2X2L calling CQ ... Isn't there anyone on the air? Isn't there anyone on the air? Isn't there ... anyone?

Wow...so i didnt realize that the response papers were due at Noon....still stuck on last semester.

Carey discusses the idea that technology can have a lasting effect on culture. He goes on to explain in greater detail about the various instances in which this has held true. The main example and the closing argument made by Carey brings up the point that the Time Zones were created to allow a more standardized way to tell time. This idea was brought about during the popularity of train travel. Covert brings up the idea that we must not find commonplace in technology but instead in the human personality. I actually agreed with this article in the sense that as people begin to rely on technology as the sole forum for discussion, face to face interaction will then suffer. Williams brings about the idea of technological determinism, which is the opinion of many as to why television was actually created. It assumes that technologies were studied and developed for the sake of creating these new technologies. Hills goes on to further Williams’ argument about technological determinism by stating that if a technology is developed for the sole reason of becoming a medium it fulfills that technological deterministic view. Hills also discusses the use of Virtual Reality as a medium…I am somewhat confused as to what is meant by a medium…for use of knowledge…enjoyment…or what? Technically, wouldn’t everything, which is used to mass various signals, be called a medium?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

So I'd like to start by saying a lot of the reading was very wordy and threw me for a loop, but in the end it all seems to connect together. All these articles seem to focus on what came first, the new technology or the need of the technology by the social network involved. It is much like the question of which came first the chicken or the egg. This question really has no answer because each one thing needs the other to exist. Technology and the need for the technology are the same. If we didn't need the technology or have a desire for it, it probably wouldn't be created. Although I found Raymond William's essay on television a little confusing and hard to grasp, I also was intrigued by the points he made and the connections he talked about between society and technology as a whole. It makes sense that communications technologies were improved upon to aide in our military and commercial systems. The expansion of the country in geographical terms shows us that new and better technologies were needed to connect government and industrial societies from coast to coast. This illustrates the point that technologies were invented with intention. These technologies were looked for with certain purposes and practices in mind. But just because some things are intended to be used for one thing, inevitably they can and are used for other things that were not intended. In "Digital Sensations" by Ken Hillis he says that instead of talking about the impacts of technology we should think and talk about it as the co-evolution of technological and other social practices. To me this means even though the invention of all these new communication technologies have altered our lives in very specific ways, if they hadn't come about our lives would be dictated by other forms of communication. If our society hadn't been changing and becoming more mobile the need for the new technologies would never have even existed and therefore would have taken a lot longer to come about. Since our society needed and wanted these new technologies more effort was put into creating them.
Now because I am an old fuddy duddy there was one idea in Catherine Covert's essay that I wanted to comment on. She says, "One of the costs suffered in confronting such new technology-indeed in confronting anything new-was that of a sense of loss; loss of old behavior, old values, old relationships, old senses of the self." This is one point that I have been agreeing with for a long time. New technology is amazing and useful in many ways, but what damages is it doing to our society? I feel that personal connections and relationships are taking a beating. Before the invention of all these devices the only way to communicate was face to face. Now much of our communication is done over the phone or electronically through the computer. Things are becoming less personal and have less feelings attached. I feel this is somewhat alienating to our society as a whole. People are becoming much to self-absorbed with their own lives and missing what is happening all around them. Not only are our personal relationships being changed and harmed, but our own sense of self is being damaged. Ten years ago cell phones were a rare sight around N.E. Iowa, now they are standard issue. I personally feel they are more of a nuisance than anything else. I admit they are handy if you get in a jam and need help or for emergency purposes. Now people's lives revolve around their cell phones and whose calling them, or text-messaging them. Not to mention if you carry your phone with you everyone can always find you. Doesn't anybody want to be left alone anymore just to think or do whatever they want without being interrupted? The cell phone is just one example in an ever-growing field of new technologies. My question is this: Are all these new inventions really improving our lives or are they hindering our own personal relationships?

