Hrm...first thing this reading says, is that digital natives are defined here as children born after 1980. That's a different definition from what Prensky gave me...THIS ONE makes me a digital native, since I was born in '87.
Anyway, moving on...
This reading has made me view the world in a different light. I can see, quite clearly now, how much our world has changed from even 10 years ago when the new millennium was on its way in. We live in a world COMPLETELY different from the '90s.
The way we access information is different, the way we share music and information is different, and the way we interact with each other is different. Our whole civilization has changed around. Yet, when combining my two previous readings with this one, I gotta say, the older generation has a hard time accepting these new changes.
You know what said this the most? The whole bit about downloading music illegally. How could something so hated and loathed by the older generation, something so illegal and SO cracked-down on, still be so prevalent in this new world we created? Because it's a world outside the physical, and this means the laws of physical concepts do not apply. There are now an INFINITE number of possible ways we can supply music (and other information) to one another, and this, I believe, will eventually force its way into a normal lifestyle (if it hasn't already). I honestly do not believe music sharing on the internet will be illegal forever. Eventually, as the old generation gives way to the new, digital one, we will have no choice but to accept it as part of our new civilization..because I believe that is exactly what we created. A civilization with so many new possibilities, that new rules COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the old will need to be made.
And you know what else? The old generation has no way of preventing this. They have two choices--accept this new world we've created, or be left behind. They can't force the old ways on this generation, because it's opened way too many doors; it's too late to close them all.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Digital Natives Part 2
Again, I did a separate post for these two parts because the matter I'm talking about here wasn't necessarily related to what I spoke of previously.
The thing that stood out most to me in this part was the bit about the attention span of digital natives. Anyone who knows me well knows I have ADD, and this article served as a staunch reminder of how ADD children and other children who struggle with attention span can conquer it through the use of digital technology.
I think digital media it EXTREMELY important for today's children in the school environment, because from what Prensky says, it teaches one thing that school don't typically teach: MULTITASKING. We were NEVER allowed to multitask in public school--if we tried, we would be accused of disrupting class or not paying attention, and told to focus SPECIFICALLY on what the teacher was talking about. Not only does multitasking keep attention spans going, but it's a practical skill that will be used in real life, and it could program the kids to retain more information at one given time. Wanna know what I remember most from grade school? Michigan had a fight with Ohio over the Toledo Strip." Wanna know what I remember most from middle school? "Japan got nuked twice in WWII"
Wanna know what I remember most about high school? The radio station I worked at in between my classes, and numerous pranks I pulled after figuring out that quiet students never get in trouble.
College has been the ONLY PLACE that has encouraged multitasking, and even that's a stretch, because it differs from teacher to teacher.
Do I think this generation's brain has changed? Yes, I do. Do I think the educational system needs to adapt to this change?
FUCK YES I do.
The thing that stood out most to me in this part was the bit about the attention span of digital natives. Anyone who knows me well knows I have ADD, and this article served as a staunch reminder of how ADD children and other children who struggle with attention span can conquer it through the use of digital technology.
I think digital media it EXTREMELY important for today's children in the school environment, because from what Prensky says, it teaches one thing that school don't typically teach: MULTITASKING. We were NEVER allowed to multitask in public school--if we tried, we would be accused of disrupting class or not paying attention, and told to focus SPECIFICALLY on what the teacher was talking about. Not only does multitasking keep attention spans going, but it's a practical skill that will be used in real life, and it could program the kids to retain more information at one given time. Wanna know what I remember most from grade school? Michigan had a fight with Ohio over the Toledo Strip." Wanna know what I remember most from middle school? "Japan got nuked twice in WWII"
Wanna know what I remember most about high school? The radio station I worked at in between my classes, and numerous pranks I pulled after figuring out that quiet students never get in trouble.
College has been the ONLY PLACE that has encouraged multitasking, and even that's a stretch, because it differs from teacher to teacher.
Do I think this generation's brain has changed? Yes, I do. Do I think the educational system needs to adapt to this change?
