Do You Get It?

In class, we discussed whether or not a person should use a particular technology unless he knows how it works. Before the discussion began, I was certain that no one would agree with this position and was surprised when there were quite a few people who truly believe that one should understand the workings of a particular piece of machine before using it.

Despite the discussion in class, I am still not sure as to why people would take this stance. Why should a person have to understand the mechanics behind any technology before using it? What difference would it really make? I use a computer all the day. Despite considering myself computer-literate, I still do not understand what process happens every time I strike a key or how the Internet really works. But does this impede on my ability to use my laptop to write this blog, make a presentation, or send out an email? Absolutely not. Would I be able to do any of these tasks more proficiently if I was fully aware how each one of these things happened? Probably not.

And does this stance hold true with every newer development, or just those with an electronic aspect? What about medicine? Even though I am a pre-med student and have spent years studying the different aspects of science, I am still no where near having the knowledge necessary for truly understanding what chemical process happens every time I take an Aspirin. Does this mean I am wrong for taking this medication even though I do not really know how it works? I certainly do not think so and would like to know how anyone could logically disagree. What if someone is sick and needs antibiotics? Unless he is a pharmacist or a doctor, the chances of him knowing the chemical pathway that is set by antibiotics is very slim. Does this mean he should neglect the drugs because he is not exactly sure of how they work?

And then there was the discussion of what age is appropriate to allow children to start using the computer. The article which was presented to the class said that children under the age of 15 should not be allowed to use the computer for fear that it would confuse or influence them in a negative way. Children should not be allowed to use something before they know how it works. We would not want young children to think of the computer as a magical thing now would we? The way I see it, why not let them think of it any way they want? Children have wild imaginations and probably do not see even the the simplest of things the way an adult does, let alone a complicated machine like a computer. If we do not think it is wise to let children use computers because they do not understand it, then children should also not be allowed to play video games, watch television, ride in a car, or even use the light bulb in their rooms. Technically speaking, they do not know how those work either and they may be just as mystical to kids as the computer. Why limit one technology and not the other if they are all similar in the one main aspect: being too mechanically complicated for children's minds to comprehend.

Perhaps because it is that I am too dependent on so many things in my life whose mechanics I do not understand, but I believe that so long as one knows how to work a machine, it is not nearly so important to realize how that machine works. So long as one can get a machine to perform a task, that is all that matters. What good would it really do wasting time figuring out how my car runs, so long as it gets me to and from my destination?

Internet is making me "Stupider"?

Is the Internet making is stupid? Absolutely not. I honestly cant even fathom how people can think such a thing. If anything, the Internet is helping make people smarter and more capable than ever. In today's world, it is almost impossible to go through your day without having to use the Web for one thing or another. As a matter of fact, it seems that more often than not, people are thought of as “stupid” or “illiterate” if they are not able to use the computer or surf the Internet. So how is it that in a world where the Internet plays such a vital role in our lives that we would condemn the very same technology with making us dumber as individuals. This almost seems backwards.

Our lives have been made so much simpler thanks to the Internet and we are able to do things so much more quickly and more efficiently thanks to it. If it takes us half the amount of time to write a report using our computers, does that mean that we are going to write a dumber report than had we done it the “old fashion way”? No, it doesn't. It merely means that we are going to be able to write our report more efficiently and do so being able to do have checked more resources that have been made available to us online. If anything, the Internet is helping people be smarter by providing them with the tools and resources that were unavailable to them beforehand.

If you provide someone with more information and resources, how are you making him more stupid?

However, for all of its inherent advantages, I think everyone will agree that the Internet is distracting people more so than we may have ever imagined. Never before has there been something that could distract people from writing their papers, reports, or just performing any number of tasks at their computers. We have all abandoned a paper in search of a funny clip on Youtube or put off an assignment to go check our Facebooks and see what everyone else is up to. This is sad, and a little disturbing, but true none the less.

Even though this generation may be more distracted than previous ones and potentially have shorter attention spans, it does not mean this generation is by any means dumber. It just means that we feel that we can multi-task and therefore can afford to waste a few minutes looking up the latest “tweets”. So long as we are getting our work done- and we are- there is nothing wrong with wasting some time on things that are trivial.

