George-o-rama

Hello, this was my final project for one of my master's classes that I just finished. I had fun making it - my first time making a video (so it's pretty basic). Hope you enjoy. -George-

Time to Blog!

BLOG #1
Finally, a topic in which I can relate to through personal experience and not just pretend I know what I'm talking about. My wife and I were just married a short time ago, so there have been some adjustments from single life to married life. We both carried cell phones, but on different carriers. Her contract was up at the end of October and I had already been month to month for several months. We wanted to get on the same plan for various reasons I'm sure you can imagine. I must admit I was the driving force behind this decision mainly because I wanted a new phone and I wanted it free. I get discounted plans and phones through work, so I'm not entirely cheap, I'm just practical. Well, at least that's what I keep telling myself.
Back to my story. I was able to persuade my wife to decide on the carrier of my choice. This carrier carried the phones I liked, and I had been with them for the previous two years without a problem. Once that was done I ran into a problem I didn't plan on confronting. I got to the point where I needed to decided on a phone, but I was so enamored with the other choices that it made my decision very difficult. I had narrowed it down to the Nokia E62 and the Sony Ericsson W810i.
The Nokia E62 is pretty much a PDA phone. It's not as fully loaded as the Blackberry or the Treo, but it had so many cool features that I liked. There were two features that I really liked about the phone. It had the ability to edit documents like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, which I thought would be nice for school and business tasks. I loved the email compatibility it would have had with my work too. The call quality was pratically flawless from the reviews it got.
The Sony Ericsson W810i is one of the Walkman phones distributed by Sony Ericsson. It has FM radio with 20 presets, MP3 music, 2.0 mega pixel camera with several editing features, nice call quality, nice design, and Bluetooth compatibility just to name some of my favorite features.
As you can probably tell I listed more features that I liked for the Sony Ericsson to foreshadow my eventual purchase of the product. It seemed to have more of the features that I could use more often than just once in while like with Nokia E62. I really like the phone. It's a lot like my other phone that I had for over 2 years, so the transition getting used to a new technology was minimal...another feature I really liked about the W810i.
I'm reminded of Rogers' theory of 5 steps to adoption: Knowledge, Persuasion, Decision, Implementation, and Confirmation. Before my purchase I did a lot of homework on the different phones that might fit my needs. Once I narrowed my search down, I went back and forth on the features I liked most about the phones I liked finally deciding on one. Implementation was instantaneous, but not yet complete. What I mean is I have accustomed myself with the phone with the features I'm already familiar with, but I'm still exploring the new features I'm not as familiar with. I'm very impressed with every new function I find on the phone.
I still feel like I'm climbing in understanding all the neat things it can do, but nevertheless, I'm still very excited about my purchase. This phone is cool!

BLOG #2
I don't know if anyone knows the impact of this storm unless you live somewhere where snowfall was more than just one 1 or 2 inches. I live in Issaquah where we has snowfall from 6 to 10 inches, which is the most heavily impacted area in the Seattle region. To make matters worse I live on a steep hill, so you can imagine my joy when class was canceled. With that said, the ubiquity of the Internet and other communication devices has really affected my behavior to almost complete reliance on it. I found out about class being canceled during the storm at my house in Issaquah. I was able to jump online to check traffic conditions to direct my wife home all while she listened to my directions on her cell phone while she drove. The next morning I was able to get directions on the Internet about bus stops and times when the bus would be coming. While I was at the bus stop I was able to call into work and let them know I was going to be late because I has just missed my bus. It's amazing how much I've relied on these technologies.
I'm not too old, but I remember being stranded at school in the cold when my mom was supposed to pick me up. I couldn't call her on my cell phone because I had none. My mom couldn't see traffic conditions on the Internet because she didn't even know what that was at the time. If I wanted to communicate I had to search for a payphone. If my mom wanted road conditions she had to surf radio stations hoping she hadn't missed that lasted update.
Warning this next comment is going to sound so utopian in context, but really I don't care. The world is flat, deal with it! Life is so much more convenient with the uses of new technologies especially in adverse weather. Mind you that if power goes out we're just going to have to find a way to survive. It's possible to do so, so all you geeks out there don't freak out too much.

