Blog-on-the-go

Mobile Internet devices and online communities are merging to a new kind of web diary: “micro-blogging,” where people fire off terse missives about what they are doing or thinking at any given moment.

Mobile devices stoke ‘micro-blogging’ fervor

The micro-blogging phenomenon, I must admit, is quite interesting to me. The ability to record exactly what you’re doing when you’re doing it seems like a great advancement in documenting everyday lives. However, if you’re publishing everything on the internet, and you’re not thinking as much before you do it (hence “tense missives”), is it really a good idea? Personally, I’d like to think for a little longer than it takes to text about what I’m putting on the net for everyone to read.

What do you think?

Technology that does what it’s supposed to!

Is there finally a cell phone that does nothing but make calls? Perhaps –

Two models of phones, Jitterbug by GreatCall Inc. and Coupe by Verizon, offer the most basic services available. One version of the Samsung Jitterbug, for example, has only three buttons: one you can program to call one number, say a friend, work or home; another to call a live operator; and a third to call 911. The other Jitterbug is more like a regular phone, but both have dial tones and larger keypads.

At a Certain Age, Simplicity Sells in High-Tech Gadgets – New York Times

When living in the age of cell-phone games, cell-phone cameras, cell-phone applications, cell-phone browsers, cell-phone text messaging, and cell-phone ringtones, it becomes increasingly difficult to find a cell phone that does nothing but make a call. Isn’t that what cell phones were designed for?

What do you think?

News museum!

WASHINGTON — Look through the glass walls of a television studio at the Newseum — the much-heralded $450 million museum created by, for and about news acolytes, news reporters, newshounds, newsreaders, news watchers, newsmakers and news advocates that opens on Friday — and you get an imposing view of the Capitol. But that also means that from the Capitol you also have a clear view of the glass facade of the Newseum, which is part of the point.

Newseum, Dedicated to Journalism History, Opens in Washington – New York Times

This came to my attention as I was browsing through the New York Times. Their web site is here. For somebody with an interest in journalism (both the writing and photography), this is something that I’m sure I’m going to visit. Go ahead – check out their website. There are some pretty neat galleries, theaters, and exhibits. What do you think of it?

How it all ends, really?

I’ve come across this interesting video on YouTube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

The speaker in the video makes some neat points. Really, you should go and watch it. However, there are two fundamental flaws that I’d like to point out. First of all, let’s examine the logic the speaker uses. Using the same logic, we should stop all development of particle accelerators! There are scientists on both sides, some who argue that they pose a threat to humanity and some who argue that they don’t. Humanity being destroyed is a horrible fate, right? That’s the potential risk. So we should stop developing particle accelerators. Oh, and while we’re at it, we shouldn’t build any nuclear power plants. It’s possible for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear waste and use it to wreak havoc, and a nuclear-ridden world is a horrible outcome also. It’s a potential risk. However, when we look at the probabilities of these different outcomes, we find that they play a large part in what we should choose to do. The guy in the video alludes to lottery tickets – each and every lottery ticket has the equal chance of being picked. However, each of the outcomes described do not.

Also, let’s examine what happens if the earth is going to warm, we “do something about it” (namely by reducing emissions), but it doesn’t matter because we weren’t contributing to the problem. Then we’ve got all sorts of problems (political, economic, etc.) in addition to an extremely different environment. Isn’t that worse than “just” having a “bad environment” with higher temperatures, diseases, and rising sea levels? With a good economy and a bad world, at least we have a chance of fixing things. But with a bad economy and a bad environment…that chance is gone.

What do you think?

Thinking and memorizing

In English class, there are two main categories of questions that can be asked on assignments. There are objective questions, such as questions which inquire the age of a character in a novel, and there are subjective questions, such as questions which ask a student to explain the meaning of a certain passage. If the goal of English classes is to prepare students to be better communicators and to improve their ability to critically analyze literature in their future, which of these questions should an emphasis be placed on?

