Are Wii The Children of the Revolution?


In a media-influenced society, it is most likely that we find ourselves persuaded by what the media portrays to us. As horrible as it may sound, some people have let the media take over their minds, almost allowing the media to “hypnotize” them. In no different way, this also applies to the image the game console, Wii, has created for itself. When this game console was released or even before it was released, the hype that surrounded it was already overwhelming. Through numerous ads, commercials, or word of mouth the Wii had gained such a tremendous amount of praise because by some it was believed to be a technological “revolution”. Its wireless controller and Wii Remote capable of detecting motion and rotation in three dimensions as well as its ability to receive messages and updates over the Internet through WiiConnect24 helped this game console move up the “must have list”. Considering the infatuation people had with the Playstation 2 when it was released, there is without a doubt that the world of gamers – young or old would love the Nintendo Wii because its features are further improved and out of this world. However, must we consider such an improvement; let a lone for a game console, as a technological revolution?

The evolutions and progress of game consoles are no longer inexperienced developments to our generation because it seems as though our industrial world releases a new game console every few years. The creation of game consoles aren’t a once-in-a life time existence in our society for there always just has to be newer and better versions. If this is the case, then why do we consider the Wii a technological revolution? For the most part, I think the only reason people believe the Wii is a technological revolution is because the marketers of this product are excellent. Through their brilliant yet deceiving marketing schemes they are able to “hypnotize” their audience. They are able to influence people into thinking that their product is revolutionary, revolutionary enough to be bought by the world of consumers. Now the fault here is not to the marketers because they are simply doing their jobs. The fault here lies within us. We are letting these people influence our decisions. We are allowing them to make us believe the hype created around the Wii despite what is real behind closed doors. When the Wii was created I had heard news of the wireless controllers going hay-wire and causing troubles for the consumers that had bought this game console. If such troubles are occurring to the main focus of the reason why consumers bought this product, then the more it shouldn't be more a technological revolution and instead just hype? The word "revolutionary" is too strong to be affiliated with the Wii or any game console. These game consoles as of right now don't do anything for our society but provide fun and excitement. They aren't curing any sickness or diseases and are neither helping solve any serious life changing problems. Therefore, I think that the Wii is only surrounded by hype and in fact is not a technological revolution. It is only mistaken for that because we, as media-influenced people, are being affected by the messages Nintendo are sending out in order to sell their product. We are being affected by their fabrication and therefore convince ourselves this game console is revolutionary, when in truth it is not. In my opinion, until the Wii can prevent violence or discrimination and bring people together as their product is name ("Wii" as in "We") the only thing that circles it is its overemphasized hype.

Reading in Cyberspace


Google Book Search, amongst many other new technological creations, is yet another addition to our technology-based society. Google Book Search pretty much makes life easier for all of us because it takes away the hassle of locating books that are no longer in print and under copyright. Google has created this extension to their company to provide an index for free to the public by scanning a large number of books in the public domain, books that are copyrighted and still in print, and books that are copyrighted in the United States but are no longer in print. For the books that are in public domain, Google has decided to grant full access. As for the books that are copyrighted and in print, Google only provides as much access as the publishers and authors allow them to give. Lastly, as for the books that are copyrighted in the United States but are out of print, Google will grant only snippets. Despite, what I think are reasonable terms Google has created referring to the amount of access it will provide to the public, this development in the Internet world has created a tremendous amount of controversy.

Part of the controversy this creation has stirred up is it's relationships with publishers. This library-based digitization can do nothing else but weaken its relationships with publishers because if not anybody else they are the ones who seem to be the farthest away from being supporters. As publishers of the books Google is supposedly using in an unfair way, it is only natural that they are against this new movement because in their eyes they aren't being respected. Google is profiting from their work and they aren't being given a "piece of that pie". In the perspective of a publisher they are being taken away from the equation as they are ignored from any considerations - both not being asked for permission and not being given any of the profits Google compiles. Regardless of what "fair use" truly means, publishers seemingly have their own meaning of those words which they intended to follow. Although the confusion of the actual meaning of those words are lingering around this controversy publishers seem to pay no mind and are following their own principles - which states that Google's use of their work is not "fair use".

