Heather's COM 300 Blog

Final Blog Post

2006-03-13T17:16:00.000-08:00

What is the most important thing you learned in this course? Why?
The most important thing I learned in this course over the quarter would have to be the societal impacts of new technologies. For the longest time, people choose to only see what they want to see. After taking this class, I now understand and see that our culture is only in a huge bundle of cultures. I realize that we are lucky to have the resources available to us and to be able to communicate the way that we do. I have learned about underprivileged people living in other countries who have never even touched a computer. After using a computer everyday to carry out every day tasks, the though of not having one seems unimaginable. For my personal knowledge, I believe that this is one of the most important things to take away from this class, and through learning about all the new and emerging types of media, only further shows how lucky we really are.

What topic would you like to have had more time to study? Why?
I would have really liked to study the creation of websites. Not only how to make them because I understand that this is a concepts course, but to know how websites are created and what goes into the thought behind the design would have been really interesting. We did a little bit of this in the extra-credit readings comparing Kerry & Bush's websites with one another, but further examination of websites would have really come in helpful. I think this is an important thing to study because websites now consume a huge aspect of our lives. We as Americans visit websites everyday, but not knowing how they work or how to write a simple line of html seems absurd. We read newspapers and magazines everyday, and we know how those are printed and how to write them. I feel that learning more about websites, and internet as a whole would be very beneficial.

What topic was least interesting to you? Why?
I really didn't like the unit on the open source software movement. The readings in this section were very difficult to read and understand, and the concepts were confusing. I still really don't understand the whole idea behind open source software, but felt that it was something that I was supposed to know what it was. I feel if this topic was presented in an easier to understand way, it could be very interesting. Because the GNU manifesto made absolutely no sense because we didn't have any background on what we were reading, it made this a very uninteresting unit.

VoIP VS. Cable & telephone networks

2006-02-27T09:57:00.000-08:00

After reading the article by Robert Valdes, it is evident that VoIP is a much more efficient, cost effective way of making phone conversations. It seems as though VoIP is going to eventually take over the telephone networks for making phone conversations within the home, especially long distance calls because of the obvious reasons. However, when I think about telephone networks, a lot of what I think about is cellular phone technology. I don't think that VoIP is going to replace all other kinds of currently established telephony technologies because of a few reasons. First of all, in order to make calls over VoIP one needs a computer and an internet connection. Many people don't have these recourses and/or don't prefer to use them. (Such as the elderly generation) Secondly, cell phones would be really hard to beat. It seems as though cell phone technology is skyrocketing, and everyday they are coming out with something new. Until they can get a computer with VoIP as small and portable as a cell phone, many people will not convert. Although Valdes discusses cell phones very briefly when discussing codecs, stating that cell phones are a type of technologies which employ digital to analog conversion, he never really discusses the impact of VoIP on cellular technologies.
Maybe this is his way of saying that sooner or later, VoIP is going to converge with many existing technologies. Instead of completely replacing today's already well established technologies, VoIP has an opportunity to be a great compliment to them. Overall I think that VoIP is an amazing technology, but it's going to take a long time for a lot of people to be able to switch over. Many people I know aren't even familiar with what VoIP is, let alone the benefits they have in using it.

Discussion Questions:
1) If fully adapted, how long do you think it will take VoIP to take over current telephone techonolgies, and what impact will this make?
2) Where do you see VoIP going in the future as far as portability, accessibility, etc.?
3) Does VoIP mean the end of all other communication technologies? Why or why not?

Cyberspace: Public Space vs. Accessibility Standards

2006-02-22T09:27:00.000-08:00

We would all like to think about cyberspace as a huge public space for people to be able to freely surf the web. But after reading the chapter by Best, it is obvious that this is not the case. For those of us fortunate to live in the US, and go to a large university, we most likely don't even think twice how lucky we are to have cyberspace constantly at our fingertips. Unfortunately, not everybody around the world is as fortunate as we are. Although the Internet is easily accessible to us, it is not that easy for people around the world. So yes, in a sense, cyberspace is a public space, but in another sense it is not. IF you have access to the internet, you may consider cyberspace a public space. But it takes a lot to get this access. As described in Best's chapter, one of the biggest problems is the expense of paying for rural areas around to world to receive access; let alone who is going to pay for these expenses. Another drawback is the policies set forth by what the government allows. Although Best stated that the cost of these technologies continue to drop, it doesn't seem to make it any easier to provide access to rural areas. All together, it seems as though cyberspace is gradually becoming more of a public space (public being a reference to world wide use) but it's taking a lot of time and money to get there. Since we all use the world wide web everyday... eveybody in the world should be able to freely use it as well.

