Wii-pee!
I think, in my personal opinion, that wii is definitely a revolutionary gaming device due to its unique features and has truly attempted to "democratize"...
With its latest launch of the Wii gaming system, Nintendo is once again extremely successful in capturing the impulsive cravings of its gamers. The Wii is a unique piece that uses a distinct type of user interaction, an interface created through motion sensors and a remote control. This has created a lot of curiosity and hype within game-lovers. So far, many of those who have purchased a wii are extremely satisfied with this system. Many comments suggest that the wii gaming device is poorer in terms of intense graphic (often compared with playstation II), but contains extremely fun and addictive games that vary in concepts. These games suit different people with dissimlar skills -- a first clear attempt for Nintendo's concept of democracy.
Nintendo has released a series of simplistic commercials that use the marketing technique of product image positioning. This type of technique is typical in today's corporate world as marketing managers and business leaders desperately try to associate products with superficial aspects in life that contain real value, such as true happiness and strong family ties. The main concept of Wii advertisements come with the democratization of the gaming system -- portraying the product as suitable for all genders, age, personalities, and gaming skills. The commercials typically portray two Japanese voyagers driving towards various locations in the United States, visiting families and getting them addicted to the new product. This is truly quite efficient in portraying the message of democracy, as people maintain the connotation that this particular gaming device is suitable for all family members. Although this modern development has taken a turn for extreme success, I believe that this is merely another hype caused by successful marketing techniques. The democracy presented in this product is merely a marketing concept used to attract potential consumers, and in the future ahead, this gaming device will fade into blank space, overshadowed by a new technological gaming device with a new successful marketing concept... This cycle rings a bell, doesn't it?
Friday, January 19, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Homosapiens Walk <--- back to the Beginning.:.
Who are we? *
*
*
Where did we come from?
*
*
Why are we, human beings, so spread out across the Earth?
*
*
Why do we exist in such astonishing diversities?
*
*
These questions linger in our minds -- bothersome and boggling. Only human imagination, mythological stories, and scientific theories can attempt to answer these unanswerable questions. Human beings are created with intense curiosity and persistence. We are determined to reach the truth. We seek for knowledge. We are bounded by these haunting questions that long to be answered. Here it is...A revolutionary project has been launched to determine our evolutionary past. I passionately present to you:
THE GENOGRAPHIC PROJECT
Geneticist Spencer Wells, in association with The National Geographic, IBM, and the Waitt Family Foundation, has launched a revolutionary five-year project determined to map humanity's journey through a concept of global genetic analysis. Fossil evidences point towards human origins in Africa. The puzzling question to be answered is, how did human beings reach the far ends of the Earth, given scientific proof that we are all the descendants of an African ancestor who roamed the Earth no more than 60, 000 years ago?
The human Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), found in the basic cell, contains genomes that portray a sequence of ancestral footprints of which could be the very key to solve this mind-boggling puzzle. In actuality, we receive half of our total genetic composition from our mother and the other half from our father. Each half then represents a shuffled combination of DNA we retrieve from our ancestors, passed down from generation to generation. Fortunately, a segment of this genome remains untouched, in chronological sequence. In these segments, the genetic code may vary due to slight genetic mutations. These mutations are easily determinable through modern technology.
NOW, NOW, NOW.
This project has to be done NOW. Time is a critical factor because the world is becoming a melting pot -- mixing populations infuse and scramble genetic signlas. Distinct peoples, languages and cultures are vanishing rapidly more than ever in this twenty-first century. With relief, the twenty-first century has enabled this project's launch with modern and accurate technology needed to successfully complete this mission. A century ago, this project would not have been possible. The Era of technology has not yet begun. DNA Analysis would not have been developed. Fifty years ago, technology was born. During this stage, people focused on creating the basic functions of technology, of which made our lives more pleasurable. People were gradually realizing the power of technology, and in twenty-five years, were able to create inventions far beyond imagination. This project could have been launched twenty-five years ago perhaps with a lower degree of speed and accuracy as it would be if launched today. Communication technologies, a DNA Analysis repository , and a database software are three essential technologies required to complete this project.
