Abby's Blog

Today

2006-06-22T16:25:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is the company Charlie works for 80th Anniversary. Tonight we are going to try and find some fancy clothes to wear. Hopefully I can find a dress I'm comfortable in. Its so hard these days plus its not winter anymore and the outfits just get skimpier and skimpier. Something with straps would be nice. I'd never go strapless not even for a wedding dress. There just has to be something over my shoulders or at least something that's covering that little fold of skin between my arm and chest, right where my armpit is. You know the spot. Even with little strappy things you see that fold and I hate it. I see famous people with it so I should be better about having but even on them I think its gross. LOL And there's no real way to get rid of it unless you want to buff out your arms. No thanks.

Anyway, I'm going to buy Charlie's outfit since he's paid for a bunch of new things for me. For example a purse and shoes etc. Its time I buy him something to wear. :) I dont mind anyway because I love shopping for guys' clothes. Often I find the men's stuff better than the women's. Once again its all too skimpy and trashy these days.

Testing

2006-06-20T16:32:00.000-07:00

Blah blah blah BLAH! :D

Nacho Libre

2006-06-20T15:39:00.000-07:00

So I went to see Nacho Libre this weekend. First of all I did not want to see this movie at all!! During work I had read some reviews of the movie and they said it wasnt very good, not very funny, and too long. Those reviewers were wrong. I loved the movie and had a great time seeing it. I saw it with my boyfriend Charlie, who really wanted to see it. Since last weekend was "his" weekend (he didnt have me dragging him to places I wanted to go) I broke my vow of never ever seeing that movie ( I said I'd rather gauge my eyes out) and we went and saw it. Of course I knew that since I hadnt wanted to see it I was going to love it. It always goes this way. Anway I recommend it and will probably buy it on DVD. Yes it was that good. :D

Most Recent Happenings

2006-06-14T15:14:00.000-07:00

So I am 99.9% of the way to being a full University of Washington graduate. That last 1% will come after I complete Summer quarter which will consist of French 103 (yay the last one) during A term and Mass Media Law (yay the last COM class) during B term. Thank god they arent overlapping even though it will take longer to finish. This last quarter was killer. Doing work and and 3 classes was SOO much. Now I know why I only ever took 2 classes at a time. It may have taken me longer but at least my mind wasnt a complete blur likes its been for the past 2 and a half months. It feels good though, and I've done well in my classes so far. The last class I'm waiting for is my media structure class. That was a doozy but I think I did above a 3.0, hopefully. LOL

You know what interesting, the classes that you hate because you have to do a bunch of work in always end up being the most rewarding. Its lame at the time but after its over your like , "hey that was fun and interesting, why cant more classes be like that." Those hard ones always get you in the end. :D

Last Blog Response (for now...)

2006-05-25T13:28:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed this class because there were a lot of elements to it. It wasnt just straight forward lecturing and notetaking. Often there arent enough assignments in a class that help you as well as the teacher gage what you're learning or have learned. I know I'll leave this class knowing more than when I started. One of the most important things I learned was what the Internet really is. Before I just took all the little things it did for granted, now I dont. While I dont have quite the grasp that a Bill Gates would have, there's some basic understandings that allow me to look at the Interent, my computer and even other digital technologies in a new light. Concepts such as protocal, intranet vs. internet, RSS feeds, VoIP, websites, blogs, addresses, etc. are now taken for more than face value because I've read and studied them. Its technology that has a history and an ever growing future. Its exciting stuff!

I would liked to have studied and looked at a little bit more the area of artificial intelligence. This is a fascinating concept to me because even in my own little world my computer is becoming more and more important. Its interesting to imagine just how much more advanced it will become in the future and how this will affect my life.

The topic that was the least interesting to me was developing countries and technology. I just go too riled up when I think about this which is sad but true. I've studied it in other classes and I get frustrated that the only idea to help these countires is technology so they can bypass 100s of years of evolution, its just not that simple in my mind. Its also frustrating when I know that in order for core countries to function the way they function they need developing countries to be the way they are. All it really comes down to is money and big business. See I'm ranting now. Anyway, I know you cant have a new media class without talking about developing countries, you should because a lot of people dont even realize its a problem that desperatly needs a solution (my solution would be to strengthen infrastructures and education, while slowly introducing some technology like telephones). My mind just tends to shut down when the topic comes up, so its not so much an un-interesting topic as it is a hard one for me to diplomaticly discuss. I also dont have all the facts which make it hard to know exactly what is going on. I can't make assumptions based solely on what I've read and heard. Visiting a developing country and talking to its citizens would be the best way to know what truly would help them.