No longer are publishers the only ones included in this new development Google has created, whether it'd be on the positive side or not, but its competitors such as Yahoo and Microsoft has now hopped on to the band wagon. Much like anything successful in life, Google's competitors, Yahoo and Microsoft, are attempting to beat what Google has successfully created. They are putting forth an effort to compete and keep up with the rising status of Google for creating Google Book Search. However, with no recent answers to this advanced technology in the Internet world from either Yahoo or Microsoft, as of now, they can only wish to have thought of such a thing before Google had.

Without consideration of the disagreements some people have on Google Book Search, it in fact provides a much improved and increased access to information. In a generation where much is done through computers and the Internet, this invention doesn't differ or shy away from that new tradition or trend. Today, there isn't much information kept in a record that isn't inducted into a computer or a database simply because our era has become technology-based. Therefore, with such a development like the Google Book Search, we would be able to have access to a large number of books that without this would quite possibly be invisible because they are no longer in print. We would not only be able to attain books available today but we would also be able to have books from years to decades ago within our reach. Without the Google Book Search locating books that are no longer in print would be like finding a needle in a haystack. And so accordingly, the Google Book Search will definitely increase the public's access to information because it will broaden our opportunities and selections as the limitation line is largely erased.

Although this new development does increase our access to information I don't believe librarians would be threatened by this. It is a fact that with the Google Book Search you would be able to view books on the Internet. However, as discussed earlier, certain books can only be viewed as "snippets", some can only be viewed as much as the publishers or authors will allow, and while only a small percentage can be fully viewed. This means that not all existing or previously existing books can be read off and attained completely from the Internet. Therefore, this also means that people would not have to entirely restrict themselves from taking a trip to their local library for books they might have gotten a preview of from the Google Book Search.

Above all disagreements and attacks by others, I think the Google Book Search is nonetheless a positive contributor to the development of the Internet. In my perspective, the Google Book Search is in no way attempting to degrade any traditional way of accomplishing anything - which in this case would be going to the library and borrowing a book we may need or want as we would do it the old-fashioned way. It baffles me why others choose to attack the Google Book Search specifically, when many other programs making up the Web do the exact same thing or almost the exact same thing. Am I skipping a beat or is there even a difference between using a reduction of an original copy of an image and a reduction of an original copy of a book? Competitors like Yahoo also take "properties" of other websites and organize them into an index available to the public similar to that of Google's. So if Yahoo basically performs the same actions as Google, why is it that Google is the only one attacked? Why are there no lawsuits intended for Yahoo and any other websites that carry out similar functions to question their supposed "fair use". The conclusions people have on the Google Book Search, I believe, are biased and unjust. I think the only reason why Google is attacked for this development they have created is because it is obvious to others that this would definitely rake in the big bucks and no competitor wants to see that. Anybody who feels threatened by this development with no answers for it can do nothing but attack them and try to bring them down. However, as unfair as people choose to be, I believe the Google Book Search is a great creation that could help us all whether we discover that now or later on. This development, I think, is helpful enough to change the minds of neigh sayers and even turn them into users.

The Genographic Project

If we were to ask one another what our race was the answer would normally be a list of countries from around the world. We would never think we all derived from African ancestrys that make us all related. The National Geographic Society and IBM are recently working on a 5-year project that would support their theory of a diverse world with only one root, that one root being our African ancestors.

This Genographic Project, intended to explain all the mysteries and answer questions that puzzle our minds, will take us on a journey to our very own beginnings. Based on fossil records, the human race is known to have begun in Africa yet nobody quite knows our historical adventure that brought us to the far depths of Earth. The key to the success of this project is our very own human DNAs that would allow genetists to go through our human timeline and trace our common evolution. However, because our world seems to be fond of mixing populations more than ever, it is a necessity for these genetists to collect genetic samples from what is left of the population of aboriginals and traditional peoples in our world, whom have isolated DNAs. It is vital that the genetic samples they collect are isolated and away from the vanishing distinct information of each culture because the statistics they would obtain wouldn't be very accurate. This false information wouldn't be able to breakdown the genetic tree into our society's diverse branches.

