bad can be entered and this poses a serious problem for reliability of the encyclopedia.
Dalby uses the quote by Carr to say that, "Wikipedia is...praised as 'a glorious manifestation of the age of participation' that allows us 'to pool our individual brains into a great collective mind'" (54-55). I found this extremely interesting because one would immediately think that this would lead to opinionated people or just crazy people from posting their own information. However, it would be untrue to say that Wikipedia is "ruined" by some people. In fact much of the information is correct across Wikipedia. One thing that Dalby says that I believe explains the fact that people aren't destroying Wikipedia is that "the quest for communal knowledge seems to have prevailed so far over any attempt to pit individual opinions against one another" (50-51). This is a very bold statement. Essentially Dalby is saying that people would rather create a great source of information to share than to bicker and destroy it. I believe this is true and that millions of people find Wikipedia so useful that many won't go out of their way to ruin it.
Chapter four was titled "Why You Use It" and Dalby explains that often, even without a commercial motive, "Main search engines, like Google and Yahoo... systematically place Wikipedia pages at the top of their responses for nearly every enquiry" (83). Obviously if someone wanted to do true academic research they would be in a library using books or using a scholarly site such as Ebsco or another article based site. Likely, the average research done through Google or Yahoo is by a novice who is just seeking basic knowledge (or enough to finish a last minute paper). Dalby explains that the pages come up on the first page because they have links to to other pages, are linked to by other pages, and finally pages that are visited most frequently come up the most. The combination of these three things creates a situation where Wikipedia is often at the top of the search results.
I believe that people use Wikipedia so often simply because of the ease of it. You don't have to go to a library, and you don't have to pay for it. It comes up at the top of the search results and therefore it is readily accessible and constantly in your face when looking for information. Wikipedia has evolved from an "interesting experiment" (50) to the giant that it has become today. It didn't happen overnight, but it certainly seems like it did due to the quick growth of the website. Wikipedia, although not entirely reliable provides a great base for starting to learn about something. While teachers and professors discuss whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source, (even Wikipedia does not consider themselves a reliable source based on their definition), they often decide it is not an acceptable academic source. However I think it is great that there is a website that allows all of us to combine our brain power and knowledge. Wikipedia is enormous as it is today and I can only imagine the plethora of information that will be on it in the future. Dalby does a great job explaining the pro's and con's of Wikipedia throughout the first half of this book.
Dalby begins with two examples that are indicative of the main pro's and con's of Wikipedia. The first is a story about an Earthquake in Chile. This earthquake had a wikipedia page within an hour. Soon after more and more people and good sources contributed to the page and therefore a comprehensive article came to be. This article eventually had statistics, data, and other pertinent information making it a great source of information for free, and took much less time than printing an article in an actual encyclopedia. Dalby uses this example to show that Wikipedia can be a good source of information because of the ease that the internet provides.
On the other hand, Dalby provides the example of the user Keykingz13. This user set up his account and began editing and contributing information on pages that he knew nothing about. This shows the main problem with Wikipedia; there is no set of credentials needed in order to contribute information. Anyone, anywhere can edit information. The good information can be deleted and the bad can be entered and this poses a serious problem for reliability of the encyclopedia.
Dalby uses the quote by Carr to say that, "Wikipedia is...praised as 'a glorious manifestation of the age of participation' that allows us 'to pool our individual brains into a great collective mind'" (54-55). I found this extremely interesting because one would immediately think that this would lead to opinionated people or just crazy people from posting their own information. However, it would be untrue to say that Wikipedia is "ruined" by some people. In fact much of the information is correct across Wikipedia. One thing that Dalby says that I believe explains the fact that people aren't destroying Wikipedia is that "the quest for communal knowledge seems to have prevailed so far over any attempt to pit individual opinions against one another" (50-51). This is a very bold statement. Essentially Dalby is saying that people would rather create a great source of information to share than to bicker and destroy it. I believe this is true and that millions of people find Wikipedia so useful that many won't go out of their way to ruin it.