FUCK YES I do.
Digital Natives, Part 1
So I just got finished reading Prensky's article about Digital Natives (I've decided to do part 2 in a separate post because it talks about a different branch that needs to be addressed separately).
I hate to admit, but I absolutely did not think of this. It's true, there really is a communicative gap between the digital generation and the pre-digital generation.
I'm not sure which category I fall under...as I read this, I spent the whole time trying to identify if I was pre-digital or digital. Technically, as a child I grew up with DOS computers, and was first exposed to the internet in middle school. You would think that would make me a digital immigrant, since I wasn't exactly born into the generation...
Yet all the lingo that was described by Prensky in her article indicates that I'm more native than immigrant...I was a ravenous book reader as a child, but when video games came out I latched onto them right away, and I've absorbed the digital way of life easily and quickly into my lifestyle. The internet became my primary source for research and information, and while I was a late bloomer I did eventually absorb the social aspects of the digital age as well. So I ACT like a native...but my history places me as an immigrant. This begs the question, how accurate are Prensky's standards? What about the people who completely adopted the lifestyle halfway in, who live by it and have forgotten the old ways? Are we still immigrants? Is there a better way to determine who belongs to the digital age, and who belongs to the pre-digital? IT's something to think about.
I hate to admit, but I absolutely did not think of this. It's true, there really is a communicative gap between the digital generation and the pre-digital generation.
I'm not sure which category I fall under...as I read this, I spent the whole time trying to identify if I was pre-digital or digital. Technically, as a child I grew up with DOS computers, and was first exposed to the internet in middle school. You would think that would make me a digital immigrant, since I wasn't exactly born into the generation...
Yet all the lingo that was described by Prensky in her article indicates that I'm more native than immigrant...I was a ravenous book reader as a child, but when video games came out I latched onto them right away, and I've absorbed the digital way of life easily and quickly into my lifestyle. The internet became my primary source for research and information, and while I was a late bloomer I did eventually absorb the social aspects of the digital age as well. So I ACT like a native...but my history places me as an immigrant. This begs the question, how accurate are Prensky's standards? What about the people who completely adopted the lifestyle halfway in, who live by it and have forgotten the old ways? Are we still immigrants? Is there a better way to determine who belongs to the digital age, and who belongs to the pre-digital? IT's something to think about.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
My Analysis
McKinna Meeuwsen
09/21/2010
Rhetorical Analysis FINAL
The Ballad of Magellan: An Analysis
The Ballad of Magellan can probably be recognized by anyone who watched cartoons in the 1990s. It is a comedic song about the voyage of Magellan and his crew, and it comes from a popular cartoon called Animaniacs; and now, it has moved out of the television and onto the internet, at youtube.com, where it has become a digital video and a throwback to the 90s. But what makes it such a significant example of digital media?
There are two ways in which this video is significant in the digital world. First of all, it demonstrates the usefulness of today’s technology—that something can be transferred from a television to the internet, where it becomes more available to a wide array of users, is truly invaluable. Not only that, but instead of being available only for a certain time, a popular cartoon clip is now available on demand; you no longer have to wait until 3:30 pm to watch it, when it can now be viewed whenever you please. The second way in which this particular video is significant is that not only is it an entertaining song, but also a useful educational tool. This information can be taken from the viewer comments that follow every YouTube video, and these details will be discussed later.
For now, what needs to be established is, does this video qualify as a form of digital media? There are several sources that can be found that provide criteria for qualifying as digital media: BusinessDictionary.com states that digital media is defined as being “Digitized content (text, graphics, audio, and video) that can be transmitted over internet or computer networks.” The Ballad of Magellan, being a video uploaded by an internet user onto a website, fits this rule perfectly. A second definition provided by The Free Dictionary (Encyclopedia2.com) reads off 3 different descriptions, two of which follow the video’s characteristics: “Any type of information stored in the computer, including data, voice and video,” is one such definition. The other reads: “The news from a TV network, newspaper or magazine that is presented on a Web site or blog.” All of these factors describe the video very well.
