November 6, 2008
The blog that I have chosen to follow and study is called Awful Announcing. It is a sports blog created by Brian Powell on Tuesday May 16, 2006. According to Brian Powell, “The site focuses mainly on the perils and follies of the Sports Media, but also critiques and reviews those within the Sports World. The site has been mentioned on Sports Center, ESPN Radio, WFAN, and various newspapers throughout the Country.” When first looking at this blog I noticed numerous things. There are many posts by Powell, who is also known as AA.
Personally, I like the way the blog is organized. It is done in a way where information is easy to access and there is little no advertising. The only advertisement on this blog is something called YBN. This is also known as Yardbarker Network. YBN is a widget that you can download that helps one organize his or her blogs. They promote blogs, with promises of increasing traffic, and increasing the wealth of a user. They feature thousands of sport websites and blogs.
This blog features postings by Powell who is Awful Announcing and two contributors. The two contributors are Signal to Noise and Extrapolater. The home page of the blog features links to various other blogs that are friends with AA and links to current sporting schedules.
Overall, this blog seems like one that gets a lot of attention and I am glad to be studying it.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Reading on Kendall
"Shout into the wind, and it shouts back. Identity and interactional tensions on LiveJournal" by Kendall discusses the conflicts and tensions of identity and information management that users of LiveJournal have. According to Kendall many users have contradictory thoughts on identity and information management. The model of a private diary conflicts with the reality of public performance. The fact that a user can efficiently reach a broad network of piers conflicts with the users desire to manage its audience. The desire to control their own journal conflicts with the desire to connect with others. The desire for autonomy conflicts with the desire for feedback and approval from others. 26 LiveJournal users were interviewed on these topics, and although the 26 users are not a very diverse bunch, they prove just how conflicting the thoughts on these topics are.
Most of the users on LiveJournal think of their posts as private diary-like journal entries, but at the same time, they are consciously writing to an audience. While they are recording personal thoughts, feelings and daily events, “just for themselves” as they say, these journals are a form of performance. George, one of the interviewees said, “You either want to entertain them or create a change in their behavior.” People are aware that nothing on the internet is private. As Robert said, “If I have things that are actually private they are not up on the Internet.” LiveJournal is both a place for diary entries and performance. Users can catalogue their daily events, say something to an audience, and comment on each others journals.
LiveJournal is a great source of networking. It is an easy way to make things available to friends and family. On the other hand, users don’t always want all of their contacts as an audience. Mark a user, said, “When William was born, that’s the first place I went, to do a post there because I knew that a bunch of [friends from an online group] read it and a bunch of [friends from a previous job] read it and some of [my wife’s] family read it. And it’s like here’s one easy place I can go. I can put up a picture and everyone will see it and so that’s the first place I went.” On the other hand, users like to separate their audiences at times, “These two completely separate areas of my life suddenly collided.”- Dylan. Users appreciate the easy networking capabilities of LiveJournal, but at times like to present themselves differently to different groups of people.
LiveJournal users have a desire for control over what they read; simultaneously they have a desire to establish connections with other users. This is such a conflict, because filtering out portions of a user’s journal will hinder the connection you will make with them. It is important not to disregard portions of journals especially because it is hard to communicate on LiveJournal, as Robert said “It wasn’t designed as a mechanism for holding big conversations, really”
LiveJournal users enjoy the fact that they can write what ever they want in their personal journals, but commenting doesn’t quite have the same autonomy. When you post a comment on someone else’s journal, they can delete it. This can lead to misconceptions to what you were commenting. Users fear that if they write about an individual, that the individual may read it. Both of these factors contribute to hindering the autonomy of one’s journal.
LiveJournal presents many social tensions among its users. These tensions are all present in everyday society, but are more apparent on the website. Users’ desires inhibit their own, and other users’ values. Users truly seeking autonomy should not be concerned with others have to say.
Most of the users on LiveJournal think of their posts as private diary-like journal entries, but at the same time, they are consciously writing to an audience. While they are recording personal thoughts, feelings and daily events, “just for themselves” as they say, these journals are a form of performance. George, one of the interviewees said, “You either want to entertain them or create a change in their behavior.” People are aware that nothing on the internet is private. As Robert said, “If I have things that are actually private they are not up on the Internet.” LiveJournal is both a place for diary entries and performance. Users can catalogue their daily events, say something to an audience, and comment on each others journals.
