I went to see The Social Network like two weeks ago. The concept was fantastic because everyone wants to know how this college student created an amazing social network website to become a billionaire. I thought Mark Zuckerberg was definitely portrayed as a blunt asshole even from the first scene with his soon to be ex-girlfriend. So hungry to be popular, yet doing it in his own way, Zuckerberg became a virtual God. He ruled the social network and he was making bank off his work. This movie actually got me so motivated to become a billionaire but we all know that's not happening. I also thought that the twins were being total pussys in that they were complaining about how Zuckerberg stole their idea.. Yes, he kind of did but he didn't use any of their scripts or codes and made it even better by going international! If they were prestigious Harvard students like they portray themselves as, then they would have sucked it up and moved on to a different concept - but nope, they just had to sue Zuckerberg for their share that they don't even deserve! On the other hand, I do believe that Eduardo got totally fooled into this whole thing - there was some betrayal there. But at the pace that Zuckerberg was moving, Eduardo just couldn't keep up.. why would he go for an internship when there was an amazing project growing exponentially? so silly. Still, Eduardo definitely deserved his share.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was a little too slow paced for me but when things picked up it was great. And seriously, Zuckerberg is a genius and he should also feel guilty for a lot of people who are consumed by facebook - it can be SOO evil sometimes.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Made to Break pt 1
In Giles Slade's "Made to Break," Slade engages his audience in thought-provoking discussions of American consumer's relationship with disposability, style, innovation, and "obsolescence" in mass produced materials. Computers, TV sets, cars, and especially cell phones are treated as expendables in our society which turns the focus to why our society does not demand durability in material goods.
The introduction of Ford and General Motors' annual model change began in the early 1900s. These model changes persuades consumers to trade in their perfectly functioning cars for more up-to-date stylish models. Why did these modernized products fuel such a need for consumers to have the next nicer, better, and cooler designed goods? Slade explains that "in manufacturing terms, psychological obsolescence was superior to technological obsolescence, because it was considerably cheater to create and could be produced on demand" (Slade 36). Psychological obsolescence allows the consumer to focus more on the visual and design of personal items like cell phones, jewelry, laptops, ipods, clothing, and etc. For example, it seems like Apple has a new addition to their enormous collection of electronics every year. Apple has created a sleeker, thinner, and more featured design for ipods every year. From the very first generation of 10 GB ipod in 2001 to the expansion of four different types of ipods (nano, shuffle, classic, and iTouch), the iPod has evolved through almost 9 years of annual model changes.
I remember when iPods first went live and everyone went crazy. When everyone else played with their brand new toy, I stayed content with my Samsung MP3 player. The very first ipod had nothing against my MP3 player but after a few years, Apple began adding new features to ipods as well as changing the design of the products. Since Samsung wasn't making huge changes to their products, Apple won this competition and I finally gave in to the Apple craze. What made me change to Apple, you might ask? - this brings me to Slade's next point - "In a consumer culture, people size one another up continually to establish status hierarchies based on disposable income and taste" (Slade 50). Consumers no longer buy a product because it has been damaged or broken. People just buy so that they can look cool or to acquire better "taste." The consumer culture has skewed the meaning of style because having an outdated or old model is now looked upon as embarrassing and undesirable. Slade basically says that having the next best/new thing makes the person seem more well-off, more socially successful, and more desirable, which in this very materialistic culture definitely fits to be true.
In this giant craze for electronic toys, I feel that there are definite disadvantages. First, the over piling waste of perfectly nice goods can lead to mountains of garbage that would eventually bury us. Consumers are constantly buying new things then throwing them away and then buying more... so where do all these materials or "garbage" go? Moreover, technology has made things that were once unimportant to our daily life evolve into something that people are obsessed over. And when I mention this, I mean crackberrys, iphones, droid, android, etc and the multitude of "apps" that are featured in these phones. Since when do we need a program that allows everyone to know exactly where and when you check into a place (foursquare)? That is down right creepy. And who really needs to count how many times you say the word "Um" or "You know" or "Like"? There is an APP for that! Yes of course, I believe that some of the apps that are provided within Droid or iPhone are awesome but is it really necessary? I feel like if I ever got any of these devices, my life would be consumed by this tiny thing that would never leave my hip and probably end up crashing into a car just because I was using a speedometer app on my phone.. stupid.