There are other traits that make it similar to other forms of digital media—Andrew Sullivan once described the traits of blogging, calling them “spontaneous expression[s] of instant thought,” and describing the fundamental trait of a blog as being susceptible to review and criticism by anyone. The YouTube video shares these traits as well: not only are internet videos spontaneous postings and instantly available upon the clicking of a button, but they are subject also to criticism from millions of users. Like blogs, internet videos play in an open field—so The Ballad of Magellan fits Sullivan’s example as well. The video also has a lot of the traits that were discussed in class—it does, in fact, consist of digitized code, and the viewer must utilize computer technology (in this case, the internet) in order to access it. Accessibility is through a PC, and availability is virtually global. All these factors can qualify this video as digital media.
Now that I’ve established that The Ballad of Magellan is, in fact, digital media (its YouTube form, at least), I am now in a better position to discuss the video content itself, and why it has uses both as a form of entertainment as well as a form of education. The song is sung by three characters known as the Animaniacs, and the music narrates the tale of how Magellan sailed with a small fleet of ships and circumnavigated the globe as he searched for a western passage to the East Indies. Poking fun at the story, it describes how Magellan and his crew constantly arrive at new lands, only to experience disappointment as they turn out to be Argentina, Chile, and Guam…but never the East Indies. In the end, Magellan himself is slain by Philippine natives (off-camera), and his crew point out to his ghost where the East Indies were located. The manner in which all of this is done is highly comedic, and the musical factor (particularly the lyrics) adds to what becomes a very humorous retelling of the famous voyage (although the story here ends at Magellan’s death).
Entertainment aside, there is also an educational angle to this video…and this educational value can actually be confirmed by the many viewer comments that follow the video at the bottom of the page. After scrolling through several pages of comments, I found that there were a large number of people who wrote that this video was played in their history class—some were grade school, some were middle school, and one was even in high school. It can be speculated from this that teachers see the educational value of using a humorous song to teach children something important. This video is also an important teaching tool because, as digital media, it is widely accessible to teachers with today’s current school technology making it that much more valuable.
As a YouTube video, The Ballad of Magellan has a huge audience available to it, but the majority of the audience likely consists of people who watched a lot of cartoons in the 90s—without a description or a detailed title, most users browsing YouTube would only click on it if they were familiar with Animaniacs. I myself came across this video while I was searching different clips of my favorite cartoons. It is likely that most of the video’s audience was doing the same thing. For this reason, the range of audience itself is limited—it will not become a “viral video,” or an internet sensation…but it will remain, to its viewers, a tribute to what cartoons used to be nearly two decades ago.
What still remains a mystery is why the YouTube member who posted it decided to upload it in the first place. Not only is the content known to a relatively small group of viewers, but uploading an existing cartoon clip owned by a company is not permitted by YouTube and can be risky to the uploader—often, copyrighted videos are removed and the users banned if a company makes a claim. YouTube is home to millions of videos, and while many are homemade, many others are clips of copyrighted television shows or films…you can find Scrubs clips, Samurai Jack clips, and even a ten minute clip from the movie Iron Man, all on YouTube, and this has given rise to a host of copyright issues and lawsuits. This has become a growing issue as digital media’s influence continues to spread, and The Ballad of Magellan is no exception; there is no telling if it will stay on YouTube. The fact that it is subject to the same copyright laws as any other example of digital media is further proof of its qualification.
With all these details given, I think I can safely say I’ve managed to prove how significant a piece this video truly is. Not only in the sense of the digital world, but also in the entertainment world and in the educational world. As something that is both funny and educational to viewers of any age, it is a marvel that such a piece can be digitized and made available and accessible to millions of people worldwide, and on a whim. It is truly an example of how valuable digital technology has become to our increasingly-wired world. We can only guess how digital media and its role in this world will evolve.
REFERENCES
"Copyright Infringment Notification." YouTube.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy>.
"Digital Media Definition." BusinessDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/digital-media.html>.