LiveJournal is a great source of networking. It is an easy way to make things available to friends and family. On the other hand, users don’t always want all of their contacts as an audience. Mark a user, said, “When William was born, that’s the first place I went, to do a post there because I knew that a bunch of [friends from an online group] read it and a bunch of [friends from a previous job] read it and some of [my wife’s] family read it. And it’s like here’s one easy place I can go. I can put up a picture and everyone will see it and so that’s the first place I went.” On the other hand, users like to separate their audiences at times, “These two completely separate areas of my life suddenly collided.”- Dylan. Users appreciate the easy networking capabilities of LiveJournal, but at times like to present themselves differently to different groups of people.
LiveJournal users have a desire for control over what they read; simultaneously they have a desire to establish connections with other users. This is such a conflict, because filtering out portions of a user’s journal will hinder the connection you will make with them. It is important not to disregard portions of journals especially because it is hard to communicate on LiveJournal, as Robert said “It wasn’t designed as a mechanism for holding big conversations, really”
LiveJournal users enjoy the fact that they can write what ever they want in their personal journals, but commenting doesn’t quite have the same autonomy. When you post a comment on someone else’s journal, they can delete it. This can lead to misconceptions to what you were commenting. Users fear that if they write about an individual, that the individual may read it. Both of these factors contribute to hindering the autonomy of one’s journal.
LiveJournal presents many social tensions among its users. These tensions are all present in everyday society, but are more apparent on the website. Users’ desires inhibit their own, and other users’ values. Users truly seeking autonomy should not be concerned with others have to say.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Essay#3
Over the past decade, the internet has become the primary source of information for the general population. Simply by typing a query into a search box, search engines can provide millions of websites in just a few seconds. Although the plethora of information available can be valuable, the immense amount of misinformation can be dangerous. Search engines can produce websites that have outdated or irrelevant information which can be counterproductive to the inquirers cause. The social medium that I have chosen to research is Facebook. Tensen provides a checklist for evaluating the credibility of sources. The six categories are as follows: Purpose, source, intended audience, date of publication, appearance, and reputation. Using these requirements as a checklist, I determined the credibility of the sources I found using the search engines.
In order to prevent bias results, I have chosen two different keyword phrases to type into each engine. These constant variables will ensure that each search engine provides websites on the same inquiry. After evaluating the sources, I will be able to determine which search engine was most effective. The two keyword phrases I used were: “Facebook History” and “Facebook as a social network”.
When searching for “Facebook history” I utilized three different search engines; Google, Yahoo, and Ebsco (an online database). Google provided me with the most relevant sources for my query. Compared to the other search engines, Google provided credible and informative websites. Of my research, there were two websites I found were acceptable under the standards of Tansen. They were Wikipedia and an article from Rolling stone Magazine. The sources I felt that were unreliable was an article found in the Ebsco database and a website called Mashable.
Wikipedia did not cater to advertising companies, and had an organized page layout. Even though the information came from multiple authors it was reliable and to the point. The bottom of the page indicated that the information was updated on October 19th 2008, meaning the information was current. Wikipedia also provided a list of references and citations where they derived their information from. If a student wanted to check the credibility of the information on Wikipedia, he/she could check the references that were used to compile information. The article, Battle For Facebook, written by Claire Hoffman was also a valuable source. The article was featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, a reputable organization. Rolling Stone has a large subscriber base, and undergoes heavy scrutiny. It is unlikely that an article would be printed if it had misinformation. The article was published in the summer of 2008, making the information relatively current.