Chapter four was titled "Why You Use It" and Dalby explains that often, even without a commercial motive, "Main search engines, like Google and Yahoo... systematically place Wikipedia pages at the top of their responses for nearly every enquiry" (83). Obviously if someone wanted to do true academic research they would be in a library using books or using a scholarly site such as Ebsco or another article based site. Likely, the average research done through Google or Yahoo is by a novice who is just seeking basic knowledge (or enough to finish a last minute paper). Dalby explains that the pages come up on the first page because they have links to to other pages, are linked to by other pages, and finally pages that are visited most frequently come up the most. The combination of these three things creates a situation where Wikipedia is often at the top of the search results.
I believe that people use Wikipedia so often simply because of the ease of it. You don't have to go to a library, and you don't have to pay for it. It comes up at the top of the search results and therefore it is readily accessible and constantly in your face when looking for information. Wikipedia has evolved from an "interesting experiment" (50) to the giant that it has become today. It didn't happen overnight, but it certainly seems like it did due to the quick growth of the website. Wikipedia, although not entirely reliable provides a great base for starting to learn about something. While teachers and professors discuss whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source, (even Wikipedia does not consider themselves a reliable source based on their definition), they often decide it is not an acceptable academic source. However I think it is great that there is a website that allows all of us to combine our brain power and knowledge. Wikipedia is enormous as it is today and I can only imagine the plethora of information that will be on it in the future. Dalby does a great job explaining the pro's and con's of Wikipedia throughout the first half of this book.
Current Event
For my current event presentation I chose an article from MSNBC.com entitled "Dogs can't talk, but now they can tweet".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39487253/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
Essentially the article describes a new item developed by the company Mattel. It is called "Puppy Tweet" and it is a tag you place on your dog's collar. Once in place and activated, it uses a wireless USB connection in order to send funny tweets based on your dog's activity level. If the tag (and your dog) remain still for an extended period of time it will tweet something about sleeping. Similarly if the tag is very active it will tweet something about running around excessively. Basically it is a fun way to keep tabs on your dog while away from home.
In our class discussion, I suggested to the class that perhaps this technology could be useful in other areas. Perhaps as a baby monitor or another thing such as that. The class also discussed the possibility of this technology taking over our society such as in Neil Postman's book that we are reading. Overall the class seemed to agree that this is a cute novelty toy, however does not provide a huge technological advantage. Many agreed that this will likely only sell to avid dog lovers and therefore will not become extremely popular. Finally, one member of our class mentioned that he feels safe with this technology out there as long as people do not become reliable on it.
One other thing that we discussed in terms of Puppy Tweet was the fact that in the human world many of our relationships have been diluted due to the integration of technology in society. Face to face contact has diminished and we discussed the possibility that Puppy Tweet can now add this dimension into the pet world as well. It should be interesting to see how Puppy Tweet sells and how our society reacts to the idea of integrating technology into the animal world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39487253/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
Essentially the article describes a new item developed by the company Mattel. It is called "Puppy Tweet" and it is a tag you place on your dog's collar. Once in place and activated, it uses a wireless USB connection in order to send funny tweets based on your dog's activity level. If the tag (and your dog) remain still for an extended period of time it will tweet something about sleeping. Similarly if the tag is very active it will tweet something about running around excessively. Basically it is a fun way to keep tabs on your dog while away from home.
In our class discussion, I suggested to the class that perhaps this technology could be useful in other areas. Perhaps as a baby monitor or another thing such as that. The class also discussed the possibility of this technology taking over our society such as in Neil Postman's book that we are reading. Overall the class seemed to agree that this is a cute novelty toy, however does not provide a huge technological advantage. Many agreed that this will likely only sell to avid dog lovers and therefore will not become extremely popular. Finally, one member of our class mentioned that he feels safe with this technology out there as long as people do not become reliable on it.
