Blogging verse traditional essays was a nice change. As far as I am concerned it was a successful experiment. I really enjoyed the this form of submitting papers it is a way to save paper, as well as share my thoughts on the chosen topics. Apart from that there are several other reasons why I enjoyed these assignments.
The expectations for the blog assignments were basically the same as any traditional essay or paper I have ever had to write. The only differences were... 1)Verses having a works cited page we used hyperlinks. This was probably my favorite difference as far the blogs were concerned. I truly despise citing works in MLA format, it is just incredibly time consuming I would rather do a hyperlink any day. 2) Blogs allow the rest of the world to view your piece of work. That concept is a little mind boggling, but in a good way. Usually you sit down spend however long researching your topic, then spend another hour or more writing about it, you turn it in, and all that effort goes to just one person. I would much rather leave criticism to a group, With that being said I am positive that many other people dislike the idea of their writing being available to the world. The format overall was very basic which made it easy to understand. I think the most difficult part of this experience was figuring out how to work blogger but even that was not a big deal. Not to mention with how technologically advanced our society is becoming it is probably a good thing to learn blogging.
With that being said it is easy to see the parallel of the blogging assignments to the class in general. The class is all about critical thinking, and critical thinkers are why our society is becoming so involved with technology. New inventions are coming our all the time thanks to our modern day inventors. Furthermore the topics supplied to write about were all challenging in some way. There were no questions that you could simply rattle on about especially because of the hyperlink requirement. We also focused on forming arguments throughout the entire semester it is obvious that this relates to all of the blog assignments (seeing as we had to argue a topic in all of them).
Lastly the non text elements on Blogger really added to the learning process, Looking at other peoples blogs and seeing pictures or videos not only gave a better idea of the authors personality, it helped relay ideas that cannot be put in words. As I have argued in the past 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Therefore by leaving the idea of adding visuals open to the class the opportunity to learn was broadened.
Overall this was a good experience. I give the blogging idea 2 thumbs up for future classes. It was a good way to learn, save trees, and share ideas.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
1,000 words
Frederick Barnard is largely credited for the quote “a picture is worth a thousand words,” This statement is popular in many cultures including Chinese, American, and several more. The question is should this statement be taken seriously? Some would argue that a picture can be deceiving; someone could use costumes, backgrounds, and filters to change the time or setting of a photo. On the other it is said that a picture can show a person, item, or place better than even the finest writers description. This statement is much more factual than the first. In fact a picture is worth at least a thousand words.
Humans are very visual creatures. Therefore seeing some form of picture can help humans... study or learn in general, verify a person place or thing, and stir emotion or help spark imagination. Writing can do some of these things as well but as far as verification for lets say a person a descriptive paragraph will not do the job. Another great example of why pictures are so important would be a map. Just think if you are driving and someone tells you directions to their house you might get a little confused however if you have a map that shows landmark and shows you the actual curves on a road you probably more likely not to get lost. There are several more arguments for why a picture is worth a 1000 words.
For instance a single picture can often express many ideas. Everyone has seen a picture/painting that has moved them, and expressed an idea or story. For instance take “The Mona Lisa” that painting tells an entire story and it is simply a woman. Writing cannot describe the settle bits of emotion that crosses a face and it cannot show odd quirks a person may have like a picture can. These two reasoning's are not that important compared to the idea that writing allows less space for imagination.
In class once I was given a picture. From that picture I was instructed to create a story and decide how the picture in my hand came to be. It can be argued that mini stories can be created off of a piece of writing as well. For instance just look at FanFiction.net and you will see hundreds of stories written about Harry Potter or Star Wars. However, these stories are all based off of pre-made characters and ideas whereas just writing off the top of your mind from a picture would spark much more creativity.
All around it would seem that this age old statement does have truth to it. A picture can definitely depict at least 1000 words worth of information.
Humans are very visual creatures. Therefore seeing some form of picture can help humans... study or learn in general, verify a person place or thing, and stir emotion or help spark imagination. Writing can do some of these things as well but as far as verification for lets say a person a descriptive paragraph will not do the job. Another great example of why pictures are so important would be a map. Just think if you are driving and someone tells you directions to their house you might get a little confused however if you have a map that shows landmark and shows you the actual curves on a road you probably more likely not to get lost. There are several more arguments for why a picture is worth a 1000 words.
For instance a single picture can often express many ideas. Everyone has seen a picture/painting that has moved them, and expressed an idea or story. For instance take “The Mona Lisa” that painting tells an entire story and it is simply a woman. Writing cannot describe the settle bits of emotion that crosses a face and it cannot show odd quirks a person may have like a picture can. These two reasoning's are not that important compared to the idea that writing allows less space for imagination.