The sources that I acquired from Yahoo and Ebsco were inefficient and lacked sufficient information. Facebook- The Complete Biography, an article found on Yahoo, had a noticeable bias. The site claims to have a complete biography, yet most of the page was filled with advertisements and links to facebook. The intention of the website was not to be informative, it was to direct the audience towards a specific marketing aspect. Coupled with the outdated publication date, this source would not be my primary reference for information. Ebsco proved to be even more disappointing than Yahoo. I had a predetermined notion that Ebsco would be the strongest of the three search engines. Professor’s are inclined to recommend this search engine because it contains strong academic literature. However, Ebsco came up empty for my query. This may be attributed to the fact that very few or no academic or intellectual articles have been written about the History of Facebook. Nevertheless, Ebsco was unable to provide me with the sources I required and therefore it was useless.
My second query, “Facebook as a social network” yielded similar results. Google once again yielded a Wikipedia article as the most informative source. Ebsco provided a semi relevant article to my query. An online journal called Polish 'Temporary' Migration: The Formation and Significance of Social Networks, provided useful information about the structure of social networks and their impact on society. Although it did not deal with facebook directly, it would be an informative source to use for a research paper. These two sources were the best because they displayed no advertising, I trusted the content in each, one was a journal written by a professor who had pertinent knowledge on the subject matter. Both of these pieces of literature are up to date and are in my eyes the best sources I found.
Sources that I did not find to be helpful and creditable were two websites from yahoo. One was Cnet, a advertising sight for downloading programs. It contained limited information and took a negative approach to facebook. It looked like a legitimate website but it just was not up to par. The next one that I did not like was an article found on Dailsalery.com. This webpage was not informative, cluttered with ads, and did provide sources or an author.
As you can see I have determined the best site to get reliable creditable sources is Google. Also, there is a process when going through different websites to determine the quality of the source.
Tensen, Bonnie L. (2004). Research strategies for a digital age (chapter 5). Boston: Wadsworth
In order to prevent bias results, I have chosen two different keyword phrases to type into each engine. These constant variables will ensure that each search engine provides websites on the same inquiry. After evaluating the sources, I will be able to determine which search engine was most effective. The two keyword phrases I used were: “Facebook History” and “Facebook as a social network”.
When searching for “Facebook history” I utilized three different search engines; Google, Yahoo, and Ebsco (an online database). Google provided me with the most relevant sources for my query. Compared to the other search engines, Google provided credible and informative websites. Of my research, there were two websites I found were acceptable under the standards of Tansen. They were Wikipedia and an article from Rolling stone Magazine. The sources I felt that were unreliable was an article found in the Ebsco database and a website called Mashable.
Wikipedia did not cater to advertising companies, and had an organized page layout. Even though the information came from multiple authors it was reliable and to the point. The bottom of the page indicated that the information was updated on October 19th 2008, meaning the information was current. Wikipedia also provided a list of references and citations where they derived their information from. If a student wanted to check the credibility of the information on Wikipedia, he/she could check the references that were used to compile information. The article, Battle For Facebook, written by Claire Hoffman was also a valuable source. The article was featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, a reputable organization. Rolling Stone has a large subscriber base, and undergoes heavy scrutiny. It is unlikely that an article would be printed if it had misinformation. The article was published in the summer of 2008, making the information relatively current.
The sources that I acquired from Yahoo and Ebsco were inefficient and lacked sufficient information. Facebook- The Complete Biography, an article found on Yahoo, had a noticeable bias. The site claims to have a complete biography, yet most of the page was filled with advertisements and links to facebook. The intention of the website was not to be informative, it was to direct the audience towards a specific marketing aspect. Coupled with the outdated publication date, this source would not be my primary reference for information. Ebsco proved to be even more disappointing than Yahoo. I had a predetermined notion that Ebsco would be the strongest of the three search engines. Professor’s are inclined to recommend this search engine because it contains strong academic literature. However, Ebsco came up empty for my query. This may be attributed to the fact that very few or no academic or intellectual articles have been written about the History of Facebook. Nevertheless, Ebsco was unable to provide me with the sources I required and therefore it was useless.
My second query, “Facebook as a social network” yielded similar results. Google once again yielded a Wikipedia article as the most informative source. Ebsco provided a semi relevant article to my query. An online journal called Polish 'Temporary' Migration: The Formation and Significance of Social Networks, provided useful information about the structure of social networks and their impact on society. Although it did not deal with facebook directly, it would be an informative source to use for a research paper. These two sources were the best because they displayed no advertising, I trusted the content in each, one was a journal written by a professor who had pertinent knowledge on the subject matter. Both of these pieces of literature are up to date and are in my eyes the best sources I found.