Enter the Matrix

Among the articles, there appears a common theme: how is the evolution of technology driven? Almost naturally, it seems like survival of the fittest: a balance between the needs of the environment (society) and the drive of the inventor (robustness of the creature). In Williams' article, technology is described both in its technical requirements for evolving (what first...) as well as it cultural impacts like globalization and class consciousness. There are equalizing as well as hierarchical forces in play, and this demonstrates both the power and fragility of technology as a text: it is always changing, and and individual's choices in it are both passive and active, intentional as well as unavoidable. As Hillis explores, media technologies are immersive; demanding attention and creating an alternative, virtual reality. The connection to society depends on how people are affected and how they choose to participate. The main goal in understanding these connections is understanding how technical evolution relates to the choices made finally by the end-user. In other words, USB had to come first before you could harvest its massive 5 volts to keep your feet warm.

Radio, slippers, cigar… and that’s the way it is.

Although I always tend to hate these early reads due to their usual place in history… a long time ago… at least these did a better job about keeping my attention than rather just teaching me something. Reading Coverts piece, I always enjoy hearing about how back when these technologies were new, it tended to scare or confuse the general population at first. Similar to when the audience jumped out of the way when the train was heading at them in that one movie… possibly “Train” or something to that effect, reading how that man listen to his ear phones was both a little worried and confused always puts a smile on my face. And now it seems so typical that with radio it started out as some “boy toy” only used by fathers and sons alike while the women had other things to do. Probably teaching their daughters about the dangers of kissing and how reefer can ruin your life. I can’t help but think that in the very beginning of all of this technology people didn’t crack open their radios thinking to find a little human with a surprisingly booming voice working away 24 hours a day. It goes to show however that when my sister was little she wanted to grow up and be Mighty Mouse… because he is real… and I wanted to be a truck.

Imagery

Catherine Covert used imagery of an "amateur experimenter of the early twenties" sitting "down in his garage, shack, or attic bedroom" assembling "his mystifying array of wires, coils, and batteries." He "inhabits a world of excitement, drama, and power" and "could choose to exert his will over time and distance. She called them "precious hours of the imagination." This is very much like today's fascination with new technologies that capture our imaginations and immerse us in the activity, not of the technology itself as Ken Hillis suggests, of exploring, utililizing, and manipulating new technologies. Xbox Live and online gaming in general can elicit much the same imagery, albeit much more sleek, modern and contained, as the amateur radio experimenter of the twenties: hiding away, so to speak, hooking up your system and preparing for the excitement, drama, and power felt while interacting with other people across the globe. There is no time or distance. Those are the hours of precious imagination and immersion into technology that plant the seeds in people that one day will sprout new ideas and innovations in technology.

I remember when I was your age, we had dial up internets

Technology is sometimes an annoyance and sometimes a vast expanding way to connect and simplify everyone’s lives, depending on who and the situation. The progression of technologies before computers and the obvious, complimentary invention of the internet worked in a very similar way. Said progression seems to be like this, in a more technological determinism way of viewing it, people have needs, people dream up ways to meet needs, people hire nerds to make dreams happen, and finally dreams become reality. The argument that something like this is inevitable, social constructionism, is understandable, but is also guaranteed to never be proven. Computers and the internet are links much like television, radio, and telegraphy were and still are links between people. Human beings are social beings and that means it makes perfect sense that they are going to use their imaginations and engineering ability (in whichever order) to find ways to bridge gaps between themselves and others, whether the reason is to communicate news within a corporation or to find a way to tell someone you miss them.

Look out!!! The television is a portal to Hell!!!

It wasn't the ideas presented by the articles through business perspectives that interested me, but the initial reaction to the technologies that were created as far back as the early 1800s. It was almost as if the public's reaction to radio was something more logical than the kind of zealotous reaction to photography, which was percieved as a possible tool of the Devil, and the box with the flash bulb on it would take your soul. My thoughts of early ideas of the radio, with its societal perception as just a talking box bent on destroying the family with its invasion of the home and the lives of the people who inhabit said dwellings was something of hilarity, but that was probably the norm of that time.

