Sunday, November 22, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Improving Network Infrastructure
Obama okays $7 billion to improve broadband: Is it enough?
I find it exciting that money is being set aside to improve the broadband access in this country. The article discusses the current place the U.S. holds in the world as far as providing its citizens access to the services of the internet: #15. That is kind of strange for the country that "invented" (Thanks, Al! ;) ) the internet.
I feel it's very important for EVERYONE to learn how to use the internet. This is a technology that is not going away, barring the destruction of civilization as we know it. There are still individuals that do not use the internet, but to be honest, these are only people that are my age group or above, or people who do not have access to the internet because of their economic situation.
I watch people at the library apply for unemployment, using a web browser for the first time. I have helped little old ladies use a mouse to find books in our catalog. I helped a father find his long lost sons on Facebook. There are no longer arguments in my circle of friends about what actor was in that episode of such-and-such. I have the first email my now-husband wrote me back in 1998. Well, I have it somewhere :)
The rural and poorer areas of this country will have people at an even greater disadvantage in our current economy and culture than before if something is not done soon to familiarize those people with how the internet works. There will still be many jobs that can be found without it, but communication with others, purchasing certain commodities, etc. is changing to require the internet more and more.
I find it exciting that money is being set aside to improve the broadband access in this country. The article discusses the current place the U.S. holds in the world as far as providing its citizens access to the services of the internet: #15. That is kind of strange for the country that "invented" (Thanks, Al! ;) ) the internet.
I feel it's very important for EVERYONE to learn how to use the internet. This is a technology that is not going away, barring the destruction of civilization as we know it. There are still individuals that do not use the internet, but to be honest, these are only people that are my age group or above, or people who do not have access to the internet because of their economic situation.
I watch people at the library apply for unemployment, using a web browser for the first time. I have helped little old ladies use a mouse to find books in our catalog. I helped a father find his long lost sons on Facebook. There are no longer arguments in my circle of friends about what actor was in that episode of such-and-such. I have the first email my now-husband wrote me back in 1998. Well, I have it somewhere :)
The rural and poorer areas of this country will have people at an even greater disadvantage in our current economy and culture than before if something is not done soon to familiarize those people with how the internet works. There will still be many jobs that can be found without it, but communication with others, purchasing certain commodities, etc. is changing to require the internet more and more.
Some folks are really alarmist....
What if there were no Google? A lesson in monoculture
This article discusses the drawbacks of having one company, one suite of software, as the sole way that people accomplish their tasks on a computer. The author lists all the key tasks that Google lets its users do: namely, search; email; document storage; chat; maps and directions; etc. The drawbacks to using only one thing are then described in the most negative fashion possible: what do you do if the software disappears or loses support? What about security issues?
Google is a terrible example. And so is Microsoft. (used in this article, of course). Then again, I say this, and I am the person who said 10 years ago that Windows being everywhere would be the best thing for computing. Everyone can be taught the same thing, everything can be compatible with everything else, there is a strong company behind the product, one that may end up failing in the far future but that will have a contingency plan for its users if and when this begins to happen. And really, if the company were to fail...wouldn't this be because its user base has trickled away in the first place. (Hello...we live in a free market economy still!).
Macs have security issues too, by the way. Virus creators don't take a lot of time on them, however, because there are less Mac OS's out there. And yeah, there are more and more of them because of the stupid cute computers and the incorrect impression that Macs do media better. But with more in use you will find that there are more and more incursions upon the security of those Mac OS computers. (And this is proving to be true).
Back to the Google monoculture. OK, so I use Google for everything. And? After noting to a friend that the White House's town hall almost entirely used Google software, and the word "google" is now in most novels that take place in contemporary times, I said "and if they were to somehow fail as a company, the government would simply need to create a "Department of Search and Cloud Computing Platforms." Or else something will have already taken its place and I (and others) moved myself there, or had the opportunity to make the move if we hadn't already.
This article discusses the drawbacks of having one company, one suite of software, as the sole way that people accomplish their tasks on a computer. The author lists all the key tasks that Google lets its users do: namely, search; email; document storage; chat; maps and directions; etc. The drawbacks to using only one thing are then described in the most negative fashion possible: what do you do if the software disappears or loses support? What about security issues?
Google is a terrible example. And so is Microsoft. (used in this article, of course). Then again, I say this, and I am the person who said 10 years ago that Windows being everywhere would be the best thing for computing. Everyone can be taught the same thing, everything can be compatible with everything else, there is a strong company behind the product, one that may end up failing in the far future but that will have a contingency plan for its users if and when this begins to happen. And really, if the company were to fail...wouldn't this be because its user base has trickled away in the first place. (Hello...we live in a free market economy still!).
Macs have security issues too, by the way. Virus creators don't take a lot of time on them, however, because there are less Mac OS's out there. And yeah, there are more and more of them because of the stupid cute computers and the incorrect impression that Macs do media better. But with more in use you will find that there are more and more incursions upon the security of those Mac OS computers. (And this is proving to be true).
Back to the Google monoculture. OK, so I use Google for everything. And? After noting to a friend that the White House's town hall almost entirely used Google software, and the word "google" is now in most novels that take place in contemporary times, I said "and if they were to somehow fail as a company, the government would simply need to create a "Department of Search and Cloud Computing Platforms." Or else something will have already taken its place and I (and others) moved myself there, or had the opportunity to make the move if we hadn't already.
The annotated bibliography assignment article discussion
Creative Computer Play
This article from Parent and Scholastic magazine was my favorite one from the batch of articles I used in my assignment. Articles for parents on how to interact with their kids and play with educational purpose are usually good. Some of them do tend to be of the "Duh, what do you THINK I do with my kids" variety. But I'm sure there are people out there that need those as well.
This one was definitely not one of the "duh" varieties. My husband and I have thought of many ways for Alyssa to interact with the computer in an educational way, but this article presented several that we hadn't thought of. Using a scanner to put her paper and crayon/pen/paint pictures into the computer digitally to edit had never ocurred to me. Nor had making a calendar with her of different activities that she does.
Alyssa is almost 4 and a half. I'm not sure I'm going to get her to this: The Kylie Microsoft Commercial . We don't use the camera so much, er, well we do, but we don't get the pictures off and play with them so much. But I bet Alyssa could whup Kylie in web surfing!
