Showing posts with label Seongbae. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seongbae. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Apple to bring iPhone to Verizon
An article from WIRED called 4 Reasons Apple Should Share the iPhone With Verizon talks about Apple's possible movement to share iPhone with Verizon for the upcoming 4G model.
games to be blamed
Even before I read the New York Times article, What Has Driven Women Out of Computer Science?, I have always had a hypothesis regarding gender divide in computer science: the computer games are the culprit of the gender divide in this field.
When I was in an elementary school, I used to play hours of computer games with friends. The games created common ground between me and my friends. We would always talk about it such as how to defeat the boss, how to get to the highest score, what kinds of games came out and so on. As a result of this male-bonding process, we’ve accidentally picked up various computer skills that women of our age couldn’t learn. Girls seldom played computer games. Rather, they would chat, play with toys, draw, and read books. At least this was how it was for my generation.
The New York Times article discusses an attempt to engage more women by introducing computer games to them. It says the attempt to create computer games that would appeal to girls have failed. To quote the director of Northwestern University’s Center for Techonlogy & Social Behavior, “The girls game movement failed to dislodge the sense among both boys and girls that computers were ‘boys’ toys’ and that true girls didn’t play with computers.”
I am somewhat surprised by this notion. Is this still the case today? I thought a lot more young girls (elementary or middle school kids) started to play computer games with their friends. There are lots of girly games available. Then why do these young girls still view games as ‘boys’ toys’? Maybe parents' influence?
When I was in an elementary school, I used to play hours of computer games with friends. The games created common ground between me and my friends. We would always talk about it such as how to defeat the boss, how to get to the highest score, what kinds of games came out and so on. As a result of this male-bonding process, we’ve accidentally picked up various computer skills that women of our age couldn’t learn. Girls seldom played computer games. Rather, they would chat, play with toys, draw, and read books. At least this was how it was for my generation.
The New York Times article discusses an attempt to engage more women by introducing computer games to them. It says the attempt to create computer games that would appeal to girls have failed. To quote the director of Northwestern University’s Center for Techonlogy & Social Behavior, “The girls game movement failed to dislodge the sense among both boys and girls that computers were ‘boys’ toys’ and that true girls didn’t play with computers.”
I am somewhat surprised by this notion. Is this still the case today? I thought a lot more young girls (elementary or middle school kids) started to play computer games with their friends. There are lots of girly games available. Then why do these young girls still view games as ‘boys’ toys’? Maybe parents' influence?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Maybe, invading privacy is an essential part of social networks
As a Korean, I especially enjoyed the posting by Eun Sook below. I want to share my experience about Cyworld too. Cyworld is basically a Facebook for Koreans. Social networks like Cyworld have become essential communication/leisure tool for most Koreans as well.
Several years ago, this privacy issue became a major discussion topic for Cyworld users. Cyworld, after hearing the suggestions from users, introduced several new features to protect more privacy. For example, now only those who are authorized by the person can see his pictures, postings and profile. And the users can even divide their friend list into several groups. I personally made four groups and only the first group of people whom I named as “VIP” can see my every pictures, videos and so on. Of course my friends can’t know which group they are in. Another feature is this feature called “secret guestbook”. The types of messages left as “secret” can only be seen by the person who left the message and the person who is supposed to be the receiver of this message.
Ironically, after introducing these kinds of privacy protection features, Cyworld became less popular. People probably hated that they could no longer stalk people or see what was going on with others. So maybe, invading privacy is an essential part of social networking sites. Without it, social networks might not maintain its popularity as it is with the openness.
I don’t have a Facebook account so I am not familiar with Facebook at all. Does Facebook have unique functions to protect users’ privacy? If it does, has this affected popularity of Facebook? If it doesn’t, will introducing many protection of privacy features affect popularity of Facebook?
Several years ago, this privacy issue became a major discussion topic for Cyworld users. Cyworld, after hearing the suggestions from users, introduced several new features to protect more privacy. For example, now only those who are authorized by the person can see his pictures, postings and profile. And the users can even divide their friend list into several groups. I personally made four groups and only the first group of people whom I named as “VIP” can see my every pictures, videos and so on. Of course my friends can’t know which group they are in. Another feature is this feature called “secret guestbook”. The types of messages left as “secret” can only be seen by the person who left the message and the person who is supposed to be the receiver of this message.
Ironically, after introducing these kinds of privacy protection features, Cyworld became less popular. People probably hated that they could no longer stalk people or see what was going on with others. So maybe, invading privacy is an essential part of social networking sites. Without it, social networks might not maintain its popularity as it is with the openness.
