Final Exam

Theme 2: As a part of Meyrowitz’s theory which is a combination of Medium Theory, along with social situations, he has concluded that through technology there is a way that people form relationships with other people regardless of if they know one another or not. He calls this the para-social relationship and it is ever present in today’s society. Through Facebook, Twitter, and other social outlets people feel that they “know” celebrities, and other people because of the information that they are capable of obtaining on the internet. But it is not just the internet that causes these para-social relationships because even before the internet people had para-social relationships. In the 1920’s there was the Kansas farm wife named Mary Dyck. As a farm wife in Kansas most of her days were spent listening to radio talk shows. She also liked to keep diaries of her daily life. In her diaries she wrote about the characters of these shows as if she knew them personally. She had a para-social relationship with these characters, and she would relate to them in her diaries. Today, instead of diaries we have Twitter and Facebook which causes us to have para-social relationships with others. Instead of relating to the characters in talk shows, we relate to the celebrities of our time. There was an article that discussed Twitter and these para-social relationships entitled “Why Oprah Will Never Talk to You, Ever.” This article said that half the time it isn’t even the real celebrity on Twitter, it’s more likely to be a person who blogs for the celebrity. It also says that even if it is the celebrity the chances of them acknowledging your message out of the millions they receive are slim to none. Another part of Meyrowitz’s theory is ambient awareness. We mostly see this part of the theory through Twitter and Facebook. People post random blurbs about themselves, or their feelings, and we read these things. And when we read these things at first it may seem like insignificant information but after a while it allows us to build an image and idea about this person without actually being with them.

Theme 3: Over the years technology has transformed much of the “old” forms of media into new, technologically superior machines. “Old” forms of media such as A.M radio, books, and T.V have advanced and changed with technology over the years. Each one of these old forms of media has changed so drastically due to technology that they are almost unrecognizable in their new, supreme form. The A.M radio is no longer a place for talk shows as it was in the early 1900’s when radio was at its peak. Now the A.M radio has disappeared almost entirely (except for the news on 1010 WINS) and it is being replaced by new technologies like satellite radio, and Pandora. Yes, in some ways it is still radio but now it is all about what the user wants to hear. Satellite radio stations allow the user to pick a station by a genre of music they like, this is perfect for people like me who listen to music that is not mainstream what so ever. Now with satellite radio I can listen to the Metal channel all day and not have to worry about hearing a million commercials or Lady GaGa’s “Bad Romance” play a million times. Another way that radio has changed is by the creation of Pandora. Pandora allows you to create playlists based on one song you like, and then it picks songs for you in a similar style or genre that it thinks that you will like. I think that technological advances in the radio industry will prove it to be more successful in the digital form than regular AM/FM radio. One “old” form of media that I feel will eventually die out are books. As a future English teacher it makes me very sad to see the decline of books in society and I don’t think that the new digital forms of books will last long either. With the invention of the Kindle, the iPad, and other e-book readers less and less people are going to the library and taking books out. Why leave your house when you can just download whatever book you want to read and upload onto an e-book reader in the time it would take you to get in your car and drive to the library. I understand the logic of this, but it is still sad to see good old fashioned reading crumble to technology. Right now the Kindle and the iPad are a huge success, people are buying them right and left, and everyone is using them to read. I think that the success of these will continue but then I feel that even the e-books will start to disappear and fall to some newer form of technology. Maybe it will be something like a microchip that you insert in your brain and you don’t even have to read because the chip will put the information right into your brain. Although this seems preposterous one can only imagine what the future will hold, I just hope that the technological world doesn’t replace reading all together because where/what does that leave me to teach. Television has also been affected by the changes in technology, but I feel that this is one that will benefit from its changes to digital form. When the television first arrived on the market it was big, bulky, and in black and white. Then came the color revolution and people replaced their black and white sets with color. Next came cable television, with tons of channels, etc. Television has grown and changed over the years, and now we have HDTV’s, DLP’s, and the future of all television viewing: The 3D television. I think that the changes of television have only become better and better, it makes the television watching experience more intense, and with a 3D television, there would be no need to leave your house again. Why pay $10.50 in the theater to see a 3D movie, when you can sit on your couch in your pajamas, with your surround sound, and watch a 3D movie? This is one technological advance of an old media that I see being very successful as the years progress, the future of television is looking very bright, and very 3D.