One other thing that we discussed in terms of Puppy Tweet was the fact that in the human world many of our relationships have been diluted due to the integration of technology in society. Face to face contact has diminished and we discussed the possibility that Puppy Tweet can now add this dimension into the pet world as well. It should be interesting to see how Puppy Tweet sells and how our society reacts to the idea of integrating technology into the animal world.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Critical Analysis #4
In the second half of Postman's book, he continues to analyze the pros and cons (mostly cons) of our ever evolving technology dependent world. One of the things that stood out most to me in terms of Postman's work was his idea that "technological innovation is synonymous with human progress" (117). He argues that there are differences between problems in the technological world and the real world, stating that a real world problem deals with moral issues. Since computers cannot feel emotion one must wonder if this statement is true. However I agree that technological innovation, while is not the only marker of human progress, is certainly a good indicator of how our society is evolving. For example, how can we say that human's have not progressed because of technology? Technology enables human's to communicate in faster and more efficient ways than ever before and because of that we can debate moral issues more readily. In addition to that, technology has increased our standard of living, and has exposed us to an entire new realm of possibilities. As Postman states in the first half of his book we may eventually forget how to live without computers. This certainly seems like a feasible situation, however if suddenly all the screwdrivers in the world were gone would life go on? Of course screwdrivers, and technology offer huge benefits to society, and they can be seen everywhere. Every building has a screw in it and similarly the internet is everywhere now as well. However, if a large scale screwdriver thief came and made screwdrivers extinct could life go on? Of course!
The point I'm trying to make with the screwdrivers is that just because society is dependent and relies heavily on using something in everyday life does not mean it dictates the only way to do things. If computers disappeared we would certainly find a way to have life go on. Postman clearly is trying to reach a certain audience (those totally immersed in technological culture) and I believe that he takes his message a little too far. It feels biased to me and for the majority of the book (almost all of it except for the very end) I felt as if Postman was totally against the role technology plays in our world.
Neil Postman essentially writes his book in an attempt to help America realize what culture it is missing out on by being so consumed by the technological culture. And to a degree he is right. Literature such as newspapers, magazines, and even television used to play an integral part of people's lives. Their role is diminishing and in many cases technology and computers are replacing many other similar items. Postman wants the reader to understand that while the computer and internet can be largely beneficial to our society, we, like Thamus, have much to lose and unless we try to preserve that culture, it will be lost like junk e-mail in a spam folder.
P.S. After our class discussion last Monday I thought a lot about algorithms and the role they play in everyday online activity. I began noticing them all over the place! The side of facebook, the homepage of eBay, and countless other sites have told me "you may like this...". I never realized that a computer program and an equation were responsible for this and it blows my mind that a computer can be the best salesman at an online company.
The point I'm trying to make with the screwdrivers is that just because society is dependent and relies heavily on using something in everyday life does not mean it dictates the only way to do things. If computers disappeared we would certainly find a way to have life go on. Postman clearly is trying to reach a certain audience (those totally immersed in technological culture) and I believe that he takes his message a little too far. It feels biased to me and for the majority of the book (almost all of it except for the very end) I felt as if Postman was totally against the role technology plays in our world.
Neil Postman essentially writes his book in an attempt to help America realize what culture it is missing out on by being so consumed by the technological culture. And to a degree he is right. Literature such as newspapers, magazines, and even television used to play an integral part of people's lives. Their role is diminishing and in many cases technology and computers are replacing many other similar items. Postman wants the reader to understand that while the computer and internet can be largely beneficial to our society, we, like Thamus, have much to lose and unless we try to preserve that culture, it will be lost like junk e-mail in a spam folder.
