Final Blog Post 3/13

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this course? Why?
I just remember when Professor Gill began pulling up websites over the larger projected computer screen and they were all sites that I had never seen before. I thought that I was fairly computer competent in being able to locate and research topics or inquiries I had. I did not realize til taking this course that there really is a specific way to research and search for things on particular sites. I also had no idea about the Voip program and how computers are beginning to revolutionize the telephone, which I always thought would remain a staple and never begin being uprooted. I think this is important because I have a new foundation for research that I was not aware of before.

2. What would you like to have more time to study? Why?
I personally would have enjoyed researching online based social networking sites as a more formalized class discussion. I think that most people would agree to the fact that online communication is becoming more and more a standard medium of interaction and that in a lot of ways it seems to becoming more and more negative. I think that most college students communicate online quite often, but I would have liked to hear people's opinions on the impact that communication is having offline and what they think could be done to remedy it.

3. What topic was the least interesting to you? Why?
Online politics sort of made me lose interest. It came just before discussion on digital divide and new and emerging technologies, which both were fascinating to me. I unfortunately get lost in the realm of politics so when we began discussing on an Internet form, I didn't have much appreciation for it. Although, I know it is a very important process in the world, I just did not have much interest in it through its online form.

Extra-Credit 2/13

I found Professor Gill's "The Race of the Websites: 2004" to be such an interesting comparison between two high-stakes sites. There were a number of details I found to be especially interesting including the mentioning of Bush's site being of a high broadband and as Kathy pointed out, a significant number of the regions in favor of Bush were smaller towns with slower and limited access to the high-speed connections needed for this site. A little more common sense would seem to be in order. And Kerry's website seemed to make, in my opinion, the mistake of requesting log-in information for purposes of updates and emails. Whenever I reach a site asking for added information, I am always hesitant and depending on how in need of the information I am I will oblige, but most often I just click out and try somewhere else.
I believe it to be beneficial to campaigns for candidates to offer websites where voters can browse for information, donating specifics, volunteer opportunities on their own time and at their own will. I too hope that political campaigns continue to be advanced by the Internet as it allows more freedoms for voters to cast educated votes.

Questions 2/13

Discussion Questions

• When political campaigns come around in our area, what medium of campaign advertisements most gets your attention? Television? Picket signs? Street-side supporters? Newspapers? The Internet? And why?
• Do you think that political sites and campaigning online has added or reduced propaganda and mud-slinging between candidates and between candidates and voters?
• How do you think the Internet will have changed political campaigning in the years to come?

Readings 2/13

The Internet has had a tremendous effect on political campaigns. If a voter seeks information about a candidate information is easily accessed online and in addition, it is often times information that it is not necessarily being focused on or discussed in other mediums like television or the newspaper. The Internet allows for added commentary, information, history and statistics to be relayed to consumers easily. The Internet also allows for voices and opinions to be heard regarding campaigns and their candidates. As Joe Trippi had once suggested finding "some way to get your supporters to come to you rather than seeking them out yourself". I think that that is the opportunity the Internet has seized on. The Internet has become a trend; an entire generation seems to find it a daily necessity- yet there are minimal direct plugs to get online. It seems that the Internet has become so widespread and overflowing with information to make life easier, get questions answered, or just kill some time, that politicians reap the benefits of voters seeking out information from their glossy web pages and bios. With relatively low costs as compared to television advertisements and high impacts, the Internet impacts politics significantly. And although the Internet may not have at one point been the most reliable source for locating local news as let's say: the morning news, that study was done over 5 years ago and with our technology re-inventing itself by the minute, that offers some debate. People are becoming more comfortable with standard sites that allow access to local and national news and sites are becoming sharper as to how to advertise and bring consumers onto their pages.

Discussion

Readings 2/6

Thoughts

Blogs have allowed a mass-collection of opinions, news, updates, etc. available to any and all that wish to view them. The first reading really outlined the evolution of mass media and I think it discussed the power of blogging and the internet best when it talked about how a newspaper is one to many, television is one to many, telephones are one to one, while the internet is a fair combination of any of these. How beneficial was the internet to worried citizens, friends, family members of those in New York at the time of 9/11? The television can only relay certain messages or interviews with the people of New York and the events that have occured; while the internet immediately served as a platform for people in or around New York or others that may have conversed with them, and their efforts to spread the news of the tragedy, firsthand for as many as signed on to read or post. The Internet does seem to however, undermine the power of mass media television or newspaper. It is an instant source of news with flashing captions or titles that change every 30 seconds so as to attract you to at least one story or for some people, serve as a quick debrief of the days' news. Furthermore, anyone can publish, discuss, disagree, persuade via the Internet. Although I believe it is a good thing, it seems so easy to be inaccurate in your publishings or postings, because their is no measure of restriction, while television and newspapers have certain standards. The Internet and blogging is a free-for all, a constant, consistent and speedy navigation of news and opinions. The television is a picked-at, scheduled, reviewed, one-to-many source of news and more often, less opinions.

Questions

• As a source of news which form (television, Internet, newspapers) do you find to be the most reliable and accurate?
• How do you find that the Internet has shifted your views, perceptions on the television or newspapers? Are you less trusting? More trusting?
• How do you think television or newspapers could adjust to being more similar to the Internet as a more open form of communication? Do you think this should be something that is attempted?

1/30 Readings

I think that communication scholars should research the open source network as it is the anonymity of the Internet that I believe creates an inumerable amount of frustrations. I feel that the Internet has become ironically enough, an overflowing void of words and reactions and opinions and systems, to such a degree that no one really knows who is responsible for what or the credibility of the producers. However I believe that the open source movement is entirely beneficial to our generation, as I have seen throughout my years in college that technology is a powerful place to voice. I think that my generation has a responsibility to be socially active, even if it is on the Internet. I just believe that in order to gain strength and power from one another in this movement it is very important that the systematic gray area of communications via the Internet is broken down, in efforts to better understand each others' voices and keep an open and engaging environment.