The main focus of this project is to obtain genetic samples from indigenous people, whos populations are relatively unchanged. These traditional peoples have desperately maintained their isolated ethnic and genetic identities, despite the rapid changes and infusing populations around them. They are the key -- the genetic markers that have remained unaltered over hundreds of generations. They are reliable indicators of ancient migratory patterns. However, this project is not based solely on indigenous people, but for the general public as well, to enable the geneticists to expand their database and track patterns more accurately. People all over the world are encouraged to purchase kits, costing US $99.95. They are then required to submit their cheek swabs (materials provided) to the Arizona research lab. They could then access their genetical information through the National Geographic website, with a required identification and password. There is another type of public participation, through the Genographic Legacy Fund. These funds go towards the empowerment of indigenous culture, as well as the preservation of their lifestyle, traditions, and knowledge.
I truly believe that this will be a successful project that could help us, human beings, finally discover our evolution, migration, and original ancestry. This project could also develop cultural awareness to those indigenous communities that are often neglected. This could bring racial equality and social justice to our world.
A revolution from our evolution, truly.
The human Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), found in the basic cell, contains genomes that portray a sequence of ancestral footprints of which could be the very key to solve this mind-boggling puzzle. In actuality, we receive half of our total genetic composition from our mother and the other half from our father. Each half then represents a shuffled combination of DNA we retrieve from our ancestors, passed down from generation to generation. Fortunately, a segment of this genome remains untouched, in chronological sequence. In these segments, the genetic code may vary due to slight genetic mutations. These mutations are easily determinable through modern technology.
NOW, NOW, NOW.
This project has to be done NOW. Time is a critical factor because the world is becoming a melting pot -- mixing populations infuse and scramble genetic signlas. Distinct peoples, languages and cultures are vanishing rapidly more than ever in this twenty-first century. With relief, the twenty-first century has enabled this project's launch with modern and accurate technology needed to successfully complete this mission. A century ago, this project would not have been possible. The Era of technology has not yet begun. DNA Analysis would not have been developed. Fifty years ago, technology was born. During this stage, people focused on creating the basic functions of technology, of which made our lives more pleasurable. People were gradually realizing the power of technology, and in twenty-five years, were able to create inventions far beyond imagination. This project could have been launched twenty-five years ago perhaps with a lower degree of speed and accuracy as it would be if launched today. Communication technologies, a DNA Analysis repository , and a database software are three essential technologies required to complete this project.
The main focus of this project is to obtain genetic samples from indigenous people, whos populations are relatively unchanged. These traditional peoples have desperately maintained their isolated ethnic and genetic identities, despite the rapid changes and infusing populations around them. They are the key -- the genetic markers that have remained unaltered over hundreds of generations. They are reliable indicators of ancient migratory patterns. However, this project is not based solely on indigenous people, but for the general public as well, to enable the geneticists to expand their database and track patterns more accurately. People all over the world are encouraged to purchase kits, costing US $99.95. They are then required to submit their cheek swabs (materials provided) to the Arizona research lab. They could then access their genetical information through the National Geographic website, with a required identification and password. There is another type of public participation, through the Genographic Legacy Fund. These funds go towards the empowerment of indigenous culture, as well as the preservation of their lifestyle, traditions, and knowledge.
I truly believe that this will be a successful project that could help us, human beings, finally discover our evolution, migration, and original ancestry. This project could also develop cultural awareness to those indigenous communities that are often neglected. This could bring racial equality and social justice to our world.
A revolution from our evolution, truly.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Google Search: Toggling the Google Goggles for Books
GOOGLE, GOogle, google...
I love Google.
I love Google.Does this mean my opinions about the Google Book Search is biased? Maybe.
GOOGLE, GOogle, google... Publishing companies and Author Guilds hate Google (but love money).