Several things my husband and I teach Alyssa to do on the computer:
This article from Parent and Scholastic magazine was my favorite one from the batch of articles I used in my assignment. Articles for parents on how to interact with their kids and play with educational purpose are usually good. Some of them do tend to be of the "Duh, what do you THINK I do with my kids" variety. But I'm sure there are people out there that need those as well.
This one was definitely not one of the "duh" varieties. My husband and I have thought of many ways for Alyssa to interact with the computer in an educational way, but this article presented several that we hadn't thought of. Using a scanner to put her paper and crayon/pen/paint pictures into the computer digitally to edit had never ocurred to me. Nor had making a calendar with her of different activities that she does.
Alyssa is almost 4 and a half. I'm not sure I'm going to get her to this: The Kylie Microsoft Commercial . We don't use the camera so much, er, well we do, but we don't get the pictures off and play with them so much. But I bet Alyssa could whup Kylie in web surfing!
Several things my husband and I teach Alyssa to do on the computer:
- We open word and make the font very big and let her type whatever she wants. Sometimes we give her words to try to type...we tell her what the letters are she find them on the keyboard.
- We help her get to the drawing program on NickJr and we save the pictures using screen shots and Paint. (stupid thing doesn't let us save!)
- The well known fact: we let her run around in World of Warcraft.
- She sits on our lap and "chats" with the other of us, wherever we are. ("OK, obviously asdkfhasld was Alyssa and not me :)").
As she gets older we'll find even more stuff for her to do! I'm thinking of making some of my own web based activities for her. (Not sure yet, and probably not completely original ones, but I want to customize it to stuff that she really likes).
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Craigslist: This is complicated
Craigslist known as aid and enabler
The recent murder stemming from Craiglist postings has brought to the forefront (and not for the first time, apparently, though I hadn't heard about it before) the content on Craigslist that advertises illegal activity. Payment for sex acts is prostitution, and this is illegal almost everywhere in the United States, and where it is not illegal it is highly regulated--and regulation is definitely not going on with Craigslist postings.
As a libertarian, mostly about civil liberty issues, my first thought on reading is "Well, prostitution shouldn't be illegal, so c'mon, what's the big deal? The evil that men (or women) do is their own responsibility and if it wasn't Craigslist it would be something else."
This article talks about how the 1996 Federal Communications Act relieves companies of responsibility for content posted that the company had no part in creating. And I'm glad of this fact because, if you think about it, many services we take part in today wouldn't be quite as fun if companies had to worry about their user's content. There are too many different standards about which content would be appropriate or not.
But the complicated part is that the company IS enabling illegal activity. Illegal. Not just questionable, but bonafide "I'll blow you for $80," type stuff. I may not agree that it should be illegal, but it IS. Do I think that this illegal activity is the reason people get murdered? Absolutely not, but should a site perhaps police itself better as far as allowing actual illegal trading of services and money to go on?
I did like that Craigslist is active in helping police departments, and I thought it pretty stupid all the quotes going on from officials who say they shouldn't be appreciated for that because of their enabling. The company doesn't have to do that. Their activities fall under the law, and they aren't going to lose much business if they didn't help. In fact, if they didn't help perhaps they would increase their business because criminals would know they aren't being censored AND they aren't being turned in.
The recent murder stemming from Craiglist postings has brought to the forefront (and not for the first time, apparently, though I hadn't heard about it before) the content on Craigslist that advertises illegal activity. Payment for sex acts is prostitution, and this is illegal almost everywhere in the United States, and where it is not illegal it is highly regulated--and regulation is definitely not going on with Craigslist postings.
As a libertarian, mostly about civil liberty issues, my first thought on reading is "Well, prostitution shouldn't be illegal, so c'mon, what's the big deal? The evil that men (or women) do is their own responsibility and if it wasn't Craigslist it would be something else."
This article talks about how the 1996 Federal Communications Act relieves companies of responsibility for content posted that the company had no part in creating. And I'm glad of this fact because, if you think about it, many services we take part in today wouldn't be quite as fun if companies had to worry about their user's content. There are too many different standards about which content would be appropriate or not.
But the complicated part is that the company IS enabling illegal activity. Illegal. Not just questionable, but bonafide "I'll blow you for $80," type stuff. I may not agree that it should be illegal, but it IS. Do I think that this illegal activity is the reason people get murdered? Absolutely not, but should a site perhaps police itself better as far as allowing actual illegal trading of services and money to go on?
I did like that Craigslist is active in helping police departments, and I thought it pretty stupid all the quotes going on from officials who say they shouldn't be appreciated for that because of their enabling. The company doesn't have to do that. Their activities fall under the law, and they aren't going to lose much business if they didn't help. In fact, if they didn't help perhaps they would increase their business because criminals would know they aren't being censored AND they aren't being turned in.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The IMS 201 Website Assignment
Here's my website:
http://www.users.muohio.edu/rosenbse
It's a prototype for the MOON COOP. Their current website is at http://www.mooncoop.com .
http://www.users.muohio.edu/rosenbse
It's a prototype for the MOON COOP. Their current website is at http://www.mooncoop.com .
Friday, April 17, 2009
Using the Internet to Spread Misinformation about the Internet--for the Common Good
This is MY article. I realize I'm supposed to give my thoughts on someone else's article, but today I have something relevant that is all mine.
I'm on the mailing list for Oxford's Freecycle.Org group. Last I checked, there were 892 members on this list. Last week one of the moderators sent a message out about what would be done about members that accidently sent invites from a social networking site such as Facebook.
Quotes from this email:
"Many people do not understand that these sites take over your address book and spam all the people within that address book."
"There are dozens [of] social networking sites that steal your address book."
"The best choice is not to join such a site. "
This message, full of misinformation, and sent to a large group of people, angered me. Not only did she (or he) send it in the first place, but she did it anonymously. It is ridiculous to me to prescribe behavior to people based on a set of "facts" without backing these assertions up with your name.
I wrote her back. Okay, okay, I know it's usually not a good idea to get upset about something on the internet and then jump into writing back. But I so rarely do it anymore! I have a right to one or two a year....
Highlights of my message to her:
"....Although I've only had experience with 5 of the online social networking type services you mentioned in your list, my experience with those 5 is that none of them automatically send messages out trying to invite others. You are certainly asked if you would like to do so, and these services clearly state before you press the button that your email address book will be used. You are then shown which contacts will be sent information and you then have the opportunity to change who will be sent invites.