And so thats my last blog. I'm sad which makes me think that I'll keep blogging. I've come too far to just let it disappear into the net.

Thank you!

Wk 9 Response Emerging Technologies

2006-05-22T12:59:00.000-07:00

The article about VoIP was pretty cool to read. I enjoyed how the author, Robert Valdes, compared the standard phone and the VoIP system because it helped me understand how the new technology works. VoIP sounds like a really awesome technology because it uses less space which allows for more calls plus the idea that it could be a lot cheaper. The only problem I see which is one of the same ones that Valdes brought up, is that doing things through the Internet sometimes needs one to be more or less ready for lag, disconnections, "page not found" screens and all sorts of stuff. You cant really rely 100% on the connection. I dont see people conducting business through VoIP because of the lack of trust unless, again, you are 100% sure that you're connection wont be broken.

It reminds me of when I used Ventrilo for speaking to other players in the game I played. Its a really great way to talk to people without having to call them or do some lame 3-way, but it was only as good as the connection each of us had. In this sense its more for fun than for getting vital information or conducting business. It would be pretty cool though with the soft phone technology if from any location you could use your Internet connection to talk someone.

I like the idea of VoIP a lot but as far as the impact it will have on cable and telephone connections I dont think it will be a huge one considering the fact that you cant trust the Internet 100% where as with regular connections you can. We know that our telephones are going to work maybe not 100% of the time but 99.9%. The Interent in my opinion is about a 75% or maybe less if you are me. :( Anyway, only a small minority are going to fully integrate VoIP into their lives (technologically savvy people with money to spend on high quality products) which might cause a tiny impact on cable and telephone but thats not enough to change the way we as a whole place our phone calls.

Discussion ?'s

1. What is one way that you have used VoIP? Explain what it was and what you thought of it.

2. What are some ways inwhich you think VoIP might get tainted? For example if people require a cost to use..this may keep people from using it.

3. Would VoIP be something developing countries could us as a way to save money? Or is it another technology that will enlarge the digital divide?

Wk 8 Response

2006-05-15T15:33:00.000-07:00

The article this week had a lot of information that I did not understand because I'm not too technically savvy but what I did understand is that this was a very pro-technology paper with a strong enphasis and bringing technology to developing countries at a low-as-possible-price. One point of interest that stuck with me was: "Policy-makers must view rural and universal access as drivers of development and not sources of government revenue." I thought this was a really good point for the author to make because the only way I see technology working in developing countries is for it not to be regulated like other technologies. Because WLANs can overlap etc. they create greater opportunities for everyone to have access to ICTs. More often than not, in developing countries, their governments have access while the majority of the people do not. It works in a sort of hiearchy. The people at the bottom just dont have a chance but with WLANs they could. But politics are different in these countries and idea of something being put in place that did not allow for government revenue or restrictions may not have a chance.

But in my opinion this a very techno-optomistic view, I just cant help feel that having internet access is not what is going to help developing countries. There's so many people out there that just need something to eat and clean water let alone a computer. Arg, there's just so many reasons why this is not what we should be focusing on. But if we must bring them technology as a means to gaining ahead than I believe the article has the correct way of doing. Having mutliple Internet outlets will also drive down the prices of businesses offering Internet access.

Discussion ?'s

1. Is technology what developing countries need in order to rise about "developing status"? Why or why not?

2. After reading this article, did any other ideas come to you that may have been different than the authors?

3. Will it lessen the "Digital Divide"? Why or why not?

Cantwell/McGavik Exercise

2006-05-11T11:55:00.000-07:00

My first impressions of each website were:

Cantwell: simple, soft, plain, not a whole lot going on, to the point, links were easy to find

McGavik: complicated, loud, colorful, a whole lot going on, many different links to look at, hard to find the main links like home etc.