Does this mean their opinions about the Google Book Search is biased? Maybe.
It all depends on PRIORITY.
In my humble opinion, this issue should be judged by hard cold facts, NOT opinions or varying perspectives.
GOOGLE, GOogle, google... Publishing companies and Author Guilds hate Google (but love money).
Does this mean their opinions about the Google Book Search is biased? Maybe.
It all depends on PRIORITY.
In my humble opinion, this issue should be judged by hard cold facts, NOT opinions or varying perspectives.
Let me start out with these underlying, undermined FACTS.
*Law 17 USC 107 (the United States Copyright Law) states that:
"The fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement."
*Law 17 USC 107 also states that:
Fair use should be determined by four components: Work, use, amount, and affected market.
* Google guarantees FREE access to the Google Book Search, therefore is not profiting from this project, however, may be including paid advertisements in the future.
* The Google Book Search transforms book contents into snippets, creating a literary index that grants people access to book informations -- as much information as publishers and authors will allow.
* The main issue lies with books that are copyrighted but no longer in print. If permission is necessary, 50% of the books may not be included in the project due to the inefficient property system (of which does not require the author's name) that makes it impossible to track down the owners of these books, dating back to 1923.
In the Eyes of The Parties in Opposition to the Google Book Search Project:
So far, the Author's Guild of America and 5 Major Publishing Companies have filed lawsuits accusing Google of massive copyright infringement. Nick Taylor and Allan Adler, representatives of these Publishing companies state that Google is "Profiting from authors' works" and that Google "Did not ask permission", therefore cannot be supported by "fair use". The major difference between what Google and other search engines are currently doing as opposed to what The Google Book Search is doing, is that today, search engines simply provide Internet consumers easy access to existing information and pictures already located within the world wide web by usage of links, while The Goole Book Search scans copyrighted material into the world wide web. It is believed that this highly-debated issue is merely a repetition of what had occurred many years ago when a growing organization, namely BEAM>IT, allowed customers access to their CD collections anywhere -- whether at work, at home, or at a friend's house -- simply by uploading the contents of the purchased CD into the network. Peer-to-peer downloading and sharing were prevented through a personalized acccount, protected by a username and password. Unfortunately, major record companies filed lawsuits agiainst this growing organization and the court entirely refused to accept this situation as "fair use". BEAM>IT was sued for $110 million and filed for immediate bankruptcy. The Authors' Guild and the Publishing Companies are hoping for this same outcome, or at least, a share of profit within this profound innovation.
The Perspectives of the Parties in Favour of the Google Book Search:
Just as Google Image Search transforms images from the world wide web into smaller icons that create a link to original websites where authentic images are located, Google Book Search similarly creates snippets, or phrases that belong to books which are copyrighted and no longer in print. This can help consumers research about one particular topic in a book, and will not allow them to read the book entirely on the Internet. As for copyrighted books that are still being printed for sale, Google plans to negotiate with the individual publishers and authors as to how much information they will allow to be placed on this newly developed search engine. This could even help advertise these books and raise interests if a person were to stumble upon a book currently on sale but could not finish reading it on the Internet. This search engine could simply help a person narrow down which book they would like to read, and they could either purchase it or borrow it from the library. As for "fair use", permission and profit are definitely not essential components located in the law of copyrighted work. Fair use, in this case, is the fact that Google has created an innovative tool that would help many researchers and book-lovers. As for the marketing component of law 17 USC 107, the Publishing companies have themselves admitted that no loss has been and will be made in terms of monetary value. They simply want to gain a share of the pie. Going further, this technological development can help preserve culture and human evolution in two ways: 1 is by allowing users to view the oldest pieces of literatures that are no longer in print and 2 is by allowing users to gain knowledge and respect for cultural differences, as Google has promised to integrate not only English-based texts, but other international texts as well. Surprisingly, Yahoo and MSN, Google's major competitors support Google in this issue, stating that Google's innovation is of little difference with what all search engines are currently doing. They believe that "fair use" does not need permission, nor does it defy profit. They believe that questioning Google's integrity with this matter is equal to questioning the validity of all search engines.
