Eerie early 20th century "versions" of social networks, i.e. Facebook!

Check out this eerie piece from the NYT today, that has a company uncovering early 1900s articles that seem to talk of early versions of Facebook, Twitter, and other similar social networking techniques--way before we ever got onto FB, MySpace and the like.

Technology is not to blame for everything!

After reading about the "Incredible Shrinking Attention Span," I was really frustrated. I am so tired of all of these articles being so alarmist! Yes there is now more technology than in the past. Yes, your attention can easily be all over the place. Does that mean that it is impossible to NOT have that problem? No. You can choose whether or not you are bombarded by technology. You have the choice whether or not you need to have the TV on while you're writing a paper, checking Twitter while trying to study for a test, or checking email while sending a text message. I don't think that just because these technologies exist means that it is completely impossible for us to concentrate.

I was especially bothered by the part mentioning road rage, and our generation not being able to slow down. While sometimes I agree that some of us are way too on the go go go all the time, I don't think we have issues such as road rage simply because we are lucky enough to be living in an increasingly technological age. I will admit, I definitely suffer from a serious case of road rage. But I get annoyed with slow drivers in the fast lane, people who don't use their blinkers, and people who cut me off not because I don't have time for it or that I'm too rushed. I get annoyed with them because it's ANNOYING. Most of the time it's common courtesy. Or common sense. It's the same reasons I get annoyed with loud talkers in a quiet lecture hall while I'm trying to listen or waiters being obviously rude while I'm out to dinner. It just isn't right. But I do not for one second think it's okay to blame almost every problem on the ubiquity of technology.

Like so many issues we have discussed in this class, each and every person has a choice to do what they want to do, use technology the way they want to (or don't want to). It's up to you.

More options, increasingly male-oriented games to blame for gender gap

After reading "What Has Driven Women Out of Computer Science?" I though several of the points made in the article were some of the very ones I think cause(d) the gender gap.

1) Although it may sound trivial, there is something to be said about girls/women not wanting to have the stigma of being nerdy or dorky for working in the computer field. We want to to think we have come a long way for women's self-esteem. But with the field of computer science and games becoming increasingly male-oriented, it seems difficult for there to be a space for women.

2) The games these days are so much more aimed at the teenage boy, the entrepreneur 20-something, the mid-life crisis dad. I remember when I used to play Mario brothers on Super Nintendo with my brother. Or Duck hunting, remember that? Those games were incredibly simple. There wasn't a lot of shoot-em up violence, war strategy, car theft themes coming from every corner like there is today. I do think that has a lot to do with the capabilities for games back then--we just didn't have what we do today, duh. But I think just like a genre of movies, books, types of musician or artists, games are just naturally geared toward men. And if in the time of their peak they are being designed by me, mostly consumed and played by men, then why would there be a large number of women trying to get in that market? You don't see a lot of romantic comedies being written by men do you?

3)I think another reason for the lack of women in this field could be that there are so many more career options for women in dominantly women fields and also fields where it is more balanced for men and women. Now more than ever women are going after jobs that they maybe didn't used to in the past. Journalism, news anchors, directors, scientists, doctors, politicians, etc. These fields are much more balanced. With so many (seemingly more fair) options, why would we try to get into a career of computer science and perhaps not do as well?

Doctors "Tweeting" During Surgery? True story.

Check out this story that was on Good Morning America this morning. Doctors have begun "tweeting", aka using the social networking tool Twitter, during their procedures as sort of a teaching tool.

Skype founders buying it back from eBay?

Here's a NYTimes article from Friday that says the founders of the ever-popular Skype are looking to buy it back from eBay after selling it them in 2005. Supposedly, eBay is looking to put a $1.7 billion pricetag on Skype.

It also says an app for the Blackberry is on the way for May.

We're all creepers sometimes--I'm definitely guilty as charged.

