Dear Technology, please slow down so we can make some laws

Dear Technology, though you treat us very well, and we are constantly pressuring you into doing more, faster, to satisfy our impatient, demanding, desires,you have surpassed our control; thus, we ask so contradictorily if you could please wait for us to catch up.

As oxymoronic as this may sound I believe current copyrights protect media producers, harm media producers, as well as represent a third option.

After taking a course in Media Law, and ethics, I have realized how incredibly intricate the First Amendment delves into very specific scenarios. the law, and the precedence in such scenarios seems reasonable, and very well grounded. the foundation of our copyright laws does truly seem to protect media procedures.

Granted, I think that technology is moving far more quickly than our ability to create new copyright laws. everyday there are new opportunities to express ourselves, and be creative. the means by which we have new opportunities whether it is through paper and pencil, the web, or new apps there are more, and more each day and though our opportunities are spreading like wildfire, our ability to create copyright laws is comparatively stagnant. thus, media procedures do not have the same kind of specific safety as they once did.

However, we might be moving into an age were copyright does not have the same power as it use to. today, we can make a digital copy of something, and it is as great as the original, whereas before, a copy did not have the same quality as the original. perhaps we are moving into a time when the original copy is no longer as important as what it can become. when we add to an original work today, we add to something that was someone else's finished product. instead of sharing our work and watching each copy fade,we now have the option to watch every use grow into something greater.

Do, don't think, just get it done!

Produce, Produce, don't think, do... Faster! Our modern lifestyle is slowly consuming the need for critical thought. In many of our schools systems it doesn't seem to matter how anyone thinks through point 'A' to get to point 'B' so long as the correct bubble is shaded. In many work places quantity is far more important than quality. Even our personal interactions have become thoughtless connections.

Facebook connects the world in a way that is so much more convenient than ever. It is genius, it is easy, but it kills critical thinking.




The pyramids above divide critical thinking into six crucial groups. If we were to compare an everyday technology, such as facebook, to the various ways of critically thinking how do you think they would compare? When we use facebook do we have to remember anything? No, we don't. Every thing is posted: All our event dates, the times, all of our comments, all of our conversations, and even our memories are documented through pictures. What is to understand on Facebook? If you want to comment, Facebook says "comment," there is not much understanding needed. You don't even need to create. If you want to tell someone you like something,you don't even need to type " I like this." You press a thumps up.

As convenient as new technology is, it destroys the need to think critically. New technology caters to our fast pass go, go, go society. It caters to our desire not to have to think, and to simply do. Is it fair to say that if technological advances, such as Facebook, actually encouraged critical thinking that they would never become popular?

Photo: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy

Cyber-us

You might be an American, you might have Serbian family lines, or you might be half Italian-half Russian. On Christmas Eve you might tell your kids that Santa is on his way, or perhaps you do not celebrate Christmas. Regardless, your traditions, and your beliefs, have been influenced by your culture. So, what if I told you that by reading this blog you were part of a culture more populous than the United States?

This culture is called cyberculture. Until reading "Why Cyberculture?" by David Bell, it never occurred to me that the cyber world, and the way it influences us, and we change it, really is culture.

Prior to reading this article I would have defined cyberculture as all cyber media. Frow and Morris were quoted in the article for defining culture as "a network of embedded practices, and representation that shapes every aspect of social life." This being said, cyberculture is far more than what is written. It is also how we influence the cyberworld, and how we are influenced by it.

Later, the article explains that understanding material culture is also more than the item or idea itself: "for to understand material culture we must mean to also understand uses, interactions, the thoughts, and feelings that our relationships invoke.

So, being linked to the cyber world, having an email account, shopping online, skyping, surfing the web, makes you a part of cyberculture. Your interactions change, your feelings change, your relationships change, and even your work environment changes. Just think, without cyberculture we wouldn't even have the word 'facebook', or 'youtube'. The expression 'Google-it' would not exist.

Language is part of your culture. The fact that you understand the word 'instant messaging' as it is colloquially understood in cyberculture means that you have been influenced by cyberculture. It is simply who you are. Every American knows what pizza is because they have probably tried it- it is a popular part of the American culture. You know what 'email' is because you have probably tried it- it is a popular part of cyberculture.

Article: Williams, kevin. A media studies reader. Breinigsville: University Readers, 2010. 59-69. Print.
Photo: "http://edc.education.ed.ac.uk/week-by-week/block-1-popular-cyberculture

Let me send my Social Security Number to Facebook too

Cliff Sterns once said " At the bottom, the elimination of spyware and the preservation of privacy for the consumer are critical goals if the Internet is to remain safe and reliable and credible." However, John D. Sutter recently wrote an article about the 'real-time sharing updates on Facbook". It is an app that will post all the music you listen to, the games you play, and the movies you watch so long as they are connected to your facebook account. I think this app is a silly, counter-productive.

First of all, I think this app is silly. The goal of facebook is "to get people to share more and more information about themselves." The movies we watch, the music we listen to, and the games we play do not, by any means, define who we are. This app shares what we have done. They do not explain our motives, our thoughts on the media, or how we feel.




Furthermore, "Why do you share a story, video, or photo? Because you want your friends to see it." If everything you did was posted, and documented nothing would be special anymore.