Cantwell had a lot of opportunities for voters to put in their information and sign up for notices, volunteering, doing petitions, and getting updates.

McGavik had these too but they were harder to find. Unless I clicked on "Meet Mike" I wouldnt have known they were there. (This was my first impression. After I clicked the back button, I then noticed that he had donate and volunteer links but because there was so much going on I didnt see them at first. It was like his picture hid them.) McGavik did have a blog though where Cantwell did not. My impression was that Cantwell allowed people to sign up for a lot of things, this leads to waiting for responses where as McGavik's website with the blog feature allowed people to get a more instantaneous response.

One thing that bothered me about Cantwell's website (when looking for issues) was that I couldnt find any thing about issues until I clicked on "About Maria". It was obvious that she is pro-environment but I only knew this from having prior knowledge and then seeing her conservation act link plus pictures of the outdoors. McGavik on the other hand had an "Issues" link that took you to other links which explained in little bits his stance on issues like the environment which its obvious that he is pro-human. This was easier to read because they were small bits unlike Cantwell's explanations that was very long and not too stylistic. Althought her explanations are more thorough.

Even though McGavik's explanations were easy to read, I still dont agree with them. ;)

In regards to which canidate I trust, I'd have to say Cantwell becaue I believe in some of the same values as she does especially ANWR. Their websites didnt really have an affect on this because I had prior knowledge.

Extra Credit Online Politics

2006-05-08T16:11:00.000-07:00

I like it when Teachers have their own work in the course. Sometimes it can help you know and understand them more personally and/or just plain provide some great info. I wrote my first discussion question before I read the "The Race of Websites" article. I was in a way being facetious with it but at the same time wondering if websites can have an effect. This article proves that there can be some significant effects in the way websites are laid out. One of the things that stood out the most for me was the eye movement differences. Its so true that different layouts can hurt your eyes or make it hard to find something. I wonder how much information I've missed while looking at websites just because the website was designed badly. Its amazing to me that a canadate wouldnt have a website designed without taking account of everday people. I thought it was cool that Kerry had his designed for 800x600 moniters. He did have that prompt though which was annoying. The idea of designing a website around the information that you'd imagine people to need the most is a really good concept to know and understand. I hope in the next president race we see this happening.

Response Wk 7 Online Politics

2006-05-08T15:22:00.000-07:00

I think the two biggest impacts on politics stemming from the growth of the Internet, are the way people come together and the amount of information they can get. The article about Joe Trippi was a great example of how the Internet has allowed people to communicate that normally wouldnt be able to because of a multitude of barriers. Distance and cost being two of them. Like the article said people began creating meetings on their own without the help of a campaign member. For something like a political campaign groups of people coming together and exchanging ideas and/or helping to foster support can be the determinate of who wins or loses. Internet blogs, forums, chats etc. all help to encourage a "hey come hang out and promote" attitude because you are no longer alone in what you believe but are part of a larger, tangable group. I can remember when Kerry was running for President. Via the Internet I was invited to a meeting my friend was having. The whole meeting was planned through e-mails and chats. I cant remember now but there was a website that facilitated this. Very cool stuff.

As for the information part, its not a secret that there are loads of information on the Internet and a lot of it is news. News websites I'd have to guess make up a large portion of what people view on the Internet. I know I look at MSN.com everyday to gets some types of news but I also look at our newspaper. Politics are effected by this because now people can see a story and go directly to the Internet to learn more about it. People are no longer getting 10 second bites of news. They can go indepth if they want to. "The Role of Internet in National..." article was very interesting and their findings made a lot of sense. People are getting more of their news knowledge from the Internet. I just dont think people will ever completely stop getting their news from newspapers though. I think people trust newspapers more than the Internet and this will be what slows down the switch. Maybe this will change once the Internet gets the respect it deserves. As the next presidential campaign draws near we might just see this happen if the Internet plays a positive, significant role.

Discussion ?'s

1. In the year 2008 we are going to have another presidential campaign. One can assume that each canidate will have a website for their campaign. Will the content, look and feel of each candidates' website have an effect on your opinion of them? Will it effect how you vote?