A revolutionary project such as this can be made possible with the use of machines and mechanisms capable of proccessing blood samples which are later on taken to one of the many regional centres established around the world. Each DNA collected to put the mankind puzzle together are analyzed and the resulting information accumulated from the samples are stored in the database.

As our DNAs are binded together all further curiosity and mystery behind our genetic footsteps to our present day lives will be answered. Our society would be in the midst of a genius discovery that would help bring if not anything else peace and better understanding amongst all people. This project would finally prove that there is only one race, the human race. We can no longer discriminate one another based on our ethnicities for this project would only show that by doing so we would be discriminating ourselves for we are all, in reality, from the same ethnic background. Also, in addition to this new idea of everyone coming from the same root, such a project would hopefully raise an even larger voluntary interest from our peers to work towards finding even more information and new discoveries on our own people, drawing no line limiting our findings.

The Genographic project is without a doubt one that explores the long history of mankind very thoroughly. With this project, questions from many years or decades or centuries ago can be erased from our minds because this allows us to keep track of our migrations from Africa all the way to many other continents of this world. With this, the historical timeline of humans are no longer out of our reach.

When War Meets Video Games



1. Video games, the world's #1 hobby for men. There are a variety of video games that have taken over our youth today but probably the most popular one, especially with the men, are war video games. For people like myself who play video games once in a blue moon it baffles us just exactly why war video games have become so popular. Video games have now moved up people's "what-to-do" lists. And why is that? War video games for the majority gives gamers an experience like no other. These war games take the gamers to an unrealistic world where, blatantly, killings; shootings; and bombings are acceptable. As our society becomes more cautious regarding wars, there isn't much leniency applying to such actions that are executed during wars. War video games then give that "open window" for these gamers who want a difference experience, to go against that no toleration of war. Also, these video games have become an outlet for people to release their anger. In some situations, war video games are no longer just games. They have evolved into therapeutic outlets for the youth.

2. Different perspectives on actual wars are as debatable as the different perspectives on mere video games. As people have thought in the past that wars were actually positive and helpful battles, a percentage of our society does think that war video games are just for fun. To some people, war video games aren't afflicting anything or anyone. They don't see it as something that pokes fun at previous wars we've been through or war veterans. They don't see the negative effects it has on our youth, whether these effects are behind closed doors or shamelessly obvious to the world. War video games have become much more of a necessity to our society over the years that it seems as though some simply overlook its flaws. Despite those whom are fond of war video games, other people view them as degrading. It is believed by some that war video games take away the significance of such battles and that they portray wars as if they were nothing but a joke. On the disagreeing side of the continuous video game battles, "fun" is not a word most people choose to associate with what they believe to be a contributing aspect to the abolishment of our generation because they poke fun at it and eliminate the seriousness of such situations. War video games are seen under two different lights, where the arguments are seemingly never ending. I think it will forever be envisioned as only for fun and as something that desensetizes people.

3. I have personally never been a fan on these newly revolutionalized game consols or games because it has noticeably taken over the youth and the way they think. For the most part, as much as a person would like to think all video games are only for fun, in the long run all of them also have negative effects. We have for so long, ignored the flaws and negative effects these war video games have had on our peers. We have aimlessly blamed it on parents or the person's lack of discipline or responsbility. We constantly find our society supporting these war video games and never stopping to think that maybe it isn't just the person's fault - that these games affect a person's mind. When rap artists are surely accused of influencing a young person in a negative way for the majority they are publibly penalized. However, when it comes to such things as war video games, sure a disagreeing comment may be said every now and then, but it rarely ever happens that these games are taken off the market and are restricted from further consumptions by consumers. For this reason, I think war video games are a waste of our energy, money, and time. War video games can influence people the wrong way and that could only lead to downfalls. I personally don't think that war video games should be on a person's "to do list" because they are focused on shootings, killings, and basically violence. What ever happened to those easy-going, non-violent Pac man or Super Mario games?