"Digital Media Definition." The Free Dictionary. The Computer Language Company Inc., 2009. Web. <http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/digital+media>.
Sullivan, Andrew. "Why I Blog." Atlantic Magazine (2008): 1. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/why-i-blog/7060/>.
"YouTube law fight 'threatens net'." BBC News (2008): 1. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7420955.stm>.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Word of the Year
So I decided to look up one of the insane words in last week's readings, and chose my new word of the year: imbroglio. Yes, I chose it because it sounds funny--ridiculously funny. What's even funnier is its definition.
From dictionary.com:
Show IPA
From dictionary.com:
im·bro·glio
[im-brohl-yoh] Show IPA–noun, plural -glios.
1.
a misunderstanding, disagreement, etc., of a complicated orbitter nature, as between persons or nations.
2.
an intricate and perplexing state of affairs; a complicated ordifficult situation.
3.
a confused heap.
Also, embroglio.
Personally, I think the 3rd description is the best....a confused heap? Does that mean imbroglio is just a fancy word for clusterfuck? Now THAT'S an excuse not to swear!
OK...I admit I like this one...
So after being forced to pay $10 to buy a freaking book I would only be required to post on once (hooray, I've upgraded from wasting time to wasting time AND money!) and not knowing if it would have any use hereafter, I have to say I actually like the book. Not enough that it was worth the money, I suppose, but enough that I actually can't complain too much beyond the principle of the issue, and not much for the book itself. In fact, so much did it NOT suck, I've decided to withhold my usual rant about posting on garbage and actually talk about what I liked about this book...because I actually liked a lot of things.
First, the book's design...after pissing and moaning to myself about having to read an entire book of boring text in a matter of a day (since my book only just CAME today) I opened it and was pleasantly surprised. The layout of text was unorthodox enough to keep my attention, and instead of being filled with text it actually contained primarily illustrations, photos, and numerous graphic designs that were left to the judgement of the reader. The sheer randomness, yes purposeful order, of this book caught me off guard and was a breath of fresh air, especially after that last reading where the author tried to sound smart by using a shitload of big words. No, this piece didn't need special words to get its points across--the pictures do the job just as well (of course, when you reach the end, you'll also find on one of th final pages that the author's point is summed up...but I still recommend you read the entire book so you don't miss out on the quality of the substance it carries).
And that main point was how the changes in trends of media have changed the way society and culture interacts with one another...both on a micro and on a macro scale. Books used to be a universal form of medium...the bible is a good example of this. But then the phone, TV, and radio came around, and suddenly cultures and communities became more localized as people's attention's (and therefore, ways of life) became more focused on the micro scale as they became more aware of the current events close to them. Now we have the internet, which has given us both worlds...involvement and awareness on both a micro AND a macro scale! While we are now connected to the entire world (or most of it), we also have more accessible ways of staying up to date with our local communities as well. Facebook and email serve these purposes well, respectively.
I think the biggest thing I took from this book was the point of how different media becomes different extensions of our senses...books are an extension of the eye...the radio is an extension of the ear...the internet could be an extension of the mouth, for sure! It makes me see different media from a whole new perspective. That this book could make me respect digital and electronic media even more, is a great testament to how well it's written--and I have a better way, I think, of making sure I no longer take the information I receive for granted.
First, the book's design...after pissing and moaning to myself about having to read an entire book of boring text in a matter of a day (since my book only just CAME today) I opened it and was pleasantly surprised. The layout of text was unorthodox enough to keep my attention, and instead of being filled with text it actually contained primarily illustrations, photos, and numerous graphic designs that were left to the judgement of the reader. The sheer randomness, yes purposeful order, of this book caught me off guard and was a breath of fresh air, especially after that last reading where the author tried to sound smart by using a shitload of big words. No, this piece didn't need special words to get its points across--the pictures do the job just as well (of course, when you reach the end, you'll also find on one of th final pages that the author's point is summed up...but I still recommend you read the entire book so you don't miss out on the quality of the substance it carries).
