FINAL POST!

There are two important things I learned in this course that I consider the most important. One is the seemingly simple yet essential skills that are needed for our newest communication technologies. We as an American culture find it necessary to be constantly up-to-date on new technologies. There are so many practicalities involved with each technology and it was very useful to learn these things in class. Another important thing is to see all things (technology in this case) with a “world view.” Technology in America may mean day-to-day convenience but may mean life and death in another country. I have a responsibility to learn as much as I can about these technologies. Yes, it will help my life be as efficient and comfortable as possible. But more importantly, I have a responsibility to others that do not have the same opportunities I have because for them, it’s not just about convenience. It’s about survival.

I wish we had more time to study how technology is used in the medical field. As I was doing research for my final project (PDAs), I found a vast amount of information on how PDAs are being used for patients in certain hospitals. I’m certain there are so many other ways that our “gadgets” are being used to help people’s lives. I am so exposed to technology as “gadgets” and “toys” but I think it’s important to learn how they are being used to help others. To reflect on how much of this technology is used as entertainment in my personal life is mind boggling. If more attention was turned toward the effectiveness of technology in medical and other areas, I believe we would place so much more value on them.

There wasn’t necessarily a topic that was not at all interesting to me. I would have to say when that reading on “memex” and “analogue” were a bit boring and I don’t remember much of what we talked about in those weeks. It was so far off and not relevant to my life (at least in my mind). My interest in topic choices progressively increased as the weeks went on. The later half of the course was much more enjoyable in my opinion!

Final (wk9) RR

Do a little bit of tweaking to your existing technology and use it at no cost to you? VoIP definitely gets my vote! Just in the idea that the Internet has adapted yet another communicative technology grabs my interest. The first time I was exposed to this technology was last year. My friend is in China for a long-term mission trip and he uses VoIP to make phone calls back home. Other than the minor setbacks such as amplified white noise and a 2-second delay in sound, this technology is definitely amazing.

With all new technology, VoIP definitely has its downfalls. The biggest concern for me is the issue of dependency and compatibility. Dependency is an issue since it doesn't have a stable power source of its own, it's more susceptible to hiccups, and the fact that you can't make emergency 911 calls. These downfalls aren't necessarily going to stop me from using this technology as of now. Since most people have alternative means of communication (most likely a cell phone), VoIP would be valuable to use at home.

The consistent rise of VoIP and an ultimate adaption into homes will definitely impact cable and telephone networks. The more VoIP technology advances itself and improves on the weaknesses, I assume more and more people will abandon their existing networks. Cable and telephone networks shouldn't fight this new technology. They should quickly find a way to collaborate and get the most out of their adoption onto the Internet.

DQ's

1. How fast do you think the adoption process to VoIP technology from the existing networks of homes be?

2. Do you think telephone and cable networks will be demolished by this new technology?

3. How do you think telephone and cable networks should react to the rise of VoIP?

WK 8 RR

Best's "The Wireless Revolution and Universal Access" was an overly technical yet intuitive reading nonetheless. Aside from the technicalities, reading on the potential impacts of wireless technology was highly appealing. "Imagine a telecommunications network – built from the bottom up…by a large number of small and local entrepreneurs…is inexpensive, responsive to local needs and realities, can grow organically and is fully scalable." How philosophical is that? Although I take advantage of wireless technology day in and day out, I never took into consideration the paradigms that are actually involved. Despite its simplicity, I believe it truly is a revolutionary invention. Another piece of information that grabbed my attention was the "Global Wi-Fi Policies." It was interesting to link each country's political situations with the regulations placed on Wi-Fi. It's nice to see that more and more countries are gaining access to such technologies. However, it makes me stop and think, "should technology be infused in every area in the world?"

But with each new technological advancement and adoption into "everyday life," the questions of necessity and dependency come into play. Personally, I feel like I woulnd't be able to function without my everday dose of Wi-Fi. So, how much is too much? Must every new technology evolve into a necessary evil?

DQ's

1. Should technology such as Wi-Fi be infused in every society worldwide? What are the negative and positive impacts of this?

2. How much does Wi-Fi contribute to the fast growing dependency on availability of information? In other words, how much is too much internet?

3. In the case that internet is available to all people all around the world, how would this impact the overall worldwide social networks?

May 11 - In Class

Going off of first impressions, I would have to say Mike McGavick's website won my eye's favor. It may have been the patriotic colors but in contrast to Cantwell's site, it looked more sophisticated. Cantwell's site has a "natural" feel to it with a template of warm colors, mixed with a big rotating banner on top. It's a little left of sophisticated in my opinion.

On McGavick's page, you see a sign that says "Get Involved!" Below you'll find a "donate" or "volunteer" area and where you can add your email address and zip code to receive e-mail updates of his campaign. There is also a "contact us" link provided. To the right of the website, there's an area for media through news, video and audio clips.

On the center of Cantwell's page, there is a "message from Maria Cantwell" where it provides an opportunity for the reader to add their name as a "citizen co-sponsor" in regards to the Roadless Area Conservation Act. You'll find more opportunities to get involved through "contribute" "volunteer" "photo gallery" "contact us" and "tell a friend" links. You can also sign up for email updates and a large icon for contributions.