iPod Classroom


1. A video on your iPod as a way of learning? I think it's a great idea. Nobody says that there has to be a limit on how students should be taught. This way of learning still enforces the subjects and information students are meant to learn. It doesn't take away the level of knowledge being taught, and neither does it make the lessons any easier. All this type of teaching does, is make the teachers' lessons available to students on the go, to fit their schedules much better. Our world is beoming revolutionized by all this technology. In many cases, we see technology take over a large number of things i our society. Sometimes, in this large number of changes from old-fashioned "do it yourself" or "man made" to a takeover by technology, not everything created is for the good of our generation and the generation to come. I think Kelly Parke's creation is genuis because she is using technology to better our community. She thought of an idea that would help not only satisfy students but also their teachers and family. This way of learning, I think, would encourage students to be more focused and actually allow them to learn. Not all students are able to concentrate while in class. Some students get bored, not listen to the lessons taught, or sometimes even not go to class because of their lack of interest. However, if they were to use this method, I think more students would learn. Students would be more interested because their lessons are within their reach any time they want it. They wouldn't have to feel forced to learn. Even though teachers aren't there with them, this doesn't mean students aren't able to ask questions because Kelly has also created this method to enable students to be able to book a chat session with their instructor. This method would allow students to be more self-directed and learn to manage their time. I think this idea of an iPod as a classroom is great because it will allow students to learn both book knowledge and responsibilities.

2. Being the self-directed school we are, I think Mary Ward should embrace such technology because it would help students be able to complete the things they're doing in their units with more understanding. I think this technology would be able to help the students of Mary Ward since we don't really have any scheduled classes, and lessons aren't occassionally taught by teachers. Although teachers are available to students, sometimes some us need to be taught first hand, rather than just asking questions. Also, although we do have seminars we can attend to understand the lesson of the unit, it isn't always convenient for everyone because it is often that we find ourselves not available for that period of the day and it interferes with our schedule. Therefore if we were to have this technology at our school, students would be able to catch up on the lessons that were taught at seminars or scheduled classes we missed, ready for us when we need it. If Mary Ward were to embrace this technology into our school, the self-directed school would be even more self-directed than it already is. Students would have to manage their time even better because then we would have control over when we decide to do our homework but also whether we choose to go to seminars or scheduled classes. This movement to an even more self-directed school can be viewed as both an advantage and disadvantage. This can be an advantage because the students could become more responsible and disciplined, and in the future more successful in life. However, this could also be seen as a disadvantage because some students may feel they can slack off and forget about their studies since everything would be available to them when they do decide to study. Although this is a very debatable issue, "v-casting" through iPods are still a genuis idea because even though it could potentially have students neglecting their studies, I think more would actually do the opposite. Students that are willing to enter into a school like Mary Ward show that they are also willing to handle the hardships that come along with a self-directed school. This means that they are willing to have the discipline to do their units and complete courses. "V-Casting", I think, would get other individuals to also do their work because they would no longer feel forced. Some students neglect school and their homework for the simple fact that they want to work at their own pace and not feel like they're being forced to do anything and "V-Casting" could be one of those solutions that could much such a thing happen. As I had stated earlier, "V-Casting" is definitely a very debatle subject. Many people differ in opinions when it comes to this subject. Although I think that V-Casting should be available for Mary Ward students, as of now instead of being imposed on students it could be considered as optional, only offering it to students who think they're capable of handling such discipline and time management.

With the Good, Comes the Bad



Many people debate with eachother when it comes to deciding whether modern-day communication technology is a positive or negative thing. This debate goes on because people have different views on technology. Nonetheless, people should know that modern-day communication technology isnt only a positive thing and not a negative thing, or vice versa. The truth is, modern-day communication technology has both a good and bad side. For example, a cellphone, used by numerous people, allows you to call anyone anywhere but it also makes you a target for theft because people who dont have this might want to take yours. Another exmaple of a communication technology that has both a good and bad side is chatrooms such as msn. Although these chatrooms allow you to talk to any of your friends or family anywhere in the world without physical contact, your privacy maybe be lost, it's a distraction and your security can be at risk. Also, as Ms.Largo said, modern-day communication technologies such as blogs also have a positive and negative side as all technologies do. Blogs let you express your feelings and thoughts to the public or to friends, but because of this it does take away your privacy - your feelings or thoughts become available to even people that weren't for your entry. As you can see, technology has its fair share of likeable and unlikeable things. Instead of arguing whether modern-day communication technology is a good or bag thing, we should just accept the consequences or advantages that come with it because it will most likely never change, at least not right now.