Stevie B's Rockin' Blog

Extra Credit How it Works

2005-05-23T09:22:00.000-07:00

It seems that the way that voice over ip technology works is in a way that makes the very problem I had with it necessary. When your voice is recorded to the computer it must first be converted from analog (basically physical sound waves) into digital (computer representations of those sound waves) and then put into packets of digital information that is sent over the network. This creates a necessary delay in the process. Other parts that factor into this are that when information is downloaded off the internet it is in packets that sometimes spike and dip in size. With voice information the size stays the same, that means that the computer can predict exactly how much bandwith is going to be needed at any given time. Meaning a dedicated bit of this bandwith can be set aside making the process faster. If the technology can manage the conversion process and sending process instantaneously then that delay I hate may be fixed and who knows, this may be a big technology yet.

Voice Over IP

2005-05-23T08:29:00.000-07:00

I really don't see Voice Over IP having that big of an effect on the way that we use telephone technology. I've used some of the free software before to just check out how things work and frankly I found it annoying and somewhat hard to use. There was a slight delay that made it so that each one of us was constantly starting to talk and then waiting as we realized the other one had already started and then tried to start again. Besides that aspect of things there is the growing trend of abandoning land lines in favor of cell phones. So if a user doesn't think that a regular phone is necessary they are very unlikely to find a phone that needs an internet connection and a computer an improvement. The free long distance doesn't even factor in as a major selling point since most cell phone plans now offer the same thing. So while it is an interesting technology I just don't see it being that useful or necessary.

Access

2005-05-18T00:42:00.000-07:00

The relationship between the internet and accessibility standards seems to be that cyberspace as a public forum is getting more and more regulated. No longer is cyberspace an area where the people can do whatever they want it is becoming another forum where government regulation is becoming more and more necessary. With regulations on how certain sites can function, how people access the internet, and how the internet is made available, the internet is no longer a place where completely free ideas can be exchanged. While we don't need to panic and start looking for "big brother" in everything we do, we do need to be aware of regulations on the way we surf the internet and how the internet is provided to us. It's not completely free.

Political Activity

2005-05-11T00:53:00.000-07:00

It is becoming increasingly obvious that internet technology has had a major influence on political activity. Blogs and bloggers had a huge influence on the way information was spread in the last election and have proved a major force in getting word about rallies and other activities out. Electronic voting has also come into play and people are able to quickly do polls and get the information out to other people involved in the campaign. I read a newsweek article on the 2004 election and there was hardly a page that didn't contain mention of one of the campaign staff sending out memos or using internet technology from his palm pilot. Information spreads so quickly now and that only leads to greater control over what the officials release and how they approach public image. The internet lets everyone know of any mistakes or succeses instantly.

Free Space

2005-05-09T08:48:00.000-07:00

Public Space in cyberspace means to me that the internet is one gigantic "public sphere" in which everyone can freely access information and also create and share their own ideals and information. What is troubling as that although many people think the internet is like this, it isn't. As noted in the reading, users in places like Saudi Arabia will find it very difficult to use the internet freely. Their actions are tracked and observed, and they are unable to obtain certain information. The notion of freedom of information and free speach is absent here. Even in the United States there are certain areas where your actions are tracked and the information you may try to access is not free. Pay sites, cybersitters, and other forms of internet restriction make it so certain people are at a disadvantage in this area. Free public sphere? Maybe not.

Gated Online Community

2005-05-06T14:57:00.000-07:00

This article really opened my eyes as to how the "free" internet that promises a voice for everyone is starting to become more and more exclusive. The author mentions a number of different "friendster-esque" sites that have begun limiting their members in a desire to increase profits. The idea here is that free sites based on ads (like friendster) take a long time to start making a profit. These sites ask their members to pay for more specialized content and options and hope that the users will feel this is worth their time and money. If this works they certainly will begin to make a profit, however, if they can't get enough members their just looking at going off the net. Interesting stuff but scary at the same time. With more and more of the internet becoming a "pay to play" environment, it just means that the poor masses aren't going to have the same options as the rich elite. Creating a cast system on the "free internet" creates a serious problem to the new voice of the world.

URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=829191271&Fmt=3&clientId=8991&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Jennifer Saranow. (2005, April 29). Gated Online Community; New Wave of Exclusive Sites Tout A-List Networking; A Revolt Against Friendster. Wall Street Journal (Europe), p. A.7. Retrieved 2005, May 5th

Community

2005-05-04T08:21:00.000-07:00

I found the first reading to be quite interesting. It was nice to see sites like friendster and thefacebook put to some practical use. I just wonder how many respectable "old school" business men are willing to do something like this. It would be quite interesting to find out the ratios. The 2nd reading was kind of disturbing. It seemed to almost promote an internet revolution and claimed to be raising voices otherwise unheard. To a point that is correct but the internet has natrual biases that tend to get overlooked. For one only more well off people have access too the internet and have the knowledge to use it to their advantage. That eliminates a whole sector of voices right off. I think the internet is a good tool for democracy but I think praising it as the next super power may be a bit premature.

Blogs and Community

2005-05-02T08:53:00.000-07:00

I do think that blogs facilitate communities in the sense that they allow people of like minds to come together in one place. If someone creates a blog dedicated to a socialist agenda in politics then people who vastly disagree with that point of view are unlikely to visit (except maybe to flame but thats another story). In the same vein people who enjoy growing exotic plants will migrate towards a blog that is dedicated to that interest. In this way the blogs bring people from all over the world (who share the same goals or interests) together. The problem begins when others who take offense to this agenda swarm to the blog. They can pollute the blog with harsh language and diatribes (flaming) and ruin the experience for those who used to enjoy it. Another problem is that not everyone has access to these blogs and so some people are excluded immediately. Its a real boom for those who can use it yet the in place bias of the internet stops some at the get go. Another problem is the lack of source credibility. Most blog owners are regular people with no expert training in the subject. This can lead to problems when they make unsubstantiated claims or voice opinions that others take seriously and thus, spread around the internet or real world. This flow of inaccurate information is a detrement to discussion and is a very real problem with blog communities.

WiFi

2005-04-27T08:52:00.000-07:00

I think the biggest implications of wireless technology for communication scholars is that it allows people to communicate from anywhere. In the past you would have to basically be with the person to communicate or at best write a letter. Then the telegraph changed things so that as long as each of you had a machine you could communicate with one another. Then the telephone, then the internet, etc. But one thing was in common. You had to be connected by a wire. Cellular technology gave people the ability to call one another from anywhere (within reason considering a tower was necessary) and now the internet and text messaging and video and all kinds of other ways of communicationg are being tacked onto this wirless technology. It's really amazing that no matter where someone is they can talk with someone else. There really is no escape anymore. At any moment somebody can contact you. It's rather unnerving.

Open source

2005-04-25T00:37:00.000-07:00

Communications scholars need to pay attention to the open source software movement because it represents a growing aspect of the software industry. More and more people are becoming unhappy with having to pay high prices for software only because they have no other option. With a free interface and software developed for it then the consumer is offered an alternative to the corporate software. Why pay 400 bucks for photoshop when you can use Gimp or some other free software? Throw in the fact that so many people are so fed up with high fees that they download or steal the software illegaly. If the prices were lowered then people may be more willing to pay for a legal version. Consumers can only be taken advantage of for so long before they find another way.

Electronic Voting

2005-04-20T08:37:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure that these articles really changed my perception of electronic voting, but they did make me more aware of the situation. The real issue to me was raised in the 2nd article. The United States needs to form some sort of overall election standard that all the states can agree on. Once there is a universal standard then strange things like the random alphabet of California can be fixed. Once these issues are straightened out a more specialized electronic voting machine could be created that addressed the concern of the 3rd article that the machines were too complex. My last issue on the machines is that to me electronic and computer based devices always run the risk of being hacked. While it's not impossible to tamper with paper ballots it is time consuming. With an electronic voting machine you could alter hundereds or thousands of votes with a mere click. That's what worries me most about electronic voting. The ease and usablitly is a clear plus over the old method.