P.S. After our class discussion last Monday I thought a lot about algorithms and the role they play in everyday online activity. I began noticing them all over the place! The side of facebook, the homepage of eBay, and countless other sites have told me "you may like this...". I never realized that a computer program and an equation were responsible for this and it blows my mind that a computer can be the best salesman at an online company.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Critical Analysis #3
For this entry, I will examine the first ninety-one pages of Neil Postman's Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Postman begins his book with the tale of Thamus. Long story short, Thamus presents the God with his inventions such as Writing and the God tells him that society will lose itself in writing and forget what life was like before the invention. I believe this was a fantastic way to begin his book. Postman's central thesis rests around the idea that while technology is so important and has made life so much easier, society as a whole is becoming a slave to it.
Similar to Thamus, the invention of the modern computer as well as the internet has sparked other inventions that have replaced old traditions. My favorite example of this is digital friends. I am a firm believer that in order to be successful in life good people skills are absolutely necessary. I feel fortunate that I grew up in a time before computers were as popular as they are now because I was very social when I was younger. If I wanted to talk to my friends, it was either on the phone or in person. I feel bad for kids now that grow up and their primary mode of communication is the computer. I feel that in the long run it is not beneficial. How does a kid who's only talked to girls on the computer act on a first date? How can a social networking addict nail a job interview? Obviously these are generalizations but these are my feelings and they coincide with Postman's ideas.
Postman provides a similar example with television. Obviously it has been a huge blessing to have TV, however, it has also hurt our society. Television has clearly reduced the amount of reading done by our society as a whole. Whether that is in newspapers, magazines, or novels there is less reading done on a consistent basis. If TV's (or the internet) across the globe disappeared, would our world go into chaos? The answer seems to be a resounding yes. I can't imagine a middle schooler saying, "no internet today? No problem I'll just go get the paper."
Postman uses new terms such as Technocracy in order to describe the development of our reliance on technology. Technocracy is the early stage where people realized "knowledge is power, humanity is capable of progressing, that poverty is a great evil, and that the life of the average person is as meaningful as any other." (p 38). All of this seems like obvious knowledge to us today, but thats because we were born into a time where this information already existed. Postman continues to describe the time period he calls Technopoly. He describes this as the "submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology" (p 52). This is where I begin to disagree with Postman. While it is obvious technology has taken over our culture, it is an exaggeration to believe that one day the Pledge of Allegiance will read "One nation, Under technology".
Postman's main point is that all things run through technology, however this is untrue. We have not abandoned real sports for video games, and although online classes are available, the majority of learning is set in a classroom. I believe that Postman takes the worst possible scenario and assumes we will eventually become slaves to the computer. While it is true we are dependent on the computer, I doubt people would die if they could not access the internet for a few days.
"Technopoly... is a state of culture... which means that the state of culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology." (p 71). I believe Postman's statements here sum up my feelings about his work. I do agree there is a heavy reliance on technology, but I know that I, and many others do not take our order from technology. I find satisfaction in area's outside of the technological world and I also do my best to limit my use of technology in order to avoid becoming a slave to it. Postman's ideas are all well thought out, however I believe he fears the absolute worst case scenario and I don't think we will ever get to that point.
Similar to Thamus, the invention of the modern computer as well as the internet has sparked other inventions that have replaced old traditions. My favorite example of this is digital friends. I am a firm believer that in order to be successful in life good people skills are absolutely necessary. I feel fortunate that I grew up in a time before computers were as popular as they are now because I was very social when I was younger. If I wanted to talk to my friends, it was either on the phone or in person. I feel bad for kids now that grow up and their primary mode of communication is the computer. I feel that in the long run it is not beneficial. How does a kid who's only talked to girls on the computer act on a first date? How can a social networking addict nail a job interview? Obviously these are generalizations but these are my feelings and they coincide with Postman's ideas.
Postman provides a similar example with television. Obviously it has been a huge blessing to have TV, however, it has also hurt our society. Television has clearly reduced the amount of reading done by our society as a whole. Whether that is in newspapers, magazines, or novels there is less reading done on a consistent basis. If TV's (or the internet) across the globe disappeared, would our world go into chaos? The answer seems to be a resounding yes. I can't imagine a middle schooler saying, "no internet today? No problem I'll just go get the paper."