As a whole, we are all more addicted to the Internet. As a whole, we are all more productive. Clearly, the one habit does not have a negative affect on the other. We may no longer have a one track mind when it comes to performing a task, but we are nonetheless performing the same tasks better, more quickly, and with less effort. There is nothing wrong with learning how to do the same task while managing to do it with less work. If anything, that is a sign of efficiency.

Sesame Street

Below are my answers to the questions Dr. Maruca passed around in class. My group had to analyze two websites on Sesame Street - http://www.sesamestreet.org and http://www.youtube.com/user/SesameStreet - along with the print ad for a Big Bird clothing line.

1. Describe the document you are analyzing, including its historical place and time, its target user and /or intended audience, and in what setting it would probably have been used (you may have to make an educated guess; some examples are more obvious than others).

* The Sesame Street advertisement is a very contemporary piece even though it is a show that has just celebrated its 40th anniversary. The target user for what is being advertised – Big Bird's clothing line – are small children, but the intended audience are the parents of small children since they are the ones who have the power to go and purchase the products.

2. Tell us anything that surprised you about this. Did anything strike you as particularly unusual?

*What really surprised me about this ad was that it was kind of plain for being a Sesame Street advertisement. The picture was not an action shot, it is very simple, and the little girl in the picture is not even smiling to display how happy she is with the wonderful Big Bird clothes she is wearing. I found this a little strange since it seems that this ad does not reach its full potential because it seems to me that it is lacking in so many area.

3. What sorts of language technologies or communication forms are emphasized in your document and what kinds are downplayed or ignored?

*On the two websites, what was really emphasized was computer literacy and if one could navigate around the site and get to all of the different activities and products that are being offered. As far as the youtube video goes, a child would probably need the help of a parent if he wants to go to the other videos or if he is looking for one in particular. The actual Sesame Street website is a little more children friendly because there are pictures besides all of the words on the tabs, so even if a child could not read, he could figure out what each tab and link meant. However, there really was not much emphasis on the actual reading of things as far as words and sentences for children because everything seemed to be more picture oriented.


4. What sorts of skills, competencies, and/ or modes of thinking/learning are emphasized in your document and what kinds are downplayed or ignored?

*Computer literacy skills are definitely emphasized on the two websites, and comprehension skills are emphasized on the print ad. The modes of thinking and learning that seem to be most important to the website are interactive skills, such as being able to follow the activities verbally and visually set forth by Elmo and Cookie Monster. However, there really is not any emphasis on the actual reading required for these activities, and all of the instructions are stated verbally instead of being written out. The reading and writing aspect seems to really be downplayed.

5. Using Knoblach's definitions, what sorts of literacies are emphasized in your document and what kinds are downplayed or ignored?

*According to Knoblach's definitions, the type of literacy that is emphasized the most is functional literacy. By being able to read, children are able to perform the functions necessary to navigate around the site to get to the different activities If a child could not read, his abilities would be greatly limited and he would not be able to enjoy the site as much as a child who could read,

6. Look closely at the language used. (Language includes descriptions, images, metaphors, vocabulary--WHAT is being said as well as HOW.) How do you think this reflects the document's values?

*In the print ad, what is being said is that children should wear clothes from the Big Bird clothing line if they want to be happy or look as cute as the girl in the picture. However, I do believe this message would be getting across a lot better if the girl was actually smiling and showing her jubilation at getting to wear such clothes. Instead, it is a very simple ad with a non-smiling girl standing in a very plain room. However, it is clear that the message of the document is to sell clothes and they believe that the best way to do this is to apply to the child's sense of love for the show, which is demonstrated not only by the clothes that the little girl is wearing, but by the stuffed animal of a little Ernie being in the corner.

7. Look back over your answers to questions 1-6. Based on these answers, along with anything else that strikes you about the text, how would you describe the cultural politics of your document? That is, who might be empowered by this sort of literacy training and who might be marginalized? Remember, students who succeed with these methods will become "literate," while those who don't do well--or aren't allowed to participate--will be judged as "illiterate." What effects might the privileging of this sort of literacy have on the broader culture (and vice-versa)?