On the topic of the Iraq War, Cantwell stated that her "priority is to push for international support in both building up and securing the economic infrastructure in Iraq." She generally seemed to support of the Iraq situation. She adds that "Whether people agreed or not about going into Iraq, you have to agree you want to see that be a stable region of the world," she said. "Everybody should support getting the Iraqi people on their feet."

McGavick also supports the Iraq situation. McGavick states that "it is foolish to announce a timetable for leaving because it reveals too much."

This was a fairly easy task since the topic is a popular one. I was able to read McGavick's position on the war directly on his site because it provided a place called "issues" where it lists out the positions he takes on certain issues.

Cantwell provides a more thorough explanation but I believe the reason for that is simply in the Democrat-Republican. It is almost "expected" that McGavick should take the same position that President Bush does on this matter. However, Cantwell is forced to elaborate her position on the war.

It's hard to say which candidate I trust more... I would probably have to say that despite my political position, Cantwell does seem a little more trustworthy. She takes a personal/intimate approach on matters. I do admire how both candidates are able to go against the grain on important matters and voice their personal positions on things.

EC Assignment - WK 7

I’ve learned a tiny bit about website aesthetics before so I really enjoyed reading more about it. It was really interesting to see how the smallest detail on a website can ultimately determine one’s political perspective. This of course happens subconsciously and only potentially. I recognized most of the details mentioned in this article because I’ve experienced the effects of both tasteful and distasteful aesthetics of a website. The one I connected to the most was our tendency to reject banners or anything that looks like advertisement. We’ve become such visual people over time. We judge, criticize, and make decisions upon what we see. Reading this article made me anticipate the websites of the future candidates and paying closer attention to how small details can have a direct connection to significant outcomes.

Week 7 RR

In Noam Scheiber’s “Organization Man,” the Internet is the essential tool for political advancements. Everyone is aware of the fact that the Internet was a revolutionary invention. However, what was interesting to me was the idea that the Internet was not used “only to raise money but to build the kind of community.” This was the key to their success. To build a community that shares a common interest and goal – a passion. Much different from television or print ads, the campaign turned out to be an “interactive” event through an online community. This is yet another article that hints at a “secondary superpower,” in another word – grassroots. The campaigners were the underdogs compared to their competition. There was no comparison between resources and “man power,” however they had the support of a grassroots community devoted to one goal.

Will print media inevitably die out? This is a bit of an overstatement in my opinion. I guess it really depends on how you look at it. Yes, subscriptions to newspapers and magazines have dwindled a bit. But they have not altogether disappeared. As we’ve learned, sometimes “the medium is the message.” In our case, the medium is the controversy. The internet has not wiped out print media; it has adopted them. Newspapers and other print media inevitably must find the medium that is accepted by the masses. The Internet will continue to be the primary means of information for the masses - that is until the “next best thing” is handed to us. In the mean time, other “outdated” news sources must find a way to transfer themselves onto an online template. This is exactly what is going on presently. Subscriptions to online print sources will inevitably increase. And naturally, all topics of life including politics will follow the same pattern; it will be accepted most efficiently online. The internet is doing much harm in some people’s eyes, but it’s doing more good than bad in my POV.

DQ's

1. What role do you see the Internet taking? Is it working against or with print media?

2. What new online methods do you see arising in the future in regards to politics and political campaigns?

3. Do you see a negative impact in the adoption of print media by online sources?

Week 6 RR

“Free…more about freedom than about cost.” This simple quote just about encompasses the core idea I was able to grasp from these readings. Previous to blogs and open sourcing, major sources of media such as newspapers, radio, and TV news “had points of view, reflecting the politics of their backers and owners.” Objectivity is an issue we all must grapple with as we are fed information all day, everyday. It’s amazing how one event can produce a million different responses, which is only natural; however what is being regurgitated back to us constantly through major news sources is just one of the many responses. Blogs definitely overthrow this notion as it provides an opportunity for individual writers to voice their thoughts without pressure. It is able to cut away at Monopoly and provide a platform for a diverse showcase of news.

How much power do blogs really hold though? “Winer has suggested that traditional journalism will wither in the face of what he helped spawn (blogs). In my opinion, I don’t believe this will come to pass. Blogs may provide refreshing truths apart from prescribed information; however credibility is not necessarily on the bloggers’ side. Blogs may have earned some favor overtime but as far as most of America is concerned, they probably much rather tune into CNN than Bob’s blog.

I love the idea of “more power to ya” nevertheless assumptions of a possible dark side does creep in at times. Open sourcing is definitely seen as a second superpower in the political spectrum. The idea of a balance of power may seem wonderful at first but are we sure we won’t see a media rendition of Lord of the Flies? On the contrary, the fact that open sourcing still needs money to operate on a grand scale, will blogs end up on the same boat as other media sources, unable to hold on to its power? I guess only time will tell…

DQ’s:

1. Do you think blogs will undergo more changes in terms of power and credibility?

2. Is there such thing as too much news? How do you think a possible overflow of news will effect the general public?

3. Do you see a possible “dark side” to open sourcing? Is there a need for “some” control even within open sourcing?