With the observations of the past, I can say that the next wave of technology will not be seen as such a problem.

Technology makes location and identity irrelevant

The telegraph article was the most interesting for me, the massive changes brought about by the first separation of communication and travel. But with radio the actual human voice was traveling for the first time, Television brought the first images from a distance, and now the advances of VR allow for full submersion in a distant or non-existent reality.

Each of these steps has made the world a little smaller, trade more efficient, and travel less necessary. Each time technology improved, however, the communication was less personal. The telegraph made contact between speakers unnecessary, the radio and TV allowed one person to address the nation, and now VR makes it possible to talk to avatars you know nothing about, even their gender. Each of these steps have had strong upsides, but with the loss of personal contact I can’t help but wonder if people are going to become less true to their word in business agreements. Ebay has been used to scam people out of money and sell them empty computer boxes. When identity is masked, morals aren’t far behind.

Reactions to "New" Technologies

With the advent of new media forms (i.e. the telegraph, radio, television, internet, video games) comes dramatic social change and controversy. As Covert mentions, people are reluctant to automatically say "out with the old, in with the new." It is often hard to grasp certain aspects of emerging technology, and people are sometimes afraid of what they don't understand. People used to believe Communists were going to brainwash radio listeners. Williams mentions that we usually look at technology and society in terms of a cause-effect relationship. The technological determinism theory suggests that our history (including social and cultural values) has all been shaped by technology. Although this theory obviously has it's flaws, some still believe that certain existing mediums will start a downward spiral, almost apocalyptic in outcome.
The content in mass media has always been a highly debated topic. Covert mentions that people were scared that radio listeners weren't engaging in the medium, but rather passively consuming, "swallowing all that they hear, whole and without thought." As if the content were a drug, injected by a hypodermic needle. The recent video game controversies are reminiscent of this same case. Some people (such as Hillary Clinton and Jack Thompson) link the rise of high school and college shootings, with increasingly violent video games. Is this fear unfounded? Or is there a cause-effect relationship? It seems these questions will always arise with every new technology.

Too Much of a Good Thing

Throughout these readings, it was obvious to me how technology has changed and improved during the years. I don’t think people think about life without cell phones, television or e-mail. It’s important to study the progression of communication technologies and the effects they have had on culture as a whole. Different cultures will use the advancement of technology in different ways and some more than others. While reading Williams, something stuck out and caught my attention. He looks at the cause and effects on a society from technological advancements. He gives several theories as to how technology has altered our world and our lives. I think these theories bring to the forefront many topics that people really should be aware of. For example, there has been an increase in obesity among children and adults in the U.S. Could technology have something to do with this, I think so. It is too easy for kids to sit for hours at a time on the internet, watching television or playing video games. Another topic to look at would be social problems such as violence, desensitizing and early maturation. The advancement in communication technology has brought about many wonderful changes but along with these changes are some issues that many societies should take into account.

The Ear is Supreme

Do we really hear too much? I don't think so. I guess it depends if we're really hearing or listening, because I tend to hear a lot of things, but catch myself not actually listening. In the Covert article, just like any new technology, the radio was fearsome to people. Having to learn a new technology and ditch your old habits. The transcedence came in the late 1920s when people were in more tune to the radio instead of their newspapers and wireless. So in that case, people weren't hearing enough, maybe just tired of reading like I am now! It can also depend on what we're hearing, because everyone has their different tastes. I enjoy radio comedy like a Howard Stern, or hearing pre-game and post-game shows for my sports teams. Others may utilize the radio to hear the news or for music. My personal preference would be to hear, rather to read, which is why I don't think we'll ever hear too much.