The introduction of Ford and General Motors' annual model change began in the early 1900s. These model changes persuades consumers to trade in their perfectly functioning cars for more up-to-date stylish models. Why did these modernized products fuel such a need for consumers to have the next nicer, better, and cooler designed goods? Slade explains that "in manufacturing terms, psychological obsolescence was superior to technological obsolescence, because it was considerably cheater to create and could be produced on demand" (Slade 36). Psychological obsolescence allows the consumer to focus more on the visual and design of personal items like cell phones, jewelry, laptops, ipods, clothing, and etc. For example, it seems like Apple has a new addition to their enormous collection of electronics every year. Apple has created a sleeker, thinner, and more featured design for ipods every year. From the very first generation of 10 GB ipod in 2001 to the expansion of four different types of ipods (nano, shuffle, classic, and iTouch), the iPod has evolved through almost 9 years of annual model changes.
I remember when iPods first went live and everyone went crazy. When everyone else played with their brand new toy, I stayed content with my Samsung MP3 player. The very first ipod had nothing against my MP3 player but after a few years, Apple began adding new features to ipods as well as changing the design of the products. Since Samsung wasn't making huge changes to their products, Apple won this competition and I finally gave in to the Apple craze. What made me change to Apple, you might ask? - this brings me to Slade's next point - "In a consumer culture, people size one another up continually to establish status hierarchies based on disposable income and taste" (Slade 50). Consumers no longer buy a product because it has been damaged or broken. People just buy so that they can look cool or to acquire better "taste." The consumer culture has skewed the meaning of style because having an outdated or old model is now looked upon as embarrassing and undesirable. Slade basically says that having the next best/new thing makes the person seem more well-off, more socially successful, and more desirable, which in this very materialistic culture definitely fits to be true.
In this giant craze for electronic toys, I feel that there are definite disadvantages. First, the over piling waste of perfectly nice goods can lead to mountains of garbage that would eventually bury us. Consumers are constantly buying new things then throwing them away and then buying more... so where do all these materials or "garbage" go? Moreover, technology has made things that were once unimportant to our daily life evolve into something that people are obsessed over. And when I mention this, I mean crackberrys, iphones, droid, android, etc and the multitude of "apps" that are featured in these phones. Since when do we need a program that allows everyone to know exactly where and when you check into a place (foursquare)? That is down right creepy. And who really needs to count how many times you say the word "Um" or "You know" or "Like"? There is an APP for that! Yes of course, I believe that some of the apps that are provided within Droid or iPhone are awesome but is it really necessary? I feel like if I ever got any of these devices, my life would be consumed by this tiny thing that would never leave my hip and probably end up crashing into a car just because I was using a speedometer app on my phone.. stupid.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The World and Wiki pt 2
The Web 2.0 - free, fast-paced way to share information all over the world. Wikipedia allows Internet users to generate their own content, of course stating reliable resources. "In September 2009, English Wikipedia enjoyed 67 million unique visits." Tens of thousands of users are writing and editing Wikipedia's three million and plus articles at any given time and it has been known as a massive virtual community around shared interests. Anytime I Google anything, which everyone uses, Wikipedia is definitely one of top five results.
Because any volunteer can make adjustments and edit articles on Wikipedia, it is very critical to pay attention to the content provided on Wikipedia. For instance, if anyone ever writes something false about you or your foundation or cause, you need to know instantly when it happens and what to do about it. For most of the time, errors about important persons or subjects are often corrected instantly but if some information has been left falsified, it could cause major damage. Which brings to my next point - can we, as Web 2.0 users, trust Wikipedia's information? This is a tricky question and most of the time, teachers would prefer that students do not use Wikipedia as a credible resource. The anonymity of Wikipedia makes it even difficult to fish out errors about each subject and since there could be a lot of bias information given out, it is pretty hard to call Wikipedia articles reliable.
Problems in Wikipedia's reliability include; "weasel words" that can compose misleading pictures, inappropriate emphases, and outdated information. Also, there are possibilities that the citations used to make an article a 'credible source' may not even be a special reference to the subject in its entity. "You also don't trust Wikipedia because its 'reliable sources' rule demands secondary sources"(188). How can we, as researchers, consider an article of Wikipedia as a factually based truth and not a biased opinion? It's really hard to tell and simply because of this possibility, I believe that teachers wouldn't consider Wikipedia as a credible source.
"Wikipedia has sometimes suffered from the self-editing that is intrinsic to it, giving rise at times to potentially libellous statements. However inherently, I cannot see that what is in Wikipedia is any less likely to be true than what is published in a book or on the websites of news organizations..." (196). I totally agree with this quote. I think this sums up entirely why I use Wikipedia to gather vast information. What makes a book/news websites like CNN.com and Wikipedia different from another? Nothing really except the reputation of its reliability of a book and a Wikipedia differs. There was no controversy behind editing of a book when it was first published because there was only one person writing it. Why not consider a vast community of volunteers sharing their facts on a webpage as a credible source?