Theme 4: MacLuhan says that “the medium is the message” which means that it isn’t the content or information that you receive from the medium, but it is the medium itself that delivers the message. When we use websites to gain information we take on the “intellectual technologies” we use. What this means is that through the growing need for the internet, and the knowledge gained through the use of the internet people are forgetting to use their brains. Why sit and think about a word that you don’t know the meaning of when in thirty-five seconds you can have a definition pulled up on Google. New technologies and media take away from our cognitive thinking skills and replace them with a whole bunch of useless garbage that we acquire from the internet. Most people are using the internet to be lazy, or when they are bored, therefore they are not learning, or expanding their minds in any way when they are on the internet. Instead of reading a book, and then writing about what was learned from this book, people take the easy way out and read a summary of the book on sparknotes. I think that all of the articles we read on this topic such as “Is Google making us stupid?” and “Old fogies in their 20’s,” prove very valid points on the way that the internet impacts society. Google is making a predominant portion of society stupid, but it has no effect on me. I love Google, not because it makes my school work easier, but because it allows me to gather and obtain information that furthers my knowledge. Yes, I will say that some of what I look up on Google is irrelevant, such as the twenty-three flavors in Dr. Pepper, but for the most part I look up information that will strengthen my mind. I like to read, to study, and to learn new things, so for me the internet is a great place. For others new media such as Facebook, Twitter, and even Google, is just taking away the ability people have to think for themselves. People are more preoccupied now a days with who broke up and whose dating on Facebook then with who/what the president is doing. It really is absurd that people care more about their friends and Facebook/Twitter, than they do with the politics that govern our nation. The internet has replaced many things including human abilities to think for themselves and communicate with one another and it has almost entirely replaced reading altogether. With new media’s such as the Kindle and the iPad many people have replaced their books with technology, and some people have stopped reading all together.

Theme 5: With the rise of the internet comes the rise of two great powers, the power of Google, and its way of finding you exactly what you need to know, and the power of Facebook which brings friends closer to you, and causes relationships to grow. Both of these internet titans are VERY successful, and for the time being they are both free for us to use. They make their money through advertising but eventually I fear there may come a time when money is requested from these sites. If this is the case I think that both sites will fall. Why? The answer should be obvious, if we had to pay for Facebook or Google, we just wouldn’t, everyone would go back to Myspace and Dogpile instead of paying for the others. In the end I think that Google will win this war, but I don’t think that Facebook will ever really disappear. Google is successful because it is something that people of all ages can use in an effort to acquire information they need, information about anything that they could think to look up. There is nothing that really lures us in on Google except for the fact that from Google you can find anything on the internet. Facebook on the other hand has many games and apps which help to consume your time, and your soul. Facebook is very different then Google because it is not a search engine, it is a social networking website which allows us to find people we know and communicate with them even when they are not near us. The success that Facebook has is almost entirely due to societies needs to be in the loop 24/7. Facebook is constantly flooding you with information about your friends and what they have been up to. This also leads us to seek approval from our friends, as with the “like” feature. When you update a status your other friends on Facebook have the ability to like it, which lets you know you have their approval. There is no “dislike” button and I’m almost glad there isn’t because I feel that it would cause issues between friends on Facebook. Why would you “dislike” someone’s status? Normally if it says “so and so is really sick L.” I would dislike that status, especially if it was a friend of mine. But other people would dislike a status that says “so and so is out with [insert friend name here],” just to be mean, or because they don’t like that friend. Both Google and Facebook are extremely useful in many different ways. Facebook definitely has a better ability to hold our attention, and Google definitely has better resources for finding out information. If I had a question that I needed an answer for I would go on Google before I asked my friends on Facebook, because quite frankly my friends are not that smart. I think that both Facebook and Google will hold the titles of the internet titans for years to come, the only opposition they may face is if another titan tries to take their place.

Links for the Final.

Theme 2: Para Social Relationships

I chose this image because it shows the different spectrums of people in parasocial relationships.