In class once I was given a picture. From that picture I was instructed to create a story and decide how the picture in my hand came to be. It can be argued that mini stories can be created off of a piece of writing as well. For instance just look at FanFiction.net and you will see hundreds of stories written about Harry Potter or Star Wars. However, these stories are all based off of pre-made characters and ideas whereas just writing off the top of your mind from a picture would spark much more creativity.
All around it would seem that this age old statement does have truth to it. A picture can definitely depict at least 1000 words worth of information.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Lovemark Why?
A “lovemark” according to Kevin Roberts is a certain brand that a human is loyal to even though there is no real reason for it. I personally cannot think of any particular brand that I am totally loyal to. However, there are several reasons that one could use to justify such a way of thinking.
First off having loyalty to a specific brand can help relieve one of decision making. If you have a brand of lets say… pants that you really like, you know where to find them in the store and you know which size you wear in that brand. Therefore, it would only make sense for you to go buy that kind of pants. With this in mind there are positive and negative effects that come with buying one brand of something. Staying with the idea of pants... it is likely that there is another brand of pants that will fit you better, or they may be more comfortable, maybe even cheaper. Sure, you would have to spend some time to locate those pants but being stuck in a rut generally is not a good thing. Apart from the decision making issue some may stick with a certain brand to obtain or maintain status.
If you read a fashion magazine… for instance “Vogue” and flip to the ’10 Best Dressed’ section you will see woman dressed in Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Versace (hands down some of the most expensive brands you can find). In the socialite setting these brands represent status, and status is important. In the world of Paris Hilton a new ‘Louis’ bag coming out is a must have because generally in the socialite world they are loyal to that brand. In this situation the loyalty to a brand relies on the need to maintain status or to gain it. These people could justify their love of expensive items simply by showing that they have the money to purchase such things; but again it would make more sense to shop around and spend a more practical amount of cash.
A truly good justification for a “lovemark” would be absolute knowledge of an item. Unfortunately there is no way to know everything about a company (unless of course you are the owner). It is obvious why one cannot truly understand everything about a company. All bad aspects are hidden from the public to maintain consumers. On the other hand people can gain a good amount of understanding with much research, debatably enough to rationalize a “lovemark”. For example one might want to only buy cloths that were not made in a sweatshop, but researching that topic you may find a particular brand that intrigues you.
There are other reasons that would validate a human’s loyalty to a brand name… but these are the first that came to my mind. With that being said Robert’s thesis was wrong there are most certainly real reasons to be loyal to a company. Whether or not one takes these ideas seriously is up to them.
First off having loyalty to a specific brand can help relieve one of decision making. If you have a brand of lets say… pants that you really like, you know where to find them in the store and you know which size you wear in that brand. Therefore, it would only make sense for you to go buy that kind of pants. With this in mind there are positive and negative effects that come with buying one brand of something. Staying with the idea of pants... it is likely that there is another brand of pants that will fit you better, or they may be more comfortable, maybe even cheaper. Sure, you would have to spend some time to locate those pants but being stuck in a rut generally is not a good thing. Apart from the decision making issue some may stick with a certain brand to obtain or maintain status.
If you read a fashion magazine… for instance “Vogue” and flip to the ’10 Best Dressed’ section you will see woman dressed in Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Versace (hands down some of the most expensive brands you can find). In the socialite setting these brands represent status, and status is important. In the world of Paris Hilton a new ‘Louis’ bag coming out is a must have because generally in the socialite world they are loyal to that brand. In this situation the loyalty to a brand relies on the need to maintain status or to gain it. These people could justify their love of expensive items simply by showing that they have the money to purchase such things; but again it would make more sense to shop around and spend a more practical amount of cash.
A truly good justification for a “lovemark” would be absolute knowledge of an item. Unfortunately there is no way to know everything about a company (unless of course you are the owner). It is obvious why one cannot truly understand everything about a company. All bad aspects are hidden from the public to maintain consumers. On the other hand people can gain a good amount of understanding with much research, debatably enough to rationalize a “lovemark”. For example one might want to only buy cloths that were not made in a sweatshop, but researching that topic you may find a particular brand that intrigues you.
There are other reasons that would validate a human’s loyalty to a brand name… but these are the first that came to my mind. With that being said Robert’s thesis was wrong there are most certainly real reasons to be loyal to a company. Whether or not one takes these ideas seriously is up to them.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Know how know why
“Those who know how, work for those who know why” is a very interesting statement; but what does it mean? It may be obvious that this statement can be interpreted in many ways. However, I believe the most logical analysis of this comment is as follows. Humans who think up ideas are often the ones who are set on pedestals, and those who create the 'idea' are simply using their skills to assist the inventor. All of this relates to critical thinking in the sense that without the inventors of the world our working hierarchy would not exist, and our society would not be nearly as advanced as it currently is. A perfect example of this statement would be Bill Gates.