Sources that I did not find to be helpful and creditable were two websites from yahoo. One was Cnet, a advertising sight for downloading programs. It contained limited information and took a negative approach to facebook. It looked like a legitimate website but it just was not up to par. The next one that I did not like was an article found on Dailsalery.com. This webpage was not informative, cluttered with ads, and did provide sources or an author.
As you can see I have determined the best site to get reliable creditable sources is Google. Also, there is a process when going through different websites to determine the quality of the source.
Tensen, Bonnie L. (2004). Research strategies for a digital age (chapter 5). Boston: Wadsworth
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Second Essay
The advancements made in communication technology have directly impacted social relationships and networks. With the introduction of the internet, the assumption was that the problems that faced personal interaction would be dissolved. The idea was that communication would be free from discrimination based on social status, race and gender. According to Peter Kollock and Marc Smith, “But as with earlier technologies that promised freedom and power, the central problems of social relationships remain, although in new and possibly more challenging forms.” Through my observations of the Usenet, I have found that these claims are true and that people have found ways to establish stronger social hierarchies, more discriminating and vicious than the ones established through personal interaction.
Developed in 1981, Usenet is one of the largest communication systems in existence. Usenet is comprised of several thousand discussion groups that about two million people all over the world participate in (Kollock & Smith, pg. 111). Kollock & Smith describe Usenet as a conferencing system that is often described as a Bulletin Board System. The Usenet group that I have chosen to study and observe is called Political Forum. This group is for discussion of American & international politics, political issues, politicians, presidential & other elections, news, humor, current events, opinions, and debates. This particular group shows a high activity rate with seventy five recent authors and 3,369 members. This group like most other groups had a set of rules that governs the discussion. Some of the rules in this group are as follows: members must be over 18, prohibits insulting behavior, and no spam, solicitations, pornography or posts.
The all time top people that post in this forum are Gaar and Hollywood (user names). After observing them I looked at there personal information and was able to obtain their gender and occupation. Gaar has no name, is a male, and has a technology background for an occupation. Hollywood’s real name is Jimmy, obviously a male and is a retired business man.
While studying this channel of communication I observed many different ways people communicated. The people in this forum mostly discussed recent news and politics. One of the topics that came up was oil production and alternative energy sources. Hollywood and Gaar expressed their individual opinions and refuted what the other person had to say. They went about it in a very antagonistic way. Gaar said that Hollywood had poor reading comprehension and a little brain. Hollywood insulted Gaar by belittling him by calling him a boy and an idiot. This sort of behavior is the opposite of the idea of cooperation that the Usenet was originally thought to foster. Here it is evident that the bloggers are discriminating on the basis of intellect and opinions. The discussion in this session was cluttered. This is due to the fact that Gaar and Hollywood filled it up with insults and the putting down of others who expressed their individual views. This shows that there was no equality in the forum and that Gaar and Hollywood were able to monopolize on the discussion by submitting lengthy responses that attacked other users for their views and attacking each other for supremacy of the forum. This supports the claim that new and more complex social hierarchies are formed from new communication technology. Most importantly, the purpose of the forum was defeated. Instead of people communicating on an equal playing field, two users made the rest feel inferior and discouraged them from articulating their ideas.
Another discussion involving the republicans came up while I was observing this channel. A person named Frank made a negative comment towards Republicans and was immediately attacked by Gaar. Gaar called him a rambling idiot and told him to get back in his cell. Soon after Gaar’s post was put up Hollywood responded with a post of his own. Hollywood asks Gaar what was the point of his post then goes on and compares the republicans to a simple minded six year old.
The idea of cooperation is that “the larger the group, the less it will further its common interests” (Olson 1965:36). This idea basically means that the larger the group the more likely a person will not contribute if no one listens to their ideas. This idea is a prime example of what happened in the Usenet group I chose to study. Someone would post there idea or stance on an issue and they were immediately attacked by Gaar or Hollywood. The discussions I observed were filled with Gaar and Hollywood’s ideas and views. There was little input by everyone else in the group.
