My Relationship with Limewire

I currently use Limewire to break the law. I've deleted the application several times from my computer because I know that regular ol' people everywhere are getting sued for downloading Britney Spears albums and such. But each time I delete it, my desire for new music and the emptiness of my checking account drives me to download the application again and continue in my criminal ways.

I think the piracy ads they put out a while back are pretty scary. That and the news of 11-year-old teenyboppers getting subpoenaed for downloading the latest Hannah Montana movie.

But I guess I'm not scared enough because I keep on downloading. I'm not sure how this dilemma can be solved. By punishing the music-giants we also keep the up and coming artists starving. Maybe there should be ads that focus on the up-and-coming artist and appeal to our moral sides a bit more. Maybe we can boost the drive to donate, or is that me just being optimistic?

I thought this was interesting, and I'm sure all my eco-friendly classmates will too.

Leaving Computers on Overnight=$2.8 billion a year

No Thanks Dell

Apparently Dell attempted to create a smartphone but found out that their design wasn't up to par.

iPhone takeover

iPhone sales hit 17 million... yikes! Nearly 14 million of those were sold in 2008 alone. Check out the article.

Google is ALWAYS watching...

Check out this article about Google catering your online ads to your previous browsing history...

P2P

Remember when Metallica sued Napster in 2000? That's when the world took notice that P2P file sharing was becoming a big problem. But before that, the Internet was a download haven, where you could get copies of your favorite music/movies/software for free! So much so, that for a long time, I, along with many others, thought the Internet was a place to download stuff. Many years down the line, I know of its infinite possibilities, but to me, then, it was all about limewire, torrents and other such sites. The authorities finally caught on, but I don't think it has stopped the process. But downloading is a lot lesser than it used to be. But why would you download when you can stream? Try to bring the hammer down, and people will find ways and means to beat the system. Its a human trait! Like it happened with Kazaa:

On a January morning three months after the suit was filed, Amsterdam-based Kazaa.com went dark and Zennstrom vanished. Days later, the company was reborn with a structure as decentralized as Kazaa's peer-to-peer service itself. Zennstrom, a Swedish citizen, transferred control of the software's code to Blastoise, a strangely crafted company with operations off the coast of Britain - on a remote island renowned as a tax haven - and in Estonia, a notorious safe harbor for intellectual property pirates. And that was just the start.

Earlier, in India, I used to download a lot of music. Then one fine day, Limewire gave my system a trojan. With my hard drive completely erased, I had to get music from my friends. P2P, anyone? I then started working for a music magazine where I had access to an insane amount of music. By then, I had completely stopped downloading.

Why would I when I can stream? For free? The other day, I wanted to watch Gran Torino again and it was not running in any theaters. Also, it was not out on DVD. So I just went to OVGUIDE and keyed it in. Sure enough, more than 20 sites allowed me to watch the film. Again, for free! Also, with sites like Youtube, where high definition is now a possibility, I can go to sites like www.zamzar.com, that allow me to convert files. This file conversion software is totally legal and provides me with a loophole to get a song that I want. Since I am almost perpetually online, I listen to online radios like imeem and pandora - all sites that provide clear, high quality music.

So although I agree that it is totally pointless to bring the hammer down, what can we do to give people the credit they deserve?

Google Chrome

I have never used Google Chrome but it does not sound too bad. The thing about the article that really peaked my interest was the ability for only one tab to close instead of all of them when the search engine is slow. I hate that!! It is so annoying when you're searching for something and the computer starts acting crazy, having some type of temper tantrum. I think I might give Google Chrome a try eventually, but there are so many mixed reviews it makes me a little nervous. Maybe I will just stick to my search engine having random temper tantrums and completely closing down.

Now this is just creepy...

Check out this article about an earphone set with infrared that allows you to blink, wink, or stick out your tongue to operate your iPod.

Open Source

On his website, Josh Reisner writes why he thinks ‘Open Source Rules.’

Just to follow up on my earlier debacle/discovery with PostCommitWebHooks, an Italian PHP coder seems to have picked up the script I posted to the Google thread and added to it considerably!

The script I wrote listens for updates from Google's server and maintains a record of those updates. This coder's script takes those updates and gets the actual changed files and maintains a local copy.

