Forget Jamaica or Hawaii: Want a Destination for Fun – Try Facebook

In 2006, the Pew Research Institute conducted a study and found that 45% of internet users only go online because it’s fun. Five years later, that number has gone up to 53%. Just for fun. Think about that. How many times does one connect to the net to check who liked their status or which celebrity tweeted what? Samantha Murphy (2011) comments that we use the Internet as a “diversion” or because want to have fun. This may be especially true this week, of all weeks, simply because it is when college students are bombarded with the most stress.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but this is my last week before finals week (hell week). I couldn’t be more excited. As I sit here, writing this final blog, all I can think about is December 17^th—school is done and the Internet is at my disposal. I am not dictated anymore to what I look up or when I do what. Basically, I am saying that I douse the Internet as a source of entertainment, as I am sure you all do as well. We have to feel a degree of motivation to go online, and if fun is it, then that it is.

As we have discussed all semester, technology is great! The benefits added to our lives thanks to this gadget or that gizmo cannot be duplicated. However, as I demonstrated above, we are now using technology to escape the world around us. We are looking for any reason to login and procrastinate. For instance, when attempting to write a paper, I gave myself ten minutes of Facebook for one paragraph. Users of technology will find ways to enjoy their time online, even if the reasons did not exist previously.

Technology is changing the way we live. Fifteen years ago, I was in the middle of 1^st grade and all my assignments were Xeroxed and my toys were a Lite Brite or Etch-N-Sketch. The burdens of simple life have vanished. But I ask now, sincerely, were they that burdensome? Did anyone truly ever feel pain because their Etch-N-Sketch didn’t draw the line as intended? No. Can Facebook make someone want to commit suicide? Yes. Megan Meier is one perfect example of someone looking for fun online and losing everything because of it.

The Internet is the future. But we cannot forget the past in the process. In 2006, only five years ago, 45% of Internet users were online because it was fun. Now, that number has jumped 8%. Our stressful lives have allowed the Internet to become a safe haven, but we forget how dangerous the World Wide Web can be. If given a choice, I would take a Lite Brite every time.

Well, that's all. From the World of My Head to your computer screen, thanks for reading and commenting. Enjoy the rest of your college years and good luck on finals.

What Comes After PC....Perhaps UB?

It was only weeks ago that we were discussing the end of simple technologies. Libraries. Newspapers. All ceasing to exist as we know them thanks to the rise in the Internet. And what led to the rise in the Internet? The rise in the Personal Computer. Yes, the PC. Both loved and loathed on several different levels. Now that we are at the end of the PC, what’s next? We already have the portable pads (iPad, Kindle Fire). Is there anything that we have yet to acquire?

As a matter of fact, yes. Introducing the new Ultrabook. It seems only right that, since Apple led to the fall of the PC, they also lead to the promoting of it during the second go-round. Ultimately, what started as Apple’s engineering led to a sudden invention that none expected. According to Kerdick (2011), the Ultrabook is simply a laptop with a couple modifications:

• is less than 20mm (0.8 inches) thick
• has no optical drive
• uses a solid-state drive (SSD) for all storage
• uses a Core i5, i7 processor
• weighs less than 1.4 kg (3.1 lbs.)
• yields 5 - 8+ hours of battery life
• priced around $1,000

Not only is the Ultrabook the next line in technological advancement, but Goldman (2011) expects that “the rise of the Ultrabook will happen quickly.” Just as the PC started, then the iPad, the Ultrabook is forecasted to account for a huge proportion of netbook sales by 2015.

Now, as always, we have the so what? The Ultrabook may be the next step in PC technology, but where does that leave the personal computer? Obviously, we cannot simply forget the PC just because something better comes along. It is nice to know that we are growing as a society and that each year we get a step closer to superb innovations, but when do we say stop. Like I have said multiple times this semester, I am all for “what’s next”, but only so long as we don’t forget “what’s now.”

The PC may be outdated, but it’s not dead. If we move in this new direction, it will only be a matter of years before the Ultrabook is outdated as well. These are necessary updates and we need to learn to advance our technology, but we also need to know when to leave well enough alone. Movies like iRobot and Eagle Eye predict that technology will one day rule us, not the other way around. We can only hope that is at least a decade off still.

To End That Movie Magic

For any of you in Valley City, you are most likely aware of the auction currently taking place to find a new owner for Theater I & II. The building has stood on Main Street for as long as several can remember (i.e. the 1970s) and long provided movie-goers fun and entertainment. Now, with the economy the way it is, Wayne Loberg, owner and operator, wants to sell the property. In an article done by the Times Record (which is not available online), Loberg mentions that it’s time for him to move on and…

All this is fine and dandy. However, we must not bypass a major cornerstone to the movie theater industry; the projectors. In this case, the projectors and equipment at Theater I & II makes it rather difficult to keep up with the demands of the time. In Valley City, the movies are still shown through a series of pulleys and gears (I can remember the process of preparing a movie well) and the actual film is still just that: film. This may not seem such a big deal, except when the rest of the theaters have moved on to digital projectors and digital picture.