The only other outside media that I could incorporate for parasocial relationships would have been a bunch of videos of people who are obsessed with celebrities and that would really just be a waste of all of our time.

Theme 4 & 5: Google VS Facebook.

I found this picture interesting because it shows how friends on Facebook has not only replaced the thinking of a small child and her imaginary friend, but that actual friends and human contact has been replaced by Facebook.

For those of us who are avid Facebook Junkies this picture is very amusing. It shows societies obsession with Facebook and our needs/desires to constantly keep our "friends" posted on our where abouts, even in the face of absolute chaos and destruction.

This is a little extreme but it also shows that not everyone of Facebook is there for friends and sometimes people use Facebook to hurt others.

This is another cartoon that is different than the rest because it shows that not everyone that adds you on Facebook is who they say they are and one should be careful when adding friends and talking to people.

This cartoon definitely made me laugh because it is so true, in recent years people use Facebook to get to know a person before actually having a conversation with them.

I also found a few more cartoons in relation to Facebook which made me laugh due to play on words etc., the link is as follows: http://offthemark.com/search-results/key/facebook/

This is the first of a few Google related cartoons, it is pretty much showing that Google is slowly taking over the world.

This cartoon is a little more political then the others, it is showing that Google isn't as private as we think it is, and this cartoon definitely gives us a Big Brother vibe.

Another Cartoon showing that Google will one day take over the world.

This one is really funny, it shows a few things two. One is that is shows that people of the older generations are technologically slow (and socially slow for not knowing who Paris Hilton is) and two is that it shows people using the internet for stupid reasons instead of to gain knowledge.

This cartoon basically shows that Google is starting to replace all cognitive reasoning and human interaction.

This last Google image is cute, I enjoyed it because of the play on popular Google culture in the end (the feeling lucky button).

Theme 3: Old media & Intellectual Technologies.

This image is very simple but it shows some of the old forms of media and communication.

This is another funny cartoon about the protest of new technology.

The following is two links that review two of the most recent technological advances, the amazon kindle, and the iPad.

Kindle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAf4vxGEOAo

iPad: http://www.youtube.com/user/Apple?feature=pyv&ad=4586558836&kw=ipad#p/u/0/1-YAQ1wfNqc

An interesting Media experience:

Through the semester we discussed how technology is taking away from human brain functions and human interactions. The other day I had an interesting first hand experience at this. My boyfriend just bought the Droid, and on this phone there is an app called Google Skymap. This app plots all the constellations in their current spots in the sky based on time of year etc,. As you move the phone in any direction, including up/down you see all the stars. You can even see the stars on the other side of the world, and the sun/other planets. I, of course, found this amazing. But then I realized I was lying on my boyfriends bed, in his room, in his house, looking at the stars, when I should have been outside in the grass using my knowledge of the solar system to find these constellations. The app itself is ingenious, but it is yet another example of technology taking the place of our minds, and interactions.

Texts Without Context Questions

1. The main point of the article "Texts Without Context" is how the technological world is replacing many of the pillars of society. Kakutani, the author of the article, discusses many ways in which technology has replaced the human mind in recent years. One of the major points she makes relates to the increase in the use of e-books and the creation of machines that use e-books. She says that the internet has increased the ability for people to plagerize, and items such as the Kindle have replaced the enjoyment of curling up with a good book and good old fashioned reading in general. Now with the new technology we have millions of ways to acquire books, and other information with a click of a button. These new forms of technology are replacing items such as books, and eventually they will replace human conversation all together. Another point the author makes is that "technology and the mechanisms of the Web have been accelerating certain trends already percolating through our culture- including the blurring of news and entertainment, a growing polarization in national politics, a deconstructionist view of literature...the prominence of postmodernism in the form of mash-ups and bricolage, and a growing cultural relativism." These are many of the major issues the author has with technology and what it is doing to today's society. She continues to talk about Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, and text messaging and their impact on society and human communication.