I can already think of a nice way to extend his update: write a script that presents that local cache of files as a single ZIP you can download. I suppose the reason they don't offer that is because they want you to connect over SVN. But I think a lot of people might want to use the code but don't want to bother checking it out, at least at first.

Anyway, moral of the story: open source is great.

I Agree. Like Reisner, many coders write scripts/codes to help improve the Internet experience. Now, it is not just browsers, but also Operating Systems like Linux, games and applications for technology like the iPhone that are Open Source. In the case of Firefox, several coders helped make it a bastion of Web browsers. From the time Internet Explorer took over much of the market share, to what it is now, Microsoft has nothing to blame but its laid-back approach and the many open source coders.

In a blog post, I had said that Wikipedia works because it is a labor of love. And I guess what makes Open Source work, is that it is also a labor of love. Although both have very socialistic concepts backing them, they are both democratic in nature – being run by, for and of the people. With the many nicknamed, faceless, characters that make this concept work, multinational corporations like Microsoft have had to take notice and improve themselves.

I wonder if there will be a time when we don’t have to buy software.

Yahoo, Monster.com, Google Boost Newspapers' Ads Online

Here's an article from TIME that talks about these big companies creating big partnerships with print publications to boost their online ads.

Because, "Contrary to popular belief, newspapers aren't dying. Newspapers are making tons of money." --Mark Cuban

Internet Explorer

Today I can say without a doubt, I believe Firefox is much better than Internet Explorer. I know that there are mixed emotions regarding both, but I actually believe Firefox is faster and less hazardous. I don’t know how true it is but my boyfriend would tell me all types of horror stories about Internet Explorer and people’s computers being tampered with through this gateway. I don’t have any proof except my own feelings, and using Firefox just seems safer. Although there is the occasional problem, like my computer freezing, but this does not happen often. One thing I really like about Firefox is its ability to restore sessions; I think that it’s neat.

What does Google not control?

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3590756

This article really makes me wonder how much control Google has in our technological lives. I didn't realize that even the non-profit organization, Mozilla Firefox, is being paid by Google.

Open Source: Novels

So in one of my rhetoric classes we read this book Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom

It was released under the Creative Commons Licensee and can be downloaded for free online

Open Source

The concept of open source is very interesting. I love the idea that information is readily available to use but there is a big issue of trust and whether or not the people creating this free content is reliable. Wikipedia for example hosts millions of posts about anything in the world but it can be edited by anyone so when researching and browsing, you have to acknowledge the lack of substantial proof in the material.

There has to be some sort of system where contributors must have some sort of expertise or a way of controlling the flow of bad content on these open source sites because without it, open source is just an easy accessible medium that exploits our laziness or apathy toward searching for the right answers.

For my J315 class I covered a lecture that an engineering professor from Rice gave about free, open source textbooks on the computer contributed by professors and experts in their fields. Connexions is a site where people can contribute, edit and put together their own course material from information provided by other people. The speaker was very adamant that this was the way of the future because it would cost students less and the ease of gathering information would be prominent.

OVerall I think that open source is the right step for a world based on technology and information if we can manage to discourage bad contributors and create some way to legitimize who contributes.

firefox does not work well in Korea

Several months ago, I had this little debate with my sister about firefox vs. Internet Explorer. My loyalty lies with Internet Explorer while my sister had just started using firefox. I have been using the Explorer since I was a child. So I guess I got attached to this browser even though it didn’t offer any memorable features. I had to use firefox whenever I used a Mac for lab purpose, but the interface was confusing because I have completely adopted my browsing habit to Internet Explorer.

My sister’s argument was that firefox has more convenient interface and has fewer errors. She said with confidence that once I get familiar with the browser, I would surely love firefox. Of course, I didn't listen. I just kept using Internet Explorer.

Few days later, my sister told me she went back to using Internet Explorer. I asked why. It was because of Korean Web sites. She could not surf most of Korean Web sites properly with firefox. Considering that very very few Koreans use firefox, some Korean Web sites malfunction when people access the Web site with firefox. For example, when she clicked buttons on several Web sites, it did nothing on firefox whereas it directs users to certain link in Internet Explorer.