Discussion Questions:
1) Will we ever be able to provide Internet access to all rural areas around the world? What impact will this have?
2) How do the rural communities that are receiving internet access reacting? What impact does this make on them?
3) Will technologies ever be affordable enough to provide world wide service? Will new technologies continue to emerge that are expensive because they are new? How do we know what to accept and what to decline?

Extra Credit: The Race of Web Sites 2004

2006-02-13T10:12:00.000-08:00

First of all, I found it really interesting that this study was done from the point of view of an unaligned voter, and a committed voter. This is something that I would have never even thought of doing. I also found it really interesting the different things that were looked at from the two perspectives. I believe this is a really good way to get the point of view from the majority of people who would look at the web sites. It was interesting to read about what the setup of the different sites say about those who may visit them most often (such as their demographics). After reading this article, I agree that "good Web site architecture anticipates the information that a potential voter might want to find and then structures the site to make it as easy as possible to succeed." I think that in these days of ever changing technology, it is really important to have a well put together, easy to use/understand website. People today will click away from a website within minutes if it is too difficult for them simply because there are so many other options, why would they waste their time having troubles with one? If a user can't find the information they are looking for on a certain site, they will most likely navigate somewhere else, and in this case, that somewhere else could very well be an opponents website. All in all, I found "the verdict" as described by Gill to ring true. It was interesting that Kerry's site seemed to outperform Bush's, but this obviously wasn't in a way that truly mattered to those who visited the sites. A future study on the next presidential websites in contrast to these previous ones would be really interesting to read about.

Internet Technology and Politics

2006-02-13T09:46:00.000-08:00

I feel that internet technology has greatly changed the way the politics has worked over the years. I agree that the internet is a medium through which campaigns can raise money and support. I feel like when it comes to politics, there are many Americans who are sort of 'middle of the road.' Meaning that they may support one thing or another, but they aren't incredibly passionate to the point that they're going to go out and physically do something in support of their side. Therefore, the Internet is a very good way to get these people (referred to as the 'number 2 people' in Scheiber's article) more involved without making them get out of their homes. They are able to stay at home, yet still play an active role in politics.

I also thought the idea that "using ever more detailed data, a computer can tell you exactly how much certain demographic characteristics increase a person's likelihood of voting - and of voting a certain way." This really made me think how amazing technology has really gotten. It seems as though eventually, through computers, campaigns will be able to individually target certain people and know exactly what they want, therefore they will be able to cater to their needs/wants/concerns. The Internet will eventually get more people to vote, because it will be easier for them to be informed. I believe a main reason why people abstain from voting on certain things/people is because they do not feel like they are informed enough on a certain topic to make a decision.

I also fee like different political blogs could have a major impact on how certain candidates run their campaign. Those who are running could easily go onto an opposing blog to see what the people are saying/thinking about them and change their campaign to target their concerns.

I agree with a lot of what these authors had to say. In the article by Riedel et al. there were many points made that made a lot of sense. The main point that I agree with was that "most people use the Internet in conjunction with other national and local news sources." I feel that this is true in many cases, such as if somebody sees something interesting on their local TV news, they are able to go onto the Internet site for that station and discover more about what they are specifically interested about. This goes along with their idea that "on the Internet, users can actively select stores they want to explore and, with the help of Web links, find extensive information from the past and present about these stories." I believe that many of the hypotheses of this study are true, but would like to see a study that was conducted in a larger area. I feel that this maybe had an effect on the results because they were not nationwide.

Discussion Questions:
1) Most of the discussed impacts the internet has on politics have been positive; are there any negative effects? If so what? And why might these effects occur?
2) In our daily lives is the Internet used in conjunction with other news sources? Why do we think this is and what are some examples of how this happens?
3) What are some more ways that the internet be used to help to support/damage someone's political campaign?

Implications of Blogging Technology

2006-02-06T10:15:00.000-08:00

I found the article by Gillmor to be very interesting. The way that the world talked about 9/11 through online blogs not only that day but for days to come was pretty amazing. I also liked the idea that with the internet "we had a medium that was anything we wanted it to be: one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many." This is the way that I like to think about blogging technology. Our class is a good example of how we use blogging technology as a one-to-many, many-to-many communication medium. It's crazy how it can be anything we want it to be.