I think this app is counter-productive. If this app is presented in such a way, that soemone will be able to better know someone else, and they spend hours reading about their online-history sitting idle at their computer, they would have wasted the time reading someone's facebook, when they could have been having lunch with them.

Additionally, I think many people would take advantage of this to mock the system, and their 'friends.' How many times a week do you see so and so "has really bad diareah" because someone hacked someone elses facebook. This app could take that to an entirely different level. What if you saw so and so, your childs baby sitter, was watching something inappropriate last friday 7:45pm.... when they were with YOUR child. A little prank might become a lost job.

The app is silly, and counter-productive. Do you really care about every single song your fellow employee listens to, or are you just so concedid that you want them to care about every song you listend to?

Article link: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/23/tech/social-media/facebook-real-time/index.html?hpt=hp_bn6">

Bloody Media

Do you know that moment when something tragic happens and time seems to halt in an abrupt moment of disbelief? When I read the article "Latest Battlefield In Mexico's Drug War: Social Media" I felt the nauseating ache in my gut that wants to scream "This can not be real; You are dreaming!"

Everyday people post thousands, maybe billions of blogs, tweets, and facebook statuses. Although many are very controversial, we rarely ever hear about anyone getting killed for it! People are risking their lives to share the truth about the Mexican drug war! People have been beaten-dead, and put out for display for tweeting fact! Finishing the article, after reading about "The two brutally wounded victims hanging from a bridge," and the "woman hogtied, and disemboweled" I just sat in silence, sick to my stomach, imagining what these people had to go through, and how the living posters say that they will not stop!

How many times do you post a day? Is it to tell the world what you had for lunch, or for a real cause? What if someone said to you "Post something we don't like online, and you're next. I am about to get you"

Article Link:

Comic Divide

Scott McCloud has a video on Ted Talks where he shares a plethora of information about comics. Although he shares information concerning a variety of aspects of comics, I found his discussion concerning the attitudes of comics most intriguing.

McCloud divides the attitudes of comics into four separate groups: formalist, classicist, animist, and icionoclast. He said the formalist attitude is a way of understanding how things work. The classicist outlook embraces beauty and craft. The animist view believes in the pure transparency of content, and iconist emphasizes the authentisity of human experience and honesty. Then, McCloud relates these attitudes to the four subdivisions of human thought: thinking, sensation, intuition, and feeling.

I think writers often think more about the ideas of ethos, pathos, and logos when creating new works. Here McCloud revolutionizes comics by stepping beyond rhetoric, and into a more thorough division for our way of thinking. It makes sense to have a 4-way divide in any artistic piece since we are understood to think in those four ways. By grouping comics in a way that is a relatable to the subdivisions of human thought, one can imply that no matter what comic is read, it will provoke, or intrigue at least one way of thinking.

McCloud certainly made me think about the thought categories my works have been catering to. Although He presented such a great deal of information in a short time, this aspect of his speech was the most thought provoking for me.

Ted Talks Link:
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2906302250707027837
Image From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics

Amplify the Apps!!!!

Wow! After reading "The web is dead. Long live the Internet" I could not help but to reevaluate the influence apps have on our current technological state. I think that the article is frighteningly accurate. Since dial-up I remember people bragging about the unbeatable, 'un-exceed-able' World Wide Web, and now "Two decades later the World Wide Web is in decline" (Anderson, and Wolf).

According to livinginternet.com, the Soviet Union Launched the first satellite in 1957... "In the 1960's Ted Nelson popularized the hypertext concept, and Douglas Engelbart created the first working hypertext systems. In the 1980's, the web itself was invented by Tim Berners-lee and Robert Calliau in Europe, and then it rapidly spread around the world." This means that in less than a generation the newest, most advanced, most popular tool has been outdated!
I understand that a lot of technology surpasses itself by the time it reaches the stores; sometimes, I even feel like there is a new type of cell phone being advertised every day. But to compare a cell phone to the web seems like such an unfair analogy. The Internet to us is like a plow in the 1600's and the cell phone would be more like a rolling pin!

Granted, I understand the reasons why apps are progressively becoming more, and more popular. Apps are more direct, faster, and generally more accessible. Unlike the web, with apps, there is no need to search; everything you want is right at your figure tips.
I never would have thought that the web would be "the second best" we have been living in a generation of "Google", now we are moving to an age of "apps". I suppose our grandparents felt the same way when they saw a wireless phone for the first time. I am so cureous to see what the ipod pad equivelant, or the apps equivelent in fifty-years.

Although I do believe that the article was accurate, I have not been personally affected as greatly as many of my peers. I refuse to pay an additional $25/month for the internet on my phone, and for now I am comfortable using the Web for any outstanding internet neccesaties: email, research, facebook, news. However, I am sure it won't be long before I'll need to make the switch from Web to Apps.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/
http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii.htm
http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=satelite photo
fotopedia.com

Comm 203... hummmm...

Primarily, and most importantly, I expect to learn in Communications 203. I expect to finish the course with a better understanding of communications, and new media. I also expect to work hard, and have a firm grasp of the information presented in class. I suspect we will start with more basic concepts, and progressively unravel more difficult material. I also think we (the students) will do a fair amount of writing, and become engaged in several thought provoking class discussions, throughout the semester.