One would think that an emphasis would be placed on subjective questions, on questions which required critical thinking. Methods, however, vary by teacher. Some teachers assign quizzes whose point values are higher than interpretive questions, some do not.

What do you think should be emphasized?

Just a thought

I know this wouldn’t make any sense academically, but what if you could put a footnote inside of a footnote? For purely creative writing purposes, of course. Like this[1].

—

[1] Here’s the footnote[2].
[2] And another one.

Human rights violations – who goes first?

Recent events have led to many discussions that I’ve been involved in regarding human rights violations going on in different countries. Should the United States criticize China for its human rights violations when the United States is also a violator of human rights? Would the United States criticize Israel, another accused-to-be human rights violator? And since the United States isn’t doing enough about the human rights violations at home, isn’t it hypocritical to say that we will, for example, boycott the Olympics if other countries don’t improve?

This is a valid argument, I agree. The United States, I believe, should be doing everything that it can to clean up its human rights situation. Why listen to the media-inflated hype and yell at China for everything they’ve been doing? Why not conduct studies and analyze where human rights violations are actually happening and where we need to focus our efforts now?

Well, it all goes back to the media-inflated hype.

People are aware of the human rights violations which China has been accused of committing. They may not be as aware, however, of the United States’ violations, or those of Israel. But does this mean we should sit back and do nothing? I think that we should take advantage of this hype, of this awareness, and use this as the first step to battle global human rights violations. It’s got to start somewhere, and there’s a good bit of momentum that we’ve got going. Let’s take the first step.

What do you think?

Global warming technology – which way to go?

But now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late.

The economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, stated the case bluntly in a recent article in Scientific American: “Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people.”

What is needed, Mr. Sachs and others say, is the development of radically advanced low-carbon technologies, which they say will only come about with greatly increased spending by determined governments on what has so far been an anemic commitment to research and development. A Manhattan-like Project, so to speak.

A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming – New York Times

It’s interesting that now there’s a call for new technologies. But what sort of technologies are we talking about? Even if we stop all carbon emissions (which is clearly impossible) at this point, the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere won’t start dropping for another thousand years, according to a presentation by Dr. David Carlson (director of the IPY). So let’s see where we can find the middle ground. People who think that global warming is a human-caused problem are beginning to see that new technologies are a possible solution. However, the type of technology that they want to create are low-emission technologies. But let’s look at the other side of the argument where global warming isn”t human caused. Even in their camp, there’s a considerable certainty that the climate will continue to change, new technologies are called for that we will be able to use to live in / adapt to the new environment. So the two camps can agree that new technologies are required…and, as Dr. David Carlson said, even if we stop carbon emissions at this point, the amount of carbon won’t decrease. So, the climate will continue to change. Doesn’t it make sense, then, to develop new technologies which will better allow us to live in the new environment which we may or may not be creating? Whether or not it’s our fault, something will still be changing. So instead of trying to stop it, shouldn’t we be trying to adapt to it?

Greener grass?

They say that the grass is always greener on the other side. I like to say that the previous statement may be true…until you sufficiently water the grass on this side. However, is the grass “on the other side” really greener? Perhaps it’s just a different shade of green. It’s a shade of green that you’re not used to – but then again, you weren’t always used to the grass “on the other side.” Eventually, you’ll get used to the shade of green that the grass on this side is.

Or won’t you? What do you think?

Publishing in the Digital Age

The age of personal computers and internet access has made publishing something so much easier. I, for example, signed up for WordPress and got this blog in about five minutes. I didn’t have to submit anything. I didn’t have to wait weeks, get rejected, and then submit again. I simply signed up.

But who’s to say that what I’m writing is any good?

Publishing in the digital age has taken on a new form. There’s no longer any guarantee of quality or accuracy and everyone is out for themselves.

But there is something that this age has not given to writers, and it’s the readers. Bloggers must still advertise and campaign as hard as ever in order for their message to be heard, just as authors would have to revise and revise until a publishing house would accept their work.

Is this good? Is this bad? What do you think?