In fact, these services can only do this if a person physically types in the password to their email account, otherwise those services have no way of acquiring the address book information."
"I just wanted to let you know that as someone that helps novice computer users almost daily to get in touch with long lost loved ones, network to find jobs, see pictures of their grandchildren, etc, I know that discouraging and scaring people away from using social networking sites is doing them a disservice in two ways. One, it does not promote awareness of how to use the internet so as to not "spam" others. Two, it keeps people who would use those services for the reasons I listed above from trying them out."
She wrote back. She still did not provide a name--though that is more understandable given that I was some random kook that took the time to rant about her misinforming people.
"While I am positive that I have not done more harm than good, simply by the number of comments I have received today thanking me for sending this message, you certainly have the right to have your own opinion. Most people have absolutely no idea that they need to read everything presented to them when joining a social network. I appreciate that you do not agree with my choice of words, but that is inevitable- I cannot and will not be able to please everyone."
I'm done writing her. I mean, what else is there to say? I will not convince her, quite obviously, that she did something irresponsible. But the incident ended with me outraged-on-principle about three distinct things.
1) Just because the internet provides ample opportunity to be anonymous (such as an email address oxfreecyclevolunteer@yahoo.com -- which is, out of respect to this moderator, not exactly what the address was) does not mean one should be anonymous, particularly when prescribing behavior from a position of authority (such as a list moderator).
2) Just because someone is thanked for providing information does not mean someone has actually provided useful information. Misinformation is harmful no matter what.
3) Just because "Most people have absolutely no idea that they need to read everything presented to them when joining a social network," does not mean that one has the right to misinform in order to protect those people from themselves.
and actually there is a 4) If you're a moderator to a mailing list, yes please tell me what you'll do if fellow members get my invites and then complain, and what you'll do if I "spam" the group itself and you need to do your job and delete my message. Don't act like doing this particular act of deleting the message is a huge chore, and don't send your behavioral prescriptions to a mailing list about reusing items.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Rise of the Benevolent Big Brother
For how long can a Big Brother stay benevolent? And if we are not currently seeing the rise of Big Brother government using internet technology, are we not still seeing the rise of a fundamental change to how citizen and government interact? These abstract and pretentious questions are brought to you due to recent collaboration between the Obama administration and Google in producing the recent live internet "Town Hall" meeting that invited questions from citizens the internet.
Obama’s Interactive Town Hall Meeting
This is a great article in that it gives a basic overview of the Town Hall, contains a link to the full transcript and contains video of the event. I found the last paragraph enlightening, "Mr. Obama is not the first president to engage in online chats with ordinary Americans; former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both answered questions over the Internet. But Mr. Obama is the first to do so in a live video format, streamed directly onto the White House Web site."
So was the internet showcase just a gimmick, something as easily done using television?
Google Moderator Gets White House Endorsement
No. The chosen format of having citizens contribute questions for the town hall that everyone with a whitehouse.gov account (so, interestingly, now 100,000 presumably new accounts exist with whitehouse.gov) could vote on could only be done on the internet. Or at least done very easily only on the internet.
Google is a for-profit corporation that is ubiquitous for the internet population as a search engine, email, maps and directions, and ever increasingly science fictiony things like being able to pinpoint you through your mobile device. It's my homepage, and I know it's the homepage for many others. The first I knew of the president's request for questions and votes was a message placed under the search box. I followed the link because...well, because it's interesting to see "The White House is requesting..." or however the request read.
So the government uses Google software to moderate the voting process for a town hall. I tried for a few minutes to find the old Dr. Who episode in which the Doctor and his companions come to this planet in which the population is asked to vote on issues many times a day. Every single citizen has a voting station near their TVs and they have to vote when alerted to do so. The government of this planet says it follows the will of the people and all measures are taken with the agreement of all to protect each other and have a benevolent government. Of course the government is actually the puppet of an invading alien. And so that is taking my point to the extreme. But how far away, really, is it for our nation to decide that Representative Government, at least with some government processes, is outdated? The easily swayed populist mob would then be in "control".
And let's look at what Google IS. At it's heart, it's a search engine. We are told "You can't Google everything!" but is that true? Yesterday a friend of mine told me that person X seemed to have been arrested last year for a crime. I immediately googled person X and found at the end of the first page the information that my friend was talking about. I saw that the arrest had been a warrant from Middletown. So I googled Middletown Ohio Court. That took me to the Municipal Court page for Middletown. Off this I found their "invisible web" info: a database of Court Records in which I could search on case number or name. I found person X and what he had been in trouble for.
The government has decided to use Google technology. I wonder how many FBI are now being recruited from the most info-gathering saavy individuals. And how many FBI are being trained to use it even better. Or perhaps also agencies with more ambiguous intent than the FBI are being trained. I'm sure this started happening before the Obama administration. But I'm also sure that this administration is the first that fully understands what the internet means for the government in a variety of ways.
More off-topic, and yet related: The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster (My firm belief that this is what the world is coming to because of the internet. Perhaps the evolution will not be so bleak, but it will have some common characteristics with how the people of this story live).
Obama’s Interactive Town Hall Meeting
This is a great article in that it gives a basic overview of the Town Hall, contains a link to the full transcript and contains video of the event. I found the last paragraph enlightening, "Mr. Obama is not the first president to engage in online chats with ordinary Americans; former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both answered questions over the Internet. But Mr. Obama is the first to do so in a live video format, streamed directly onto the White House Web site."
So was the internet showcase just a gimmick, something as easily done using television?
Google Moderator Gets White House Endorsement
No. The chosen format of having citizens contribute questions for the town hall that everyone with a whitehouse.gov account (so, interestingly, now 100,000 presumably new accounts exist with whitehouse.gov) could vote on could only be done on the internet. Or at least done very easily only on the internet.
Google is a for-profit corporation that is ubiquitous for the internet population as a search engine, email, maps and directions, and ever increasingly science fictiony things like being able to pinpoint you through your mobile device. It's my homepage, and I know it's the homepage for many others. The first I knew of the president's request for questions and votes was a message placed under the search box. I followed the link because...well, because it's interesting to see "The White House is requesting..." or however the request read.