Perhaps, this is why so few Koreans are using firefox. I don’t think firefox will ever catch up to Internet Explorer in Korea. Also, percentage of Mac users compared to PC users in Korea is very lower than the percentage in the United States. This could be why firefox hasn’t reached a level of getting attention in Korea.

Fabulous Firefox

Until college, I had never hear of, much less used, Firefox. Growing up with microsoft on our family computer, I was only familiar with Internet Explorer, and frankly I didn't see the reason to explore or try anything different.

I found out my freshman year that with one of my classes, my homework could not be uploaded through Internet Explorer but only through Firefox. I downloaded Firewfox, and soon began realizing the difference in the browser.

In my opinion, Firefox does a better job at opening and running more than one tab at a time. I also have found that there are not as many popups with Firefox. I like using the FTP programs on firefox as well

The Spark in Firefox

I am not the most technologically savvy person. Usually I just go along with the trend, or what is the most popular piece of technology. Unlike some people in our class who must have the newest, coolest edition of a gadget, I just follow behind at my own pace. For example, I didn't purchase an iPod until years after it was released.

As for web browsers, I continued along my same pattern with technology. To be honest, I had no idea what the difference was between one browser from the next, except for its initial appearance. Now, I have become enlightened from reading "Face Value: Firefox swings to the rescue." It is all starting to make more sense!

I started using Firefox last year. Before that I used Safari as the default web browser that came on my Mac. I really didn't know otherwise. Firefox is all I use as of now. A couple of its features that I love are the most visited web pages placed under the url, and the ability to open separate tabs. As of right now I have four different tabs open ranging from our blog home page, to Wikipedia, to looking up flight plans. It is so nice, because there is less confusion and it saves space on my desktop. Plus I don't have to minimize everything and play the guessing game when I try and figure out which site is which. I also love that Firefox is a non-profit organization, and that it is countering the Microsoft monopoly!

Before this class I didn't realize the abilities of the technology I have been using right in front of my face!

Open Source and Diversity

I think the open source concept is brilliant. Nowadays people give a lot of importance to diversity, right?

I believe the Internet and other daily tools that we use should be diverse. And by that I mean that they should not be in the hands of only one or two big corporations. Competition motivates the creation or development of better products. Plus, competition may make big corporations review how much they charge for their products and, hopefully, bring them down.

Today, Internet Explorer is clearly a better product ever since its main competitor, Firefox, appeared. Here's an example: IE didn't offer the tabbed browsing feature (that is, to open multiple Web pages within the same browser window) until 2005.

"The feature--long offered by IE competitors like Opera, Safari and Firefox, and by browser shells built to run on top of IE--is one of many that Web surfers have said they missed in the aging IE 6," says a CNET article published on June 8, 2005.

To me, it's much more convenient and time-efficient to have all my Web pages open within the same window than to have multiple windows, which I think also slows down my computer. So I assume this can be considered a good example on how IE is a better product today.

This takes me back to the article about "Mitchell Baker." She "considers it a success that Firefox has already spurred Microsoft to invest again in browser innovation," and I have to agree with that based on my own experience with Web browsers.

In fact, I read that Microsoft is building a new Web browser: Gazelle. The article says that Microsoft is "hoping [Gazelle] will be more secure than existing browsers while at the same time being able to function as an operating system platform for future web-applications." As we can see, Microsoft is clearly investing in browser innovation.

I must confess, though, that I started using Firefox on a daily basis not too long ago. When my computer crashed a year or so ago and I lost everything that was in it, I got it repaired and had to install Windows again. I guess something went wrong and, almost every time I opened IE, it would crash, an error message would appear, and the pages/tabs I was working on would be closed. Because I had Firefox installed in my computer as well, I started using it. Today, I don't even remember what IE was like. Firefox meets my needs and it never ever crashed or gave me error messages. At work, I will chose Firefox over IE. At UT, I will do that, too. In short, I'm a Firefox adept. :)

I believe the "Diffusion of Innovation Theory" also applies to the open source technologies.

"Diffusion is the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system." (Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations)

Because so many people use open source software and have a good experience, these people spread the word and, as a consequence, other people start trying open source software. If they have a good experience, they will pass the word on to other people, who will try the products, and so on and so forth.