My opinion:
I am personally in favour of the Google Book Search not because I love Google, and not because it has helped me enhance my academic knowledge through research, but because of the following (supported by the facts that I have enlisted above):
Google has not violated the Copyright law and has, in my opinion, followed "fair use" all througout. I believe that Google should be respected due to the fact that they are willing to negotiate with the Publishing companies and authors in order to determine which and how much information should be scanned for each individual books. I also respect this development because it can sincerely help audiences learn about the past and present American culture and evolution, as well as break our cultural boundaries with other countries as we get to read about their lifestyles and literary techniques. One effect that this could do is increase the database for plagiarism, but do remind yourself that plagiarism has always been present and will always be present. A positive effect with this new access to book informations is the promotion of reading books, especially to the younger populations, as well as the advertisement of books that are copyrighted and still in print. One negative effect, however, may be the threat to librarians. It is true that there might be a slight drop in the amount of people who rely on the library because the books that are open to the public and are not copyrighted will be fully scanned onto the Google database. People may prefer to simply stay at home and read an entire book on the computer. However, copyrighted books that are no longer in print will only be presented as snippets in the Internet, and people will still need to rely on the public library for these hard copies. Also, it is a fact that people would want to prevent eyestrain from the extreme usage of the computer, and book lovers would prefer reading comfortably in a peaceful library. Also, it is a waste of ink and paper if people were to print these entire books rather than borrow them in the library for free. I am extremely persuaded that the librarians will not be affected at a far extent that their jobs would be of little significance. In conclusion, I really do support Google's innovation.
*Law 17 USC 107 (the United States Copyright Law) states that:
"The fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement."
*Law 17 USC 107 also states that:
Fair use should be determined by four components: Work, use, amount, and affected market.
* Google guarantees FREE access to the Google Book Search, therefore is not profiting from this project, however, may be including paid advertisements in the future.
* The Google Book Search transforms book contents into snippets, creating a literary index that grants people access to book informations -- as much information as publishers and authors will allow.
* The main issue lies with books that are copyrighted but no longer in print. If permission is necessary, 50% of the books may not be included in the project due to the inefficient property system (of which does not require the author's name) that makes it impossible to track down the owners of these books, dating back to 1923.
In the Eyes of The Parties in Opposition to the Google Book Search Project:
So far, the Author's Guild of America and 5 Major Publishing Companies have filed lawsuits accusing Google of massive copyright infringement. Nick Taylor and Allan Adler, representatives of these Publishing companies state that Google is "Profiting from authors' works" and that Google "Did not ask permission", therefore cannot be supported by "fair use". The major difference between what Google and other search engines are currently doing as opposed to what The Google Book Search is doing, is that today, search engines simply provide Internet consumers easy access to existing information and pictures already located within the world wide web by usage of links, while The Goole Book Search scans copyrighted material into the world wide web. It is believed that this highly-debated issue is merely a repetition of what had occurred many years ago when a growing organization, namely BEAM>IT, allowed customers access to their CD collections anywhere -- whether at work, at home, or at a friend's house -- simply by uploading the contents of the purchased CD into the network. Peer-to-peer downloading and sharing were prevented through a personalized acccount, protected by a username and password. Unfortunately, major record companies filed lawsuits agiainst this growing organization and the court entirely refused to accept this situation as "fair use". BEAM>IT was sued for $110 million and filed for immediate bankruptcy. The Authors' Guild and the Publishing Companies are hoping for this same outcome, or at least, a share of profit within this profound innovation.