2. Which do you trust more: newspapers or websites?

3. In thinking about the WAVE community...are you involved in any online communities? Do you think they are the same as real life communities? Why or why not?

In-Class Exercise May 4, 2006

2006-05-04T12:49:00.000-07:00

Part 1

I chose english.ohmynews.com and PBS.org for my news sources.

english.ohmynews.com does have RSS feeds. There are 13 RSS feds. The types of stories are main news, Korea, world technology, art, entertainment, global news, sports, Asia, Africa and Europe.

This site does not require a fee.

PBS.org does have RSS feeds. There are 21 RSS feeds. The types of stories are public affairs, global news, technology, media, science, news, religion and probably more that I have not mentioned. Typing in 'blog' to search came up with the following 'Sponsored Links': Create a Blog, More Than a Blog, and New iLife 06 with iWeb. Also there were 692 links to types of blogs. There was also this thing called 'PBS program club' that made it possible for people to comment on shows. I dont think this is a pure blog.

This site does not require a fee.

Comparing and contrasting the two sites I found english.ohmynews.com to be more news-like than pbs.org. This is probably due to the fact that pbs has television shows. English.ohmy was more like looking at a newspaper and reading news articles than pbs. This is not to pbs's discredit because it is a different type of site. It's more like reading television-like produced news than something written in a newspaper. More like a glossy magazine. Pbs seems mainstream orientated while english.ohmy is more independent. Niether make me less likely to trust them as sources even thought they present info in different ways/styles.

I believe they are impacting mainstream news becaues they allow you to search and link to articles. They make it easier to gather information and often times in a more entertaining way. There's also to watch video while also reading. You can also check back and look at archived things more easily.

Part 2

Using quotes to search for Steven Colbert helps to eliminate things with just steven and things with just colbert. It gives a detailed search. After doing a search for "Steven Colbert" and then choosing "funny stuff", there were no search results. I then chose "truthiness" and again found no results. I changed the "authority" slider but was having some trouble with it so I dont know if the results I got were actually new/more because it seemed like it was just reverting back to my original search results.

After typing in ww.blogcritics.org I got 11, 664 links. This tells me that there are a whole lot of links. My blogs from before did not have as many links. This basically tells me that I'm not getting as much information as I could be. From google I got 23,900 links. Technorati has more links because (I think) it is a more blog based website designed to search the whole web not just things that are clicked on the most or as one of our articles stated, things that have the most static.

Response Wk 6

2006-05-01T13:47:00.000-07:00

Is it just me or do you get the feeling we're almost going back in time when it comes to the way we recieve our information/news? We are obviously advancing but some of the ideology behind it seems to be reversing. Lets look at newspapers. I'm not a history buff but from what I have learned in previous communications classes most of what was written early on in our history was for the elite classes and niche markets. A niche market would be focusing mosty on politics and economics. Any other type of publication was looked down upon because it included sensational stories such as crime, murder etc.

Other ways in which people got their news were through word of mouth or bulletins posted on trees or walls. Overtime many news publications become mass media orientated and began including everything, even the sensational stories. In todays world newspapers are losing readers because many people either do not care about getting news or are getting it through other sources such as the television and the Internet. Newspapers are being downsized because they are not making back what they spend in terms of profits. No longer are they mass media orientated. They are becoming more niche oriented thus only a select few are still reading newspapers on a regular basis. What is surviving is the way in which "everyone" else gathers their news. Instead of bulletin boards on trees or walls, its a blog, a forum, a news bite from a television news show, etc. Its sad but true, people are not willing to read in depth news stories unless it pertains to them in a significant way.

If my theory is correct, we very much are "going back in time" to a point when newpapers were for an elite class and everything else was for everybody else.

Even to me this seems a little farfetched and I know I'm leaving A LOT of history out but I cant help but feel that this is happening. As for what implications blogs are having on news publications I feel there is a big pressure to have articles be more blog like in the sense they allow people to be interactive. Dan Gillmor's article was an excellent way to learn about how the blog world came about and what effects its having on society. The idea that the technology became such an important tool in communicating impart because of 9/11 is fascinating. I think if more people new this they would have a deeper respect for blogging.

