http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008782994_milbank25.html
I wasn’t really aware what Congress was doing on Twitter until our last class on Thursday. When our guest speaker showed us the website, I have to say I was suppressing the strong urge to laugh. Some of the “twitterings” of the members of Congress were pretty hilarious. The fact that John McCain is posting things about the sports games he’s watching and his opinions about other members of Congress highly amuses me.
This article talks about Obama’s address on Tuesday night and the fact that his audience was Twittering on their phones instead of listening. This is an example of both the growing prominence technology in our lives and the increasing rudeness of society. We all text in inappropriate places, class, family dinners, church. The politicians present at Obama’s speech are no different then the college students texting their friends in their lecture class. In the days before blackberrys and wireless internet on phones, people would get bored and pass notes or doodle. There’s no way to force our politicians to pay attention when our president speaks, but now hopefully they will be more stealth when twittering.
I think that these members of Congress aren’t familiar with technology and don’t realize who all is reading their Tweets. Because the current young generation has grown up talking on AIM and having facebook and xangas, they seem to be more aware that everyone can and probably is reading what they are posting. By the time kids are in middle school now a days they usually have an awareness of internet privacy and accessibility.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10168157-92.html
There is a website that has been steadily growing in popularity among college age students in the past 5 years. You might have heard of it, they call it facebook. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t check mine at least once, and I’m sure most Miami Students do the same. The big news about facebook this week was the changes in the terms of use. They changed the terms to say that anything and everything a person posts on facebook belongs to them. While the press release was written in vague language, internet gatekeepers picked up on it. This change caused a huge uproar in the blogosphere. I know I read about the changes on Perez Hilton.com, who was telling his readers to boycott the website. On Tuesday the 17th, Mark Zuckerberg posted a retraction of the new terms of use.
As frequent users of facebook, we have come to expect certain things from the website. The smallest change can incite hundreds of thousands of people joining groups to reverse the change. Earlier in the school year, facebook changed the format to “new facebook” and there were a lot of people unhappy. But in the end, no one really boycotted because how we look at pictures or write out our status’s really isn’t that big of a deal. Privacy is another story though. People take their privacy very seriously, and the new facebook terms interfered. Privacy on facebook is very important for a lot of people. When I was in high school, boys on the basketball team posted pictures of themselves drinking and got in trouble with the school. 10 boys ended up being suspended from the team for 2 weeks and missed the play-offs. There were lawyers and court cases involved and it was very messy. So privacy on facebook is very important and maintaining it for some is very essential.
There is a website that has been steadily growing in popularity among college age students in the past 5 years. You might have heard of it, they call it facebook. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t check mine at least once, and I’m sure most Miami Students do the same. The big news about facebook this week was the changes in the terms of use. They changed the terms to say that anything and everything a person posts on facebook belongs to them. While the press release was written in vague language, internet gatekeepers picked up on it. This change caused a huge uproar in the blogosphere. I know I read about the changes on Perez Hilton.com, who was telling his readers to boycott the website. On Tuesday the 17th, Mark Zuckerberg posted a retraction of the new terms of use.
As frequent users of facebook, we have come to expect certain things from the website. The smallest change can incite hundreds of thousands of people joining groups to reverse the change. Earlier in the school year, facebook changed the format to “new facebook” and there were a lot of people unhappy. But in the end, no one really boycotted because how we look at pictures or write out our status’s really isn’t that big of a deal. Privacy is another story though. People take their privacy very seriously, and the new facebook terms interfered. Privacy on facebook is very important for a lot of people. When I was in high school, boys on the basketball team posted pictures of themselves drinking and got in trouble with the school. 10 boys ended up being suspended from the team for 2 weeks and missed the play-offs. There were lawyers and court cases involved and it was very messy. So privacy on facebook is very important and maintaining it for some is very essential.
Friday, February 6, 2009
New I-phone models
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/02/04/the-great-ipod-migration/
Apple is trying to take over the world one smart phone at a time. The company practically has a monopoly on personal mp3 players with their various types of ipods, and now they want to make a bigger dent in the cell phone market. The article says that the current problem with the iphone is the expense. Not only do customers have to buy the $199 phone, but they also have to purchase the internet and data service which is over $70 a month. I have a blackberry and the internet cost is only $30. An extra $40 a month can really add up, especially if you are a college student.
According to the article, Apple is going to come out with two new models that combine different elements of the iphone, but not every feature in order to cut down on costs. I think their idea of an iphone nano will be extremely successful. A combination phone and i-pod without the internet will be perfect for both younger and elderly consumers who wouldn’t utilize the e-mail part of the phone. Many like a simpler model when it comes to their phones and I believe these new options will appeal to those who might have been originally intimidated by the idea of a smart phone.
Apple’s main problem is the fact you can only have one of their phones using AT&T. Everyone in my family and several of my friends would probably have iphones if they were available through other wireless services. Apple should look at what the blackberry creators have done to further their own success. Blackberry offers their phones through many different providers with only small differences at each place like the color of the phone.
Apple is trying to take over the world one smart phone at a time. The company practically has a monopoly on personal mp3 players with their various types of ipods, and now they want to make a bigger dent in the cell phone market. The article says that the current problem with the iphone is the expense. Not only do customers have to buy the $199 phone, but they also have to purchase the internet and data service which is over $70 a month. I have a blackberry and the internet cost is only $30. An extra $40 a month can really add up, especially if you are a college student.