And that main point was how the changes in trends of media have changed the way society and culture interacts with one another...both on a micro and on a macro scale. Books used to be a universal form of medium...the bible is a good example of this. But then the phone, TV, and radio came around, and suddenly cultures and communities became more localized as people's attention's (and therefore, ways of life) became more focused on the micro scale as they became more aware of the current events close to them. Now we have the internet, which has given us both worlds...involvement and awareness on both a micro AND a macro scale! While we are now connected to the entire world (or most of it), we also have more accessible ways of staying up to date with our local communities as well. Facebook and email serve these purposes well, respectively.
I think the biggest thing I took from this book was the point of how different media becomes different extensions of our senses...books are an extension of the eye...the radio is an extension of the ear...the internet could be an extension of the mouth, for sure! It makes me see different media from a whole new perspective. That this book could make me respect digital and electronic media even more, is a great testament to how well it's written--and I have a better way, I think, of making sure I no longer take the information I receive for granted.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Here's a swing. Hope it's not a miss.
So yeah, it took awhile to figure out what this reading meant:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html
So I'm trying to think of it in terms of digital media. I'm just amazed I actually encountered a word I had to look up. So, anyway, here's my attempt at an interpretation.
I can see that the author is seeing a threat with digital media becoming a new form of simulacrum, the threat being that reality itself is starting to become blurred. Digital media, after all, is different from maps, books, or even music, in that whenever a simulation of anything real is digitally made it can be copied over and over again, remade, remastered, redone. You can create a simulation of a simulation of a simulation. When something is simulated so many times from the real thing, over time I can imagine that the reality itself becomes very hard to perceive--almost getting lost in all the translation. I think Wikipedia is a good example of this--Wikipedia has become a popular source of information, even though the reality that information portrays is changing every day with different people entering different perspectives. In the end, which part of that Wikipedia article is actually true, and which part just came from a bunch of vague sources of the information in an overly-generalized form (generalized enough that the parts of the truth are eventually lost)? I could even see Google Earth going down this path. How many road maps on the internet do you see that are Google Earth? And some areas of Google Earth are dated, while others aren't--leading to discrepancies in the reality of the Earth's layout (my folks' house does not appear on Google Earth...nor does the field beside us. It was woods--clearly shot before that area was developed).
For this reason, while digital media is certainly a blessing (with more and more information becoming available worldwide), it can equally become a curse if it's relied upon too much. We must not forget the real world exists, and that some truths we can only find if we search reality for it, and not the Web.
Of course, had Magellan had Google Earth at his disposal (or even Wikipedia), this might not have happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM-igYjn6E4
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html
So I'm trying to think of it in terms of digital media. I'm just amazed I actually encountered a word I had to look up. So, anyway, here's my attempt at an interpretation.
I can see that the author is seeing a threat with digital media becoming a new form of simulacrum, the threat being that reality itself is starting to become blurred. Digital media, after all, is different from maps, books, or even music, in that whenever a simulation of anything real is digitally made it can be copied over and over again, remade, remastered, redone. You can create a simulation of a simulation of a simulation. When something is simulated so many times from the real thing, over time I can imagine that the reality itself becomes very hard to perceive--almost getting lost in all the translation. I think Wikipedia is a good example of this--Wikipedia has become a popular source of information, even though the reality that information portrays is changing every day with different people entering different perspectives. In the end, which part of that Wikipedia article is actually true, and which part just came from a bunch of vague sources of the information in an overly-generalized form (generalized enough that the parts of the truth are eventually lost)? I could even see Google Earth going down this path. How many road maps on the internet do you see that are Google Earth? And some areas of Google Earth are dated, while others aren't--leading to discrepancies in the reality of the Earth's layout (my folks' house does not appear on Google Earth...nor does the field beside us. It was woods--clearly shot before that area was developed).
For this reason, while digital media is certainly a blessing (with more and more information becoming available worldwide), it can equally become a curse if it's relied upon too much. We must not forget the real world exists, and that some truths we can only find if we search reality for it, and not the Web.