Discussion ?'s

1. My idea above might seem weird. What do you think about the progression of news into what it is today?

2. If there was an article you wanted to read about something happening in the news would you rather read it from a newspaper, watch a report on T.V, or read a respectable blog entry with comments and links? Why?

3. Do you think people would stop listening to pod-casts if there were commericials? Why or why not?

Response Wk 5

2006-04-24T13:08:00.000-07:00

Scholars should study the open source software movement because the freedom it offers is rooted in the way the world has passed information on for generations. Scholars should study it in order to understand when and why society switched from free knowledge to paid knowledge and what effects this has had on us. With any type of movement, there has to be people studying the broader implications of what is happening. In a sense they can study the prospected future and the known past to add validation to what the movement is trying to accomplish. Free software is a valid alternative to what we have now and for that reason it should be studied.

The idea of free software (free according to what the GNU article stated that when one has obtained the software they then can distribute and change it as they see fit) is a very interesting idea. I agree with the case the GNU article makes for free software because of the comparison it makes regarding wealth. Programmers gain wealth from the restrictions placed on software that call for fees etc. for owning it. This is manifested into dollar amounts. On the other hand wealth can be gained in the sense of friendship, creativity, and appreciation because the product is free and sharable. Its wealth of the heart and mind instead of the wallet. This leads to a better well being in regards to technology.

In another way of looking at it one could say the capitalist way is mean and the socialist way is nice. Not to say that capitalism is all bad but in this context it can be because the restrictions limit the creativity of the software and programmer. This comes from the quote from the GNU article that "extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used." Users will benefit but so will programmers because they wont be bound by greed.

Discussion ?'s

1. Why do you think people buy software when there is software available for free. Is it because we do not trust things that are "free"? Why or why not?

2. In the Second Superpower article I couldnt help but feel a little doubt in what the author was writing about especially when the Iraq example came up. Yes this Superpower is out there but is it really going to make a difference with today's governemnt and bureaucracy? I hate that that sounds so conservative but with Bush etc. leading the US and so many things being controlled by religion its hard to imagine any change being accomplished. What do you think?

3. One of the ideas expressed in the GNU article was that programmers will still program even if their creations become free. Do you agree with this idea? Why or why not?

Reading Response Wk 4

2006-04-15T12:41:00.000-07:00

The Zuckerman and McLaughlin article is an awesome resource for understanding how the Internet works. While there is a lot of hard techno vocabulary, the basics of how the Internet works is simple and undestandable. The concept of packets of information or IPs being instantly transfered to one computer to the next is fascinating. One of my favorite concepts from the article was how the Internet works through "machines and organizations [that are] operating on the basis of voluntary cooperation [making it a part] of a global network." Its very cool to know that the Internet isnt just another ICT controlled by a company or industry like for example Clear Channel.

There is a lot of vocabularly in their article that I wont repeat but the over arching idea of what the Internet allows people to do is a truly wonderful thing. It generates a postive global attitude where we can connect with one another around the world without having to either travel or pay large phone bills. One sore note is that developing countries can not take part in the sense that we can in core countries. They are often strapped with slow connections or no connections at all.

The Zuckerman and McLaughlin article in a lot of ways shows us what Norman was writing about in "Being Analog". It shows us just how technology can be rigid, precise and controlling. The exactness of sending an e-mail through machines and organizations is different than then the exchange of words face to face by humans. Usually mistakes are easily brushed aside, laughed off and/or corrected. In other words its a flexible way of communicating. If something goes wrong in an e-mail exchange that uses machines the message is lost. We dont not control the numerous machines and organizations needed to ensure our e-mail finds its destination. But thats not neccessarily a bad thing in today's society if it makes our lives easier overall.

I'm not quite sure making computers more like humans will benefit us. The mistakes he brings up will almost certainly increase. There also doesnt seem to be any way to take the best of both and put the two together. Maybe if computers were built in such a way that they could engage us much like teachers do. Instead of giving us the answer they ask us questions that lead us to the answer.

3 Discussion ?'s

1. Do you think the way the Internet works is confusing? Why or why not? If it is confusing, has the Z & M article made it easier and more understandable?

2. What are some ways of helping developing countries get better access to ICTs? Is this really what they need to become more advanced?