* The group of people who might be empowered by this sort of literacy training are those who can actually afford to buy the product that is being advertised. The group that is being marginalized are the parents who cannot afford these clothes even though they know how much their children would enjoy wearing something with Elmo or Cookie Monster on it.

As far as the websites go, those are are empowered by it are those who are either rich enough to have a computer at home to access the sites, or those who go to a school which is privileged enough to have computers for its students. This group of student would be considered “illiterate” by circumstances that are beyond their control.

The types of effects that this might have on students is that those who have access to computers and therefore able to play the fun games might feel superior to those who are not able to get onto the sites because they do not have the equipment (the money needed to buy a computer and Internet access) necessary to do so. For the print ad, the children who get to wear the Sesame Street clothes might feel bad or even look down on the kids whose parents are not able to afford such clothes. Even at such a young age, these divides are enough to create rifts between children and be the beginning of social classes.

State of the Web Report

My “State of the Web” Report is on the future of reading and how e-books are going to change the way we view literature. The first article I read was titled “How the E-Book Will Change the Way We Read and Write,” by Stephen Johnson. This article was not only informative, but quite fun to read. Johnson speaks of the “aha” moment he had when he realized that the concept of books as we know it is changing. He describes sitting in a restaurant reading a novel about business and technology on his new Kindle when he had the sudden urge to read Zadie Smith's novel "On Beauty." With a few clicks, he was able to change books, authors, and genres and all before his meal had arrived.

However, Johnson does not hesitate to point out that as convenient as e-books are going to make our world, there are countless problems that come with them. He sites his own experience in the restaurant where just as easily as he was able to buy a new book, he was able to stop reading the previous one. “It will expand the universe of books at our fingertips, and transform the solitary act of reading into something far more social. It will give writers and publishers the chance to sell more obscure books, but it may well end up undermining some of the core attributes that we have associated with book reading for more than 500 years.”

Johnson compares how the advancement of e-books and the Kindle are similar in the way that they are going to change books as the Gutenberg did all those years ago. Whereas with the Gutenberg people were able to print many copies of the same text which lead to a “surge in innovation” which changed the world, with the Kindle and Google Books, people are able to search through millions of books for any variety of searches, ranging from words to genre to subject. According to Johnson, 2009 is the year of innovation and the beginning of a new age of technology which is going to lead to the same type of knowledge boom that was originally witnessed with the printing press.

The first example that Johnson sites of e-readers changing how we deal with books comes in the form of the impulse buy. Because we are going to have millions of books at our fingertips, we are going to be able to buy any book on whim simply because it is right there. There will no longer be the need to have someone recommend a book, write it down, drive to the bookstore, and purchase it. Instead, all that rests between us and a book are a few simple clicks, whether it be on our Smart Phones, our Kindles, or our Microsoft Readers. However, as beneficial as these impulse buys are going to be for authors, Johnson also believes that they are going to be just as detrimental. If one is reading a novel which does not capture his attention, he can very easily drop that novel and pick up another one without a second thought. As Johnson puts it, “the bookstore is now following you around wherever you go” and because of this convenience, readers will no longer feel the same sense of loyalty about the particular book which they are reading since it can so easily be replaced. Also, people will no longer be as captivated by what they are reading if they have the Internet at their fingertips and can switch at will from their novels to their emails.

With technology changing the way we read, it is only a matter of time before people's “blogs” on books become just as relevant to reading as the books themselves. With the annotation- friendly version of e-books that are soon to come, people will be able to comment on any page, paragraph, or even sentence of a book. It will essentially become the world's biggest book club. As Johnson points out, the activity of reading will go from being a “private activity -- a direct exchange between author and reader -- to a community event, with every isolated paragraph the launching pad for a conversation with strangers around the world.

With this type of breakthrough, it is possible that authors are going to be writing in terms that are more convenient and enticing for the e-book. Authors are going to write keeping in mind how certain pages and passages are going to be viewed by bloggers, and how popular these blogs are going to be ranked on Google. “Individual paragraphs will be accompanied by descriptive tags to orient potential searchers; chapter titles will be tested to determine how well they rank. Just as Web sites try to adjust their content to move as high as possible on the Google search results, so will authors and publishers try to adjust their books to move up the list.”