After Googling myself, one page came up that was actually me. It was the second page (surprisingly) where it was me, listing me as photographer for the Cactus Yearbook. When I type in "Brandi McCormick texas" that same result comes up on page one. Needless to say, a lot of results came up that weren't me, obviously. I have to say that I am all for free and public information available online. Our society has been headed in that direction for a while now, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon. That being said, I wanted to say a few random things:

1) Last year, one of my friends from high school turned me on to whitepages.com. If you haven't used it and are feeling in the mood to be uber-creepy, check it out. I was able to find the home phone numbers and addresses of lots of people I know, with directions to their house, alternative phone numbers, and sometimes email addresses. Even creepier, lots of times it will list all of the residents of that household or who are in some way related to that family/household. To embarrass myself for the sake of the class, I will tell you this: After reading up on bios and personal information of a favorite famous actor of mine, I knew what his hometown was and that his dad was a doctor. With this information, I was able to go to whitepages.com, and find his parents house, address and phone numbers, by means of deduction. Now I have that so I can send them my screenplay in hopes of giving it to said famous actor in hopes of him reading it and me subsequently becoming famous. All thanks to the convenience and big-brotherism of Google search!

2) "it's looking a lot more like an all-things-to-everyone portal and less like simply the world's best search engine"...yes yes yes! This pretty much sums up my thoughts about how Google will eventually just take over the world: search, Google docs, the G1 phone, etc.

3) I have never Googled anyone I was interested in, dating, or anything. Although I guess I can see where it might feel like you are protecting yourself by checking up on them, I think it's a little too hardcore for my liking to do my own personal background check of someone on Google, when I probably don't know enough about that person to weed out the real information about them with the irrelevant information.

Somehow, you can always get it for free

I was definitely a Kazaa user back in the day. I remember thinking how amazingly brilliant this new technology was. A way to circumvent the system and get music for free and the ability to share it with your friends? Um, sign me up!

I won't lie--when it comes to certain artists, there is no doubt in my mind that I will go buy the album so I can have it for myself. But, that isn't just an issue with paying for music, that's my own personal thirst for a material album in my hands. But no matter....I must say that even if these record labels and musicians want to seek people out and sue them because they have been "illegally" downloading their songs, GET OVER IT. Eventually, I am going to get it for free if I really want it. My friend could buy it and burn me a copy. My friend could buy it in iTunes and put it on a burned CD with other songs they bought on iTunes. I'm still getting it for free. It's not like they don't probably give all their friends and family free CDs. How is that different? And they are given to talk show audiences for free all the time. It's all over the place, all around us whether they like it or not.

The fact that these artists are being so incredibly stingy about losing a little money when they are making millions of dollars a year kind of makes me sick. Really? Come on.

I think Kazaa, (I personally use Limewire) like the programs before it will be here for a while. At least as long as people want some music for free. And that seems like a while, right?

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

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?

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

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.

Universal Charger

Here's a story about a "universal charger" for cell phones. However, absent from this technology is the all-mighty iPhone. Oh, and it wouldn't be available until 2012 anyway.

$$$ = Better

Just to note, I read all of the readings for this week today. I did not really care for the article about how we find it hard to distinguish between real life and mediated life. I can tell the difference between the two. So, I chose to discuss "The Power of Price."

I have to say, I am guilty of being coerced to buy things because I think they are better just because they have a higher price tag. When I was growing up I was used to getting things that were not the hot brand name or most popular line of clothing that all my friends were getting. I never used to see the importance of paying a lot more for something when I could get the generic or discount brand for cheaper. Now that I am an adult and can judge for myself what to buy, I do find myself paying more for things that I did not use to. For example, I used to think Fiji water was ridiculous. Water is water is water, right? But then, I had Fiji water, and my brain told me that it was really, really good. There was something that just made it better. Probably because it cost more.
Another example, I have always had the iPod, since it came out. My sister, however, got an off-brand MP3 player and I immediately thought it really wouldn't matter and it would work fine. But I felt like I found myself just looking for something to go wrong or not work, simply because it wasn't the expensive, well-known Apple brand.

I hate to say that I fall victim to the power of price much too often. I can show a lot of self-control. For instance, about half of my closet is from Target. :) Also, unlike the article, much of what I do buy at the drugstore for colds or headaches are the store brand. When it comes to my health, I get what is cheaper, because I know (kind of like when it comes to toothpaste or shampoo) that in reality, they all contain the exact same things and will do the same things.