2. The meaning of cyberbalkanization in this article comes from the term balkanization which is the formation of groups of people who share similar thoughts and beliefs. These groups were sometimes hostile to opposing groups, but this is not the case in cyberbalkanization. What cyberalkanization means in this article is that the internet has become a global community where people post and share their ideas with one another. It also has become a place where people can get to know each other through their beliefs and thoughts. I have definitely noticed the trend of cyberbalkanization in my every day interent browsing experience. No matter what I look up, or where I look it is easy for me to find out about other people who looked up similar things. I can go on Facebook and become a fan of almost anything, then discuss on the wall of the fan page why I'm a fan, and find out why others are fans. This is a way of building relationships with people. If I am not a fan of something, I still see which of my friends became a fan of what on my news feed. Facebook, in my opinion, is one of the most evident forms of cyberbalkinazation found in society today. People join groups, meet others, discuss beliefs with others, and sometimes even fight with others based on their beliefs.

3. I think that the future of authors, composers, and filmmakers is looking very dim in the shadow of the Internet. People that create original works will suffer in today's society due to the endless information one can gain on the internet. Before the internet composers, authors, and filmmakers made their profit and success off of the fact that people paid to get their works. Now, with the internet in full swing, people can go online and get all of the songs a band has ever written in a matter of minutes. This most definitely takes away from the success of these authors, composers, and filmmakers, and will probably be the downfall of them in the future. The only way that this rare breed can survive is if they find a way to stop people from stealing music and movies on the internet. This is a lost cause because no matter how many torrent sites they shut down, more will spring up, because now the people have control of the internet.

4. The meaning of "appropriation art" is the use of "borrowed" elements in order to create a new piece/work. Meaning people create their own writings, drawings, music, etc, based off of something that has already been created by someone else. This is due to the internet and information that is easily accesible through the internet. I feel that this is very legitimate because it is showing that people no longer think and create for themselves, from their own minds, but they create based on the thoughts of others. This is sad to me that we are losing our minds, literally, to the internet, and that the internet is causing us to replace our own thoughts and ideas with the thoughts and ideas of others.

5. I agree and disagree with the opinion that the audience is archaic. In some senses the idea of the audience is archaic because as long as there are people there will still be an audience, and although that audience has changed over the years, there is still an audience. To say the audience is archaic would not necessarily be true in today's society because the audience has changed a lot since the audience before technology. I feel that there is still an audience but that audience is in a smaller proportion. For example, when the radio first came out it had a huge audience, many people tunned in to nightly shows, and many people listened to the same shows/broadcasts, as seen by the pandomonium that occured in Orwells "War of the Worlds" broadcast. Today, the audience still exists but it is more specific. Now people know what they like and don't like, they know what they listen to, watch, and think, based on what they like. People go to concerts for bands that they like, or see a movie because it is a genre they like, but through the new use of the internet and technological advances the concept of mass audience has become archaic.

Simpsons

The Simpson's are one of the many T.V shows that captures what it is like to live in the average American family, although it has many twists that cause it to be very different from the usual family sitcoms. The first major differences is simply that the Simpsons is animated. The fact that a family sitcom is animated is one of the major draws to the Simpsons because it draws in those who are fans of cartoons. Then there is the family sitcom aspect which typically draws in people of all ages, because it is easily related too by both parents and children. I think this factor plays into the shows attraction because I'm sure there are parents out there who have a rambunctious son like Bart, or a straight A student like Lisa. I'm sure that parents can relate to some of the stresses that Marge and Homer face in their family life, their places of work, and in their married life. Then there are the reasons that make the Simpsons a little more racy then the average family sitcom. Reasons such as vulgarity, obscene noises/gestures, sex references, social references (poking fun at famous situations/people), violence, and many other reasons that make the Simpsons almost irresistible. These reasons are definitely the reason that the Simpsons generally draws in the younger crowd, but the humor that resides in each episode, regardless of it was a tastefully made joke or not, can be sure to get a chuckle out of someone. One reason that I watch the Simpsons is because I enjoy a lot of the social references they make, these references almost always go with the storyline, although they are sometimes very random. They also make the joke even funnier when you can understand the references. The following is a link of some of the social references that can be found in episodes (http://www.snpp.com/guides/movie_refs.html).

I think that the article entitled "Cartoon Realities" by Mittell is ridiculous. I understand studying a T.V show to see what type of audience it attracts and what not but to go into such analytical depth like he did was really a waste of my time. I didn't enjoy the reading at all, and I really felt that it took a little bit of my love for the show away because of the context he discussed. Mittell took reasons why people like a show and made it into a paper that is so analytical that it makes me not want to even watch the show anymore.