3. What do you think our world would be like if computers were more like us? What if computers could ask us questions and engage us in conversation? Would we treat them more like humans or mindless technology?

Response For Week 3

2006-04-12T17:16:00.000-07:00

In this week’s readings I was comforted by the fact that people are studying and writing about the HUGE amount of information on the Internet and the dilemmas it creates. More often then not I found myself suffering from “info anxiety” and “technostress”. For example when I search through hits from a source like Google I’m often stuck trying to figure out what’s worthwhile and what’s not. Instead of being able to control the medium in a way that is helpful, the medium controls me. This is part of the definition of “technostress” and what an overload of information can do. Too much information renders you helpless. The reality of the Internet is that there’s too much good and bad information and not enough ways to sift through it all.

There’s another feeling besides comfort when I think about all this: guilt. I can’t help but feel guilty when I complain about too much information because we are extremely lucky to be able to access the Internet to begin with. There are too many people who can’t even access a library let alone the Internet. It’s good to know that people are trying to make the Internet a better information source but shouldn’t creating better access be a bigger priority?

On a separate note, when accessing the Internet without an agenda I’m not stressed and do not feel like there is too much information. I’m able to access what I want and then exit when I’m done. When I do have an agenda such as a paper or project I find there is way too much information. It takes extra time sorting through all of it. In other words the helpfulness of an ICT (like the Internet) depends on what the user is using it for. Search engines with the ability to do detailed searches helps combat this.

3 Discussion Questions:

1. Quote from “Information Overload…”, “80% - Percentage of information that is filed but never used” seems like a giant waste to me. So why do we feel it’s necessary to put so much information on the Internet anyway?

2. I was unaware of the idea of search engines relying on “static” pages to provide information/links. This causes a lot of info that is often more useful to not be accessible because it’s not “static”. Do you think that if search engines were able to access the info without them being “static” that it would help combat “info anxiety” or “technostress” or just add to it?

3. One idea for helping with too much information is having an Internet course in grade school and high school. I believe it would help if we started teaching young kids about how to use the Internet in greater detail. This would create adults who are better and faster at sifting through all the information. What do you think?

Reading Response Week 2

2006-04-03T12:18:00.000-07:00

Two insights from this weeks reading are:

The question: does a technology only become a media if it can be remediated? I was confused by this idea from “Networks of Remediation”.

And the idea that new forms of technology in the early 19th Century stemmed from the huge increase of production within industrialized countries.

Although it seems like something I should have already known, this concept of new technology as an answer to ‘crisis control’ or a huge increase in production was actually surprising. I believe after reading this article that I’ve taken for granted things like the telephone or television and how they were created. Although the histories of such technologies are widely known I don’t think people quite understand why or how they were created outside of a man or a group of men thinking them up. The quote from Beniger that “the basic societal transformation from Industrial to Information Society had been essentially completed by the late 1930s” is a really wowing idea but it makes sense. The technologies we have today are basically ‘morphs’ of the technology and ideas created back then.
This plays into what Vannevar Bush was writing about in his article about future technologies. The technologies we have today stem from a base of ideas generated during the early 19th Century. Bush’s concept of a ‘memex’ was almost eerie to read because it’s so much like what we have today. His ideas were answers to the growing need for better and faster ways to handle the huge amounts of information and products being created. It felt like he was describing Microsoft Office and something like an Internet with the concept of having ‘trails’ and ways of storing large amounts of information.
When I think of the Internet in 2045 I don’t see it being like what we have today. I have a pessimistic picture in the sense countries will become more involved in regulating the Internet and it will lose its freedoms. There will be growing support for separate Internets according to the country you are in. People will not have access to each other as freely as they do now. Despite this, access to the Internet will almost guaranteed be faster and more portable. As time goes by there will be more opposition to regulating the Internet causing widespread Internet wars and hackers. The best of the Internet will become compromised and ultimately lose to propaganda and censorship. Sort of like what’s happening to television and radio now.

In relation to my question about remediation, I'm I safe in understanding that for example, the first forms of technology were not in a sense media until they were recreated?

First Blog

2006-03-28T12:45:00.000-08:00

Yay! Here is my test blog! :D