I don’t have a Facebook account so I am not familiar with Facebook at all. Does Facebook have unique functions to protect users’ privacy? If it does, has this affected popularity of Facebook? If it doesn’t, will introducing many protection of privacy features affect popularity of Facebook?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
In Computers We Trust?
In “Why it’s good that computers don’t work like the brain” by Donald Norman, the author assumes that computers and robots will never come to mimic and surpass people. I agree and disagree. Although I don’t think the complete mimicry of human behavior is possible any time soon, I believe the number of skills computers can replace human skills are increasing every day. Considering how fast technology is developing, I wouldn’t be surprised if computers can read human’s handwritings or be able to drive a car by itself in near future. I think it’s possible that computers will eventually come to reach certain stage to mimic human skills. Not human emotions but skills.
I don’t think the real problem we have to be concerned about is whether computers will catch up with humans. The real question is “how far are humans going to allow computers to replace our skills?” For the purpose of discussion, let’s say that we have developed a car that can drive by itself. Can we fall asleep in the car seats peacefully while the computer does all the driving? I don’t think so. No matter how precise the computer can drive, we wouldn’t risk our life to a computer. We might count on a drunken friend to give us a ride, but not machine. This is because, I believe, humans are hesitant to give their trust to machines and like to have certain control over machines. They would like to believe that they are above emotionless dumb machines, and this basic idea will probably never change.
Therefore, I think one of the reasons this specific technology has not been developed yet lies in trust issue between humans and computers. The inventors or manufacturers must know that even if they develop this technology, it’s not likely to get many demands, thus discouraging invent of this drive-by-itself car. If we were to develop it, it would be developed at the level that computers are only assisting human’s driving, not total control over it.
So as far as the technology is concerned, the need for more convenience conflicts with need for security. I would love to see how this conflict develops over the next 10 years.
I don’t think the real problem we have to be concerned about is whether computers will catch up with humans. The real question is “how far are humans going to allow computers to replace our skills?” For the purpose of discussion, let’s say that we have developed a car that can drive by itself. Can we fall asleep in the car seats peacefully while the computer does all the driving? I don’t think so. No matter how precise the computer can drive, we wouldn’t risk our life to a computer. We might count on a drunken friend to give us a ride, but not machine. This is because, I believe, humans are hesitant to give their trust to machines and like to have certain control over machines. They would like to believe that they are above emotionless dumb machines, and this basic idea will probably never change.
Therefore, I think one of the reasons this specific technology has not been developed yet lies in trust issue between humans and computers. The inventors or manufacturers must know that even if they develop this technology, it’s not likely to get many demands, thus discouraging invent of this drive-by-itself car. If we were to develop it, it would be developed at the level that computers are only assisting human’s driving, not total control over it.
So as far as the technology is concerned, the need for more convenience conflicts with need for security. I would love to see how this conflict develops over the next 10 years.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Technology to solve technology failures
After reading “When Technology Fails” by John Horrigan, I had to admit. I can’t fix technological problem without help from another technology. For example, when my computer has any kind of problem, the first thing I do is to go on internet to search for solutions. For me, most of the computer problems could be fixed by conducting extensive search online. If it still can’t be fixed by the power of Google, then I call tech support with my cell phone. All of these problem-solving skills include technology device or tools. Yes, it’s sad, but I have to admit I am powerless without technology.
The article mentions that the technology failure is often due to people’s improper handling of device or equipments. I agree. Technological devices today are so complicated that it is even difficult for technology savvy people to keep the device for a long time without breaking it. There could be many other reasons, but I blame this to MANUALS. I believe most people do not read user’s manual that comes with devices. (Well, we read it, but most people read only a small portion of it) As we discussed few days ago, our attention span in the 21st century is extremely short, and we usually don’t spend much time reading manuals for every new equipment we buy. The main reason I believe is the unfriendly and boring nature of these manuals. It’s too thick and too wordy. I would rather read a Shakespeare than manual for my portable media player. People like me feel fine by knowing just the basics. This, however, does not help us manage devices properly.
Maybe in future, every manuals and tech support will be digitized. We will have a CD or DVD that comes with the product explaining everything as a video. This is costly, but if this gets standardized, then users will be more tolerable to learn how to manage the device more efficiently, possibly resulting decrease in technological breakdown.