The Kindle is without a doubt going to change the way we view books, but only time can tell what kind of change is going to come about because of them. As Johnson states, “We all know the story of how the information-wants-to-be-free ethos of the Web threatened the newspapers with extinction. Wouldn't it be ironic if books turned out to be their savior?”





The second article which I read for my report was titled “Book End” by Jacob Weisberg. This article was very interesting to read because Weisberg made a conscious decision to not go overboard with the joys and wonders that come with the Kindle and Sony Reader, yet still managed to convey his point. Although Weisberg admits that there are many technological problems that come with the e-book readers, such as its black-and-white display, its lack of built-in lighting, and the robotic intonation of the text-to-voice feature, it is still a marvel of a tool that is going to revolutionize the way we read. According to this article, the 550 year marriage between book and print is coming to an end, and therefore “printed books, the most important artifacts of human civilization, are going to join newspapers and magazines on the road to obsolescence.”

As much as Weisberg brags about being a Kindle owner, he does admit that reading something on a Kindle is not always better than an actual print book, such as the case with art books, children's story books, or when one wishes to read in the bathtub. However, even with their inherent drawbacks, Kindles appear to be the better option for Weisberg, even though he is a publisher believes that due to the Kindle, physical books are ending their life cycle. He does not believe that the end of the print book means the end of literature; it is merely going to be a change from what we are used to. E-books should in no way take away from our love of print books. Instead, they are merely going to provide another more convenient option which people may or may not chose to utilize. As Weisberg points out, since we do so much on computers nowadays, it is only a matter of time before “books may again thrive as expressions of craft and design. Their decline as useful objects may allow them to flourish as design objects.”

However, as far as publishers go, their future looks far less optimistic. With Amazon selling books at a loss just to promote the Kindle, it is only a matter of time before Amazon decides to capitalize on their invention. Perhaps in the future, writers will no longer need publishers and will instead work directly with Amazon. “If the answer is primarily cultural arbitration and editing, the publishing behemoths might dwindle while a much lighter weight model of publishing—clever kids working from coffee shops in Brooklyn—emerges.”

As is true with any invention, the Internet and Kindle have their advantages and drawbacks. Although these advancements will probably hurt publishers and newspapers and journalists alike, they have at the same time given free range to writers to experiment in a new realm with a much wider audience.

Book Report

As soon as I learned about this project, I knew what I wanted to do my paper on. I have always been interested in the future of the book and how technology is going to change reading - and books- as we know it. The Kindle has already had a major impact on how people are able to read books, and the way in which they are able to go about purchasing these books. I plan on exploring the advantages and disadvantages that come with this technology and how - or even if- the e-book is going to have as significant an impact on the way we view literature. I have found several interesting sites which I plan on using, including the articles “ How the E-Book Will Change the Way We Read and Write” and “How Kindle Will Change the World.”

Although I have a few key points which I plan on presenting on my paper, such as the idea of students someday being able to carry around their one Kindle from class to class, as opposed to the considerable weight of so many textbooks, the way impulse buys made available to us by the e-bookstore are going to change the way we purchase books, and if the advancement of the e-book is going to mean the demise of the physical book, I know that I still need some more topics to research. I am hoping that the more I research into this, the more ideas I will be getting on further issues to investigate further about the e-book and the future of reading.

I am also intrigued by how such a technology would change other aspects of peoples' lives, such as the way we will be reading our magazines and newspapers, the future of libraries, and how we are going to view the paper and pen, which may seem so outdated and not as “user-friendly” as the options which are provided to us by these newer technologies. As I have mentioned, I am not dead set on any specific thesis or argument yet, and these are just vague ideas on what I plan on pursuing. If anyone has any tips or ideas on this, I will greatly welcome any help.

Also, I have not given much thought to this, but it might be interesting to see how e-books would change copyright laws and the way we view ownership of any particular book or piece of work. With ever changing technology, it would only make sense that the laws change to keep up.

Don't Be Inspired. This is Copyrighted.