We the Media

A provocative undertaking of journalism history in a short 22 page account is my reaction to Gillmor. It was a mass reality check of the evolution over time of the effects of freedom of press. It's true that we take it for granted in the United States, although, I don't think the issue as to whether or not we actually do have freedom of press is really resolved by some. I don't care to address that but suffice it to say that some believe that tasteless nonsense in the spirit of expression is irrevocably their constitutional right, which I think is more irresponsible provoking propaganda not met for the sake of continual progression.
This idea of continual progression means harmonious advancement toward utopian values. I'm an optimist and therefore I see a world that has a lot of potential. I'm OK with diversified views, as long as the ideas commit toward this idea of continual progression. I think that Gillmor has this in mind as well with regard to media and freedom of expression. Our world, with the introduction of mass technology communication such as the Internet, has given way for freedom of expression in ways that our forefathers never imagined. I like what Alvin Toffler said, “Information technology would lead -- among many other things -- to mass customization, disintermediation, and media convergence. I totally agree, but I'm not sure if this is all good; as a matter of fact, I'm a little nervous about what this will all mean. I think I'm just worried about the economy. For some reason I have this notion that the more people are online, the more people are forgetting the values and ethics that built this country the more we digress away from what it means to appreciate rigorous labor. I'm not sure if I have any basis for this, but it's more of I don't know all the facts nor am I an economy specialist. Maybe you can just take this as something to think about.

We the Media

A provocative undertaking of journalism history in a short 22 page account is my reaction to Gillmor. It was a mass reality check of the evolution over time of the effects of freedom of press. It's true that we take it for granted in the United States, although, I don't think the issue as to whether or not we actually do have freedom of press is really resolved by some. I don't care to address that but suffice it to say that some believe that tasteless nonsense in the spirit of expression is irrevocably their constitutional right, which I think is more irresponsible provoking propaganda not met for the sake of continual progression.
This idea of continual progression means harmonious advancement toward utopian values. I'm an optimist and therefore I see a world that has a lot of potential. I'm OK with diversified views, as long as the ideas commit toward this idea of continual progression. I think that Gillmor has this in mind as well with regard to media and freedom of expression. Our world, with the introduction of mass technology communication such as the Internet, has given way for freedom of expression in ways that our forefathers never imagined. I like what Alvin Toffler said, “Information technology would lead -- among many other things -- to mass customization, disintermediation, and media convergence. I totally agree, but I'm not sure if this is all good; as a matter of fact, I'm a little nervous about what this will all mean. I think I'm just worried about the economy. For some reason I have this notion that the more people are online, the more people are forgetting the values and ethics that built this country the more we digress away from what it means to appreciate rigorous labor. I'm not sure if I have any basis for this, but it's more of I don't know all the facts nor am I an economy specialist. Maybe you can just take this as something to think about.

Internet Evaluation: Tragedy of the Commons

Was anyone else surprised by this article? I'm not oblivious to the diversity of opinion on population, nor do I think Hardin is totally off-based, but couldn't he have left a little room for religious ideology as a possible exception to the rule. His "Puritan inheritance," as he states, is almost used as a derogative. My religious background commends Hardin’s uses of mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected (Hardin), but still leaving room for Deity to finalize our decisions, which is where I think we would find our impeding barrier of disagreement. With this theory of the commons with regards to the Internet I can see great correlation to his take on population with this. If Hardin and I were to tackle the Internet as the source of our problem I think we would have been much better friends.

Apart from outer space, the Internet is the most expansive interval I can appeal to. Anyone can access it as if it were as common as the air we breathe. Ok, a little farfetched, but you get the point. So, where there is accessibility to such an extensive resource freedom of thought or expression races hysterically through digital highways reaching from the largest cities to the islands of the sea to young and old alike. So, how does this impact us? Well…that depends! I’m not going to go into a lot of detail how the free flow of thought through the Internet impacts us, but needless to say there are a lot of creepy people out there that take no thought of (Hardin would say they have no conscience) how their content will impact their neighbor.