The Perspectives of the Parties in Favour of the Google Book Search:
Just as Google Image Search transforms images from the world wide web into smaller icons that create a link to original websites where authentic images are located, Google Book Search similarly creates snippets, or phrases that belong to books which are copyrighted and no longer in print. This can help consumers research about one particular topic in a book, and will not allow them to read the book entirely on the Internet. As for copyrighted books that are still being printed for sale, Google plans to negotiate with the individual publishers and authors as to how much information they will allow to be placed on this newly developed search engine. This could even help advertise these books and raise interests if a person were to stumble upon a book currently on sale but could not finish reading it on the Internet. This search engine could simply help a person narrow down which book they would like to read, and they could either purchase it or borrow it from the library. As for "fair use", permission and profit are definitely not essential components located in the law of copyrighted work. Fair use, in this case, is the fact that Google has created an innovative tool that would help many researchers and book-lovers. As for the marketing component of law 17 USC 107, the Publishing companies have themselves admitted that no loss has been and will be made in terms of monetary value. They simply want to gain a share of the pie. Going further, this technological development can help preserve culture and human evolution in two ways: 1 is by allowing users to view the oldest pieces of literatures that are no longer in print and 2 is by allowing users to gain knowledge and respect for cultural differences, as Google has promised to integrate not only English-based texts, but other international texts as well. Surprisingly, Yahoo and MSN, Google's major competitors support Google in this issue, stating that Google's innovation is of little difference with what all search engines are currently doing. They believe that "fair use" does not need permission, nor does it defy profit. They believe that questioning Google's integrity with this matter is equal to questioning the validity of all search engines.
My opinion:
I am personally in favour of the Google Book Search not because I love Google, and not because it has helped me enhance my academic knowledge through research, but because of the following (supported by the facts that I have enlisted above):
Google has not violated the Copyright law and has, in my opinion, followed "fair use" all througout. I believe that Google should be respected due to the fact that they are willing to negotiate with the Publishing companies and authors in order to determine which and how much information should be scanned for each individual books. I also respect this development because it can sincerely help audiences learn about the past and present American culture and evolution, as well as break our cultural boundaries with other countries as we get to read about their lifestyles and literary techniques. One effect that this could do is increase the database for plagiarism, but do remind yourself that plagiarism has always been present and will always be present. A positive effect with this new access to book informations is the promotion of reading books, especially to the younger populations, as well as the advertisement of books that are copyrighted and still in print. One negative effect, however, may be the threat to librarians. It is true that there might be a slight drop in the amount of people who rely on the library because the books that are open to the public and are not copyrighted will be fully scanned onto the Google database. People may prefer to simply stay at home and read an entire book on the computer. However, copyrighted books that are no longer in print will only be presented as snippets in the Internet, and people will still need to rely on the public library for these hard copies. Also, it is a fact that people would want to prevent eyestrain from the extreme usage of the computer, and book lovers would prefer reading comfortably in a peaceful library. Also, it is a waste of ink and paper if people were to print these entire books rather than borrow them in the library for free. I am extremely persuaded that the librarians will not be affected at a far extent that their jobs would be of little significance. In conclusion, I really do support Google's innovation.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Ready, set, KILL them ALL
mission 1: You are Super Mario. Your mission is to collect all giant super nova stars and to acquire super mushrooms that allow you to grow twice as big. You must avoid giant turtles and other gigantic monstrous creatures. You must also avoid bombs that detonate when you step on them. You must jump, hammer objects, and skip on bricks. Good luck!(ha-hah.)
mission 2: You are a part of an elite international team. The U.S. government has received several alerts in suspicion for extreme terrorist attacks in the next twenty-four hours. You are to be assigned into squad X, under Lt. Colorado's commands. Your mission, with your team, is to cease the terrorist organization, whichever one it is, from detonating eight bombs located in eight different parts of the United States. Good luck, warrior. We are counting on you.
If you were a teenager, or any customer of any age, which video game would you pick as you ponder in a store? Without a doubt, the majority would be more interested in mission number 2.
"If it's not realistic, it's not worth playing," Larry Holland.