Sunday, October 10, 2010
World and Wikipedia pt 1
The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality by Dalby explains the inner works of Wikipedia. The book starts off with examples of how easy it is for users to edit and change information on certain subjects. Warko sparked an article about an earthquake in Italy with his 2 lines of contribution. Within the next half hour he has revised the article several times and by the end of the day, the article has been retitled, 1000 words in length, and in both English and Spanish versions by other contributors. There are many advantages and disadvantages of using Wikipedia as a type of resource. The advantages are that it is a way for people to share information and to connect just like how people were aware of the earthquake around the globe in a matter of seconds.
The disadvantages are that people could easily deface and vandalize the website. Contributors like Keykingz13 created an account on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of vandalizing the site by re-editing various articles through grammatically incorrect English. It took careful notice from editors like Andrew Dalby to realize that there has been false alterations and information that have been spread onto the articles.
A lot of teachers have been telling their students that Wikipedia is not a credible source. I like to think otherwise. I use Wikipedia for a lot of things and I feel that it is definitely a legit source. To me, technology is an incredible source. The amount of data and information that can be found on Web 2.0 is amazing and overwhelming at times. To a lot of us, the Internet is the number one form of resource. I love to google everything so whenever I do, Wikipedia is always on the top 5 things listed. Technology like Wikipedia is neither naturally good or bad. It is really up to the user in how they attain and utilize technology.
The disadvantages are that people could easily deface and vandalize the website. Contributors like Keykingz13 created an account on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of vandalizing the site by re-editing various articles through grammatically incorrect English. It took careful notice from editors like Andrew Dalby to realize that there has been false alterations and information that have been spread onto the articles.
A lot of teachers have been telling their students that Wikipedia is not a credible source. I like to think otherwise. I use Wikipedia for a lot of things and I feel that it is definitely a legit source. To me, technology is an incredible source. The amount of data and information that can be found on Web 2.0 is amazing and overwhelming at times. To a lot of us, the Internet is the number one form of resource. I love to google everything so whenever I do, Wikipedia is always on the top 5 things listed. Technology like Wikipedia is neither naturally good or bad. It is really up to the user in how they attain and utilize technology.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology Part 1&2 Revised
In his book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman talks about how new technologies alter our understanding what is real. This book was fantastic and interesting. Postman's ideas are so subversive and it related to a lot of the things I've been thinking about lately. In this book, Postman writes about how technology negatively effects our society and culture. He believes that technology is both a "burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that" (Postman 5). His arguments are very one sided and there are no gray areas in this book. It was actually quite liberating to read his opinions on technology because I took this book as a call for society to be critical and detached from technology.
Postman fears that as cultures begin to embrace technology more and more readily, they would lose something of themselves. In an era that Postman coincidently calls "Technopoly," people will begin to depend on technology for everything. Basically, Postman says that problems will be created to be fixed with technology. Our society is progressively becoming lazy and more reliant on new technology. Think about this, how many of us spend x amount of minutes searching for the remote when we could easily go up to the TV and manually channel surf?
Throughout the book, Postman shares his opinions on how technology leads to Technopoly which is a kind of society that is obsessed with the benefits of technology to the point where everything needs to be measured and assessed on the basis of how 'efficient' it is. Postman mentions something called the "control systems" to manage information like statistics, opinion surveys, SAT and IQ tests which can be scientifically measured and stored. And because these information could be measured, our society becomes prone to believe that our IQ score is our intelligence and that opinion surveys are what people believe in. I interpreted this idea with the concept of SAT scores. SAT score is ultimately only a number and for some reason it has such a huge impact in education. Why though? There are clear evidences that the most brilliant people out there didn't even graduate from college, let alone even go to one. I think it's ridiculous that the scores of a standardized test could determine the destiny of a student's success.
I think the main idea to take away from this book is that despite our obsession with information, more information and the desire to obtain more will not fix any of the real problems that we are facing today. For example, poverty will not be solved by more information, nor will war or global warming. It may be a contributing factor to help solve the problem, but in the end more information won't fix these worldly issues.
Postman fears that as cultures begin to embrace technology more and more readily, they would lose something of themselves. In an era that Postman coincidently calls "Technopoly," people will begin to depend on technology for everything. Basically, Postman says that problems will be created to be fixed with technology. Our society is progressively becoming lazy and more reliant on new technology. Think about this, how many of us spend x amount of minutes searching for the remote when we could easily go up to the TV and manually channel surf?