Postman uses new terms such as Technocracy in order to describe the development of our reliance on technology. Technocracy is the early stage where people realized "knowledge is power, humanity is capable of progressing, that poverty is a great evil, and that the life of the average person is as meaningful as any other." (p 38). All of this seems like obvious knowledge to us today, but thats because we were born into a time where this information already existed. Postman continues to describe the time period he calls Technopoly. He describes this as the "submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology" (p 52). This is where I begin to disagree with Postman. While it is obvious technology has taken over our culture, it is an exaggeration to believe that one day the Pledge of Allegiance will read "One nation, Under technology".
Postman's main point is that all things run through technology, however this is untrue. We have not abandoned real sports for video games, and although online classes are available, the majority of learning is set in a classroom. I believe that Postman takes the worst possible scenario and assumes we will eventually become slaves to the computer. While it is true we are dependent on the computer, I doubt people would die if they could not access the internet for a few days.
"Technopoly... is a state of culture... which means that the state of culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology." (p 71). I believe Postman's statements here sum up my feelings about his work. I do agree there is a heavy reliance on technology, but I know that I, and many others do not take our order from technology. I find satisfaction in area's outside of the technological world and I also do my best to limit my use of technology in order to avoid becoming a slave to it. Postman's ideas are all well thought out, however I believe he fears the absolute worst case scenario and I don't think we will ever get to that point.
Critical Analysis #2
For this entry, I will examine the second half of Swedin and Ferro's book, Computers: The Life Story of Technology. In this section of the book the authors move away from the history and development of computers in general and begin talking more about how computers made their way into the homes of our society. They begin by explaining the process that computers took in order to develop to the point where they could become personal computers.
A huge cornerstone of this progress was the development of the CPU Microprocessor by Intel. This was the first step to creating a smaller computer. This development sparked Gary Kildall to dream of being able to have a desktop computer. As I have said in my previous posts humans are constantly trying to make things better and this is another prime example. Roberts eventually created the Altair 8800 and computers changed forever. Once this development was made, society realized that a desktop computer could exist. The only problem was who to sell it to. However, the companies that began to develop these computers realized that if they worked well and efficiently, they could definitely become popular.
Paul Allen and Bill gates developed the BASIC programming language for the Altair 8800. This was hugely important in the development of computer use among non-experts. Now people no longer had to use Intel microprocessor code and therefore the computer became more accessible to all people.
While all of this was happening, competing companies were doing their best to produce a better computer. Companies such as IBM and Apple did their best to produce a better personal computer than all the other companies. This is a very important fact because as far as I can see, the explosion of technology over the last few decades has also been largely influenced by competition. The authors of the book write that "One of the major reasons for the success of the Intel-based personal computer is that other companies also made Intel-like chips, forcing Intel to continually strive to improve their products." (p 102).
The fact that competition was such a huge factor means two things. First is that it forced prices to go down. Obviously if Intel had a monopoly on the market computers could still be extremely expensive. Competition also sparked innovation as new and old companies competed for customers. Without the competition there is a chance that all personal computers could still be updated models of the Altair 8800. Competition has clearly done great things for development during technology.
The next very important part of this section is about the World Wide Web. Networking computers began but was never very effective or on a scale as large as the World Wide Web. The internet became popular first through networks such as ARPAnet and later the internet developed. With dial-up providers now helping all people connect their computers via telephone lines, the internet became extremely accessible. Obviously it was not as extensive as it is today, but it still boomed. These Dial-up providers are extremely important in the development of the internet. I remember first getting AOL, it took about a year to get online, and I would get kicked off every time our phone rang. However my love for the internet started right then.
The internet in a way is like a drug. From those first moments on AOL I was overwhelmed with the barrage of information at my fingertips. IMing my friends, e-mail, and websites became huge landmarks in my life, and in the lives of our whole society. Without connecting to the internet for a few days I, and many others, feel symptoms of withdrawal. Who won last night's game? The president did what? DID ANYONE POST ON MY WALL?!?!
