In conclusion...

This class has taught me to be afraid of the internet and all things electronic. I have realized that everything I do in this technologically advanced world makes an imprint that I cannot erase. Google knows not only my location, but my favorite shoe store. Facebook is like my keeper, it keeps track of all my friends in groups and keeps tabs on them so I know where they are at every moment. Twitter is like my private eye. My professional stalker that never lets me down. The Courant, and other equally finger staining ink papers, will probably disappear or dwindle down to a size where my six month old niece can hold it easily in her hands. But the saddest, will be the death of my blog, for it made me a published author. I should put this on my resume...

All joking aside, this class really opened my eyes to topics I never considered or dared to look into. I was able to form my own opinion and look deeper into sites such as Google and Wikipedia and find out what they are really about.

I think I'm Undertanding Media..

McLuhan's concept of media has me a bit thrown. Sometimes I think he is right on, other times I think he is talking out of his ass. It is during that time, that I have to remind myself when he wrote this, and I find myself silently, and mostly grudgingly, commending him on his progressive ideas. MM describes the differences between "hot" and "cool" media: "Any hot medium allows of less participation than a cool one, as a lecture makes for less participation than a seminar, and book for less than a dialogue." Meaning, that while both have an affect, the amount of affect varies. MM states that movies are "hot" because they enhance one single sense because it does not require much stimulus. It is simply for watching idly and enjoying, easily. Hot media is typically linear, such as radio and a lecture. "Cool" media, as MM puts it, would be television, as it provides more involvement and is more stimulating. Apparently, MM believes that watching TV requires more active participation than the movies. This makes no sense to me unless he is referring to the remote and channel surfing, which would account for his reasoning behind active participation. I suggest he observe my father watching TV, I bet he'd change his mind. My question remains, do we really have to "think" about what we're watching, whether it be movies or TV? With shows like Lost, 24 and Flashforward, there are more mystery that spans throughout the entire series, but I doubt people turn off their TV after an episode and really take time to study the events. TV and movies are designed for no participation. Maybe there are exceptions, as there is to everything.

MM concept of "media" being a medium or sorts is very interesting. The impact of each medium varies with each social network. Meaning, while the actual medium remains constant, the affect is different. For this I agree. However, once someone detaches themselves from the medium, they can control the outcome of the medium. So does this mean that everyone who attempts to change media or technology is living in a detached state? So by detaching themselves, they neutralize the affect the medium has. But is that possible? If the media and technology, and all the other words he uses to describe the exact same thing, is all around you, how can you detach yourself? It would be like going into a different dimension, not just mentally, but completely. Maybe it has something to do with this light bulb idea. Media isn't an actual thing, but is determined and described by the result of the affect it has on the environment. So does that mean the words in a newspaper isn't an actual thing, but the result of it on the social fabric?

2014 whhhatt??!

Before I watched the video, I thought, no way. But now, holy cow. Here's a quick rundown on the progression of the internet:

1989- World Wide Web created
1994- Amazon-a store that makes suggestions
1998- Creation of Google, the world's largest
1999- TiVo (my personal bff) unshakles tv from the constraints of time
Blogger
2002-Friendster: detailed map of a persons life, interests, social networks
Google News: edited entirely by computers
2003- Year of the blog
2004- The year everything began
2005- Microsoft buys Friendster
2006- Google combines all it's services-creating Google Grid: everyone can own and create, consume
2007- Microsoft, Newsbotster
2008- Alliance: Google and Amazon=Googlezon
2010- News war
2011- The New York Times v. Googlezon visits Supreme Court
2014 EPIC: Evolving Personalized Information Construct

It's like the MATRIX

This really made my eyes widen when I realized just how far the internet has come in such a short time. I wonder where it will end. It is really creepy. Especially 2010-2014: will that be our future? Is this a summary of our world? What else will cease to exist?

Narrow, shallow and sensational. Is this what we chose?

Are there any journalistic ethics anymore?

Reader's Digest

In an article from Reader's Digest:

8 Things being KILLED by the Internet

1. Polite Disagreement
2. Letter Writing
3. Memory
4. Waiting a day for sports
5. Footnotes
6. Leaving your desk for lunch
7. Concentration
8. Daydreaming

reddit

I really like Reddit and how it is setup. At first, I just scanned it and was confused as to what it really was, then I started reading the headlines and found myself chuckling at the topics and how it was worded. I especially like that the most commented stories are at the top instead of having someone who runs the site decide on which are newsworthy and which aren't. It could be something silly like a happy kitty, or more interesting like Tiger Wood's ultimate fighting champ of a wife.

On a more serious note, I don't really understand why text messages from 9/11 would be released. This article states that, "We hope that its entrance into the historical record will lead to a nuanced understanding of how this event led to death, opportunism and war." Can someone explain that to me? Is the interest in these texts the same as seeing an accident on the highway and being fascinated?

So far...

If I was a celebrity, I think I'd be into twitter because people care about all the mindless details of their life. But I'm not and I have found that I don't really have anything interesting to say. It is kind of funny to me how celebrities complain about paparazzi and having no privacy, yet they post constantly about every single thing they are doing. Isn't that completely personal? Maybe since it is their choice to share, it makes it okay.

The timestamp feature seems like a fine idea. Everything these days is timestamped. But GPS stamped? Whhat?!?! Creepy anyone? It's like twitter has lojacked you and you can't escape from it. Are people really that crazy that they are no longer satisfied with the 140 characters that they need to see exactly where you were when you typed it?

I will say, I have checked Taylor Swift's twitter about five times already today. I am ashamed to admit it.

Hola

a random girl just became my first follower. when i clicked on her site it was in a different language. now i'm confused...