Throughout the book, Postman shares his opinions on how technology leads to Technopoly which is a kind of society that is obsessed with the benefits of technology to the point where everything needs to be measured and assessed on the basis of how 'efficient' it is. Postman mentions something called the "control systems" to manage information like statistics, opinion surveys, SAT and IQ tests which can be scientifically measured and stored. And because these information could be measured, our society becomes prone to believe that our IQ score is our intelligence and that opinion surveys are what people believe in. I interpreted this idea with the concept of SAT scores. SAT score is ultimately only a number and for some reason it has such a huge impact in education. Why though? There are clear evidences that the most brilliant people out there didn't even graduate from college, let alone even go to one. I think it's ridiculous that the scores of a standardized test could determine the destiny of a student's success.
I think the main idea to take away from this book is that despite our obsession with information, more information and the desire to obtain more will not fix any of the real problems that we are facing today. For example, poverty will not be solved by more information, nor will war or global warming. It may be a contributing factor to help solve the problem, but in the end more information won't fix these worldly issues.
Side Note - Algorithms
So after our last discussion in class, I have realized a lot of algorithms. I've gotten so many e-mails from places where I have shopped online, mainly from Walmart. For the most part, I didn't even click on the e-mail because I'm sick of them sending me e-mails about what my interests might be. As a Cheesecake Factory employ, I had to recently invest in an iron and iron board from Walmart. Since then, I've been getting so many e-mails that were sort of related to those items that I've bought... so weird. It's true about these algorithms that convince the online consumers that they might need other materials that could be related to the recent items bought. This also goes for music. I use Pandora a lot because I get really lazy to put together playlists from my iTunes. Sometimes, Pandora is right on the money with the type of music I want to listen to but at times, it's SO wrong. It skipped from genre to another genre that was not related to the music I wanted to listen too. How does it go from classic rock to country? It doesn't make sense...
Life Story of Computers... Part 2
First of all, thank you to both Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs for creating Apple! Thanks.
The second part of the reading mostly dealt with how computers were not only being used by the army but by people in their homes. The birth of social networking began with the creation of Internet and Ethernet. During the Cold War, there was a need for a system that could exchange information between military computers. Advanced Research Projects Agency or ARPAnet, is a division in the military that created top secret systems and weapon during the Cold War. Charles M. Herzfeld, a former director of ARPAnet believed that the system of data exchange should not only occur within the military but for the people at home. In order for the sharing of information to work, a computer breaks its information into IP or Internet Protocol packets, which are kind of like digital envelops. Then, TCP or Transmission Control Protocol makes sure the packets are delivered from person to server. So, from ARPAnet the first electronic mail (e-mail) was created in order to send simple messages to another person across the network. Soon, the Internet Protocol software was being placed on every type of computer and this caused the birth of using in-house networks also known as Local Area Networks (LAN's). Keep in mind that Internet only connects remotely located computers by telephone lines. Ethernet, which is totally different from Internet is a system for connecting computers in a building using hardware running from computer to computer. Robert Metcalfe of Xerox promoted and created Ethernet using newly designed chips and wiring. The use of personal computers became very popular thanks to Metcalfe and the revolution of using the Ethernet to connect people became the most widely installed LAN protocol.
The second part of the reading mostly dealt with how computers were not only being used by the army but by people in their homes. The birth of social networking began with the creation of Internet and Ethernet. During the Cold War, there was a need for a system that could exchange information between military computers. Advanced Research Projects Agency or ARPAnet, is a division in the military that created top secret systems and weapon during the Cold War. Charles M. Herzfeld, a former director of ARPAnet believed that the system of data exchange should not only occur within the military but for the people at home. In order for the sharing of information to work, a computer breaks its information into IP or Internet Protocol packets, which are kind of like digital envelops. Then, TCP or Transmission Control Protocol makes sure the packets are delivered from person to server. So, from ARPAnet the first electronic mail (e-mail) was created in order to send simple messages to another person across the network. Soon, the Internet Protocol software was being placed on every type of computer and this caused the birth of using in-house networks also known as Local Area Networks (LAN's). Keep in mind that Internet only connects remotely located computers by telephone lines. Ethernet, which is totally different from Internet is a system for connecting computers in a building using hardware running from computer to computer. Robert Metcalfe of Xerox promoted and created Ethernet using newly designed chips and wiring. The use of personal computers became very popular thanks to Metcalfe and the revolution of using the Ethernet to connect people became the most widely installed LAN protocol.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)