In 1975 Bill Gates and his friend and partner (Paul Allen) officially created the Microsoft Corporation. This semi small time corporation grew out of control over the years, and Gates now is worth an estimated 53 billion dollars. Gates was obviously an idea man. Him and Allen both set out with the simple idea of making the computer industry bigger and better. In doing so they have employed thousands of people. These thousands of people know how to put together, program, and sell computers but they are not the idea men. Hence why Bill Gates is a perfect example of the quote stated above. This idea can be applied to religious followings as well.
For instance Gautama or 'the Buddha' always had a flock of followers, because those around him cherished his ideas. The Buddha taught his doctrine and shared his ideas and then those who knew how to work his ideas lived by them and spread him. The Buddah was 'enlightened' and knew why and how he had reached this level of peace (and it was very much by critical thinking). Others wanted to reach that level so they did as the Buddha taught. Again this is a perfect example of putting the given phrase into context. Furthermore this quote can be carried to smaller businesses (meaning smaller than Microsoft).
It is obvious that humans have a natural want to be the best. Those who compete for the better grades in school are ultimately competing for their spot as a boss in the work world. The more intelligent, well rounded, and creative you throughout your school years the more likely you are to succeed in the work world. On the other hand those who do not push themselves to learn generally stick with what they do know and allow others to instruct them at work. It could be argued that some succeed without any true brilliance, however in a study done by RePEc statistics have shown that competence really does effect the success of a business.
Overall it would seem that those who are true free thinkers, and those who are critical thinkers are the people who will excel in life. As long as the world continues to invent the man kind will continue to maintain it's working hierarchy; and those who know how will continue to follow those who know why.
In 1975 Bill Gates and his friend and partner (Paul Allen) officially created the Microsoft Corporation. This semi small time corporation grew out of control over the years, and Gates now is worth an estimated 53 billion dollars. Gates was obviously an idea man. Him and Allen both set out with the simple idea of making the computer industry bigger and better. In doing so they have employed thousands of people. These thousands of people know how to put together, program, and sell computers but they are not the idea men. Hence why Bill Gates is a perfect example of the quote stated above. This idea can be applied to religious followings as well.
For instance Gautama or 'the Buddha' always had a flock of followers, because those around him cherished his ideas. The Buddha taught his doctrine and shared his ideas and then those who knew how to work his ideas lived by them and spread him. The Buddah was 'enlightened' and knew why and how he had reached this level of peace (and it was very much by critical thinking). Others wanted to reach that level so they did as the Buddha taught. Again this is a perfect example of putting the given phrase into context. Furthermore this quote can be carried to smaller businesses (meaning smaller than Microsoft).
It is obvious that humans have a natural want to be the best. Those who compete for the better grades in school are ultimately competing for their spot as a boss in the work world. The more intelligent, well rounded, and creative you throughout your school years the more likely you are to succeed in the work world. On the other hand those who do not push themselves to learn generally stick with what they do know and allow others to instruct them at work. It could be argued that some succeed without any true brilliance, however in a study done by RePEc statistics have shown that competence really does effect the success of a business.
Overall it would seem that those who are true free thinkers, and those who are critical thinkers are the people who will excel in life. As long as the world continues to invent the man kind will continue to maintain it's working hierarchy; and those who know how will continue to follow those who know why.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
How is Technology Changing Our World
Technology has changed society indefinitely. Some inventions have had very positive effects on the world, and others have been detrimental to mankind. However for the most part every invention has both good and bad side effects. Today we will analyze the effects of cell phones, the internet, and advanced military machinery on the world; and in the end we will reach one conclusion. That technology is slowly ruining the world around us.
Cell phones have had a major impact since their invention in 1973. Humans are naturally social creatures and so it would only make sense that an invention which allows communication at any point and time (as long as we have service) would be a hit. Cellular communication devices allow parents to keep tabs on their children, they let long distance friends talk for low rates, and they can alert the proper authorities when something goes wrong, no matter where you are. On the other hand... cell phones have defiantly impacted society in a bad way. For instance the world has become less connected in a more literal sense. Instead of people meeting somewhere to talk, they simply make a phone calls while driving. Which brings up another negative; people talking on phones while driving. This common problem accounts for at least 25% of all car accidents every year. Another recent study has shown that cell phones may even cause brain cancer/ tumors. The theory is, that the microwave transmitter used to send out calls from cell phones and cordless phones call emit radiation. With a long enough term of exposure this radiation can cause serious medical issues. Now that we have a slightly deeper understanding of cell phones and what they are doing to mankind lets move onto the internet.