Of course, had Magellan had Google Earth at his disposal (or even Wikipedia), this might not have happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM-igYjn6E4
Thursday, September 9, 2010
What The Hell?
OK, I just finished reading Always Already Clear by Lisa Gitelman. All I have to say is, what the Hell is this gibberish? I have NO IDEA what this person is babbling about, and I am completely lost as to what significant point this bozo is trying to make.
First the author tries to explain a little about how far back the history of the Internet (and the idea of the internet) goes, which is apparently discovered through the use of a now-archaic (and probably uncared for) method of screening of microfilms back in the late 80s. Apparently, according to this wildly-accurate old system, the idea of the internet stretched as far back as 1854. Oh yeah, that's believable, because we all know that they had computers, fiber optics, and all sorts of other great technology back then, didn't they? I mean, aside from the black powder weapons and steam engines. I can just picture it now:
"Hey, what if we could connect the whole world together through technology via something I've just decided to hypothetically call a computer??"
"Great idea! What's a computer?"
"I don't know. Say, could I borrow your horse later to go to town? I have to buy some ethernet cables from the blacksmith!"
I'm sorry, but the Civil War hadn't even begun yet, and they hadn't yet even invented the damn television. The biggest (and hottest) piece of technology that would hit them within the decade would be a freakin' BOAT sporting METAL ARMOR. Why on earth would they think about connecting the world with that sort of focus in mind?
Not surprisingly, the writer then goes on to talk about how there was a mistake in the scanning, and apparently thought the word "interest" meant "internet." So apparently the idea of the internet DIDN'T exist in 1854 after all (told you so). Then, for the next few pages, it went on to talk about this nonexistent history of the internet as if it actually existed. It was like the author got bonked on the head from a random, falling brick (probably dropped by someone who read one of her previous articles), suffered a short-term memory loss, looked at her paper and thought to herself "Hot diggity, the internet was thought of in 1854? COOL!", and starting writing about it until suddenly her brain decided to wake up, kick its memory cells in the ass, and remind her "Hey, idiot, it DIDN'T happen."
By this point I was absolutely clueless as to what was going on, and I have to say, the rest of the reading didn't help or even give me a direction to take. I'll be honest: I actually gave up 15 pages in, because at that point I became convinced that I could take nothing from this article, and I will probably just have an easier time listening to the class talk about it and twiddling my thumbs. It would be far more time-effective if I just did that, instead of sit here and spend hours upon hours trying to decipher the pig latin that was spewed from the brain of a chronic amnesiac.
I'm going to go to class now, and actually try to LEARN something before I encounter another reading that turns me into a jaw-dropped drool monkey from sheer WTF.
First the author tries to explain a little about how far back the history of the Internet (and the idea of the internet) goes, which is apparently discovered through the use of a now-archaic (and probably uncared for) method of screening of microfilms back in the late 80s. Apparently, according to this wildly-accurate old system, the idea of the internet stretched as far back as 1854. Oh yeah, that's believable, because we all know that they had computers, fiber optics, and all sorts of other great technology back then, didn't they? I mean, aside from the black powder weapons and steam engines. I can just picture it now:
"Hey, what if we could connect the whole world together through technology via something I've just decided to hypothetically call a computer??"
"Great idea! What's a computer?"
"I don't know. Say, could I borrow your horse later to go to town? I have to buy some ethernet cables from the blacksmith!"
I'm sorry, but the Civil War hadn't even begun yet, and they hadn't yet even invented the damn television. The biggest (and hottest) piece of technology that would hit them within the decade would be a freakin' BOAT sporting METAL ARMOR. Why on earth would they think about connecting the world with that sort of focus in mind?