As far as the implications of blogging technology on already established media, I also think the article by Gillmore did a good job of portraying this. Although we have TV and radio to tell us the news, there's nothing like being able to talk about things from our perspectives. I think that the major difference between the blogging technologies and already established media is that the blogging is so very personal. One has the opportunity to say whatever they want, and just about anybody can read what they have to say. It's also a very good way to keep in touch, as the article shows, when already established media is down or not working. I don't really think that something like blogging technology will take over any of the already established media, I only think that it will help to improve it. As stated in the Gillmore article, blogging can be a very useful resource for reporters, but in the end, the reporter still works for a newspaper or television station.

Discussion Questions:
1) How did you use media technologies after 9/11, and did it change anything in the way that you communicated?
2) Is blogging really that impactful? Or is other already established media always going to win?
3) How does blogging effect one's everyday life? What are the different ways in which blogging can be useful?

Extra Credit: Open Source Sowftware

2006-01-30T10:47:00.000-08:00

While reading Clay Shirky's writings about the internet, many interesting things came to mind. The first thing I thought about is how quickly the internet is and has been growing. The article talks about the 'new' creations in social software when there are new ones being created each day. With things such as 'the facebook' and 'myspace' there are different types of programs that many people probably couldn't have ever imagined. But again, after thinking this the article stated that "social software has progressed far less quickly than single-user software, in part because we have a much better idea of how to improve user experience than group experience." And this does make sense, because although new kinds of social software are coming out all the time, it seems as though there are constant improvements being made. I feel as though a lot of the software that comes out starts at it's bare minimum, in order to see how users react. It really must be difficult to study the group experience rather that the single user experience, but I think that part of the way they do this is to look at general trends within the individuals who themselves form the group.

I also found it interesting when the article stated that "no matter how much the administrators say its 'for work', people will bend communications tools to social uses." I feel that this may be true in some cases, but I also feel like so much of the social software out there isn't created for work use but rather for people's enjoyment and personal use. If this statement is referring to the computer or the internet, then yes, but I feel like these things are both tools for work and social uses. I found this article to be very interesting, and it brought up a lot about social software that I hadn't previously thought about.

Open Source Software Movement

2006-01-29T22:16:00.000-08:00

I think it's really important for communication scholars to study the open source software movement. I think it would be interesting for scholars to study many aspects of the open source software from the technologies point of view and also a interpersonal point of view. As programmers collaborate on the software it creates relationships. As Stallman states, "creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results." I feel that the open source software movement is also a social happening between programmers.
I also think that the open source software can be very benificial for many individuals.
The idea of a free program as Stallman envisions is really interesting, and he's able to answer any doubts on his idea. The idea of programmer's sharing their software and nothing being secret any more is very noteworthy. If the open source software movement is studied, there could very well be many advancements made. Although it seems as if there are a lot of kinks to work out in order for it to be free, it is a good plan.

Discussion questions:
1. UNIX: how does it work and how is it different from GNU?
2. Is there anything out there that is similar to GNU? How many different ones?
3. After questioning if communication scholars should study the open software movement makes one wonder if they already have? Have there already been studies done? What have they found?

Man-Machine Relationship

2006-01-23T09:18:00.000-08:00

I had never really thought much about a man-machine relationship before reading the article by Norman. I wanted to talk a little bit about his idea that humans "are analog devices following biological modes of operation." I found his theory interesting because as I said I had never thought of comparing humans to machines. It is true in the end of the article when Norman states that "people excel at qualitative considerations, machines at quantitative ones." But how true? I found the comparison interesting throughout the article because it was slightly funny to me. People made computers. Machines wouldn't be in existence without man. There has to be some sort of correlation between the inventor and the product that comes of it. All of the things that Norman said seem very true and accurate to me, but what does it really matter how alike/dislike humans are with machines. My view on the man-machine relationship is that if we are capable enough to operate a machine, then that's as much as we need. There are some people who will invent new machines and teach the people how to use it. But I feel that comparing a human to a machine is slightly foolish, because it's like comparing a cat to a cell phone. Two things that don't really correlate too much, but if you read way too far into it you may come up with a lot of information by comparing and contrasting to two. This isn't to say that I didn't think that what Norman had to say was at all inaccurate, but it just makes me wonder why he even bothered.
Zuckerman and McLaughlin basically showed me that there is so much that I don't know. I've always known the 'surface' information such as IP address, and HTML, but I've never known what so many of those stand for. The most interesting thing that I got from this article was the path that an e-mail takes when sent from one person to another. I feel like today, without machines, people would have a hard time surviving. After reading all the different machines the packets from one e-mail have to travel through it seems amazing that it's even possible. There was a lot from this article which was hard for me to understand simply because I had a lot of new vocabulary thrown at me at once, but it was helpful to understand how the internet really works.