The authors of this book explain the development of the internet also using the historical context explaining how the Cold War became the first time networking computers was really thought about and tried. The internet, search engines, and hacking are all covered in the final chapter of the book, however I believe it is more important to realize what these things do to our lives in reality. I'm sure no one ever worried about having their identity stolen through ENIAC or the Altair 8800. However, the developments in technology that Ferro and Swedin describe have changed not only our technological lives, but our lives in general.
A huge cornerstone of this progress was the development of the CPU Microprocessor by Intel. This was the first step to creating a smaller computer. This development sparked Gary Kildall to dream of being able to have a desktop computer. As I have said in my previous posts humans are constantly trying to make things better and this is another prime example. Roberts eventually created the Altair 8800 and computers changed forever. Once this development was made, society realized that a desktop computer could exist. The only problem was who to sell it to. However, the companies that began to develop these computers realized that if they worked well and efficiently, they could definitely become popular.
Paul Allen and Bill gates developed the BASIC programming language for the Altair 8800. This was hugely important in the development of computer use among non-experts. Now people no longer had to use Intel microprocessor code and therefore the computer became more accessible to all people.
While all of this was happening, competing companies were doing their best to produce a better computer. Companies such as IBM and Apple did their best to produce a better personal computer than all the other companies. This is a very important fact because as far as I can see, the explosion of technology over the last few decades has also been largely influenced by competition. The authors of the book write that "One of the major reasons for the success of the Intel-based personal computer is that other companies also made Intel-like chips, forcing Intel to continually strive to improve their products." (p 102).
The fact that competition was such a huge factor means two things. First is that it forced prices to go down. Obviously if Intel had a monopoly on the market computers could still be extremely expensive. Competition also sparked innovation as new and old companies competed for customers. Without the competition there is a chance that all personal computers could still be updated models of the Altair 8800. Competition has clearly done great things for development during technology.
The next very important part of this section is about the World Wide Web. Networking computers began but was never very effective or on a scale as large as the World Wide Web. The internet became popular first through networks such as ARPAnet and later the internet developed. With dial-up providers now helping all people connect their computers via telephone lines, the internet became extremely accessible. Obviously it was not as extensive as it is today, but it still boomed. These Dial-up providers are extremely important in the development of the internet. I remember first getting AOL, it took about a year to get online, and I would get kicked off every time our phone rang. However my love for the internet started right then.
The internet in a way is like a drug. From those first moments on AOL I was overwhelmed with the barrage of information at my fingertips. IMing my friends, e-mail, and websites became huge landmarks in my life, and in the lives of our whole society. Without connecting to the internet for a few days I, and many others, feel symptoms of withdrawal. Who won last night's game? The president did what? DID ANYONE POST ON MY WALL?!?!
The authors of this book explain the development of the internet also using the historical context explaining how the Cold War became the first time networking computers was really thought about and tried. The internet, search engines, and hacking are all covered in the final chapter of the book, however I believe it is more important to realize what these things do to our lives in reality. I'm sure no one ever worried about having their identity stolen through ENIAC or the Altair 8800. However, the developments in technology that Ferro and Swedin describe have changed not only our technological lives, but our lives in general.
Critical Analysis: Blog # 1
For my first critical analysis blog I will take a look at the first half of Swedin and Ferro's book, Computers: The Life Story of Technology. In this book, they provide the reader with a simple history of computers. While their book touches on all the main points it would be foolish to believe that the story of computers could be told in a 150 page book.
As I mentioned in my previous post I am fairly computer literate and knew a little bit about the history of computers prior to opening this book. However the second line of the introduction struck me where they write: "The computer has changed how we work, how we organize and store information, how we communicate with each other, and even the way that we think about the universe and the human mind." (Pg VII). What a enormous statement, however it rings with truth. The computer has truly changed everything about our society. And the changes it has spurred are so drastic I can't even begin to imagine what being a college student would be like without my MacBook.