The article mentions that the technology failure is often due to people’s improper handling of device or equipments. I agree. Technological devices today are so complicated that it is even difficult for technology savvy people to keep the device for a long time without breaking it. There could be many other reasons, but I blame this to MANUALS. I believe most people do not read user’s manual that comes with devices. (Well, we read it, but most people read only a small portion of it) As we discussed few days ago, our attention span in the 21st century is extremely short, and we usually don’t spend much time reading manuals for every new equipment we buy. The main reason I believe is the unfriendly and boring nature of these manuals. It’s too thick and too wordy. I would rather read a Shakespeare than manual for my portable media player. People like me feel fine by knowing just the basics. This, however, does not help us manage devices properly.
Maybe in future, every manuals and tech support will be digitized. We will have a CD or DVD that comes with the product explaining everything as a video. This is costly, but if this gets standardized, then users will be more tolerable to learn how to manage the device more efficiently, possibly resulting decrease in technological breakdown.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Swiss Police Find Marijuana Field with Google Earth
I know it's Friday, but I thought I'd share this story with you since we talked about google last time.
here's the link: Swiss Police Find Marijuana Field with Google Earth
Google, so called 'evil' by technology critics, has uncovered evil this time. To me, this news was hilarious after what we've read for the last week. Maybe we should take more advantage of Google rather than accusing it of spoiling us.
here's the link: Swiss Police Find Marijuana Field with Google Earth
Google, so called 'evil' by technology critics, has uncovered evil this time. To me, this news was hilarious after what we've read for the last week. Maybe we should take more advantage of Google rather than accusing it of spoiling us.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Curious Case of Seongbae
I will be honest. It took me more than 50 minutes to finish reading Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading? As a non-native speaker of English, I am a slow reader for English texts but the real reason it took me nearly an hour to finish this article lies behind the true nature of internet: DISTRACTIONS!
Here’s what happened. When I started to read this piece, I suddenly remembered that books I ordered from Amazon have not arrived yet even though it should have by now according to the shipping schedule. So, I checked my e-mail to get the tracking number and visited UPS.com to see if the estimated shipping date has been changed. When I logged in to my e-mail account, I saw an important e-mail notice from my advisor, so I had to write a reply, which probably took about 5 minutes. Then I returned to nytimes.com to continue reading the article. I barely managed five paragraphs before I opened a new window to check my blog simply because I am sort of addicted to blogging. A couple people left interesting comments, so I had to leave replies. This delicious moment took about 5 minutes. I thought I was finally ready to concentrate. But my desperate hope was scattered when a friend of mine messaged me on MSN messenger.
So, this is my typical adventure when reading stuffs online. The shocking thing here is that all of these distractions came from internet itself, not my dogs, roommate or cell phone. If these external distractions are added while I read online, the activity is going to be a massive chaos.
As I’ve expressed so far, I find myself extremely distracted when reading things online, so whenever I have to read important documents, I always print it out. Otherwise, I basically read multiple Web sites at the same time going back and forth from a window to another window. Oddly enough, this works better for me as long as the contents I am reading are not scholarly journal or difficult-to-swallow-readings. I guess jumping back and forth from a web site to another makes me less boring, which ironically end up helping me focus better.
Here’s what happened. When I started to read this piece, I suddenly remembered that books I ordered from Amazon have not arrived yet even though it should have by now according to the shipping schedule. So, I checked my e-mail to get the tracking number and visited UPS.com to see if the estimated shipping date has been changed. When I logged in to my e-mail account, I saw an important e-mail notice from my advisor, so I had to write a reply, which probably took about 5 minutes. Then I returned to nytimes.com to continue reading the article. I barely managed five paragraphs before I opened a new window to check my blog simply because I am sort of addicted to blogging. A couple people left interesting comments, so I had to leave replies. This delicious moment took about 5 minutes. I thought I was finally ready to concentrate. But my desperate hope was scattered when a friend of mine messaged me on MSN messenger.
So, this is my typical adventure when reading stuffs online. The shocking thing here is that all of these distractions came from internet itself, not my dogs, roommate or cell phone. If these external distractions are added while I read online, the activity is going to be a massive chaos.
As I’ve expressed so far, I find myself extremely distracted when reading things online, so whenever I have to read important documents, I always print it out. Otherwise, I basically read multiple Web sites at the same time going back and forth from a window to another window. Oddly enough, this works better for me as long as the contents I am reading are not scholarly journal or difficult-to-swallow-readings. I guess jumping back and forth from a web site to another makes me less boring, which ironically end up helping me focus better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)