The evolution of objectivity

I was really intrigued by Carey's discussion of how the telegraph created a need for objectivity (see page 210). Until I read this I hadn't ever thought so concretely about how technology changes what Carey calls "the nature of awareness" (210). As he explains at the end of the chapter, all technological change will continue to have implications for our awareness. If the telegraph created the need for uniform and objective news, does the web highlight the problematic nature of objectivity? I think of how the web allows for everyone to create news (ie. blogs and independent media). There is no longer a necessity for a uniform "'scientific' language" because there is not such a strict limit on space. If someone doesn't want to read one thing they can simply get their news elsewhere. Carey writes that the telegraph "separated the observer from the writer;" has the web made the conflation of the two possible?

Television is neat

I think that I have probably heard a lot of this stuff before, but maybe not quite as in depth as this article. I found this very interesting, how it talked about the creation of television being almost accidental, but then as I read on I don't see how it was accidental at all. This really talked about how technology had been leading up (on purpose or not) since the 1700's. People had been experimenting with different techniques, using multiple shot cameras and transmitting images for a while. The inventions of the cathode ray tube and the cathode ray receiver are what really made tv take off, in my mind. I believe that tv will always be a big part of communication, as will radio. Although technology changes with time, and evolves into things like virtual reality, television will always act as a social was for everyday people to receive information and be entertained. While something like virtual reality might be the next popular thing, not everyone will be able to afford it, keeping television a cheap means of getting information.

Communication Continuum

As I was reading the first article, the one on early communication and the connections between the telegraph and the railroad, I couldn't help but note some similarities between the earliest forms of communication and the newest forms of communication. One thing the author brought up quite frequently was the importance of the distinctions between social classes with not only the telegraph, but the railroads. At the beginning, these were devices for the upper classes, the wealthiest people because it was expensive and very new. For example, the telegraph was first used as a luxury to play board games like chess with another person from a long distance. The middle and lower classes, although maybe needing the technology, were not originally able to use it. Likewise, in today's society, much of the newer technology is unavailable to a great number of people simply because they cannot afford it, or have no knowledge on how to use it. I found it very interesting these similarities existed because this theme has been reoccurring over decades of the newest technologies.
Similarly, another theme from early to new communication seems evident. In early radio, subject matter was considered rather borderline inappropriate, especially during the fragile time of WWI. Radio stations began a "censorship" process during which many companies and stations went under different ownership and a problematic time schedule. Just as censorship became an issue with the radio back then, so it is now. It seems that many people are getting into a great deal of trouble with "freedom of speech" and being "politically correct". One example, as all of us know, is Don Imus and his ridiculous comments about the University of Rutgers' women's basketball team. Different times, different events, but the same issues and the same problems.

Wires, Watt, and Waves - Oh my!

The majority of my educational background has roots in media, journalism and writing, and promotion. So, my familiarity with these technologies reaches a peak at merely using them as a means to a mass communication-based end. Being able to explore them from their technological beginnings, understanding the basic science of these communication tools was interesting. I had no idea that so many similar ideas were generated at the time of radio and television’s conception. I must confess that most of the scientific writing was dry and hard to read, but only because it is not what I normally consume. I am used to studying the social impact of communication technology, not understanding how they work as a technology alone. Reading about the technological ancestors and siblings of the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television has really cast a light on how people continued to build on the pre-existing technology. The article about virtual reality, not only opened my eyes to a new optical science, but asked me to think of communication technology not only as a “tool” but as something with value outside mediating social influence and interaction. For if such advancements do not have value, as Hillis asks, why invent a technology in the first place?

One of the many ways that we waste our time

Most if not all technological technologies and practices can be likened to a double-edged sword. This can't be more eloquently observed in the Internet as a whole and how it is being used and abused by the global society.First the pros. Most people give their thanks to whatever little nerd tinkerer that invented the Internet, that which turned a computer into something more than a paperweight. Communication is instant between people around the world, and the other communication mediums are now being infused into the Internet.But the two benefits that I have just presented show the cons. Easy communication means that the wrong people can start communicating together (Ex: molesters to children). The infusion of mediums can be detrimental to the existences of TV, radio, and newspapers. As the Internet slowly sucks these things in too, people will be at odds over which way to get their information, which could become corrupted at the push of a button.