Generally speaking, it takes time for an innovation to reach a lot of people. For several reasons, some take less time (electricity, light) and some take longer (microwave, telephone). So, according to the article about "Mitchell Baker", today, Firefox has a market share of 8-10%. In the future, I expect it to be a much larger number because Firefox will have new adepts/adopters, who will chose it over the leading browser, as it happened to me.

As I was searching the Internet to find out more about open source, I saw that there's an open source software for Photoshop! It's called Gimpshop and, supposedly, is very similar to Photoshop. I'm definitely downloading it and trying it out. If the product really works and has the same features of Photoshop, I think it's great that people don't necessarily need to rely on Adobe, nor they need to contribute to the Adobe monopoly with Photoshop.

And below is an interesting CNET video about Gimpshop and other useful open source software:

Battle of the Browsers

Undoubtedly, two mega giants control the Internet browser market: Microsoft and Google. Like the article, "The second browser war," confirms, Microsoft's Internet Explorer and and Google's Firefox dominate the browser scene.

I have found Firefox to be much more reliable and easier to use; however, I only recently switched over. Why? Because Microsoft had Internet Explorer already loaded onto my PC. It was much more convenient to simply use what I had. I find this to be the case most of the time with dominant trends.

I have not had the chance to try out Chrome but it sounds like a well-thought out browser plan. I also like that Google browsers are open-source which means each individual user can change or rewrite the software how they prefer.

News- When Everyone's a friend, is anything private?

I think people in the States have privacy problems related online social networking sites. I did too in Korea. From 2001 or 2002, "Cyworld," which is like faccebook or myspace, got really popular among young people. 

Wikipedia says, "as much as 90 percent of South Koreans in their 20s and 25 percent of the total population of South Korea are registered users of Cyworld, and as of September 2005, monthly unique visitors are about 20 million." While South Korean population is 495.4 million, according to Wikipedia. 

I started using it in 2002 or 2003. Back then, there was an issue on privacy. Since all my friends who are my cyworld friend could see my comments or my friends' comments, they knew basically what I was doing and what I was going to do. Basically my daily life was in public. There was no secret. Like today's facebook here in the United States. 

But now, we can left messages in secret. So, if I leave a message on my friend's cyworld, she and I only can see. Maybe facebook should include this kind of feature. I have facebook, but I don't write about my feeling or what I'm doing or things like that, to keep my privacy. 

Here I could find a privacy-related news about facebook.

 

To read this story, click When Everyone's a friend, is anything private?

Against microsoft's monopoly

Reading materials this week were interesting, but it was a little bit hard to me. I’m not tech-savvy at all. I’ve only used Internet Explorer (IE) until I use Safary in the States, which is only 3 or 4 years back. Although I remember the days when I opened Netscape a couple of times when I was in high school, rest of my life so far I was with Internet Explorer.

To be honest, I even had never heard of Firefox. When I first came here in Austin, last semester, taking Dr. Coleman’s Visual Journalism class, until she mentioned Firefox, I didn't know what it is. When she mentioned Firefox, I saw the weird looking icon, a orange-color fox embracing a globe, and it was really awkward and I thought I'll not use it. 

Well, it hasn't been that long that I started opening Firefox. While I was learning photoshop, my TA taught us how to “view background of image.” Because in Safary, I cannot view the background, so I opened Firefox and I could see image of the background. 

Even until I read articles this week, I didn’t understand much about what open source is, what Firefox is, what Chrome is.  What I know now is that "open source" is "code that is freely available to anybody who wants to make improvements and share these with everybody else, according to  Firefox swings to the rescue. And Netizens’ involvement helped in development of web browser like Firefox or Linux. And those open-source web browsers are developed against the monopoly of Micrsoft.

I think firefox is known in Korea recently. I think most of public people are using Internet Explorer still a lot. While I was researching about it in Korean websites, Naver encyclopedia (Naver is a search engine like google in Korea and many people are using it), it said that most websites in Korea is using Active X, so when people use Internet banking or internet shopping, Firefox may cause conflicts or some problems when they transact. 

Hmm.. I'm really behind the recent technologies, so it's really hard to understand articles, and I don't have much opinions on open source yet. I was curious how the development or open source run, but the article Firefox swings to the rescue explains on this: "...financed by donations and a share of search-related advertising."