Anlog

2005-04-18T08:36:00.000-07:00

This weeks reading pretty much just bothered me. The author seemed to be making the claim that we as humans aren't quite fit for a digital world. The reason seems to be that humans are adapting and flexible while computers and digital media are exact and unbending. I don't see the point. To me if humans are able to adapt to other things why are they not able to adapt to digital media and a digital world. Just because the technology is precise doesn't mean that we can't use it to in ways that fit our lives. To me this was just a completely annoying reading that didn't fit my perception of humans or digital technology.

Newspapers

2005-04-13T08:36:00.000-07:00

I initially agreed with the authors theory that more and more people are forgetting about traditional print media in the face of the internet and television news. However, I was shocked to see that around 90% of people still claim to read the daily newspaper. I for one do not subscribe to the Seattle PI or the Seattle Times and do not feel like there is anything available in these 2 newspapers that I could not obtain either online or from TV. While the authors theory that more national news is available then local news seems valid, as a reader I am able to search out information from local papers on the internet as well. I can find out what is happening in Spokane, Seattle, or even Los Angeles or San Francisco. All of this is available at (normally) no cost to the user and is quicker and easier then searching through newspaper archives. The newspaper may not be phased out soon but it is constant danger of being unnecessary.

Information

2005-04-11T08:45:00.000-07:00

I think that the more information that is available the better. The problem with this then becomes how you access it. I can see the problem that the authors mention in that more and more information means less accurate retrieval of it. With personal webpages being easier to create it becomes more and more difficult to find who is telling the truth based on facts and who is offering their opinion. Thus, people need to be more trained in how to find accurate reliable information. Google search tips help narrow down results, using respected and recognized sites to find information weeds out inaccuracies. It just becomes a matter of knowing where to find the right information. This can somtimes limit the types of people that have access to the information. For example, my mom couldn't find cnn if she got on the computer. So, we are in effect creating a world where computers are very very necessary to succeed and be educated. We're not totally reliant on them but to excell it's almost a must have. Other road blocks inclued pay sites, sites with limited membership, and other weeding out factors. Almost anything can be found (which is a good thing) but you just need to know how.

2005-04-03T23:49:00.000-07:00

I never would have guessed how many computers it took to do a simple email. Simple minded as I am I always just assumed 2 or 3. 1 to send 1 to recieve and maybe one to host the process. But 70? Good night moon. I don't exactly understand why the information needs to be sent all around the world however. It seems as if it would be simpler to just have different routers or servers that would be set up in then country of origin to make the process simpler and cut out 60 or so computers. Maybe I'm just not thinking big enough.
I also was pretty surprised to see that all of the information gets cut up and sent out then comes back to a computer which pieces it together. It makes sense that the information would need to be cut down in size to be sent out but it also seems to leave alot of room for error if the information doesn't come in completely. It's like the new bit torrent stuff where little bits of information are sent to the computer all at one time from many different users and pieced together. If every bit isn't there the file is corrupt. I wonder why that doesn't happen more often with emails, what with all the different computers sending the info.

1st weeks reading.

2005-03-30T08:41:00.000-08:00

In the first reading I found it quite interesting the amount of work and thought that goes in to creating new technology. I never think about the process that creators go through before a new piece of technology will be implemented. The "diffusion" process seems common sense, if there is a demand and a use for the product then it will be manufactured. The problem with this way of thinking however is that sometimes the intended use is not the way people actually use it. As we see from the other reading, the telephone wasn't thought of as a way for everyday individuals to chat. They thought of it more as a radio or business tool. Interesting.In the other reading it was amazing for me to see the amount of resistance that simple (by today's standards) inventions were met with. An automatic weaving machine caused strikes? It was also quite shocking to read that color TV could have been implemented at the onset of the technology but was held back by business interests. It's scary the amount of control that a corporation can have on technology. What other products are being held back to keep older ones making money? New DVD technology? New computer technology? Who knows?