Freddy Vs Jason Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qj_CqzTCTs

The Most Memorable Slasher Flick.

Out of all the slasher films I have been forced to sit through my most memorable film has to be Freddy VS Jason. There are a lot of high quality kills and thrills throughout this film. As with all good slasher films there is a ton of gore and guts as well. That is not what makes this film so memorable though, what makes it memorable is the flashbacks. Through out the entire film there are flashbacks of both Freddy Kruger and Jason's past. If you are an avid follower of both killers than the flashbacks are something that control all of your attention. You've seen both killers before, , and you sort of understand why they are the way they are but in this movie you see them together for the first time. No, they aren't teaming up to kill everyone, they are actually in a battle to see who kills who, and ultimately which one of them would be left standing in the end.

When slasher films first took their rise in popularity they faced a lot of heat from society. These slasher films were full of sex, violence, blood, gore and profanity, and the public was not ready to accept this sort of violence on the big screen. Almost as quickly as the slasher film continued to rise in popularity so did its social acceptance. The slasher genre draws a lot of attention from the teenage populous. Why is this so? Well for one I feel like teenagers are obsessed with the thought of possible danger, trouble, punishment etc. We all have been silly teenagers who have gotten in trouble for partying to much or what not, and the characters in these films usually consist of teenage characters. Slasher flicks such as Halloween, and Friday the 13th cause a fear in the audience because it forces the viewers to almost root for the villain, not the victims. It causes a fear in some people, but that fear is something that people of today's society enjoy. That is why slasher films are so popular in todays movie industry, and thats why no matter how much the last film scared us we are always intrigued to watch the next one.

The Beatles Rock Band

I agree with Daniel Radosh, the writer of the article "While My Guitar Gently Beeps," that Rock Band the Beatles edition has definitely put them back in the forefront of the evolution of music. The Beatles have been a huge success since their first hit, and are still well loved today by many people. They changed the way the world looked at rock, and now they are changing/influencing video games as well. Each new generation, with all its crazy new music, still knows at least one Beatles song. Rock Band is a huge success right now, millions of people have drummed till their legs went numb, and sung til they were red in the face. It is a great game, it is interactive because you can play by yourself, or with up to 3 friends. To release the Beatles edition of Rock Band was a great idea because it reminded everyone of how good they really were. It also reminded people of why we grew to love the Beatles in the first place. Another reason that Rock band is influencing popular music is because it plays a lot of rock. It is nice to see rock coming back into mainstream instead of all the pop, hip-hop, garbage that consumes the air waves. Now that games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero have been released more and more people have been listening to rock. The game itself is selling the artists to the public, not literally, but if you play Rock Band on xbox live you can buy songs by other bands. Bands that only people who like rock have heard of such as one of my favorite Rock Band songs, and favorite bands, "This is Exile" by Whitechapel. Seeing a band like Whitechapel on rock band makes me happy to know that that pop, hip-hop garbage hasnt gained all control of the music world. I hope rock takes back its title and becomes whats popular again, and I think that games such as the Beatles Rock Band and other games have influenced the music world. I also think that slowly, but surely rock will be on the rise once more.