Not surprisingly, the writer then goes on to talk about how there was a mistake in the scanning, and apparently thought the word "interest" meant "internet." So apparently the idea of the internet DIDN'T exist in 1854 after all (told you so). Then, for the next few pages, it went on to talk about this nonexistent history of the internet as if it actually existed. It was like the author got bonked on the head from a random, falling brick (probably dropped by someone who read one of her previous articles), suffered a short-term memory loss, looked at her paper and thought to herself "Hot diggity, the internet was thought of in 1854? COOL!", and starting writing about it until suddenly her brain decided to wake up, kick its memory cells in the ass, and remind her "Hey, idiot, it DIDN'T happen."
By this point I was absolutely clueless as to what was going on, and I have to say, the rest of the reading didn't help or even give me a direction to take. I'll be honest: I actually gave up 15 pages in, because at that point I became convinced that I could take nothing from this article, and I will probably just have an easier time listening to the class talk about it and twiddling my thumbs. It would be far more time-effective if I just did that, instead of sit here and spend hours upon hours trying to decipher the pig latin that was spewed from the brain of a chronic amnesiac.
I'm going to go to class now, and actually try to LEARN something before I encounter another reading that turns me into a jaw-dropped drool monkey from sheer WTF.
Monday, September 6, 2010
As We May Think
So here is my review of one of many coming articles that will be reviewed on this blog.
Article can be found here. I switched it to print mode before reading, because it saves me precious time having to load each page of the article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1969/12/as-we-may-think/3881/
Review:
It seems to me that the author here is taking an unnecessary amount of length to make a relatively simple point. This article could be written better. While trying to maintain attention to the main point of the article, I was constantly drawn away by a language that is unconventional for its topic and far too wordy and full of distracting attempts at examples, making it difficult at best to maintain my interest in the read. Considering I am a ravenous reader, that is saying something.
After poring through this exhausting rhetoric, I managed to (after a second try) figure out the main point: it talks about how we now have a golden opportunity to use our scientists to create new and innovative ways of archiving and accessing information, as well as methods of making it available to as much of the world as physically possible.
Some of this article's examples make it clear that we are perfectly capable of such a task, such as the instance where it describes film technology and how it can be used to condense the information of a library into a form that could fit in a desk drawer. However, the amount of sheer detail used in this example was unnecessary, and gave me the impression that the author was only trying to flaunt their own knowledge of this technology, in an effort to sound impressive. I notice this in pretty much every other example the author provided. Also, the language the author used was definitely inappropriate for the topic. It appeared to me that Bush not only wanted to flaunt his knowledge of this topic, but also to flaunt his ability to speak like Cicero. Well played, Bush.
As for my opinion on this topic, I cannot deny that Bush has made a good argument for finding a better physical means of storing, cataloging , and making accessible information. While some may think Bush has skipped the all-important technology of electronic and digital information (such as the internet), I can recognize and agree how much more beneficial it would be in the long term to find a physical means of storing that same amount of information. Digital technology only lasts as long as electricity, the internet, and other digital technologies are available--however, these remain the most-easily destroyed or damaged technologies, as they are fragile. The digital data itself also remains the most easily-erased form of data storage. In the event we have to start from scratch somewhere, the internet would not exist for us...and information would not be as easily available to us as say, "a van full of microfilms." I think this cause is a worthy cause for scientists to work for.
Now that I've thrown in my two cents, I'm gonna go play some Starcraft 2 before I actually start caring about this topic.
Article can be found here. I switched it to print mode before reading, because it saves me precious time having to load each page of the article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1969/12/as-we-may-think/3881/
Review:
It seems to me that the author here is taking an unnecessary amount of length to make a relatively simple point. This article could be written better. While trying to maintain attention to the main point of the article, I was constantly drawn away by a language that is unconventional for its topic and far too wordy and full of distracting attempts at examples, making it difficult at best to maintain my interest in the read. Considering I am a ravenous reader, that is saying something.
After poring through this exhausting rhetoric, I managed to (after a second try) figure out the main point: it talks about how we now have a golden opportunity to use our scientists to create new and innovative ways of archiving and accessing information, as well as methods of making it available to as much of the world as physically possible.