Discussion Questions:

• Do you believe in their being strength in reducing the anonymity and gray area of production on the Internet?
• How do you think this open sharing will impact information produced on the Internet, do you think people will be more cautious in censoring themselves?
• Can you think of any other potential problems that may be associated with this software and its implications, or possibly, complications?

Mary Hoffman- Week 4

Thoughts:
I have found that I have a very interesting relationship with technology. At first I am skeptical to think that the new device or media will catch on and I promise to never subscribe as it will not be useful to my life, but as time goes on, I do. Human error is something that I am comfortable with. I believe we were not made to be perfect beings and we should not create things that can be perfect for us. The occasional glitches in my computer or my cell phones' dropped calls are frustrating, but those mistakes are not detracting from my life- technology, I believe, is not the most important thing in man's life. I am hoping that as I attempt every day to make my life less inundated with technological advances and to be aware of the food I am consuming, the mistakes that I make and so on, that a more natural, less machine-reliant life can be achieved by more and more. We have already created the computer. A modern day masterpiece capable of menial tasks that humans typically don't have the memory for. I think however, there are some things specific to the human that cannot be recreated in a technology, and in turn, should not be attempted. Emotions, mistakes, advice, opinions, etc., are all tasks and reactions in an average human's day- these are some of the things that make up our character and should not be reproduced. There needs to be some more effort put forth to slowing down the human culture- some limit. Questions:

Questions:

• What qualities or capabilities that humans have do you think should not be manipulated and reproduced?
  
• Why do you think humans are so interested in constantly advancing a product or program that is seems, was created just yesterday?
  
• What event do you think will it take to push humans into a slower paced lifestyle with an emphasis on the quality of that life, not the rate at which it goes? Do you personally think this is a good idea?

Mary's 1/18 Readings

• Information Overload: Often times when it comes time for me to research for class or for reasons outside of class, I am completely bombarded by information that has no relevancy to the topic I'm researching. Whether its that my computer screen is constantly being filled with pop-up advertisements that in some way relate to my research or my search pulls up articles or information containing words used in my research statement; it can be entirely overwhelming finding something that would seem relatively easy to locate. I do not know if there is every any such thing as too much information when it comes to the internet. I think that in order for consumers of the internet to also be producers of the internet, there is bound to be an inumerable amount of information produced by people. And in turn, it would not be fair to limit that information produced. However, with all of that information, it is hard to determine whether or not the article or document or detail is a viable truth or even if the source is reliable. One very frustrating instance in looking up items on the internet is looking for the real and actual sponsored site of the product or company, etc., that I'm looking for. What if the information becomes of such an excess that it begins to overflow and becomes unmanageable? With all of the sites open and easily accessible to consumers to use as places for public announcements (blogs like this one, web pages, etc.) it seems there is a limitless way to add more and more information to an already crowded medium. It also seems that because we are heading to a future of technology that will become more and more powerful than us, we must find a way in which to slow our technological processes down in order for us to better maintain control and create technology we can run, rather than becoming so inundated with technology and information that it begins to run us.

• Questions
• What would be your suggestions for limiting the amounts of redundant information found on the internet? Do you think this would be a fair process?
• Should any person be able to be a producer of the internet or should their be certain restrictions or requirements to produce information? What would be the positives and negatives of these restrictions?
• Can you think of one media that your life would be better off without? What it is and why would your life benefit from its dissapearance?

Thoughts on articles 1/09

In reading the assigned articles for this week it occured to me how all efforts to advance our society technologically have just been efforts to speed our lifestyles up. I agree to rushed efforts in creating medical cures and other attempts at creating solutions to deviances in our day to days, but will we ever find the constant onslaught of new technology to be too much? I feel that all of the internet and television and other digital medias are just replacing personal communication. And no matter efforts made by technological media to uproot face-to-face contact for computer screen conversation, there will always be something missing. In Fidler's "Technologies of the Third Metamorphosis" one can see the progressive outline of technology in society. From the telegraph to attempts to create machines capable of analytical behavior, we have always been trying to one-up ourselves technologically. I remember when DVD's came out, I assumed no one would be interested in buying them as the machines that played them cost so much. But by and by, DVD's wholly replaced VHS tapes. As Fidler mentioned, people had a very difficult time purchasing a color tv just after black and white tv's were made available and barely afforded by general society.
In chapter 3 of "Networks of Remedies" although I was not completely sure of some points made within the article, I think what the article was addressing overall, was that by taking various mediums of art or research or intellect and mass-producing it outside of it's original source, we are taking it's purpose away. Art or books or poetry or studies on medical phenonmena should remain within their original context and should not be demeaned in mass production over the internet, when their initial value was in their initial creation.

In Bush's article, I found his interpretations of the future's media to be very interesting. To have created the idea of a personal organizing device that resembles a desk and displays translucent, parallel screens, seems very much similar to personal computers and palm pilots of today. Society uses computers as keepers of broad ranges of information, documents, schedules, and so on. We keep these digital cabinets so that we don't have to work so hard at remembering all of the things we need to remember or organizing all that supports our lives. What Bush did not think possible was that instead of inserting information into a desk-like "memex" to research or read, it would all be available within the computer and found through search engines geared to find documents, addresses, movie reviews, etc., at our slightest interests.

As far as my opinions on what could be expected of the internet in 2045 would be that it would be voice activated. Simple thoughts, tasks or inquiries could be voice automated through the internet without the use of keyboards or specific programs. I think that as time continues the computer and internet systems will be less hands-on and become more and more automatic and reflective of an even more efficient and intuitive of its users intentions.