Is it creativity if it is built on someone else's work? Well, I am not really sure how one is supposed to be creative unless he is building off of someone else's work, however distant the connection may be. I do not believe there truly is something as original thought, which if why I believe that any create piece of work which has been created, whether it be a piece or art, a song, or a story has to have been inspired, at least in part, by someone else. What I cannot quite seem to figure out is where one would draw the line between being "inspired" and "stealing" someone else's ideas. Needless to say, anyone who has ever created a masterpiece of any kind has been inspired by someone else's work. Everyone knows that some of Shakespeare's greatest works were not his original ideas, but adaptations from other works. Where would the literary world be today if there had been such stringent copyright laws back then, and Shakespeare had been prevented from adding his own spin to someone else's work?

Although I do believe that copyright laws are there for logical reason, I believe that they need to be altered to fit today's world of ever changing technology and ideas. With the internet allowing for ideas to be shared at light speed with people from all corners of the world, it seems ridiculous to halt the creative ideas of so many because another author or musician has a piece of work which resembles yours in even the slightest way. Such copyright laws are preventing many from reaching their full potential and becoming the next Shakespeare, Cezanne, or Buckethead.

Clearly, it is wrong to steal another's work. However, it is another thing completely if one gets his inspiration from a particular source and samples a small piece of that work and reworks it to make it his own new, creative piece. If we continue blocking the inspirational paths of so many because someone else has had an idea that in some way resembles a small part of it, we are soon going to be left with nothing. Eventually, there is going to come a time where unless we start putting a new spin on old works, we are going to be stuck in a world with the same stories, music, and art.

True artists, those that create because they love what they are doing and they want to share with others what has inspired them, are willing to let others use their works to create something of their own. However, artists, musicians, producers, authors, and anyone else who has something to offer the mass public, are rarely left to their own devices. They have managers and publishers and executives and a slew of others to whom they must answer. Because the power has been taken out of the hands of the artists and instead rests with those who own them, money has become the central issue around which copyright laws exists. Something clearly needs to be done to maintain that an author or musician gets credit for his work, but that the same protection that is extended to the author or musician does not hinder the creative works of others.

Fonts- Then and Now

I, much like others in our class, must admit that I had previously never given much thought to typography before. I have always seen letters as blocks of symbols with greater the intention of creating words. Never before had I really thought to look at the art behind the fonts that make up my words. As we started discussing the different types of typography and its evolution throughout the years, one question that piqued everyone's interest was "Is one particular type better than another?" Although a few people seem to think that we appreciate the font that is more commonly used today as opposed to Venetian type is because we are more used to seeing it, I am inclined to disagree. I believe that we are more inclined towards the fonts of today's age because it is systematically easier to read, and not because this is the type font with which we have been trained to read and write. Because the typography of today is much less intricate and elegant, it makes it easier for the eye to recognize the letters. Since less attention is focused on the ornateness of the letter, one's attention can afford to focus on the actual text itself. Yes, the “art” behind the font gets lost, one does not pick up a novel to appreciate art. One picks up a novel to comprehend the story represented by the letters.

One may ask 'what is wrong with a more elaborate text for modern writing?' and my answer to that is that it takes up valuable time. In today's world where there do not seem to be enough hours in a day to accomplish all that one needs to do, the last thing anyone wants is to have his attention diverted by the script of their morning newspaper, business report, or financial forms. When I pick up my Organic Chemistry textbook, I do so with the intention to understand the context of what is written, not to dwell on how lovely and artistic the text is. If I want art, I will go to a museum, not my textbook.

I do not believe I am alone in my harsher assessment of the more classical types of font. I can appreciate the beautiful typography when I deem the medium appropriate, such as a wedding invitation. However, I will feel much differently about the same type if it is used by a fellow colleague to give me a business update, or by a friend sending me an email. There is a correct time and place for everything, and this includes typography. There is a reason why the font that is used today is being utilized as opposed to the fonts of manuscripts all of those years ago: it is simply easier and faster to read. Such a way of thinking is so pivotal to today's demographic that when I was being taught how to present a proper report, whether it be by email, Powerpoint, or handout, I was informed on the many “do nots” of a presentation. These included fonts to avoid using, colors that drained on the page, sizes that were deemed to be slightly better or worse for the general public to read, and even that if one types the same twice, once using all capital letters and once all in lower case, the majority of people will take 13% longer to read the sentence written in all capitals. And in a world where time is money, no one wants to waste precious minutes.