Discussion Questions:
1. How will that man-machine relationship evolve in the future 100 years?
2. If, as discussed by Norman, it is true that "we live in a technology-centered world where the technology is not appropriate for people." do we think that this is eventually going to get out of control? Or are the people going to learn how to adapt to the ever changing technology of our world?
3. Do we really think there exists this whole man-machine relationship as extreme as Norman describes? Is he accurate? Would you argue some of his claims?

Information Overload

2006-01-17T22:23:00.000-08:00

Use this week's readings to reflect on how your life is affected by information (too much? too little? or just enough?)

After learning more about the concept of information overload, I have come to see the many parts of my life that are affected by information. The readings mainly focused on the internet and search engines when it comes to information overload. I was reading about the different kinds of problems and possible solutions while thinking about how my life is affected by information. I believe that my life as a whole is affected just enough by information, but when it comes to the different aspects of my life, some are affected too much, some too little. One obvious factor of my life that is affected by information overload is when it comes to school. It sometimes gets difficult balancing three different subjects in school when there is so much information coming at me every day. At times it becomes too much to the point where I have to take a step back simply think about everything... my different classes, my notes, my homework etc. in order to handle the information overload. I have also experienced information overload in my life when it comes to keeping up with current events. It seems that new information is always coming at me so fast that it's really hard to keep track of what's going on in the world today. Unfortunately sometimes this information is too much to handle so I chose to avoid most aspects all together and only watch one news station or only read the paper. The rest of my life isn't too cluttered with information overload so I believe, that as a whole, my life is affected just enough by information.

3 Discussion Questions:
1. How do we view the future of search engines? Is Google going to take over the market or will there be many more to come?
2. Knowing that there are many causes to information overload, how do we think that the problem will ultimately be solved? What solution seems most logical?
3. What other aspects of new media besides the internet are affected by information?

January 9th Blog #1

2006-01-09T09:19:00.000-08:00

One “ah-ha” was found in the readings by Fidler, and has to do with the first computers. Although I had always heard that the first computers were developed by and for the military, I had never really learned the details of the invention. I found it incredible how massively huge this machine was and how little it actually did. Although at the time this must have been an amazing device, today it seems funny; because if I saw a machine as Fidler describes, I would not label it a computer. The reading also widened my view of what a ‘computer’ actually is. Whenever I hear ‘computer’ I automatically think of a personal computer, not realizing that computers these days are tiny, and they are everywhere from cars to washing machines.
Another “ah-ha” that I got from Fidler was about the origins of the internet. The fact that “no government or commercial entity owns the Net or directly profits from its operation. It has no president, chief executive officer, or central headquarters.” was really interesting, and realized that in fact the net, is something that it just there, or simply exists. I also never knew that the early stages of the internet were referred to as the ARPANET. I again found that it was mostly used for military purposes. It would be interesting to further research many of today’s technologies, and find how much actually stems from the military.
When comparing Vannevar’s idea of the “memex” with today’s personal computer and internet, many similarities and differences can be found. First of all, the physical set up of the memex sounds much like today’s personal computer. When using a computer you are usually at some sort of a desk, with a keyboard in front of you, and a screen. Today’s computer does not have “sets of buttons and levers” besides the keyboard itself and maybe a mouse. They are both similar in that they both can “store all books, records, and communications, and may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility.” The internet, and computers are where we store many things; many people use computers as their daily calendars, and also resources for going about their daily lives. Hospitals are run by computers which store all their patient’s records and information.
The memex seems to be a combination of today’s personal computer and the internet. A difference is that much of Vannevar’s idea consists of using microfilm, which obviously is not how computers work today. What was interesting, is that his idea of ‘trails’ sounds a lot like today’s internet ‘links.’ One link, can lead to another, which can lead to another and in turn creates a web of endless information, and help people to find any type of information they are looking for. Although there are many differences, the basic principles of Vannevar’s memex are very similar to that of today’s personal computer and the internet.
Seeing how quickly technology has always been changing, and things are always getting more portable, I see the internet in 2045 as being everywhere. People will pull devices out of their pocket and be able to look up anything, and the world wouldn’t function as easily without the internet. Every car will have and internet connection inside it for easy transportation purposes. Many things such as television and the radio will be fully converged with the internet and will run simultaneously. In general, in the year 2045, I see the internet being much more portable, smaller, and widely dispersed.