I'd like to raise a question because still open source (or open source web browser) is very vague to me. What can I do with open source? Is this something that I should care about? Why it's important? (Does my question make sense? Hopefully it's not a rude question. Because it's only texts, I may sound like rude. :) )

Open Source:Democracy

When I first read about the open source concept, I thought it was really a democratic (yet somehow anti-free market) idea. After reading the two Economist articles, I realize that it can be used as a tool to spur free market competition. This is explained well in the open source wiki page: "Instead of seeing intellectual property law as an expression of instrumental rules intended to uphold either natural rights or desirable outcomes, an argument for OSC takes into account diverse goods (as in "the Good life") and ends."

Plus, it's a great slap in the face to monopolistic companies like Microsoft to make competing applications open source.

Open source plays an interesting role in the emerging legal issues (mainly involving copyright and fair use laws) that the World Wide Web has conceived. The wiki page says that OSC is supportive of some intellectual property laws "to protect cultural producers." But open sourcing, linking, and anything involving the spreading of copyrighted information have not yet been properly deal with in terms of legislation. It will be interesting to see what comes of these issues. As far as open sources goes, as long as it can help spur the free market, I only see it becoming more widespread.

Browsers inspired by Browsers

When reading the articles about Firefox, Netscape, IE, and Chrome, I thought back to when I had used two of these in the past, how I use one now, and how I have never used one of them. And I thought how great it is that the browser that has the most monopoly can be inspired to change and become better because of the others.

I use Mozilla Firefox now, and I love it. It has a lot of user-friendly features, and like the article pointed out, I love the multiple tabs feature. It has updates very frequently, which I also appreciate.

I think the idea of open source, sharing, free code, etc. is a great one. If there can be forums where anyone can add to, improve, or change the browsers, then why not? I don't appreciate big companies having a monopoly (Internet Explorer) and not really improving on their system. That's why good browsers like Firefox exist. Because they allow people to work together to make adjustments for the betterment of the users. And that's really what's important, right?

Amazon to sell eBooks for iPhone and iPod touch

Amazon.com announced today a new software program which allows iPhone users to read their electronics books on the iPhone. The move will significantly increase their eBook audience far beyond mere Kindle users, though not all features of Kindle will be found on the iPhone version. In addition, Amazon warns that iPhone battery life and eye strain may be issues for eBook readers. As a result, Kindle 2 should not be affected as die-hard eBook readers will still turn to the device.

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-41625-145.html

Damage control?

Online Legal Issues

One of our previous readings mentioned legal issues with linking to outside content online. (Which reading was it?)

Here's an interesting NYTimes article from yesterday about copyright issues stemmed from online linking and information sharing. (can you imagine if inserting links like I just did above were considered a copyright violation?)

No I-products for the Gates' kids

Microsoft-minded Bill Gates prohibits iPods and iPhones from his kids... read the short article...

What is thinking?

As a philosophy major, this dialogue hit close to home for me. What is thinking? How do we know we are thinking? How do we know what we are thinking is the same or comparable to what others are thinking? How do I know that what I see as the color green is the same as what you see as the color green? All of these are classic metaphysical and epistemological philosophical questions.

After taking an intro level computer science class, I concluded that the real difference between human and machine is irrationality, error and emotions. Artificial Intelligence definitely pushes these limits, though. Computers can be programmed to mimic human behavior and thought to a surprising extent. In his book The Human Use of Human Beings published in 1950, theoretical mathematician Norbert Wiener points out that all nerves in the human body are in a binary state (on or off, zero or 1 - as in computer programs). The logical conclusion from this, given that human brains are made up entirely of nerves, would be that computers can indeed be programmed to think like humans. The limits to this are not yet clear, but I think the differences between "human thinking" and "computer thinking" will continue to narrow as long as humans choose to continue to develop more complex technology.

Here's an interesting article on a Stanford computer science professor who has spent his "entire life" thinking about the differences between computers and humans.