Pandora: Radio for your taste

One of the newest internet radio crazes can be found at Pandora.com. When you first arrive on the homepage you are not sure what to expect. You're probably piecing together the knowledge you have about Pandora, and the box of chaos, and I'm sure you are probably wondering what this website is all about. Well, first you must register with Pandora, this allows you to save your playlists and listen to them anywhere. Once registered, you then get to type in the name of a song, or an artist. When you find the result that you like you click "create playlist," sit back, relax and let the experts at Pandora do the rest. What exactly do these experts do? The whole purpose of the experts are to analyze songs. They analyze these songs and put them in groups according to genre, BPM's, and other groups. Now, back to you, you type in the name of an artist, lets say "Sister Hazel," what Pandora does is it creates a playlist based on the artist, or song, with tons of songs that are similar to it. I have has Pandora for over a year now, I use it on my computer and I have an application for it on my Blackberry. I love Pandora. I think it is amazing how they analyze every part and every detail of each song, and select them into groups. Pandora is a great way to discover new music as well. You are searching for a song that you really like, then a whole bunch of similar sounding songs will come up by other bands, which is exposing you to new material, and expanding your musical taste. Pandora also has a feature where you can dislike/like a song. If you like a song on the playlist it causes Pandora to add more songs similar to that song. It helps to refine your music search, if you dislike a song Pandora knows not to play songs like that and so on.
Pandora has become very popular but I think that if they stopped advertising just with Apple, and advertised everywhere the number of users would skyrocket. Another great thing about Pandora is that it is free to use...for now. As of now Pandora does not cost anything to use. This is a great thing, the only problem is that Pandora does limit its users a little. You can only listen to Pandora for, I think, two hours and you are only allowed to skip over a set number of songs. I think that Pandora definitely could make profit off of their ideas but they would have to change a few things. First they would need to advertise to the masses. Second, if they were to charge a fee for use they would need to not limit the amount of skips and amount of time you can listen. Other than that I see Pandora being very successful in the future.

Why Twitter Will Endure (Study and Response)

Upon Reading "Why Twitter Will Endure," by David Carr I have become very torn over this whole Twitter business. I have had a Twitter for a few months and I never use it. I see no point in it as a medium, I don't see the fun in it, or anything. I read David Carr's article and unfortunately agreed with a few of the points he makes about Twitter as a way of expressing your thoughts, and ideas with a large populous. I also agree with Carr when he says "All those riches do not come at zero cost: If you think e-mail and surfing can make time disappear, wait until you get ahold of Twitter, or more likely, it gets ahold of you. There is always something more interesting on Twitter than whatever you happen to be working on." I can definitely relate to this statement, but not because of Twitter, more because of Facebook. Besides that statement I have cast Twitter aside because in the end, or at least in my opinion it is absolutely pointless. Maybe I'm just not understanding the full use of this website, or maybe I'm just happy with my Facebook and my status updates on that.

Through my two days of following and tweeting on Twitter I feel as if I have learned nothing about it. I still feel that it is useless, and I cannot get in to using Twitter as a source for communication. The first day of being back on Twitter I searched random topics such as movies coming out, and bands that I like, just to see what people were saying. I decided to follow two of these bands, and I also decided to follow David Carr. I would have followed a classmate too but I don't know anybody from our class, or how to find them on Twitter. With that aside nothing really interesting happened while I was using Twitter. I didn't really have much interaction with other tweeters either, and that gave me more of a reason to not enjoy Twitter at all, at least on Facebook people talk to me when I comment them, or "like" their status and what not. I disagree with what Carr titled his piece, I do not think that Twitter will, or should endure. I think that Twitter definitely does fit in with Winston's ideas about new technology and society because for many people it is a way for them to interact with society as a whole. Twitter allows anyone, from anywhere to state their ideas and then tweet with other people who have similar ideas. The concept of Twitter is very innovative but at the same time it is still my least favorite social networking website as of right now.

Response to The Creation of the Media....

'The Creation of the Media': The American Information Revolution is an article by James Fallows on a book written by Paul Starr entitled "The Creation of the Media." Fallows asks questions such as "How can newspapers support increasingly expensive international coverage, when most keep losing readers? How can a television station afford not to trumpet disasters and scandals on its local news, when competitors that do get higher ratings? Does concentration of ownership really matter? Is there any longer such a thing as a broad market for the news?" He then critiques Starr's book by saying that it doesn't answer these questions, but it does provide historical information that is relevant to today's societal issues. Fallows says that the heart of Starr's argument is that Americans do not understand "what is unusual about their communications media and why?" Fallows also says "What Starr argues -- and, in my view, powerfully demonstrates -- is that every branch of the communications system reflects deliberate political choices made under particular historic circumstances."
I found this article to be kind of confusing at first but also very interesting because it addresses media issues that we face in America, and our understanding of the media as a whole. The entire article is pretty much Fallows discussing "The Creation of the Media" by Paul Starr, and he gives us a lot of information out of Paul Starr's book, while inputting his own information as well. The article discusses the telegraph and telephone and how those technologies impacted America, and the world. I feel that a lot of the article was almost common sense, or just stating facts about how the media has impacted society. I don't really understand why Fallows felt the need to write an article about this book when the book covers all of this information. One thing that really intrigued me about this article is the promise that another volume of this book would be released with new media. I was wondering if it ever was released and to what year this volume goes up until being that the last one ended in 1941. I think that it would be interesting to see what Paul Starr has to say about the media of today, and societies technology obsession.