The power of price is strong, and I think we all fall victim to it a lot. However, I think it depends a lot on the category of product and the individual.

The Phone and The Relationship

After reading "Making the Connection," I recalled a few instances where the phone played a very large part in a relationship (one with a male and one with my female roommate), and the result wasn't necessarily successful.

I recently had a very in-depth conversation with my female roommate over text message. I know you're thinking, 'How can you have an in-depth conversation over text?' Well, let me show you. My roommate decided to have an argument over the phone regarding a miscalculation of $1 on our cable bill. I know she chose to speak to me over this medium because it was easier than forcing us to have a confrontation face to face. And even more impersonal than actually speaking on the phone, she chose to text. I think this sort of thing happens all the time now with our generation. Before, you might have a fight over the phone because you didn't want to fight in person with someone. But now that we have an even more distanced way to speak to someone, we use it when we want to feel in control. It reminds me of having junior high fights over Instant Message. You could never really tell how the other person meant a particular comment, and you felt like since you weren't having to scream at them in person, doing it over the computer would make it easier. Needless to say, after our 30 minute conversation over text, nothing was really resolved, and we never talked about it in person after that. What good did that do? Except that we both felt some sort of power over the other one by distancing ourselves from the fight.

Another instance with which the phone can be a cause for insanity in a relationship: Recently, I have been spending more time with this guy. We occassionaly text back and forth, and if we are trying to make plans, we usually talk on the phone. But with men, it becomes a game. This is where the article rang true for me. The waiting. Is he not texting/calling me because he is not thinking about me? Is he too busy? So you text him. Or you call him. And he doesn't respond right away. Then you think, Did he get it even? And then we he responds later, a weight is lifted off your shoulder. Because you might have been thinking, "Well, I don't want to send another one because that would make me seem desperate or needy." I don't necessarily think that if it is awkward on the phone, then something is wrong. Some men are just really bad on the phone. However, I agree with the article that sometimes you call him (or text) just to see what he is up to because you want to know. And you fear that when you haven't talked in a few days, should you initiate the first text? And then you do, and you have a short text conversation, and then you are unfulfilled again.

I think this text revolution is the new telephone revolution for relationships--of all kinds. It makes things easier, but at the same time, lots of the time, unfulfilling.

How simple it is for predators...

I saw this story yesterday on Good Morning America. A young girl ran away with a man she met while playing XBOX 360 Live. Around the 2:36 mark, they begin to discuss how technologies like gaming systems are just as easily used by predators as computers are. New controls and precautions are being added and invented to keep this from happening.

Also, thought it was interesting to see that MySpace has helped identify so many sexual predators.

Overloaded indeed

I just have to say that I almost 100 percent agree with the "Overloaded" article from the CJR. In my very first journalism class at UT, we talked a lot about the 24/7 newscycle; how it is nearly impossible to avoid getting some sort of news thrown at you if you are online or have the television on.
I think, like most of the topics we have discussed so far, this endless barrage of information is like a double-edged sword. I am thankful that at almost any given time I can find out the most important information regarding the happenings of the world. I personally rely a lot on my homepage, which happens to be My Yahoo! The firs thing I see is the top four news stories at that time. But I obviously am relying on Yahoo to decide for me which ones are the most important. If I wanted to "go deeper" as the article suggests we young people often don't do, I easily could go to CNN, MSNBC, or the AP to see if they are covering the same stories, or if there are other more important stories I need to see.
However, sometimes I do think there is too much coming at me at once. The ticker, for one, really gets me. Every morning I watch the first hour of Good Morning America before I leave for class. At 7 o' clock, the first thing they do is tell us of the biggest news story of the morning. The two lead anchors then toss it to another anchor for "the morning's other news stories." While all of this is going on, there is also a ticker crawling along the bottom of the screen spelling out for me exactly what the anchors are telling me/have told me/are about to tell me. And in that sense, it's too much at once and I could do without it.

Rarely ever do I think to myself, "Man, there is too much information coming at me." I think our generation has become so used to it that I hardly ever notice it. But, because of this 24/7/365 exposure to news coming from all directions, I do think, "Where is there to go from here?"