So the government uses Google software to moderate the voting process for a town hall. I tried for a few minutes to find the old Dr. Who episode in which the Doctor and his companions come to this planet in which the population is asked to vote on issues many times a day. Every single citizen has a voting station near their TVs and they have to vote when alerted to do so. The government of this planet says it follows the will of the people and all measures are taken with the agreement of all to protect each other and have a benevolent government. Of course the government is actually the puppet of an invading alien. And so that is taking my point to the extreme. But how far away, really, is it for our nation to decide that Representative Government, at least with some government processes, is outdated? The easily swayed populist mob would then be in "control".
And let's look at what Google IS. At it's heart, it's a search engine. We are told "You can't Google everything!" but is that true? Yesterday a friend of mine told me that person X seemed to have been arrested last year for a crime. I immediately googled person X and found at the end of the first page the information that my friend was talking about. I saw that the arrest had been a warrant from Middletown. So I googled Middletown Ohio Court. That took me to the Municipal Court page for Middletown. Off this I found their "invisible web" info: a database of Court Records in which I could search on case number or name. I found person X and what he had been in trouble for.
The government has decided to use Google technology. I wonder how many FBI are now being recruited from the most info-gathering saavy individuals. And how many FBI are being trained to use it even better. Or perhaps also agencies with more ambiguous intent than the FBI are being trained. I'm sure this started happening before the Obama administration. But I'm also sure that this administration is the first that fully understands what the internet means for the government in a variety of ways.
More off-topic, and yet related: The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster (My firm belief that this is what the world is coming to because of the internet. Perhaps the evolution will not be so bleak, but it will have some common characteristics with how the people of this story live).
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
My Photoshop Album Cover
What a cool exercise. I'm posting it here along with the result so I have it 4ever.
1 - Go to "wikipedia." Hit “random”or click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RandomThe first random wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.
2 - Go to "Random quotations"or click http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3The last four or five words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album.
3 - Go to flickr and click on “explore the last seven days”or click http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7daysThird picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.4 - Use photoshop or similar to put it all together.
I started with:
Band - Gajówka Jastrzębia
End of Quote - "to listen to them"
Source photo -
First I enlarged it because I didn't want to make something I couldn't really play with and see.
Then I added a text layer for the Album name. I did a separate text layer for the Band name. This allowed me to move them around separately once I had each piece looking the way I wanted.
I chose the zoom lens flare and lowered the brightness. (I forget the exact details and I destroyed my "working image" -- UGH I tend to do that and it's not a good idea).
I love the sketch filters in Photoshop. I ended up with the "water paper" filter because it fostered the kind of feeling I wanted for the album.
Finally I added the "diffuse glow" filter (under Distort). This brought the album cover to it's final state except that I added a border so the final would show up better.
1 - Go to "wikipedia." Hit “random”or click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RandomThe first random wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.
2 - Go to "Random quotations"or click http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3The last four or five words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album.
3 - Go to flickr and click on “explore the last seven days”or click http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7daysThird picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.4 - Use photoshop or similar to put it all together.
The Final Album Cover
I started with:
Band - Gajówka Jastrzębia
End of Quote - "to listen to them"
Source photo -
First I enlarged it because I didn't want to make something I couldn't really play with and see.
Then I added a text layer for the Album name. I did a separate text layer for the Band name. This allowed me to move them around separately once I had each piece looking the way I wanted.
I chose the zoom lens flare and lowered the brightness. (I forget the exact details and I destroyed my "working image" -- UGH I tend to do that and it's not a good idea).
I love the sketch filters in Photoshop. I ended up with the "water paper" filter because it fostered the kind of feeling I wanted for the album.
Finally I added the "diffuse glow" filter (under Distort). This brought the album cover to it's final state except that I added a border so the final would show up better.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Is Sexting Child Pornography?
Teens, Nude Photos and the Law
You learn something new every day. And a few days ago my new thing was to learn that to send a nude photo of yourself to someone else's cell phone is called "sexting," and that one in five teenagers report that they have done this.
There are teen girls that have been charged with disseminating child pornography for sending nude photos to their boyfriends and teen boys charged with posession of child pornography for having said photos on their phones. One teen boy was charged with a felony for sending pictures of his genitals to female classmates. Many other examples are out there of teens becoming involved with the criminal justice system due to their sexting. Some of these crimes can require these teens to be registered as sex offenders for a decade or two!
I agree entirely with the author of this editorial that, in general, this activity should not be in the purview of police intervention. There are certainly instances where sexting can be used to harrass or intimidate, such as a case where nude photos of a teen girl were sent to over 100 of her classmates. But I would guess that the majority of the 20% of teens taking part in this new form of sexual behavior are innocently (though stupidly) trying to be flirty or sexy or adventurous. I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with similar behavior from when I was a teenager...it just wouldn't have been quite so public, permanent, or easy to reenact (copy).
There is much to be analyzed from this sexting behavior: the relatively new phenomenon of our public and private lives being blended through the use of network technology, the responsibility individuals have regarding the production and dissemination of inappropriate or embarassing text, pictures, audio, and video that can be saved forever, the role of parents, and the view our society has of sexual content in general (particularly involving children--though I am loathe personally to categorize anyone capable of getting to school themselves, getting homework done, doing chores, having jobs, going anywhere by themselves, or being able to get themselves fed as "children").
On my parenthetical note, and in fact segueing appropriately into what I wanted to discuss, let's ask ourselves what the point of having crimes related to child pornography is in the first place. Being an ardent civil libertarian, I would argue that "victimless" crimes are not appropriately handled by the criminal justice system at all. (And that broad statement leads to a whole other discussion, already incredibly handled by Peter McWilliams in Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do ). Child pornography, in the way it is understood by the general public, is not a victimless crime. Very young and preteen children used in child porn are being more than exploited for the pleasure of others, they are being abused. We begin to be sexual beings not so long after being born, but the playing of doctor between kids is much different than an adult taking pictures. The line becomes trickier with teens, but even a 16 or 17 year old can have older and wiser individuals take advantage of their inherent naivete to encourage the production of pornographic material.
But c'mon...do we really believe that the 13 year old girl sending a nude photo to her 14 year old boyfriend is being exploited? No. Immature, thoughtless, careless, hormonal? Yes. We live in a society where we desired the teenage Britney Spears BECAUSE her persona juxtaposed her supposed innocence and virginity with completely sexualizing dancing, costumes, and lyrics. She wouldn't have been as "hot" if she admitted to being "not so innocent." Is there a resistance to teens sexualizing themselves more honestly because there is an undercurrent in our society that then they are less desireable?