Unfortunately, this is true today. As to why this is so, there are many reasons. People, most especially kids, are fond of thrill, excitement, and adrenaline. They get a limited amount of these three elements in a cartoon fairyland. On the other hand, they get an exceptionally sufficient amount of thrill, excitement, and adrenaline when their minds get lost in a digital world that depicts a sense of reality. I truly believe that kids enjoy belonging and being part of an alternate realm or world, instead of being separate to it. This would also explain why gamers enjoy games that involve multiple online players. It integrates a further sense of reality to be combatting or teaming up with real people. Sadly, companies respond to these cravings and persistently adds on to them by bringing more action and violence into these video games. This brings up another issue that is constantly debated upon.
BANG! Too much violence?
Yes, i believe that these violent settings in video games do have a negative impact on the minds of the young population. Sometimes, these impacts may reach a far extent where kids may want to immitate these violent images just to be able to feel real thrill, excitement, and adrenaline. In smaller case scenarios, these children or teenagers may simply be blinded, as their minds are too bombarded with these images. The REAL violence in this ACTUAL world becomes undermined and ignored because these images become just another part of daily life.
HOWEVER...
As a teenager living in today's world, I APPRECIATE ENTERTAINMENT, and am personally not affected by it at all.
HOWEVER...
I am not implying that other people are not affected by it as well. It truly depends on childhood growth and education. I believe that parents, teachers, and guardians are responsible for the training and education that these children receive.
GOING BEYOND:
A lot of people focus their attention on criticizing these video games. Look around, people. I could honestly say with utmost confidence that the global violence around us today is composed of political instabilities, religious wars, lack of education, poverty, social injustices, and factors beyond just playing video games for entertainment.
IN CONCLUSION:
I STAY NEUTRAL IN THIS ISSUE.
GAME OVER.
mission 2: You are a part of an elite international team. The U.S. government has received several alerts in suspicion for extreme terrorist attacks in the next twenty-four hours. You are to be assigned into squad X, under Lt. Colorado's commands. Your mission, with your team, is to cease the terrorist organization, whichever one it is, from detonating eight bombs located in eight different parts of the United States. Good luck, warrior. We are counting on you.
If you were a teenager, or any customer of any age, which video game would you pick as you ponder in a store? Without a doubt, the majority would be more interested in mission number 2.
"If it's not realistic, it's not worth playing," Larry Holland.
Unfortunately, this is true today. As to why this is so, there are many reasons. People, most especially kids, are fond of thrill, excitement, and adrenaline. They get a limited amount of these three elements in a cartoon fairyland. On the other hand, they get an exceptionally sufficient amount of thrill, excitement, and adrenaline when their minds get lost in a digital world that depicts a sense of reality. I truly believe that kids enjoy belonging and being part of an alternate realm or world, instead of being separate to it. This would also explain why gamers enjoy games that involve multiple online players. It integrates a further sense of reality to be combatting or teaming up with real people. Sadly, companies respond to these cravings and persistently adds on to them by bringing more action and violence into these video games. This brings up another issue that is constantly debated upon.
BANG! Too much violence?
Yes, i believe that these violent settings in video games do have a negative impact on the minds of the young population. Sometimes, these impacts may reach a far extent where kids may want to immitate these violent images just to be able to feel real thrill, excitement, and adrenaline. In smaller case scenarios, these children or teenagers may simply be blinded, as their minds are too bombarded with these images. The REAL violence in this ACTUAL world becomes undermined and ignored because these images become just another part of daily life.
HOWEVER...
As a teenager living in today's world, I APPRECIATE ENTERTAINMENT, and am personally not affected by it at all.
HOWEVER...
I am not implying that other people are not affected by it as well. It truly depends on childhood growth and education. I believe that parents, teachers, and guardians are responsible for the training and education that these children receive.