One thing that the beginning section of the booked helped me realize was that even when computers weren't created using motherboards and CPU's, people still sought to make things more automatic and simpler. Examples of this include the Greeks using a device that dispensed a set amount of water for washing things. Other famous examples include the Roman abacuses and the Babylonian Astrolabe. What interested me about this is that for as far back as humans go, we have always sought to be more efficient. Every day computers become obsolete and new technology is developed and this pattern has existed for the history of mankind. Our species is constantly seeking improvement in our daily lives by making things faster, easier, and more efficient.
Another interesting point was that ENIAC, the first modern computer, had so much government support. I never realized that the US Army was affiliated with them. It makes sense to me now however this example shows how quickly and rapidly technology evolves. ENIAC represents a time in computer history where only the wealthiest and best could afford to use a super computer like this. Now the laptop that I am typing on surpasses that technology immensely. As I said before, computers becoming obsolete happens everyday, and it is simply because the computer revolution has taken our world by storm.
One of my favorite parts of this book is the details they provide about the people involved in the history of computers. A prime example can be the introduction of "jogging" by Atanasoff. (p.27) His invention of periodically passing electricity through the condensers as a way of retaining memory is still used today. While this invention of his was new to me, I was able to appreciate the story that the authors tell. In many other textbooks the fact that Atanasoff took a long drive and thought of his idea while drinking at a roadhouse would be left out. I enjoyed this read because simple details like that kept the read from becoming so boring. As a history major many of my readings are very dull and bland and so this was an easy read.
The book continues to discuss the evolution of computers. In addition it relates the history of computers to the world's history. I think it is important to know that "need" sparks innovation. The funding the military provided into the fields of science and technology was "at unprecedented levels during the Cold War" (p.48). The historical context that is provided was extremely important to me as a reader because it gave me a sense of where we were in history when these things were happening and more importantly, WHY these things needed to happen at this point in history.
I believe that the first section of this book does a great job explaining the history of computers. More so than anything else I think it really communicates how society is constantly trying to better itself. Clearly, complacency is not an issue within our society since every time we achieved a new innovation with computers, someone else was asking, "why can't it be faster, why can't it be smaller, why can't it be stronger". The history of computers is shocking to me because the first electronic computers were not developed very long ago at all. I knew computers advanced quickly, however I couldn't believe that it was moved along as rapidly as it did. While one person was developing a quicker computer, one person was working on programming languages. And all the while other people were trying to make it more accessible to everyone through things such as software. The development of computers comments on the nature of humanity trying to do everything better and faster.
As I mentioned in my previous post I am fairly computer literate and knew a little bit about the history of computers prior to opening this book. However the second line of the introduction struck me where they write: "The computer has changed how we work, how we organize and store information, how we communicate with each other, and even the way that we think about the universe and the human mind." (Pg VII). What a enormous statement, however it rings with truth. The computer has truly changed everything about our society. And the changes it has spurred are so drastic I can't even begin to imagine what being a college student would be like without my MacBook.
One thing that the beginning section of the booked helped me realize was that even when computers weren't created using motherboards and CPU's, people still sought to make things more automatic and simpler. Examples of this include the Greeks using a device that dispensed a set amount of water for washing things. Other famous examples include the Roman abacuses and the Babylonian Astrolabe. What interested me about this is that for as far back as humans go, we have always sought to be more efficient. Every day computers become obsolete and new technology is developed and this pattern has existed for the history of mankind. Our species is constantly seeking improvement in our daily lives by making things faster, easier, and more efficient.
Another interesting point was that ENIAC, the first modern computer, had so much government support. I never realized that the US Army was affiliated with them. It makes sense to me now however this example shows how quickly and rapidly technology evolves. ENIAC represents a time in computer history where only the wealthiest and best could afford to use a super computer like this. Now the laptop that I am typing on surpasses that technology immensely. As I said before, computers becoming obsolete happens everyday, and it is simply because the computer revolution has taken our world by storm.