I more think the reality is that our culture and laws, as is the case with many other technologically related issues, have not caught up to the current reality. The consequences of this thoughtless behavior could still be criminal, but nothing like the charges of "distributing child pornography." Perhaps it could be put more into the realm of something like truancy. What it most brings into focus for me is that I as a parent need to continually be aware of the stupid things my kids can do to mess up their futures so that I can try to guide them away from those activities.
You learn something new every day. And a few days ago my new thing was to learn that to send a nude photo of yourself to someone else's cell phone is called "sexting," and that one in five teenagers report that they have done this.
There are teen girls that have been charged with disseminating child pornography for sending nude photos to their boyfriends and teen boys charged with posession of child pornography for having said photos on their phones. One teen boy was charged with a felony for sending pictures of his genitals to female classmates. Many other examples are out there of teens becoming involved with the criminal justice system due to their sexting. Some of these crimes can require these teens to be registered as sex offenders for a decade or two!
I agree entirely with the author of this editorial that, in general, this activity should not be in the purview of police intervention. There are certainly instances where sexting can be used to harrass or intimidate, such as a case where nude photos of a teen girl were sent to over 100 of her classmates. But I would guess that the majority of the 20% of teens taking part in this new form of sexual behavior are innocently (though stupidly) trying to be flirty or sexy or adventurous. I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with similar behavior from when I was a teenager...it just wouldn't have been quite so public, permanent, or easy to reenact (copy).
There is much to be analyzed from this sexting behavior: the relatively new phenomenon of our public and private lives being blended through the use of network technology, the responsibility individuals have regarding the production and dissemination of inappropriate or embarassing text, pictures, audio, and video that can be saved forever, the role of parents, and the view our society has of sexual content in general (particularly involving children--though I am loathe personally to categorize anyone capable of getting to school themselves, getting homework done, doing chores, having jobs, going anywhere by themselves, or being able to get themselves fed as "children").
On my parenthetical note, and in fact segueing appropriately into what I wanted to discuss, let's ask ourselves what the point of having crimes related to child pornography is in the first place. Being an ardent civil libertarian, I would argue that "victimless" crimes are not appropriately handled by the criminal justice system at all. (And that broad statement leads to a whole other discussion, already incredibly handled by Peter McWilliams in Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do ). Child pornography, in the way it is understood by the general public, is not a victimless crime. Very young and preteen children used in child porn are being more than exploited for the pleasure of others, they are being abused. We begin to be sexual beings not so long after being born, but the playing of doctor between kids is much different than an adult taking pictures. The line becomes trickier with teens, but even a 16 or 17 year old can have older and wiser individuals take advantage of their inherent naivete to encourage the production of pornographic material.
But c'mon...do we really believe that the 13 year old girl sending a nude photo to her 14 year old boyfriend is being exploited? No. Immature, thoughtless, careless, hormonal? Yes. We live in a society where we desired the teenage Britney Spears BECAUSE her persona juxtaposed her supposed innocence and virginity with completely sexualizing dancing, costumes, and lyrics. She wouldn't have been as "hot" if she admitted to being "not so innocent." Is there a resistance to teens sexualizing themselves more honestly because there is an undercurrent in our society that then they are less desireable?
I more think the reality is that our culture and laws, as is the case with many other technologically related issues, have not caught up to the current reality. The consequences of this thoughtless behavior could still be criminal, but nothing like the charges of "distributing child pornography." Perhaps it could be put more into the realm of something like truancy. What it most brings into focus for me is that I as a parent need to continually be aware of the stupid things my kids can do to mess up their futures so that I can try to guide them away from those activities.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Kindle 2 and other eReaders
Tim O'Reilly Unplugged: The Kindle 2 And Transforming Industries
A journalist from the industry publication Information Week interviewed Tim O'Reilly, the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Publishing (which is a major publisher of tech guides). They had a very interesting discussion, with the entire transcript of the interview available for reading. David Berlind, the interviewer, also presents a lengthy introduction to the interview in which he gives an overview of the issues discussed.
The main issue that was presented was the old debate about open source vs. proprietary formats for distributing media. Amazon's Kindle 2 e-reader, about to be released on February 24th to a public that is already awaiting delivery of out-of-stock original Kindles, is made using a proprietary format for the books, magazines, and other media available.
O'Reilly talks about how currently he finds the open source products to be better, and he feels that after some period of time some kind of standard will be developed so that print media can be transferred to all sorts of mobile devices. He goes back to how the Web 2.0 standard is partly defined by this ability to useful on multiple devices and platforms.
Apple found that trying to be proprietary with their format of music ended up backfiring. Instead of simply distributing the universal MP3 format, they made their content only playable with iPods and through iTunes. They abandoned this model when it seemed to cut into their sales and people were just saving the songs into MP3 format (through multiple programs available for download online) and then giving them to others anyway.
I'm personally really excited by the Kindle product, and I've been wanting one ever since Amazon first developed it. However, the more I read, the more convinced I am that I just want to wait. Just as swiss army knife cell phones like the iPhone have gone down in price, I expect that eReaders in general will go down. I also dislike proprietary formats, though it bothers me less than it bothers other people I know.
While thinking about this interview, I went and read other articles about the device. I grabbed little pieces here and there to think more deeply on. For one, I read that some libraries have been loaning out Kindles, probably for in-library use only (I hope!). That's interesting, and certainly would save the library space (eventually, when eReaders become a lot more common), and money (eBooks are cheaper). Once there is a more consistent standard and eBooks will be available on many different devices, I forsee a time when the current method of having people "check out" copies of books from eBook Libraries (like the Ohio e-Book Project) will be extended to eReader format. This would be a vast improvement over the different software reader formats available from current eBook libraries which can generally only be used on a computer or specific mobile devices.
And what a great world it will be when for a wait in the doctor's office a person could have available a small paperback sized device that contained up to 1500 books (and other print formats like magazines)! Or to just have an eReader in the house instead of a huge mountain of books. Of course there will always be good reasons to have a print copy of some books. (Classics, favorites, beach reads...) but do I really need the hundreds of books science fiction and fantasy collection that takes up an entire wall in my basement? (And I just weeded hundreds out!--I only kept the ones I really loved, or that I still plan to read sometime because I hadn't read them yet).