"...increase understanding, foster tolerance, and ultimately promote worldwide peace."

When reading the Roots of Revolution, I came across many statements that I found intriguing.

"people will communicate more freely and learn more about the ideas and aspirations of human beings in other parts of the globe."
I especially connect with this statement in light of the recent historic election. With the increased connectivity, capacity, and achievement the Internet has to offer us these days, it is especially easy for people in the United States to see how people all over the other parts of the world are responding to our amazing display of brotherhood and understanding. Websites like YouTube and the 24-hour news cycles of CNN, MSNBC, ABC make it more convenient than ever for everyone across the globe to speak out or speak to each other and come together through technology and unite for a remarkable cause. I think "world peace" is a little strong, but I do think that as the Internet's capacity to bring people together continues to increase everyday, we can come a little closer to the understanding we all deserve.

"For conversations, people will come to use mobile telephones almost exclusively."
I just wanted to agree with this statement 100%. As a semi-permanent resident of Austin, I use my cellphone as my main means of communication with people back home and people here. I don't own a land line. And I don't know anyone of my friends that goes to UT that does. Even a married couple that I know, both of whom have lived in Austin for quite a while, doesn't own a land line, and they are living here permanently in a house, living out there adult lives. I know even back when we were kids, the idea of using mobile phones only never seemed like a possibility to our parents. My parents still think it's weird that I can function without a land line. To them, an earlier generation, it is ingrained in them that that's just the norm. But to us, the norm is to have a cellphone and that's it. And the occasional instant message on the computer of course.

And referring back to the reading last week about our inability to focus because of all the distractions online, I guess we should thank Marc Andreessen who developed the ability for us to navigate from page to page....leading us into an infinite abyss of information....

Video Cassette? What's that??

I actually found out about this article on a Web site specialized in film and Hollywood news.
The era of the VHS, that tried-and-true, must rewind after every viewing, film medium that we were brought up on, is officially over. The dawn of the DVD has all but made the poor video cassette obsolete. The last major retailer that still sold VHS tapes had its last shipment ever this past holiday season.
I can't say I miss the VHS. I mean, the rewinding on its own was annoying. But when it first came out, it was as innovative as the DVD was when it first came out not too long ago. I don't know about you, but I don't really even remember the last movie I bought on VHS. I also don't remember when DVDs starting coming onto the scene. Was I astonished? Was I like "Oh wow how did they think of this?" What was the first movie I bought on DVD?..did it seem like this newfangled, space age technology?
I ask you to think back....to your VHS days. Watching Power Rangers, Barney, whatever it may be. Think back to your first DVD days...and do you honestly think in 50 years kids from the new generations will even remember what a VHS was? Or that it even existed?

So long my plastic friend. It's been real.

Online reading, Google, Internet reliance(1)

In response to the "White Bread" article, I have to say I didn't really care for it. I know the author did not set out to imply that our generation is lazy or incompetent in deciphering fact from fiction, but that's the feeling that I got when I read it. Just because in the last 10 years or so our generation has began to rely on Internet resources like Google and Wikipedia, everyone knows those are not the only research tools out there. And, as I'm sure some of you have, I have sat through a class or seminar specifically designed to teach us how to research "correctly" on the Internet at least once in my life. :(
I don't think our generation necessarily needs to be bombarded with what not to do on the Internet when it comes to researching (anything for that matter)--I feel as a college student I can pick for myself what I think is true or not. And any good student knows that much of what you can find online you can find the same stuff in print and vice versa.
I feel patronized when elders look down on us and say we young people are relying on the Internet to much, or using particular Web sites without caution. I get most of my news with what is going on in the world online, and if someone honestly thinks Wikipedia is their best line of defense, then that's their problem. I don't feel like it should be some sort of blanket generalization for our generation. The Internet has caused us to think differently, because it has caused us to function differently and handle situations in ways that we could not in past. And what's wrong with that?

Also, for the "R U really Reading" article, I thought that was sort of comical. And all I will say is Yes, always, all the time, and I am thankful that in my lifetime we have something so beneficial as practically limitless information and texts online. :)