Find Yourself.....Free Yourself....Lose Yourself

It has often been said, in regards to any new technology or medium, that our world has been "altered," or "revolutionized." While this is undoubtedly true in the majority of cases it seems to me that the phrase and the social constraints behind it have been lost to poetry and aestheticism. The meaning behind the phrase "our world has changed" carries far more psychological and spiritual weight than even I have previously imagined.
From a purely technical (and semantics) standpoint, to say that our world has been altered is to simultaneously say that our reality has changed. When our ideals values and expectations of the space around us change to allow entrance of new technology, our ideologies that drive our hegemonic structure are likewise altered.
Take for instance, the telegraph, radio and television. All of these new technologies were at first regarded with vernacular usually reserved for the supernatural or occult. These new devices allowed from the proliferation of incredibly new ideologies. These ideas rendered all of geography short of physical experience insignificant. The telegraph revolutionized information services not only changing the informational lexicon and setting the president for today's news, but also literally created time in its own right.
I am not one to subscribe to the belief that our information technologies are merely extensions of a human mind. I believe they are perhaps something more. But I ask everyone to ask themselves some very simple questions.

What is reality?
Did we create these devices within a certain reality or did the devices create us within their own?
If devices have ideologically shifted boundaries, literally created time, and control our daily living, are we not participants in simulated reality?

It's on computers now!

The main communication technology that the general population practices today would either be television, e-mail or phone-based communications. Even more recently, social websites and blogs including, but not limited to MySpace and Facebook have taken over the lives of varying demographics. I’m not sure if I would consider these sites as the ‘most important’ practices, but they would be a good start in trying to answer the ‘why?’ Advertising; it is the main financial cash-cow that keeps the wheels of the World Wide Web churning. These mega-sites with millions of unique users, cash in on the advertising. From an entrepreneurial standpoint that would seem like a very important aspect, as far as the potential for growth and expansion, both physically and financially. Other types of communication technologies used today have been in place for a while and are not really evolving as fast as these newer websites.

BOOM-HEADSHOT!

I feel that we should be studying the communication between gamers in various different settings. The language used is completely ridiculous and clearly would be a blast to study. For example…words like noob and pwn appear to be complete gibberish, but when used as an insult to a foe while piercing their skull with a sniper rifle, they can be quite effective. Although this may not be the most proper of communication, I feel takes a place in many people’s lives. Without communication in video games how could we properly give out the chance-for-success to our fellow clan-members? If we could understand the meaning behind all of this communication we would completely open up another culture to study.

Big Brother, not just a reality TV show anymore

I think the most important communication technology we should focus on is the VoIP advances that have come along lately. Not only does this have the ability to completely change the telephone industry, but it has almost infinite applications in online communication, if the downsides can be overcome.
Second life.com recently added this technology to its super awesome MMORPG, now Avatars are able to talk to each other in more than text bubbles at the bottom of the screen, the down side to this is the disappearance of anonymity. A combination of text and speech seems to be where this is headed.
In the “real” world I also have concerns of cell phones type technology being too easy. Big brother might see it fit to some day place a microphone in every car, home, etc, especially if this will combat terrorism.

With the boom of computer sales and internet availability the last decade I think it is very hard not to study the internet in this class. Yes is it a slightly obvious choice as it was the subject of our first assigned reading. But so many people use the internet now for their news, entertainment, and communication. I know that I personally rarely watch TV anymore (except for baseball). Why would I sit through tons of pointless advertisements and crappy programming when I can choose exactly what I watch when i want to watch it? Which for me brings up two interesting questions. To what extent will programming continue to be offered online? If I missed an episode of Heroes last season I could simply watch it online. It seems that it would be easy to track how many people watch it and there were still commercials when I watched it. And also, with websites like TV Links, how long will the internet be an open source for all forms of media?

