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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
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 .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)