One of my favorite parts of this book is the details they provide about the people involved in the history of computers. A prime example can be the introduction of "jogging" by Atanasoff. (p.27) His invention of periodically passing electricity through the condensers as a way of retaining memory is still used today. While this invention of his was new to me, I was able to appreciate the story that the authors tell. In many other textbooks the fact that Atanasoff took a long drive and thought of his idea while drinking at a roadhouse would be left out. I enjoyed this read because simple details like that kept the read from becoming so boring. As a history major many of my readings are very dull and bland and so this was an easy read.
The book continues to discuss the evolution of computers. In addition it relates the history of computers to the world's history. I think it is important to know that "need" sparks innovation. The funding the military provided into the fields of science and technology was "at unprecedented levels during the Cold War" (p.48). The historical context that is provided was extremely important to me as a reader because it gave me a sense of where we were in history when these things were happening and more importantly, WHY these things needed to happen at this point in history.
I believe that the first section of this book does a great job explaining the history of computers. More so than anything else I think it really communicates how society is constantly trying to better itself. Clearly, complacency is not an issue within our society since every time we achieved a new innovation with computers, someone else was asking, "why can't it be faster, why can't it be smaller, why can't it be stronger". The history of computers is shocking to me because the first electronic computers were not developed very long ago at all. I knew computers advanced quickly, however I couldn't believe that it was moved along as rapidly as it did. While one person was developing a quicker computer, one person was working on programming languages. And all the while other people were trying to make it more accessible to everyone through things such as software. The development of computers comments on the nature of humanity trying to do everything better and faster.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
First Entry!
Hey All! My Name is Brian Shemesh and this is my first Blog for Technology & Culture in America. To begin, here is a log of my computer activity over the last three days.
Tuesday- 8:00- 9:00 am- Wake up and Browse internet.
Tuesday- 8:00- 9:00 am- Wake up and Browse internet.
- MyRutgers
- Various Websites
3:00pm - 4:30 - Homework done using basic internet research sites such as
- Wikipedia
- Dictionary.com
9:00 - 10:00 pm - Facebook "Stalking"
Wed-
10:00 am - 11:00 am - Internet browsing, facebook MyRutgers, InsideLacrosse.com, ESPN.com, NFL.com
11:00 pm- 12:30 am- Internet browsing, Facebook, Addicting games.com, Twitter
Thurs
9:00 am - 12:00 pm- Internet browsing/Homework
- Sakai - Find syllabus and review/Find hw assignments
- Email sent.
- Blogger.com Blog started
When I first looked at these statistics of my computer/internet usage I was surprised to see how little it really was because I feel like I am connected to the internet all day. However, then I thought about it and I realized that my BlackBerry device keeps me connected all day. No matter where I am I am constantly checking my E-mails, facebook, and various websites that interest me. As a big sports fan, I have numerous applications to keep me updated with news and scores from sports teams as well as other applications to keep me in touch with my friends. I will be honest, I know I already spend WAY TOO much time using social networking devices including facebook and twitter. However, I also realize that I feel "disconnected" when I am not checking these sites.
I have always been fairly computer literate, and setting up the Blogger.com Blog was easy. As someone who has never blogged before I was not entirely sure how to approach my first entry so I figured I would just dive right in. I still have to play with all the settings and customize my page to my liking but for now it seems like blogger.com has created an extremely easy tool for anyone to use to express their feelings on anything to anyone in the world. I believe that is the best part of the internet: that anyone can say anything to anyone. People from distant corners of the globe can communicate in ways never before thought possible. Communication is instant now and it has certainly changed the world we live in.
As for me, like I said my name is Brian Shemesh. I am a senior here at Rutgers and I play lacrosse for the university. I am currently majoring in History and English and have hopes of attending law school after graduation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)