Responses to Readings and Questions

1. The Geekapedia article gave me a lot of information and also some vocabulary that will help me with future discussions in this class. My vocabulary now has two new words, Sustaining Innovations and Disruptive Innovations, sustaining innovations are inventions that help to sustain the technological flow, such as the example in the reading which was a new version of Microsoft Word. Disruptive Innovations are little inventions that serve no real purpose such as text messaging replacing e-mails. I disagree with this because I think that text messaging is very useful for a number of reasons, but that is besides the point. The Geekapedia article also said that the iPhone is disruptive technology, and I think the answer to this is based on age, and generation. The iPhone is extremely creative, innovative, and useful. It has thousands of apps, and almost anything you could need is right there with a touch of your fingers. Now, that is from a teenage perspective, as with most of the youth of America who have iPhones. From the perspective of technological haters I would say that the iPhone is useless. The following is something my mother would say about the iPhone, "What is the point of spending all of that money on a phone? So what if it has the internet that is why I bought a computer!" I am disagreeing with the statement that the iPhone is disruptive technology 100%, the only time that the iPhone is disruptive is when it rings.

2. Winston would claim that the iPhone is "evolutionary, not revolutionary," and I could also agree with this statement. After reading the wired article about sustaining innovations and disruptive innovations, and in order to support Winston's point of view I would say that the iPhone is a sustaining innovation. It is a sustaining innovation because it is the upgraded version of the iPod, the upgraded version of a cell phone, and a mini-computer with WiFi all in one. It is a sustaining innovation because it will continue to get new apps, and upgrade to bigger and better things. As long as Apple keeps coming out with newer and newer iPhone ideas then the iPhone will only continue to sustain itself and grow. This relates back to Winston, the iPhone has evolved greatly since the year it was first released, it is an ever evolving machine with an ever evolving company behind it to back it up. I'm sure that people have said that the iPhone is a revolutionary form of technology, but what has it really changed that other phones don't have. If the iPhone was the only phone that had internet and apps then it would be revolutionary. Being that there are something like fifty other phones on the market right now that are just like the iPhone it is evolutionary not revolutionary.

3. I think that Winston would say that the iPad is innovative but not revolutionary because everything comes from something. The iPad is just like the iPod, iPhone, Kindle and Macbook all in one neat little flat screened square. It is nothing new, it is just a spin-off of other products. Yes it is all in one now, but if I already have a laptop, Blackberry, and iPod why do I need to get an iPad. I also see the iPad, yet again, as sustaining technology because it is an upgrade, or a better version of something else. I would be completely lost with technology, call it disruptive or not, I think that all technology is sustaining with each product that is a spin-off of another.

Frontline Response

Today in my into to media class we watched a Frontline report by Douglas Ruskoff  called Digital_Nation. The whole film was about how technology is effecting us  as a society and what we could possibly do to stop or change this. As a typical  American teenager I can say that I too am addicted to technology. I have a  Blackberry, I have a Facebook, and I love it. I think that it allows me to be  more socially intergrated as opposed to socially isolated like the film  suggested. I agree that I am more than capable of multitasking as well. If I am  sitting in class taking notes, that keeps my attention but then after a while I  become bored. If someone is texting me, and I'm taking notes, now I'm busy and  multitasking, therefore I am not bored. Video games definitely are addicting, I  agree with that. I loved the segment on World of Warcraft because I used to  play, and still play occasional. I am a level 22, undead warrior. I play in a  realm called Skullcrusher. Unfortunately I am still considered a noob, or a  newbie because being level 22 is nothing compared to my friends who are level  80. The game is very addicting, but when I played I used another program, called  Ventrillo, to communicate with my friends on the game. I felt like I was  actually in this world, running, jumping, and fighting! It was fun and exciting  too. There are kids I know that play World of Warcraft anywhere from 7-15 hours  a day. I was lucky enough that my mom wouldn't let me play video games for more  than 2 hours and now I don't play video games at all compared to what I used to  play. Now I feed my technogical needs with my blackberry, and facebook. I really  don't even go on facebook that much either though. I check it when I'm home, but  I'm never really home so its down to my blackberry (and my ipod) that really  controls me. But I couldn't imagine my life without it. The Second Life program  that the film discussed made me annoyed. I don't like that program, the fun in  video games is that it is an alternate reality. Playing a video game that mimics  real life is not as fun. It reminds me of the Sims, which is another computer  game that I hate. I like technology, I like that it is always changing and  growing, and I like that it impacts my life and gives us something to talk  about. I also like that all this technological banter on whether technology is  good or bad is influencing my generation, because in the future I can see how  much things have changed technologically through the next few decades. It has  already changed so much in the two decades that I have been on this earth.