Hardin mentions in a still more embryonic state is our recognition of the evils of the commons in matters of pleasure (Hardin). The Internet is full of “pleasurable” things, which I will not go into. And yes, I’m using the word pleasurable as a self indulging derogative. Who is there to regulate this? Sure there have been steps to do so such as governing laws, firewalls, encryption, and penalties to keep us away, but the problem is people are finding loops, so it’s not really regulated enough to make much of an impact. In other words to answer Kathy’s questions as to how I rate edemocracy, well I rate it very poorly for the reasons just mentioned. The only way to beat it is to strengthen our moral ethics, but I’ll save this argument for another day. I will conclude; however, with my own declaration that there is truth out there without taking away our right to think, so ponder as Hardin quotes Hegel who said “Freedom is recognition of necessity.”

Source:

"The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garret Hardin from Science Magazine (1968)

Somewhere in Space...

The World is Flat....

I’m not sure what to think of Friedman’s metaphorical usage of breaking down the wall. It seems pretty obvious to me that by breaking down barriers, in this case of open source information, we relinquish power to express ideas freely, communicate more fluidly, and innovate for the future. Unless we’re talking about the implications on social sciences, then all I can say to Friedman is “duh!”
Before anyone thinks I’m totally out of tune and not looking at the big picture let me just add that I see what he means when he tells me that the world is flatter as the world becomes more connected to each other. I’ve heard this analogy before in conversation with friends, but using different terminology. Have you ever heard anyone say the world is smaller or it’s not at big as you thought? Of course you have, and Friedman uses his own prose to systematically map out the evolution of the latter part of the information age using political metaphor and economic evidence to make his point.
However, from a historical point of view the events that transpired that brought about Windows 3.0 or even Windows 95, Netscape, fiber optic wiring, and so forth have huge implications at the speed by which these entities contributed to “flattening” the world. For example, Friedman quotes John Doerr of Netscape, “The Netscape IPO was a clarion call to the world to wake up the Internet." Until then, it had been the province of the early adopters and geeks (Friedman, 61). I can’t imagine many people would argue that the outsourcing of the Internet to the public via Netscape was the most evocative affair of our time. Everyone and I mean everyone was able to access the Internet at their leisure. Many thought that it would take some time for people to embrace the Internet, but that wasn’t the case. If people find a significant enough need for something they won’t mind the learning curve to incorporate it into their own cultural sphere.
So here we are in the now. We have free exercise of Internet uploading and downloading, e-commerce, e-mail, webcams, e-learning, and others so that we are pressing forward to either our demise or our eventual dominance in a Utopian world. Time will tell!

Blast from the Past!

It's irrevocablely true that to forecast the future to an exact degree is whole heartedly too difficult to do. Speculation; however, on the possibilities of an upcoming future from an ever changing present remain to be conditioned on solid facts. Solid facts are all we have to go on. Speculation is premissable, but better determined with what we already have. Bush's stimulating look into the future, which is our present, sets a good tone on permissable speculation into an unforseeable future. Bush states in his hypothesis that "The world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to come of it." Something has...a technological explosition of complex devices made for multipurposes still yet to be determined. Why is this so important to us? Why do read Bush's hypothesis and be amazed at his conceptual framework of how the world would be?
From speculation to understanding how things came to be is also very important in developing new ideas emulating early innovator's creativity for progression and supervening necessity. I think understanding our past helps establish our future. In the information age, why wouldn't this be true?

Predicting the market evolution of computers: was the revolution really unforeseen.

There is a lot of speculation as to how and why computers came to be in today's world. Winston suggests that the diffusion of computers may have been delayed for reasons he includes as complex computer language guarded by computer programmers who may have wanted to monopolize the information, the incunabula era had a massive expensive computers that lead away potential buyers, and even going away from smaller functional computers that may have been more affordable. The Baby Mark I was a smaller computer that never got much attention for reasons that are still speculated.
I would have to agree with Schnaars & Carvalho that the driving force of the evolution of computers was founded in the market. I do admit that Winston made a good point in the beginning that the diffusion of the computer was kept alive by the inclustion of warfare. Schnaars & Carvalho agrue that the computer began to be talked up to much that a 'keep up with the Jones' mentality began to shape the industry. Companies would purchase computers so not to be beat out by their competition. Market competition sparked innovation and the industry of computers skyrocketed. I would agrue myself that the 'keep up with the Jones' mentality still pushes the computer market forward as new technological innovations enter the market place.