Some of this article's examples make it clear that we are perfectly capable of such a task, such as the instance where it describes film technology and how it can be used to condense the information of a library into a form that could fit in a desk drawer. However, the amount of sheer detail used in this example was unnecessary, and gave me the impression that the author was only trying to flaunt their own knowledge of this technology, in an effort to sound impressive. I notice this in pretty much every other example the author provided. Also, the language the author used was definitely inappropriate for the topic. It appeared to me that Bush not only wanted to flaunt his knowledge of this topic, but also to flaunt his ability to speak like Cicero. Well played, Bush.
As for my opinion on this topic, I cannot deny that Bush has made a good argument for finding a better physical means of storing, cataloging , and making accessible information. While some may think Bush has skipped the all-important technology of electronic and digital information (such as the internet), I can recognize and agree how much more beneficial it would be in the long term to find a physical means of storing that same amount of information. Digital technology only lasts as long as electricity, the internet, and other digital technologies are available--however, these remain the most-easily destroyed or damaged technologies, as they are fragile. The digital data itself also remains the most easily-erased form of data storage. In the event we have to start from scratch somewhere, the internet would not exist for us...and information would not be as easily available to us as say, "a van full of microfilms." I think this cause is a worthy cause for scientists to work for.
Now that I've thrown in my two cents, I'm gonna go play some Starcraft 2 before I actually start caring about this topic.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Welcome to My Blog.
Hello, and welcome to my blog. I'm McMew, but here I refer to myself as TheReluctantBlogger, and this blog was created because one of my college courses demands I do so as part of our final grade. So I will do so, but under protest. I am not a fan of blogging. Unless I am heavily involved in something and I want to give people a source of updates and follow-up information, I see no point in having a blog.
Sure, there are people out there who say it's great practice for writing, and that it's a great way to get your feelings out. I agree. It's good to get your feelings out....that's what a journal is for. I also have a problem with letting out my feelings on the Web--you will find no greater volume of idiots, jerks, and annoying little 10-year-olds in one place. Why give these people the satisfaction of ripping on my opinions and occasional minor spelling errors, at the off-chance that I may get one or two (if any) decent responses to a post?
On that note, I also think it can encourage people to be antisocial...instead of talking about their feelings in person to their friends, families, and loved ones, they just write about it on a blog for the entire rest of the world to look at. If I want to talk about my thoughts, I intend to talk about them to people who's opinions I actually care about. Otherwise, there is no point. I doubt I will grow as a writer by updating this blog regularly (which I have to do at least twice a week). But, for the sake of getting a decent grade in this class, I suppose I will resign myself to posting crap I read about and my thoughts on them.
So there's my rant. Say what you want. I doubt I'll care. I'm going home now to eat a (wonderfully, tastefully tasty) lunch of celery and tomatoes. I pity vegans...how can they eat nothing but this stuff on a day-to-day basis?
Sure, there are people out there who say it's great practice for writing, and that it's a great way to get your feelings out. I agree. It's good to get your feelings out....that's what a journal is for. I also have a problem with letting out my feelings on the Web--you will find no greater volume of idiots, jerks, and annoying little 10-year-olds in one place. Why give these people the satisfaction of ripping on my opinions and occasional minor spelling errors, at the off-chance that I may get one or two (if any) decent responses to a post?
On that note, I also think it can encourage people to be antisocial...instead of talking about their feelings in person to their friends, families, and loved ones, they just write about it on a blog for the entire rest of the world to look at. If I want to talk about my thoughts, I intend to talk about them to people who's opinions I actually care about. Otherwise, there is no point. I doubt I will grow as a writer by updating this blog regularly (which I have to do at least twice a week). But, for the sake of getting a decent grade in this class, I suppose I will resign myself to posting crap I read about and my thoughts on them.
So there's my rant. Say what you want. I doubt I'll care. I'm going home now to eat a (wonderfully, tastefully tasty) lunch of celery and tomatoes. I pity vegans...how can they eat nothing but this stuff on a day-to-day basis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)