Content, Delivery, and DRM

Within the realm of the World Wide Web exist programs functioning beyond the scope of the web-browser that still rely on the standard HTTP. Media players, file sharing services, and digital music warehouses allow for both streaming content and progressive downloads that have completely changed the way people use the Internet. The main cause, of course, this is the availability of high-speed home connections (allowing bigger downloads), faster machines (to process higher-fidelity content), and Internet-wire[less] hand-held smart devices (giving you the power of a PC in the palm of your hand). With the ability to deliver said content nearly anywhere, there comes the question of copyright enforcement. There has always been a question of export laws regulating the bits pumped through the digital pipes, but software and media licensing is an even more important issue: to insure an income, the content provider must take into their hands the task and responsibility of protecting their valuable bytes. Rights management has become an extremely important communication technology practice.

Web Research and Site Credibility

It is apparent that many high school and college students turn to the World Wide Web for researching their projects, papers, etc. For example, this class was required to read Wikipedia's entry for "Internet".
Differences of opinion seem to exist about the use of web resources based on the legitimacy of the article in use. I personally have had professors accept many online citations, including Wikipedia. But some professors are displeased with their students' use of online sources, usually limiting or restricting them entirely. One UNI professor gave our class a handout specifically about the use of Wikipedia as a non-credible source. The department had even held a meeting on the subject and a disclaimer from Wiki was given (IMPORTANT NOTE.)
So is there any way to measure a site's credibility? When and how should online sources be used?
The fact is, Wikipedia is typically one of the initial sources students start their research with. And Wikipedia also provides external academic articles related to most of their entries. The best bet on finding credible online academic sources, like online journals or e-books, is to go through most library servers. The Rod library has a disclaimer about web resources. But they do provide a web site evaluation guide worksheet and another link to evaluation criteria (See disclaimer for these links.)

a quick note on inserting links

I was posting a comment on Brandon C's post, and I noticed that links in comments do not automatically work. You can make links in comments by inserting the following text (replace with the link and the words you want):

< href="http://www.thepageyouarelinkingto.com"> the_name_of_the_link </a>

Links in the posts are easier, just use the button that looks like this:

The Rise of Email

Another vastly important form of communication technology is email. Although we may consider email to be somewhat an older aspect of the internet, it is ever-changing and continues to grow in importance in today's society. Email has revolutionized how business and personal affairs are conducted by just sheer efficiency. However, there are underlying aspects of email that often go unnoticed that seem as relevant as the message itself. With today's insanely intricate technologies, hacking seems to be present everywhere and everything must be monitored. In fact, it is possible for a personal email to be checked at the workplace simply because the company or organization has the "right of ownership" over that particular emailing service. There is a great deal of ethics involved in email than meets the eye. Many messages can be misconstrued simply because face to face interaction isn't involved. Thus, much more care needs to be placed in details of emails. Since emailing happens so frequently, we can forget how much meaning these messages can actually imply.
In today's fast paced, busy society, it is important to have communication from distances for efficiency purposes. Email provides many solutions to many problems, but must be dealt with in a careful manner because with the many pros of email comes many cons.

Instant Collaberation

I believe the most important communication technology practice we should be studying is collaberation. Utilizing the ability to instantaneously send messages and files makes this technology practice a very important tool for networking in businesses, social purposes, or leisure purposes. First hand example would be our first class on Tuesday, when we used the Web CT chat room to collaberate and attempt to humiliate our fellow classmates. More importantly, the use of instantaneous messaging can be better utilized when you’re talking to someone across the country, or the continent, without having to cough up money to your phone company or cell phone provider. Sometimes it’s easier for me to reach friends and family via instant messaging rather than trying to get them on the phone. Along with instant messaging comes file sharing, voice communication, and video contact. With the right peripherals, you’re able to see and hear the person on the opposite end.