Emotionally Plastic

Maybe there's not a way to argue it through philosophical or mathematical avenues, but that doesn't really matter to me. Machines do not think on the same terms as humans do and are not comparable "beings" (if you can call them that.) Humans are the creators of the machine, so therefore, machines can try to be "better," more innovative, smarter, but behind every program there is a maker, a human maker. It's as simple as that. I mean, computers can mock human thought because their abilities derive from human thought, but they lack emotion, which is a large impetus for why humans do or think the way they do. It's not only emotion they lack, but an array of human traits. I don't think the argument should be: Who is "better:" man or machine? We are inherently different things, with different skills, but it should be common knowledge that we, us human beings, control what the machine does. Therefore, there should be no human insecurity that the human race will lose against some computer-driven world takeover. Ridiculous.

Here is a news article showing how voice technology just can't seem to get it right: Read Me a Story, Mr. Roboto

The Sad State of Print Journalism

Here's an article from The Daily Texan today. It discusses the future of the journalist, how doing things online is increasing more and more everyday, and one of the reasons saving the journalist's role is so hard.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/capitol_press_corps_adapts_to_technology_s_impact_on_journalism-1.1590355

A lot of power, no point?

For all the reasons stated in the reading, there would be NO Powerpoint in today's class!

1. Technically

How much do you know about using Powerpoint -- how to use it effectively?

Find out more about Powerpoint at Microsoft Office site:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/FX100648971033.aspx?CTT=96&Origin=CL100626991033

B key? Rules of Seven?

2. Socially

According to Parker, 30 million PPT presentations are made each day in all kinds of occasions.

What are the pros and cons about Powerpoint -- what are the social implications?

Alienating your audience?

What is "triple delivery"? What's your view?

What's the difference between discussion and presentation?

PPT "lifts the floor" vs. "lowers the ceiling" of public speaking?

Outcome vs. Process

Look back at the pre-PPT era? What has changed?

AutoContent wizard?

Design issues.

From: The congnitive style of PPT http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint

"Alas, slideware often reduces the analytical quality of presentations. In particular, the popular PowerPoint templates (ready-made designs) usually weaken verbal and spatial reasoning, and almost always corrupt statistical analysis. What is the problem with PowerPoint? And how can we improve our presentations?" (Tufte).

Think about these next time when you need to use Powerpoint.

3. Other technologies

How about Word?

How much do you know about technologies that you use every day? How much reflection? Technically, and socially. Don't take everything for granted!

4. Powerpoint + YouTube?

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/04/introducing-slideshare-power-point-youtube/

http://www.slideshare.net/

A great place to find a PPT example
a) with appropriate design (define it)
b) that communicates effectively
c) that is used in interesting, non-business, non-academic ways
d) that you may want to share with your friends

http://www.slideshare.net/leebryant/the-twentieth-century-was-wrong (author's account)

http://www.slideshare.net/ictguy/introduction-to-blogging (jokes of the day)

God Bless Powerpoint

When reading "Absolute PowerPoint" I constantly found myself disagreeing with many of the statements. I just wanted to address a few of them.

"When properly employed, PowerPoint makes the logical structure of an argument more transparent. Two channels sending the same information are better than one."
This one I actually completely agree with. I feel like the use of PPT to get a message across is much more functional than just speaking aloud. It makes it easier to sit through, easier to retain and write down the information. Having the information coming to you in an audible and visual format is, in my opinion, much more efficient.

..."because it's more fun to do that than concentrate on what you're going to say."
Not always true. I have, on several occasions, found myself dreading creating a PPT and finding it hard to come up with enough information for the slides to seem important. Do I have enough bullet points? Is this information even worthy of a bullet point? Do I need a picture? I think it can be just as challenging and daunting to create a good PPT as it is to come up with a good lecture, speech, etc.

on that same topic, "...a lecture is less likely to be poor if the speaker is using the program."
Yup. I agree. I think the classes that have worked the best for me (studying, taking notes, recalling information, sitting through class) have used PPT.I very distinctively remember telling my friends about a history class I took last semester where my professor did not use PPT, any visual aids, and he just stood at the front of the class, not moving, and talked. I went home and complained, "He doesn't use PowerPoint or anything!" I couldn't believe that a class as information heavy as that one was just going to be him standing still and talking for an hour and 15 minutes. Needless to say, I was mad, discouraged, saddened. All because my class wasn't going to be using a very effective, and in our generation, very commonplace and expected program to go through the lectures.