It goes without being said... the internet is an amazing resource for humans, you can find information on every subject online. The 'net' is also a good way to contact people in other cities, states, continents, and so forth. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that the internet is not a safe place, and that it has dozens of down sides. The first and most commonly frowned upon issue concerning the internet has to do with molesters and or stalkers. Anything posted online never dissolves completely and because of this issue there have been hundreds of reported cases of inappropriate behavior expressed online. Secondly it again becomes apparent that less people feel the need to venture out of their house to have a conversation, simply because they can get online and talk on “Skype” or a messaging system. Slowly the world is becoming less and less active. Some people will not even leave their house to shop anymore; because that can be done with a computer as well. To top it all off, with all of these 'computer potatoes' lying around inside, the next generations are sure to be lacking in vitamin D and are sure to put on some extra pounds. Wait, our future gets even better.
The atom bomb was the first giant step in nuclear war. It has been estimated to have the strength of 12,500 tons of dynamite, and it killed between 90,000 to 166,000 people. Mankind is constantly trying to come up with better ways to protect its self, but that does not mean this new technology is always for the better. In 2007 some armed unmanned robots were deployed to Iraq. Soon after the arrival one of the robots tried to turn on its human companions had the present troops not been on their toes the droid could have mass murdered its own men with its attached M249 machine gun. This incident is yet another great example of what technology is doing to our world. Now if 'war robots' do someday become a success it will save hundreds of thousands of soldiers. However if even our military is run by machines, where will we be?
In the end it is easy to see that technology is slowly turning our society into a non social, over weight, power hungry, machine ran world. If we keep our technology usage to a minimum the bright side of inventions may continue to shine; but unless we learn soon it is obvious that the negatives will overcome the positive.
Cell phones have had a major impact since their invention in 1973. Humans are naturally social creatures and so it would only make sense that an invention which allows communication at any point and time (as long as we have service) would be a hit. Cellular communication devices allow parents to keep tabs on their children, they let long distance friends talk for low rates, and they can alert the proper authorities when something goes wrong, no matter where you are. On the other hand... cell phones have defiantly impacted society in a bad way. For instance the world has become less connected in a more literal sense. Instead of people meeting somewhere to talk, they simply make a phone calls while driving. Which brings up another negative; people talking on phones while driving. This common problem accounts for at least 25% of all car accidents every year. Another recent study has shown that cell phones may even cause brain cancer/ tumors. The theory is, that the microwave transmitter used to send out calls from cell phones and cordless phones call emit radiation. With a long enough term of exposure this radiation can cause serious medical issues. Now that we have a slightly deeper understanding of cell phones and what they are doing to mankind lets move onto the internet.
It goes without being said... the internet is an amazing resource for humans, you can find information on every subject online. The 'net' is also a good way to contact people in other cities, states, continents, and so forth. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that the internet is not a safe place, and that it has dozens of down sides. The first and most commonly frowned upon issue concerning the internet has to do with molesters and or stalkers. Anything posted online never dissolves completely and because of this issue there have been hundreds of reported cases of inappropriate behavior expressed online. Secondly it again becomes apparent that less people feel the need to venture out of their house to have a conversation, simply because they can get online and talk on “Skype” or a messaging system. Slowly the world is becoming less and less active. Some people will not even leave their house to shop anymore; because that can be done with a computer as well. To top it all off, with all of these 'computer potatoes' lying around inside, the next generations are sure to be lacking in vitamin D and are sure to put on some extra pounds. Wait, our future gets even better.
The atom bomb was the first giant step in nuclear war. It has been estimated to have the strength of 12,500 tons of dynamite, and it killed between 90,000 to 166,000 people. Mankind is constantly trying to come up with better ways to protect its self, but that does not mean this new technology is always for the better. In 2007 some armed unmanned robots were deployed to Iraq. Soon after the arrival one of the robots tried to turn on its human companions had the present troops not been on their toes the droid could have mass murdered its own men with its attached M249 machine gun. This incident is yet another great example of what technology is doing to our world. Now if 'war robots' do someday become a success it will save hundreds of thousands of soldiers. However if even our military is run by machines, where will we be?
In the end it is easy to see that technology is slowly turning our society into a non social, over weight, power hungry, machine ran world. If we keep our technology usage to a minimum the bright side of inventions may continue to shine; but unless we learn soon it is obvious that the negatives will overcome the positive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)