Communication via Satellite

I believe the most important thing to be studying right now is satellite radio. Radio is one of the most important mediums of communication. It can do things that tv can't, in making you think and using your imagination. Radio, being a major factor in mass communication, is changing rapidly. Because so many stations are today being bought out by bigger companies, many people are switching to satellite radio (ie XM, Sirius). By doing this people can switch from over 200 stations with something different on everyone. I think that if we start using this technology more and more, people will continue to use it and it can become one of the biggest sources of mass communication out there, next to television and the internet. Because it's from a satellite, and not a tower transmitter, people would be able to tune in to something from anywhere in the world, making it very user friendly and accessible to everyone.

Streaming media, it's not just porn anymore

Streaming media is the most important practice of communication technology because of two things, it is growing to involve anyone and everyone whether they are common/recreational/flat out lazy internet users or all the way up to companies and corporations. The other reason being that our study of communication technology is to better prepare ourselves in the realm of media and all of it’s branches, however stretched of a connection there is between film and youtube. We should look at the progression and future of this spreading medium that allows new freedoms for creation and gives marketing a new identity. The practice of streaming media is extremely broad and is impacting how nearly everyone uses the internet, as it is sure to continue doing in new ways in the future.

The most important communication technology practice that we should be studying is how individuals use the web to perform identity. When you lurk around online you present yourself in a particular way. I think we should consider the benefits from being able to use to the web to negotiate multiple identities all at the same time. However, it is equally important to think critically about the implications of the practice. Like we discussed in class on Tuesday, all of this really changes the way we think about what is public and private. No matter how many profile settings we change, if we put something out there, someone can eventually find it – there is no private. Posting pictures of your drunken tirade across campus might seem harmless but when a future employer finds them the consequences become tangible rather quickly.

What is the most important communication technology practice we should be studying?

As much as I hate conforming, I believe the Internet to be the most important communication technology practice we should be studying, assuming you are talking about we, the students in your class. As the foundational network by which we utilize so many communication tools, the Internet has changed and is continually changing the depth and breadth of human communication. The World Wide Web alone provides almost infinite sources for information, entertainment, and communication of ideas. Understanding the Internet and its upper layers is fundamental in exploiting its positive benefits and hopefully impeding its dangers. I actually tried to think of another communication technology practice I thought was more important, but I failed. I suck. So let it be written…. (This blog is 127 words…. Oh yeah)

If You Promote It...

I think conducting online business is an important communication technology practice to study. Wikipedia mentioned that the Internet has become a large market for companies to promote themselves and for shoppers to buy from those same companies. This new technology-based relationship is very important to the business/marketing/public relations fields and, potentially, the stability of economy.

Established businesses and self-promoters alike have attached themselves to the Internet in an attempt to take advantage of “the fastest way to spread information to a vast amount of people simultaneously” (Wikipedia). Increasing the opportunities for people to communicate instantly with their intended audiences along with consumers giving instant feedback, the amount and quality of business transactions are bound to increase.

However, it is not all rainbows and the pots of gold that may follow them. There is always the potential for bad publicity to spread as quickly as the good, monetary scams, and identity theft among other drawbacks that will indefinitely hold back the concept of conducting business on the Internet. With that, studying this balance would be educational and practical for any and all who use the Internet.

I feel the most important and relevant area of the internet that we should focus on would be the use of the World Wide Web. This is the area of the internet that is most frequently used by myself and countless other individuals. By focusing our attention on this area we can learn how to utilize the information and tools available to us. We can put them to use for the betterment of our personal being. With the amount of information that is available to us through the web we can enhance our personal intelligence, we can increase our fulfillment in life, and we can feel connected to people all over the world. The web is available to almost anyone, anywhere, at anytime. This is an amazing feat that has been reached. The telephone was only invented a little over a century ago and it only connected two people's voices together. But yet it totally changed how the world worked at the time. Now it is possible to watch a baseball game going on in New York, order tickets for a concert in Chicago, download the new hit from Nelly, book a hotel room in Vegas, order a vintage 79' Star Wars drinking glass and a pizza; all while emailing your mother about what a wonderful time you're having at school spending all her money. The technology used within the web is highly advanced and is constantly improving and changing. To obtain the skills necessary to understand and benefit from the use of the web is the most important thing we should be studying.