Source

Title

Predicting the market evolution of computers: was the revolution really unforeseen
Schnaars, S. P.; Carvalho, S.
Technology in Society, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1-16, Jan. 2004

What do we need versus what do we know?

It is not farfetched to say that people are easily awed by innovation, specifically technological ones. How many of you have been hooked by the functionality of a new cell phone or the high definition of a television set? Did you ever think to yourself "I wish I had that or I'm going to buy that?"
The text book incorporates the notion of "supervening necessity." As did better business practices lean on the need of the telephone so does our need to have cell phones to stay in contact with family and friends, share pictures, text messages, listen to music, record video, record voice, keep an agenda, etc. To see what I'm getting at? It seems to me that the "supervening necessities" that arise are giving way for technologica convergence. In a society where we consume so much, whether it be information to the newest business comodity, we are contanstly looking for something. What is that something? That's interesting because I could not pin point one thing. Your reasons may differ from another depending on your need, personality, or likes and dislikes. Maybe it's a status thing. Is it for functionality? I don't know; however, "supervening necessity" is the driving force of an utopian society or dystopian society, depending how you look at it. I'm more on the side of utopian personally, but we'll save this discussion for another day.
This is perfect headway into the unintended consequences we face on new technology. Postman made an interesting point that no one new innovation is one sided in consequences. All have good and bad consequences. It now becomes a matter of weighing the consequences whether we participate or not, and if we do participate, what are the good and the bad consequences of that. For example, should I get a cell phone? Yes, I think I will get a cell phone? People can now reach me at anytime. Is this good or bad? Will I become dependent on this phone? What kind of phone do I need? Will this phone do everything I want it to do? Note, I'm already supposing that the phone will need to do more than just call someone. Do you see my point?
From a researching point of view the U&G of a device can, as the article stated, identify and measure the practicality of the devise in the market place and in society. This method of identifying and measuring will help me identify how to give a better analysis of the uses and needs of digital asset management in the financial industry, which is the topic of my research paper this quarter. It will identify how well this method of technical business practice will be incorporated in the corporate world. Then again going along with Postman again, maybe all that needs to be done is tell people it will work and it will. Because as Postman states "in a world without spiritual or intellectual order, nothing is unbelievable; nothing is predictable, and therefore, nothing comes as a particular surprise." (itallics used for sarcasm)

Times are changing!

Indulge me for a second and look with me at the way new technologies introduce themselves. I must admit this may come to some of you as little on the dystopian side of things, but I honestly don't intend it that way. But back to my point...doesn't it seem with every new innovation of technology a bigger and better one will soon follow? I know, I'm so profound. Trust me that I have a much more gross perspective than you might think than one of soley stating the obvious. Imagine with me. Have you ever seen those little annimations with a little fish swimming along who is followed by a hungry bigger fish who is being followed by an even hungrier bigger fish? Sure you have, and it can appear to some as a very pessamistic outlook, but really, it's just a fact of life. The article How the Internet killed the phone business used the term "distruptive technology." How true that is sometimes. I would agree in the contexts of the article that VOIPs are a disturbance and an annoyance to the traditional phone company. I believe that VOIPs will be the big fish that eats the phone company unless it can roll with the punches and embrace it. Do you think that's a possibility?
Along that same idea of rolling with the punches I think it's safe to conclude that one idea spawns another. Edward Davy understood this concept as the railroad company took flight. The advent of the railroad created the need for greater communication among railroad engineers for railroad safety. Davy's foresight introduced the operation of the telegraph.

The history of telegraph offers a clear example of how one technology, in this case the railways, creates a supervening necessity for another, the telegraph. (Winston 1998: 23)

How many times have we seen something like this occur? Clearly demand is the major factor in all this. I'll be so bold to say that we want the bigger fish to eat the smaller one. Why? That's a question I'm interested in knowing myself.