The eReader technology is just getting off the ground, and I think the sleek design, readability, and wireless subscription and purchasing aspects of the Kindle 2 are great. I look forward to seeing the developments that come about in the future, and I think it is entirely possible that the world will change so much because of it that my youngest daughter will not have to break her back in college carrying around a huge backback full of books.
A journalist from the industry publication Information Week interviewed Tim O'Reilly, the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Publishing (which is a major publisher of tech guides). They had a very interesting discussion, with the entire transcript of the interview available for reading. David Berlind, the interviewer, also presents a lengthy introduction to the interview in which he gives an overview of the issues discussed.
The main issue that was presented was the old debate about open source vs. proprietary formats for distributing media. Amazon's Kindle 2 e-reader, about to be released on February 24th to a public that is already awaiting delivery of out-of-stock original Kindles, is made using a proprietary format for the books, magazines, and other media available.
O'Reilly talks about how currently he finds the open source products to be better, and he feels that after some period of time some kind of standard will be developed so that print media can be transferred to all sorts of mobile devices. He goes back to how the Web 2.0 standard is partly defined by this ability to useful on multiple devices and platforms.
Apple found that trying to be proprietary with their format of music ended up backfiring. Instead of simply distributing the universal MP3 format, they made their content only playable with iPods and through iTunes. They abandoned this model when it seemed to cut into their sales and people were just saving the songs into MP3 format (through multiple programs available for download online) and then giving them to others anyway.
I'm personally really excited by the Kindle product, and I've been wanting one ever since Amazon first developed it. However, the more I read, the more convinced I am that I just want to wait. Just as swiss army knife cell phones like the iPhone have gone down in price, I expect that eReaders in general will go down. I also dislike proprietary formats, though it bothers me less than it bothers other people I know.
While thinking about this interview, I went and read other articles about the device. I grabbed little pieces here and there to think more deeply on. For one, I read that some libraries have been loaning out Kindles, probably for in-library use only (I hope!). That's interesting, and certainly would save the library space (eventually, when eReaders become a lot more common), and money (eBooks are cheaper). Once there is a more consistent standard and eBooks will be available on many different devices, I forsee a time when the current method of having people "check out" copies of books from eBook Libraries (like the Ohio e-Book Project) will be extended to eReader format. This would be a vast improvement over the different software reader formats available from current eBook libraries which can generally only be used on a computer or specific mobile devices.
And what a great world it will be when for a wait in the doctor's office a person could have available a small paperback sized device that contained up to 1500 books (and other print formats like magazines)! Or to just have an eReader in the house instead of a huge mountain of books. Of course there will always be good reasons to have a print copy of some books. (Classics, favorites, beach reads...) but do I really need the hundreds of books science fiction and fantasy collection that takes up an entire wall in my basement? (And I just weeded hundreds out!--I only kept the ones I really loved, or that I still plan to read sometime because I hadn't read them yet).
The eReader technology is just getting off the ground, and I think the sleek design, readability, and wireless subscription and purchasing aspects of the Kindle 2 are great. I look forward to seeing the developments that come about in the future, and I think it is entirely possible that the world will change so much because of it that my youngest daughter will not have to break her back in college carrying around a huge backback full of books.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Three for the Price of One
I'm going to look like I'm taking the easy way out in writing about three things less deeply than I usually talk about one thing, and it might bite me gradewise...but that's OK. I have good reasons for this ;) I've had all three of these tech articles in my thoughts for a few days now.
***
First--it's not really tech, but I mean no sarcasm when I say that Bill Gates is one of the most important people of our time. He is on his way to surpassing Rockefeller in success and philantropy (in fact, probably has passed), and his contribution to the computing revolution is practically incalcuable. (Whether this be through the software of Microsoft or through his business practices).
I'm not kidding. This dude is awesome.
Bill Gates makes his point on malaria
Kudos to Bill for making his point to a bunch of ivory tower, stuffed shirt, celebrity, self-inflated individuals. But the story made me feel itchy the first time I read about it, for sure. The Bill and Melinda Gates (also an incredible person) Foundation is about real results, not drawn out discourse about what might work for the world's problems.
And, because I can, I give you The Incredible Bouncing Bill (Head)
***
Do you know where your kid is? Check Google's maps
Very interesting. I can now be tracked via Google Maps. Very Enemy of the State, except this isn't government spy technology. Of course, being unscared of what people can find out about me, and curious about new google gadgetry, I went straight to sticking it on my iGoogle page. In order to get this installed you have to click "Agree" on this:
So right from the get go, your settings have you visible to the world. You are not yet visible in that you have to install something on your computer to make that location visible, and I think you do something similar on your phone. But once you get all that done you might forget to go check out your privacy settings.
***
First--it's not really tech, but I mean no sarcasm when I say that Bill Gates is one of the most important people of our time. He is on his way to surpassing Rockefeller in success and philantropy (in fact, probably has passed), and his contribution to the computing revolution is practically incalcuable. (Whether this be through the software of Microsoft or through his business practices).
I'm not kidding. This dude is awesome.
Bill Gates makes his point on malaria
Kudos to Bill for making his point to a bunch of ivory tower, stuffed shirt, celebrity, self-inflated individuals. But the story made me feel itchy the first time I read about it, for sure. The Bill and Melinda Gates (also an incredible person) Foundation is about real results, not drawn out discourse about what might work for the world's problems.
And, because I can, I give you The Incredible Bouncing Bill (Head)
***
Do you know where your kid is? Check Google's maps
Very interesting. I can now be tracked via Google Maps. Very Enemy of the State, except this isn't government spy technology. Of course, being unscared of what people can find out about me, and curious about new google gadgetry, I went straight to sticking it on my iGoogle page. In order to get this installed you have to click "Agree" on this:
So right from the get go, your settings have you visible to the world. You are not yet visible in that you have to install something on your computer to make that location visible, and I think you do something similar on your phone. But once you get all that done you might forget to go check out your privacy settings.
Privacy Group: Google Latitude Could Track Unsuspecting Users
Before I even read this article I thought of several ways to abuse this technology. One thing I didn't see mentioned in any of the articles I read was that despite Google's claims that it retains no information about past locations for a person using this service, and thus no one can track movements, it is simply not true. I can track movements by checking back at intervals through the day and recording the data on MY computer. Patterns can easily be determined. You can get a feed for every other Google service, so I'm sure it would be possible to acquire this information as well.