"PowerPoint gives you the outcome, but it removes the process."
No. Although I disagree, I do think this part of the argument very much depends on the one using it. I have sat through very many good lectures and speeches where the speaker used PPT and you could tell they were telling a story from beginning, to end. And you saw that whole process. And if they had to add on or go on a tangent, they did. No problem. Lots of times, they might even say, "This isn't on the slides but I just thought I'd add..." or something to that effect. I think using PPT, unless used badly, improperly or just plain ignorantly, is generally pretty effective. And I never feel alienated or distanced.

I love PowerPoint. I love it when my teachers and professors use it. I hope it never goes away.

Nokia Entering Laptop Industry?

This article called Nokia Conisders Entering Laptop Industry was published few days ago. Nokia, the biggest cell phone maker in the world, will surely be an interesting competition if this acutally happens in future. Could this be because they are losing their shares on smartphone industry due to recent launch of i-phone and google phone?

Entering laptop industry is obviously a bold move. it will be interesting to see how Nokia implements its marketing strategy that can distinguish its products from already established laptop giants like Sony, Toshiba, HP and Dell.

PowerPoint is evil? I don't think so

Here’s an interesting article from WIRED magazine called “PowerPoint is Evil” by a professor in Yale. I was shocked to see such hostility toward PowerPoint. He made some interesting claims, but his argument, at least to me, seemed extremely biased. His examples of PowerPoint charts were poor. Nobody would make such inefficient charts if he/she has been using PowerPoint for some time. (Notice that this article was written in 2003, so the PowerPoint he talks about might be different from PowerPoint we know today.)

He says PowerPoint is convenient for speakers but not for audiences. Do you agree with this? For me, as a student/audience, PowerPoint has been extremely helpful in understanding lectures. There are times when people would put too many words or too many distractions on slides, but most PowerPoint presentations and lectures have been easier to comprehend and increased my attention span compared to just professors or presenters talking talking and talking.

Like we have discussed in class, visuals can sometimes tell much more than words. Also, ‘bullet points’ style of most PowerPoint slides has enabled me to follow the lecture in a organized manner. When I was an undergraduate student, one of the best note-taking I’ve done was to print out PowerPoint slides from blackboard (some professors post their PowerPoint slides before the lecture), and take it to the class to take notes on it. This has been extremely helpful since I can listen to the professor and concentrate on lecture more, not just scribbling for the entire hour, which is very very distracting.

I personally find nothing wrong with PowerPoint. I think it has made our students’ and professors’ life easier. The only negative thing about this, perhaps, is the monopoly nature of PowerPoint. I hope there was some other presentation software to compete with PowerPoint just like Firefox has challenged the Internet Explorer or Picasa has stood up to Photoshop.

PowerPoints

PowerPoint is a pretty interesting tool if it is used correctly. I saw this video on youtube about how people use it incorrectly. It is interesting how this tool is used to teach lessons, but sometimes nothing new is really learned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagxPlVqrtM

Powerful Power Point

I remember having a group project assigned to me in high school, and my fellow group members wanted to use powerpoint to present our presentaion. I didn't know what it was, much less how to use it. I did however, feel very tech savy once I learned I could make the text and color whatever I wanted and could make them enter the slide in fun ways such as flying or zooming.

Now that powerpoint is more popular and used is most of my classes, I find it very useful. When A professor is lecturing and I find myself zoning out, I find it very useful to gaze up at the friendly powerpoint outline to catch myself up and rejoin their train of thought.

Powerpoint is also very useful for people who are more visual learners than audio. All the pictures, diagrams, graphs, or other visuals on the slides also help explain points that sometimes words can't do on their own.

Machines can think?

     This article, Mind, Man, and Machine, was interesting, but sometimes I had to go back and re-read to understand the flow and the answers. I was confused who is right and who is wrong. Or maybe there is no right or wrong answer for this. It depends upon what participants and readers think.

Me? I was confused.

     I thought if I find definition for think, I could understand it. Like I understood why Romeo and Juliet is not tragedy when I was a sophomore in college and definition makes things clear. So, I looked up the Oxford English Dictionary.