GOING BEYOND:
A lot of people focus their attention on criticizing these video games. Look around, people. I could honestly say with utmost confidence that the global violence around us today is composed of political instabilities, religious wars, lack of education, poverty, social injustices, and factors beyond just playing video games for entertainment.
IN CONCLUSION:
I STAY NEUTRAL IN THIS ISSUE.
GAME OVER.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
iRonic Professor iPod
Technology develops so quickly in such a short span of time. Innovation is in itself fascinating in today's modern world, as people step into the dimension of imagination and creativity to seek for new ideas and products. Voila! A Professor iPod that could meet the educational requirements of many kinesthetic learners.
This innovation includes the concept of using iPods as a learning tool! Teachers can record audio or visual lectures, while students can upload these digital productions into their iPods and learn. As a Mary Ward student, I am highly exposed to self-directed learning, and am able to point out the needs of students like myself. A Professor iPod is definitely not a bad idea, but it may not be the best idea.
iPod videos can indeed be very educational and helpful to a multitude of students. Seminars and lessons are more accessible to the students -- with around-the-clock access. Hypothetical students, or students who generally process information slower can easily pause, rewind, and play. However, these advantages pose a question towards the value of discipline. Many students, if not most, have a tendency to procrastinate -- of which is evident in Mary Ward. Many children of this age have not realized the gravity of reality -- of real life, and of hard-earned cash that apparently do not grow from trees. They prioritize entertainment before responsibility. The irony within all this is that an iPod is an entertainment device. Think of the distractions an iPod can bring. A video iPod could also provide students with access to movies, shows, music videos, and much, much more non-academic pieces of entertainment. Within the Mary Ward community itself, major procrastination and distraction is evidently affecting the success or failure of the students. Interpersonal communication between students and teachers is still the best way for education, in my humble opinion. Nevertheless, a professor iPod is an excellent and witty innovation-- not only in an educational standpoint, but also as a marketing standpoint that would attract many students who want to look cool.
This innovation includes the concept of using iPods as a learning tool! Teachers can record audio or visual lectures, while students can upload these digital productions into their iPods and learn. As a Mary Ward student, I am highly exposed to self-directed learning, and am able to point out the needs of students like myself. A Professor iPod is definitely not a bad idea, but it may not be the best idea.iPod videos can indeed be very educational and helpful to a multitude of students. Seminars and lessons are more accessible to the students -- with around-the-clock access. Hypothetical students, or students who generally process information slower can easily pause, rewind, and play. However, these advantages pose a question towards the value of discipline. Many students, if not most, have a tendency to procrastinate -- of which is evident in Mary Ward. Many children of this age have not realized the gravity of reality -- of real life, and of hard-earned cash that apparently do not grow from trees. They prioritize entertainment before responsibility. The irony within all this is that an iPod is an entertainment device. Think of the distractions an iPod can bring. A video iPod could also provide students with access to movies, shows, music videos, and much, much more non-academic pieces of entertainment. Within the Mary Ward community itself, major procrastination and distraction is evidently affecting the success or failure of the students. Interpersonal communication between students and teachers is still the best way for education, in my humble opinion. Nevertheless, a professor iPod is an excellent and witty innovation-- not only in an educational standpoint, but also as a marketing standpoint that would attract many students who want to look cool.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The Darker side of Technology