I can't get "Gears" to install correctly on my computer at the moment, so no one can find me in my "Unknown" location. But one of my friends actually responded to my Latitude invite, and um wow, I know she's at work right now...or at least her phone is. And it comes right up on my iGoogle front page. You know, forget technological methods of stalking her...someone could know I'm friends with her and stand behind me while I'm doing a quick search, or just wait until I step away a moment to grab a drink.
***
Lastly:
Google taking security a little too seriously?
I missed seeing the great Google catastrophe by only a few seconds. I had gotten to work, and had not yet done one of my tens of Google searches for the day. A friend I was chatting with through Gmail suddenly started freaking about the broken Google. I went to check and it worked fine for me.
But what if I'd gotten to work an hour earlier and had already started helping patrons and doing research? Wow, I would have been very disoriented. There's a lot more analysis that could be done on what this issue brings to light about what might happen if a major online resource breaks down...but I see it's 11:58. ;)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Mashups
We are discussing the Web 2.0 creation of "mashups" which utilize information from different web sources for some (not always useful) purpose. I found one called Liveplasma which takes information from Amazon to create visual maps of how closely artists are related to each other and what they have done. You can then click on something to buy it on Amazon. I doubt I'd use anything like this to determine buying choices but the bubble maps are cool looking.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Delay for the All-Digital TV Switchover
Further Update: In Second Vote, House Delays Digital TV Transition -- This is ridiculous!
Digital TV Switchover Delay Gathers Steam in Congress
I started looking for an article to use for class several days ago (and, by the way, did not even notice until now that the DTV situation was the subject of one of the suggested articles!), so the one above is now outdated. The situation has changed, as the House has voted down the bill to delay the rollout:
House Kills Bill to Delay Switch to Digital TV
This is still an issue I want to comment on. I used to work as an IT support person, and I still act somewhat in a support role at my job as a library assistant. The DTV rollout is not so different from any technological change that has to be implemented. From my understanding of the measures taken by the Federal Government to facilitate the rollout, such as an informational campaign and coupons to rebate consumers of the digital converter boxes, there was a lot of thought put into helping U.S. citizens upgrade to digital TV. The television networks and local stations also are taking part in informing the public about the change. It has been in their best interest to make sure that the most people possible had upgraded by the deadline so that those without a digital television or cable could still watch their programming.
So Obama is worried that around 6 million homes will wake up to snow on their TV screens, which is the basis of his support of a delay. This is, I believe, representative of a misguided ideal about the role of Federal Government. And it makes sense, as he is a member of the Democratic Party. (And I am too, but I lean very Libertarian). Let's take care of those people who are ignorant of the coming snow on their TVs!
There are obvious support issues that will come to pass with the rollout. People who have thus far remained ignorant of the situation will have to get the information that 60 million or so other households have already gotten and acted upon. Those 6 million homes might be full of panicked people without benefit of their main information source. It might take those people an entire week to figure out what's going on and get their television service back. What if in that week there was a disaster in which the citizenry needed to know about what was going on, and the consequence for their week without TV was greater than not being able to watch "Lost"?
I thought that's why everyone had a radio available somewhere in their house or car, in case of an emergency.
The only way to get those 6 million households on board is to just pull the plug. Over time the number of snowy TVs will dwindle. People need to be allowed to figure out how they will be a part of the current information age. Although I agree that more rural and poor areas need to have infrastructure developed for internet access, and even possibly have this infrastructure funded partly by the government, it seems over-the-top to worry about a lack of television that can be fixed quickly and cheaply.
Digital TV Switchover Delay Gathers Steam in Congress
I started looking for an article to use for class several days ago (and, by the way, did not even notice until now that the DTV situation was the subject of one of the suggested articles!), so the one above is now outdated. The situation has changed, as the House has voted down the bill to delay the rollout:
House Kills Bill to Delay Switch to Digital TV
This is still an issue I want to comment on. I used to work as an IT support person, and I still act somewhat in a support role at my job as a library assistant. The DTV rollout is not so different from any technological change that has to be implemented. From my understanding of the measures taken by the Federal Government to facilitate the rollout, such as an informational campaign and coupons to rebate consumers of the digital converter boxes, there was a lot of thought put into helping U.S. citizens upgrade to digital TV. The television networks and local stations also are taking part in informing the public about the change. It has been in their best interest to make sure that the most people possible had upgraded by the deadline so that those without a digital television or cable could still watch their programming.
So Obama is worried that around 6 million homes will wake up to snow on their TV screens, which is the basis of his support of a delay. This is, I believe, representative of a misguided ideal about the role of Federal Government. And it makes sense, as he is a member of the Democratic Party. (And I am too, but I lean very Libertarian). Let's take care of those people who are ignorant of the coming snow on their TVs!
There are obvious support issues that will come to pass with the rollout. People who have thus far remained ignorant of the situation will have to get the information that 60 million or so other households have already gotten and acted upon. Those 6 million homes might be full of panicked people without benefit of their main information source. It might take those people an entire week to figure out what's going on and get their television service back. What if in that week there was a disaster in which the citizenry needed to know about what was going on, and the consequence for their week without TV was greater than not being able to watch "Lost"?
I thought that's why everyone had a radio available somewhere in their house or car, in case of an emergency.
The only way to get those 6 million households on board is to just pull the plug. Over time the number of snowy TVs will dwindle. People need to be allowed to figure out how they will be a part of the current information age. Although I agree that more rural and poor areas need to have infrastructure developed for internet access, and even possibly have this infrastructure funded partly by the government, it seems over-the-top to worry about a lack of television that can be fixed quickly and cheaply.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Better IT Needed for Our Executive Office
Obama Gets His BlackBerry, but What About Facebook?
This article in PC World describes the variety of IT troubles encountered by the Obama Administration due to bureaucracy and a seeming lack of imperative by the Federal Government's IT staff to update the existing state of White House technology. The president is now allowed his Blackberry, albeit with super-encryption and restrictions on its use. However, the email accounts for Obama and his staff were not ready for use when he took office, there is a ban on instant messaging use, and the whitehouse.gov site is not being maintained to the standards that Obama's previous sites have been. Also, the future of Obama's successful means of disseminating information to net literate citizenry through facebook, youtube, and flickr are in question.