     According to Compact Oxford English Dictionary,

think
• verb (past and past part. thought) 1 have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something. 2 direct one’s mind towards someone or something; use one’s mind actively to form connected ideas. 3 (think of/about) take into account or consideration. 4 (think of/about) consider the possibility or advantages of. 5 (think of) have a particular opinion of. 6 call something to mind; remember.

     If you read this definition, you would think to think is very human and I agree with this. But can I apply this definition to machine? And it will make sense? It is a human’s job who input information into the machine, which is passive, but when the machine has information and knowledge, I think it can generate idea, or effective answers, but no questions.

     I think both human and machine can think, but different things are involved in the process of thinking. Human has feeling, emotion, and instinct, but machine does not. Only machine can generate effective answers, more right answers or more effective answers than human beings because when people think those 3 things—feeling, emotion and instinct—are involved. So, when Stu lost chess game to computer Fischkov III, even a very small mistake could have affected the game. Stu might have daydreamed for only one second, or he may not see or forgot which one Fischove III moved.

     Am I on the right track? Did another idea popped up and jumped into the course of my thinking and distracted what I was thinking?

     I don’t know if the days machine can think might come like the movie, Eagle Eye. In that movie, computer could think and control all the machine and kill human beings. If those days come, definition for think would be changed and it would be really scary. People in the future might wonder why people now are arguing about whether machine can think or not. Like I couldn’t understand why Romeo and Juliet is not tragedy.

The Power of PowerPoint

I use PowerPoint. My friends use PowerPoint. AND my teachers use PowerPoint. Everyone does! The thing I never thought about before is how PowerPoint owns the presentation market. In Ian Parker's article, Absolute PowerPoint: Can a Software Package Edit Our Thoughts, he drew up some thought-provoking conclusions which makes me reevaluate how I feel about PowerPoint.

Parker talks about how PowerPoint takes away the conversational nature of a lecture or presentation. While the positive side effects of PowerPoint - like having a physical outline, preparation - exist, I now feel that PowerPoint is overused.

The example that resonated the most with me was the two examples about the teachers. The first talked about a teacher who lost the extemporaneous nature of his lectures. Clifford Nass said before PowerPoint, his lectures had a basic skeleton, but were open to change and evolve as his mind thought of new thoughts, like relating something to the Wizard of Oz. In his post-PowerPoint world, he says if he would have randomly brought up Wizard of Oz, his students would immediately forget the example - there was no slide on that thought.

The second example discussed a teacher who eliminated a very interesting book from the syllabus simply because its nature was not conducive to PowerPoint. I can't imagine! Taking off a really great read - potentially something that could impact the students - solely because its theory isn't PowerPoint-friendly.

I do use PowerPoint myself, and I find it to be a stress-reliever for in class presentations and more interactive; however, I hope that teachers never abandon the details and effectiveness of spontaneous in class lectures.

POWER in PowerPoint?

To be absolutely honest, I am not the biggest fan of PowerPoint. I don't say this without reason either, I think I have a pretty good explanation for my feeling of overwhelming annoyance.

Ever since I was in elementary and middle school, PowerPoint was forced upon me and my peers. With every school project that was related to the computer or research presentations, my teachers were somehow psyched about using this program over and over and over again. This is where it all began for me. With the click of a button, text could zoom and swirl across the page in front of my peers. As letters changed colors or pictures danced on the screen, I could even add music to the background. And what was the point of all of this? To gain attention I suppose.

Of course I am one to always get frustrated with technology, so not getting along with PowerPoint added to my anger. Plus, I found the reason behind such presentations quite meaningless as a young girl. Today, just to get someone's attention you have to keep everything brief, yet somehow entertained.

Now, as I am halfway through my undergraduate degree at The University of Texas, PowerPoint has yet to fade away in the classroom. I honestly don't believe it ever will either, because of its ability to impact an audience with bullet points. The power behind PowerPoint lies within its attention-grabbing, information-giving characteristics. Some might like it, and find it useful in classroom and business situations. I on the other hand relate quite well to the two girls in the readings whose mother made them sit through an entire presentation about cleaning their bedrooms and doing their chores. I would have also burst into tears at the thought of having to listen to my mother give a PowerPoint presentation.

New York Times Technology Article

This is an interesting article about making medical records all electronic. Having medical records electronic would reduce in the amount of errors, as well as provide a more efficient way of keeping records.