Watered Down Copies of Imitations

Most of my life I've had an inexplicable fascination with the human mind. This has shown itself in many ways the most obvious being my desire to collect and share information with the public as a reporter. The other, is a vast appreciation of the arts, specifically music. It is with these points in mind that I am drawn to the communication practice of "file sharing."
The practice of file sharing has had a multitude of consequences on the music industry. They are both good and bad. First the good. File sharing has allowed millions of people to become exposed to many different genres all at the same time. I would venture to guess that young music fans in the file sharing generation are more eclectic than previous ones. Also, sharing allows independently produced bands to more effectively promote themselves. (This is also due in huge part to sites like Facebook and Myspace.) Some of the bands that I have discovered have been sent to me via mutual friends or even the occasional accidental download.
There have also been some negative ramifications. The argument that file sharing screws over musicians is somewhat valid but growing exponentially insignificant. Hearing how file sharing is unfair from the now infamous Lars Ulrich is laughable at best. However, the valid part of the argument comes from up and coming bands that have yet to find a market niche. It is easy for us to forget that musicians are still trying to make a living like the rest of us. If the argument holds any weight it would be in the fact that newer bands may find it all the more harder to be financially compensated.
And then....there's the worst consequence of all. As an owner of hundreds of CD's, I can say that some of my favorite artists are the ones who see the production of an album as a complete work of art. The pictures, the linear notes, the disk label, everything is part of a whole. The songs are only a fragment of the vision the artists wanted to produce. For instance, the latest Nine Inch Nails album entitled "Year Zero" is a concept album meant to depict a dystopian future of the U.S. if it were to be taken over by a religious/authoritarian government. Every song builds upon the whole, telling the story from a different groups perspective. The album artwork represents propaganda spread by this potential government, as well as showing pictures of war torn landscapes. My point is, it would be a vastly different experience to just download the popular hit single than it would be to listen to the entire album.
But even casual fans like the ones that might do the aforementioned aren't what bothers me. What bothers me is artists that are becoming frustrated with file-sharing fast paced infrastructure. Another unintentional consequence of file-sharing is that it can turn people's perception of music into just another easily attainable throw-away commodity. The market change also has potential to change the way artists do things. I would hate to see artists intentionally water themselves down in order to appeal to those who only download singles. This type of behavior has already generated a plethora of easily forgotten artists whose only claim to fame was pitifully copies what others have already done a piss-poor job of.
What keeps me going, even as I an avid listener partake in file sharing, is a trust in artistic integrity and the hope that I’m not the only one out there with my level of appreciation. I’ve always been fascinated by the human mind, specifically its ability to fulfill or denounce my expectations. The rest is only time.

Exploits of The World Wide Web

The most important section that we should be studying about the internet is The World Wide Web; “The Web is just one of the ways that information can be disseminated over the Internet” (Wikipedia). Unfortunately I learned this first-hand from a small experiment directed by Mr. Epley in class. Not having really given much thought into the fact that anybody could easily access information (incriminating and non-incriminating) about me at any given time through The World Wide Web. Here I sat in class next to a complete stranger, who I only gave my first and last name, was able to pull up specific pictures that could be used against me in any job interview or possibly ruin any chances at a political career (why would I was my time on that?). Never-the-less means of The World Wide Web such as search engines Google or Yahoo!, or social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace all hold millions of pages of information that could be accessible to any psychopathic, sexual predator, hacker, or a future employer. The obtained information could easily inflict physical/emotional abuse, cause identity theft or a lost shot at an outstanding job opportunity.

“Millions of people worldwide have easy, instant access to a vast and diverse amount of online information” (Wikipedia).”

Welcome to Comm Tech

Please let me know if you have difficulties posting your responses.