Technology--A word of infinite possibilities. The reliance on technology has increased dramatically, whether it is simply computers, televisions, cellular phones, or whether they are electrocardiograms, geostationary operational environment satellites, or orbital docking systems. Human beings rely on communication technologies and computing devices so much that it has integrated itself as a common part of every lifestyle. Technology is now a central power that fuels the rhythm of daily life. Today, the darker side of technology, of which typical human beings tend to neglect, will be unveiled. The ever so essential instant messenger, television, and computer will be discussed in this journal. Perhaps it will open the eyes of many to face reality. And the reality is, humans are ignorant! MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, iChat...do these terms ring a bell? Instant communication, just a click away! How convenient... These softwares are quite helpful, don't get me wrong. Even I have to admit i go online 24/7 to chat with my friends to hear the latest gossip or to get help with the utterly annoying units that we rush to get in for the next target date. With that, I pause and sigh a long sigh... Well, that's beside the point. These instant messengers are quite addictive and distracting (and you think to yourself, don't we all know this?). Moreover, they are quite dangerous for the young clueless children of society (think of those pedophiles! *gasp*!). In addition, instant messaging threatens the very basis of our grammar and spelling (lyk u kno wat i mean! lol). What we do not see, however, is that our reliance on these instant messengers serve as barriers for interpersonal person-to-person relationships. I mean, where is the emotion, the tone, the eye contact, and the presence? Well, let's make it a little bit more personal and think of it this way... Imagine that your boyfriend/girlfriend cheats on you (knock on wood). He/she would obviously prefer to say sorry on MSN than in person or on the phone...Where's the courage in that? Where is the true emotion, or the expression... It's like having a job interview over the Internet! (So if anyone wants to ask me out on a date, ask me in person, ok? NOT ON MSN!*cough cough!* or call me! *wink* I'm just joking around...)To cut it short with the Romeo and Juliet dilemma, what I'm trying to say is that we isolate ourselves from other people, and this is obviously very unhealthy. Moving along to our next victim: The TELEVISION! The television is a major source of entertainment and it does occasionally give us useful and important information. Stepping over to the dark side, the TV is bad for our eyes, it influences violence and the usage of nasty language, and it is a cause for procrastination, laziness, and distraction... No wonder I get grounded ever so often. SHHhhh! Our age group is stupid. Don't get mad at me, please. Really, we are stupid. We would buy anything they show us on TV through excellent advertising techniques! The next time you see a commercial, do remember: WE control what is cool, NOT the TV people! Keep in mind that technology was designed for us to control, not for them to control what we do and how we live! Furthermore, the television creates social injustices through stereotypes and discrimination. Blondes are stupid, super skinny annorexic people are sexy, and Chinese people are weird thrifty people (oh, i am insulted! *sniff*). These stereotypes can be really harmful and are evidently affecting the minds of human beings. Last but not the least, I will be discussing our all-time-favourite device: The Computer! Thank goodness for the computer! Super long essays are not a problem, and photoshopping my pictures make me look prettier (kidding!!). Quick access to information and E-class itself are very convenient! I will not be discussing threats to privacy, security, and the computer's addictivity (We all know these things!). Instead, I will be discussing how bad total reliance on the computer is! First and foremost, not all information presented on the Internet are positive ones! Second of all, the world would collapse without a computer. Lawyers keep their files on computers, banks keep databases and store all account informations on computers, and politicians need instant polls! Do remind yourself that computers don't last forever. In fact, Canada alone is experiencing energy problems. Imagine a total blackout in the very near future. We wouldn't survive! At least I know I wouldn't! We are all so relaxed right now that such a catastrophe would shock us all! Technology--A word of infinite possibilities; the question is, how far should we go with it? Well, in instant messaging terms: cya ppls! ima be on msn all nite long! bye!
Friday, September 15, 2006
Stabbed by the Media
A Letter to the Media
by: Anna Neuheimer
You paint our faces and put on our clothes,
You make our personality and invent our roles,
You silence our voices and create our fears,
You don't see us calling,
You don't see our tears.
You control our self-esteem and kill us inside,
You've destroyed us enough now we want to guide.
See our ways, our souls, what's real,
From now on we'll decide how we feel.
We'll show you how we really are,
Your image of us has gone much too far.
by: Anna Neuheimer
You paint our faces and put on our clothes,
You make our personality and invent our roles,
You silence our voices and create our fears,
You don't see us calling,
You don't see our tears.
You control our self-esteem and kill us inside,
You've destroyed us enough now we want to guide.
See our ways, our souls, what's real,
From now on we'll decide how we feel.
We'll show you how we really are,
Your image of us has gone much too far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