I would agree with a paranoid government in a dangerous age that we need massive security for the digital information produced by the Executive Office. I know in my own life that anyone with the know-how and desire could find out almost everything I think, experience, and do. This is because there is practically no security on most of my internet activities. I'm sure that there are many more with the desire to know what the president is up to than those who care about my activities, and that of those there are some with the know-how to bypass quite a lot of security.
But this is an exciting time technologically, as information can be disseminated instantly to a far-reaching population. And there is no time like the present for the IT of the White House to get in step. This is a time when our economy is a shambles, we are at war, and a civil rights movement is underway. Momentous change is taking place and not only do we have the right to know what is going on, but the technology exists for any of us to get on a computer (or an XBox, or a Wii, or a cell phone) and find out RIGHT NOW. How embarassing for the government that I can find out the latest NFL trade announcements online before seeing the texts of executive orders our president has signed!
This article in PC World describes the variety of IT troubles encountered by the Obama Administration due to bureaucracy and a seeming lack of imperative by the Federal Government's IT staff to update the existing state of White House technology. The president is now allowed his Blackberry, albeit with super-encryption and restrictions on its use. However, the email accounts for Obama and his staff were not ready for use when he took office, there is a ban on instant messaging use, and the whitehouse.gov site is not being maintained to the standards that Obama's previous sites have been. Also, the future of Obama's successful means of disseminating information to net literate citizenry through facebook, youtube, and flickr are in question.
I would agree with a paranoid government in a dangerous age that we need massive security for the digital information produced by the Executive Office. I know in my own life that anyone with the know-how and desire could find out almost everything I think, experience, and do. This is because there is practically no security on most of my internet activities. I'm sure that there are many more with the desire to know what the president is up to than those who care about my activities, and that of those there are some with the know-how to bypass quite a lot of security.
But this is an exciting time technologically, as information can be disseminated instantly to a far-reaching population. And there is no time like the present for the IT of the White House to get in step. This is a time when our economy is a shambles, we are at war, and a civil rights movement is underway. Momentous change is taking place and not only do we have the right to know what is going on, but the technology exists for any of us to get on a computer (or an XBox, or a Wii, or a cell phone) and find out RIGHT NOW. How embarassing for the government that I can find out the latest NFL trade announcements online before seeing the texts of executive orders our president has signed!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Effects of Video Games on Children
Psychiatrist Examines Video Game Play on Children
This article is a press release for a new book written by Dr. Kourosh Dini, a psychiatrist who has worked with children and adolescents in relation to gaming behavior and its effects. The book, Video Game Play and Addiction: A Guide for Parents, examines all sides of a contentious issue that continues to concern parents, medical groups, the media, and the highest legislative body of the U.S. ("Congress Ponders Videogame Warning Labels").
In the book, Dr. Dini, a gamer himself, not only covers the often cited issue of video game addiction and influence on violent behavior. He also presents the research on the effects of video games on development of improved learning and communications skills and on the development of empathy.
I'm personally interested in the subject matter of this book because I am a parent of both teenagers and a small child, and I am also a gamer myself. My own computer gaming history as a child began with a teacher sometime in kindergarten or first grade loading a game called "Space Invaders" on a TRS-80 computer. Later, after my father purchased the first model of IBM-PC, I voraciously found puzzle, adventure, and primitive video games to play. A fond memory is my father and I working for weeks to figure out the original Zork I adventure developed by Infocom.
I've always encouraged my kids to play video games of all sorts. I know that to learn the rules of a game and play it successfully is in itself an important learning experience. Doing so helps even the youngest children develop reasoning skills. This is true of any game, not just video games. When my youngest was two, I sat her down to a chess board and taught her the names of all the pieces. I would take one color of pieces, and she would take the other, and we would take turns putting our pieces somewhere on the board. No, this wasn't chess, nor was it competitive, but it laid the groundwork for teaching her some gaming concepts in the future, and it emphasized the always important skill of being able to take turns.
There are many examples I can give of game playing by my children, but I will use my now four-year-old's gaming experience to demonstrate the extremely positive influence that computerized games have on children. She has a character on the MMORPG World of Warcraft named Taena. She made all the decisions regarding the development of the character such as name and appearance, with us helping actually click in the right places. We taught her how to move her character around, and how to fight the monsters. When she plays, she often needs our help because it is a complicated game and she can get stuck on walls and fences when she walks around. But she is still able to do things in the game for herself before she gets frustrated with it.
Playing this game has given her experience with technology that will be all-important in her future. The interface of World of Warcraft, when broken down to its basic concept of using the keyboard and mouse as the cause to create resulting effects, gives her experience with how to manipulate computers in general. The world she lives in will never go back to a time when it was unnecessary to understand how to interface with a computer.She also is able to use World of Warcraft for the oldest and arguably most important childhood activity: pretend play. My husband had left her playing while he prepared dinner. He came back into the room and found her in a dining area of one of the game's many Inns. She had sat in one of the chairs and was pretending to have a surprise party with the characters that were in the room.
Another interesting experience related to her World of Warcraft play was when one of our cats died. She was very sad about it, and we were trying to explain the death to her and how we would always remember Sabrina but that she wasn't coming back. "Not like in World of Warcraft," she said. "Dead people come back because that's a game. Sabrina is gone because she's really dead." An interesting statement from a four-year-old considering lawmakers and medical practitioners would like us to believe that violent videogames blur the distinction between fantasy and reality for teenagers!
The last example, though there are many more, that I will give of the benefits I've seen videogames have for my daughter is from when she and I were looking at the games that came with our new laptop. We started a game I had never played before, and I was having trouble at first figuring out what to do because I didn't read the instructions. Just as I figured it out (a marble had to be put in the appropriately colored hole by using the walls, and a "marker" to draw walls), she shouted out "You draw around the ball to put it in the hole!" She was able to flex her reasoning "muscles" to figure out the game, and in fact did so as quickly as the adult she was observing play the game. Reasoning skills take practice and experience just as much as raw intelligence, and games provide an opportunity to use those skills.
If Dr. Dini's book is as fair-minded about its subject matter as the press release indicates, it should be required reading for Congress before voting on any further videogame related legislation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)