According to the article, Apple is going to come out with two new models that combine different elements of the iphone, but not every feature in order to cut down on costs. I think their idea of an iphone nano will be extremely successful. A combination phone and i-pod without the internet will be perfect for both younger and elderly consumers who wouldn’t utilize the e-mail part of the phone. Many like a simpler model when it comes to their phones and I believe these new options will appeal to those who might have been originally intimidated by the idea of a smart phone.
Apple’s main problem is the fact you can only have one of their phones using AT&T. Everyone in my family and several of my friends would probably have iphones if they were available through other wireless services. Apple should look at what the blackberry creators have done to further their own success. Blackberry offers their phones through many different providers with only small differences at each place like the color of the phone.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Super Bowl 3D
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1875943,00.html
Dreamworks Animation and Pepsi bought a 90 second commercial spot during the Super Bowl on Sunday. This commercial will be the first ever 3D commercial in the history of the Super Bowl. The reason the companies decided to do their commercial in 3D was to promote Dreamworks upcoming movie “Monsters.”
Jeffery Katzenberg from Dreamworks seems to feel very strongly about 3D and it’s future. He compares the technology to being as epic as sound and color in movies. I personally don’t think 3D is going to catch on the way Katzenberg and his company would like it to. People aren’t fans of having to put on those annoying glasses while in the theaters and I don’t think that’s going to change. I took the kids I babysit to see “Spy Kids 3D” a few years ago and happened to be wearing my actual glasses while at the movie. Putting the cardboard 3D glasses over my actual ones was very difficult to do and I probably looked awesome attempting to wear 2 pairs of glasses at once.
In the article, Katzenberg says their movie coming out will set a new precedent for movies everywhere. But that’s what was said when 3D technology first came out in the 1970’s, and if it didn’t take hold then it’s not going to now. The Super Bowl is always a good place to advertise new and innovative products and everyone tunes in specifically for the commercials. But I can’t see any of my friends of my dad putting on 3D glasses during a football game just to watch a commercial. Just the fact that this commercial is getting an article written about it in Time magazine is a good sign for the future of the technology, but the true test will be after the Super Bowl when the movie “Monster” comes out and how much money it makes. Anything that makes a lot of money has a good future in American mass media.
Dreamworks Animation and Pepsi bought a 90 second commercial spot during the Super Bowl on Sunday. This commercial will be the first ever 3D commercial in the history of the Super Bowl. The reason the companies decided to do their commercial in 3D was to promote Dreamworks upcoming movie “Monsters.”
Jeffery Katzenberg from Dreamworks seems to feel very strongly about 3D and it’s future. He compares the technology to being as epic as sound and color in movies. I personally don’t think 3D is going to catch on the way Katzenberg and his company would like it to. People aren’t fans of having to put on those annoying glasses while in the theaters and I don’t think that’s going to change. I took the kids I babysit to see “Spy Kids 3D” a few years ago and happened to be wearing my actual glasses while at the movie. Putting the cardboard 3D glasses over my actual ones was very difficult to do and I probably looked awesome attempting to wear 2 pairs of glasses at once.
In the article, Katzenberg says their movie coming out will set a new precedent for movies everywhere. But that’s what was said when 3D technology first came out in the 1970’s, and if it didn’t take hold then it’s not going to now. The Super Bowl is always a good place to advertise new and innovative products and everyone tunes in specifically for the commercials. But I can’t see any of my friends of my dad putting on 3D glasses during a football game just to watch a commercial. Just the fact that this commercial is getting an article written about it in Time magazine is a good sign for the future of the technology, but the true test will be after the Super Bowl when the movie “Monster” comes out and how much money it makes. Anything that makes a lot of money has a good future in American mass media.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The switch to digital TV
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/obamas-balancing-act-on-digital-tv/
The date that television is supposed to switch from analog to digital is February 17th, 2009. This date wasn’t chosen for any specific reason or purpose so I don’t see why it would be a problem to push the date back. Giving citizens an extra four months will ensure that no one is left without television to watch. Although it doesn’t seem like it should be so essential for everyone to be able to watch reruns of Friends, there are many elderly people who only know what’s going on outside their house except for what they see on the television.
This is a fairly safe early legislation for Obama to pass. Instead of starting with a controversial issue like gay marriage or the death penalty, choosing a technology issue is a good bridge into the presidential position. No one will probably feel too strongly about this legislation to speak out against it. I personally don’t see a reason to be in any hurry to switch from analog to digital. The longer we wait to make the change, the more time people will have to get the converter boxes. I don’t really understand what the difference in the picture quality between the two types is, but most TV’s are already equipped with HD by now and are very clear.
The date that television is supposed to switch from analog to digital is February 17th, 2009. This date wasn’t chosen for any specific reason or purpose so I don’t see why it would be a problem to push the date back. Giving citizens an extra four months will ensure that no one is left without television to watch. Although it doesn’t seem like it should be so essential for everyone to be able to watch reruns of Friends, there are many elderly people who only know what’s going on outside their house except for what they see on the television.
This is a fairly safe early legislation for Obama to pass. Instead of starting with a controversial issue like gay marriage or the death penalty, choosing a technology issue is a good bridge into the presidential position. No one will probably feel too strongly about this legislation to speak out against it. I personally don’t see a reason to be in any hurry to switch from analog to digital. The longer we wait to make the change, the more time people will have to get the converter boxes. I don’t really understand what the difference in the picture quality between the two types is, but most TV’s are already equipped with HD by now and are very clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)