technologically deprived

I didn't realize that the requirements for this writing assignment was to blog every day about my technologically deprived weekend. So I am going to write an overall about how my weekend went. I'd like to first start with a little bit about me, because I feel that it will make reading my blogs easier to understand. I'm going to school to be an English teacher, which means I do a lot of reading, and writing. Besides that I listen to a lot of music. I don't really watch that much televison, and I only really use my computer to listen to music, do homework, or go on Facebook. I knew that I couldn't give up Facebook for this assignment simply because I have a blackberry and the blackberry is connecting to a Facebook app. Meaning I get my notifications on my phone, so it would be annoying to disable the application. I decided to go with the next most crucial item to my existence and that was to spend this weekend without using my iPod. Friday was my first day without my iPod, which I locked in a safe box in my room as to resist temptation. Friday went by quickly, I worked in the morning so I didn't feel its absence. I did notice that my car ride to work was kind of boring without it, but it was fine. After work I went home and didn't even touch my computer because I knew I would be tempted to listen to my iTunes, which defeats the purpose of an iPod free weekend. So instead I went out to dinner with my boyfriend and then out with my friends. On Saturday I was home all morning until about 3:30. This was a trying time because I spent the morning cleaning, and organizing my bedroom, without my music. It wasn't so bad because all the silence gave me time to think, but around 2:00 I started to get antsy. I left my house at about 3:30, drove to my boyfriends, and from there we went to his bands concert. Going to see his band really helped my insanity out, I got to hear some awesome bands (his included) and it helped me relax without my iPod. The only thing that sucked about it was the drive to and home from the venue, because it was a very quiet drive. I got home from the show and went straight to sleep. On Sunday I had to work from noon until 11:30 P.M, which meant I had no time to listen to my iPod, and no time to spend with my boyfriend on Valentines Day. Now it is Monday morning, the final day, and the hardest day. It is the hardest day because I am going to be home all morning and afternoon until I go to work at 6 P.M. I still have not touched my iPod, iTunes, and radio. I also have barely touched my computer. Writing this blog is the second time I've touched my computer all weekend. I like this "experiment" a lot because it shows how reliable we are on technology. I spent the whole weekend music-less and it was a lot harder than I thought it would be. I can only imagine how hard it would be to not have my blackberry all weekend, which I would have given up if my parents would have been okay with it. My mom didn't like the thought that she wouldn't be able to get in touch with me all weekend, so I had to choose my iPod, along with making my computer use very limited as well. I will be very happy to blast my iPod on the way to class tomorrow morning.

Without my iPod here's how I replaced my media deprivation:

My boyfriends band: http://www.myspace.com/portraythebetrayer516

Working: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Levittown/TGIFridays-Levittown/323605172027?ref=ts

and cleaning.

I do NOT want to go another weekend without my iPod EVER again.

Helllllooo!

So this is my blog. I'm Kaitlin, my major is adolescent education with a concentration in English. I love music, and I listen to enough metal to make your ears bleed. I like other music too, but metal is my love. I used to have an xanga account and write about all of the silly drama that happened in my daily life, but that was when I was 14. My opinions have changed a lot since then, and maybe this blog will be a little different than the last. But for starters here's a funny little video about blogging. I'm sure you've seen it already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJ2SegGWyc