So here’s where we ask the so what? What does it matter if Theater I & II in Valley City, ND, cannot afford to update to the digital films? So what if they must shut down? So what if this is happening nationally in smaller theaters that can only show a couple films at a time? We are in a thriving technological society; progress, simply for the sake of progress, is our top priority. To accomplish this, we are willing to let go of the simple pleasures to make room for shiny and ravishing toys.

Okay, so beyond rambling about Valley City potentially losing its movie theater, what is the purpose of this post? I started thinking when I read about this topic about how much we want technology to change how we live. In this case, the technology does not change anything personal for movie goers (except perhaps providing a better picture). Instead, people like Wayne Loberg must suffer as they try to stay operational in a changing world. Think of it as asking if we should “turn off the internet just to keep the libraries open” (iRobot, 2005). While I am all for progress, I do not want to see us destroy what we already have, take for granted where we came from, and find ourselves at the mercy of the technology we so sought over.

Perhaps this is the end to an era. The movie magic we all came to know and love has switched to ultrasound and iMax screens. Yes, they’re good, but they’re not the same. And they never will be. And that’s what we need to remember.

“…White, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford…”

Stereotypes can destroy a work environment, classroom, or any other public venue. The stereotype could be harmless (i.e. assuming the man in the business suit and carrying the briefcase is a big-wig business associate) or harmful (i.e. assuming the man in jeans and t-shirt is the pizza delivery boy). Either way, our society is designed to create stereotypes based on all situations. Technology is no different. What’s the stereotype, you may ask. Well, in an article by Laurie Segall (2011), the claim is made that “’the world’s greatest entrepreneurs’ are almost all “white, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford.’”

Shall we examine the validity of this claim?

Mark Zuckerberg:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Facebook
• Male
• Leave of Absence from Harvard
• The Social Network leads us to believe he is, for all intents and purposes, a nerd

Mark Zuckerberg fits the stereotype.

Steve Jobs:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Apple
• Male
• Attended Reed College for a semester
• Designed first computer, consisting of only a circuit board

Steve Jobs fits two of the three stereotypical claims. However, the fact that he did drop out of college after a single semester leads to the same philosophy as a Harvard or Stanford dropout. Jobs is a match.

Bill Gates:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Microsoft
• Male
• 1975 Harvard dropout
• Began studying computers in 7^th grade, which lends toward the title of nerd

Gates is a perfect match.

Larry Page:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Google
• Male
• Stanford PhD student
• Author of an algorithm (with Co-Founder Sergy Brin)

Larry Page is another match to the stereotype.

Four of the biggest names in technology fit the stereotypical claim almost to the letter. Should this be startling? Of course not. Seagull states that, with the pattern, investors have no trouble believing the company will take off, despite its construct or usefulness. She goes on to say that, in the technology world, diversity is just not a main focus. However, many are trying to rectify this situation. Some companies/programs are aiming specifically at female students. The problem, however real it may be, needs to be fixed. In a society where the dominant culture is shifting to the minority, companies must look toward new types of entrepreneurs. The stereotype, however accurate it may be, has met its end.

The Next Step...uh, Click...In Democracy?

We can do awesome things on the internet: check our bank account, shop, create digital memory books, etc. Often, we take for granted all the amazing tasks we can complete in the click of a button, simply because we have come to expect it. I have noticed a strange theme throughout my blogs this semester—unintentional as it may be—and that is the idea of easy communication. With technology, people think everything should be one, two, three and done. Obviously, then, it should come as no surprise when I introduce my next topic. Elections…online?!

Think about it. What could easier than conducting your vote for president, governor, mayor in the comfort of your own home, on your personal computer, on your own time. The reasoning behind such a proclamation is valid. Right?

Well, as Doug Gross (2011) states, it depends on who you ask. Some advocate that, in this new digital age, we need to change our methods and embrace the technology before us. And it makes sense. How many votes cannot make it to the polls because of time conflicts? Lack of transportation? As Rob Weber (2011) points out, “The digital revolution has the ability to revolutionize our entire political system by revolutionizing our voting system.” Yet, we have steered clear of this, a method that could make the voting process swift, easy, and efficient.

However, not all are as supportive. Avi Rubin does not feel online voting is a safe alternative to the method we currently have. There is a reason we stick to paper polls: they work. His fear is the hackers. Would hackers find it difficult to invade an online poll and switch the tallies? One quality online voting does not possess is accuracy. Especially in a presidential election, accuracy is a key component. Remember the Presidential Election of 2000: one state with skewed counts set the entire election in jeopardy. Online voting could potentially open the doors for more issues of this nature.

Each side presents a strong argument. However, we must ask ourselves, just because the technology is there, must we utilize it? It’s like saying that a student has to use his personal answer sheet because it’s there. Ultimately, he’s cheating. Does placing the voting process online cheat us out of a true democratic system? The possible arguments are endless, and we could never reach a full consensus. Online voting software exists and is currently operational. Perhaps they need to be implemented on a trial basis. Like I said, people want easy, but when does easy go too far? Elections…online?! You be the judge…