The main difference that I observed between the Usenet and personal interaction was that there was much more vulgarity and personal attacks incorporated into the responses on Usenet. This is most likely attributed to the power of anonymity. Because the users are not face to face, they feel empowered and have no restrictions with the things they say and the manner in which they communicate their ideas. For the most part, people having a face to face discussion about politics would not use vulgarity towards each other to win the argument. However, on the Usenet it seems as though there are no societal restrictions and that people will stoop to any level to dominate the discussion.
Through my observation of the Usenet, it was clear that the original purpose of the new communication technology had not been fulfilled. The idea that online communication would break down social hierarchies was proved to be false. Instead, this new form of communication developed stronger social hierarchies and fostered a type of communication lacking societal restriction.
Sources:
Kollock, Peter & Smith, Marc. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 109-128). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Developed in 1981, Usenet is one of the largest communication systems in existence. Usenet is comprised of several thousand discussion groups that about two million people all over the world participate in (Kollock & Smith, pg. 111). Kollock & Smith describe Usenet as a conferencing system that is often described as a Bulletin Board System. The Usenet group that I have chosen to study and observe is called Political Forum. This group is for discussion of American & international politics, political issues, politicians, presidential & other elections, news, humor, current events, opinions, and debates. This particular group shows a high activity rate with seventy five recent authors and 3,369 members. This group like most other groups had a set of rules that governs the discussion. Some of the rules in this group are as follows: members must be over 18, prohibits insulting behavior, and no spam, solicitations, pornography or posts.
The all time top people that post in this forum are Gaar and Hollywood (user names). After observing them I looked at there personal information and was able to obtain their gender and occupation. Gaar has no name, is a male, and has a technology background for an occupation. Hollywood’s real name is Jimmy, obviously a male and is a retired business man.
While studying this channel of communication I observed many different ways people communicated. The people in this forum mostly discussed recent news and politics. One of the topics that came up was oil production and alternative energy sources. Hollywood and Gaar expressed their individual opinions and refuted what the other person had to say. They went about it in a very antagonistic way. Gaar said that Hollywood had poor reading comprehension and a little brain. Hollywood insulted Gaar by belittling him by calling him a boy and an idiot. This sort of behavior is the opposite of the idea of cooperation that the Usenet was originally thought to foster. Here it is evident that the bloggers are discriminating on the basis of intellect and opinions. The discussion in this session was cluttered. This is due to the fact that Gaar and Hollywood filled it up with insults and the putting down of others who expressed their individual views. This shows that there was no equality in the forum and that Gaar and Hollywood were able to monopolize on the discussion by submitting lengthy responses that attacked other users for their views and attacking each other for supremacy of the forum. This supports the claim that new and more complex social hierarchies are formed from new communication technology. Most importantly, the purpose of the forum was defeated. Instead of people communicating on an equal playing field, two users made the rest feel inferior and discouraged them from articulating their ideas.
Another discussion involving the republicans came up while I was observing this channel. A person named Frank made a negative comment towards Republicans and was immediately attacked by Gaar. Gaar called him a rambling idiot and told him to get back in his cell. Soon after Gaar’s post was put up Hollywood responded with a post of his own. Hollywood asks Gaar what was the point of his post then goes on and compares the republicans to a simple minded six year old.
The idea of cooperation is that “the larger the group, the less it will further its common interests” (Olson 1965:36). This idea basically means that the larger the group the more likely a person will not contribute if no one listens to their ideas. This idea is a prime example of what happened in the Usenet group I chose to study. Someone would post there idea or stance on an issue and they were immediately attacked by Gaar or Hollywood. The discussions I observed were filled with Gaar and Hollywood’s ideas and views. There was little input by everyone else in the group.
The main difference that I observed between the Usenet and personal interaction was that there was much more vulgarity and personal attacks incorporated into the responses on Usenet. This is most likely attributed to the power of anonymity. Because the users are not face to face, they feel empowered and have no restrictions with the things they say and the manner in which they communicate their ideas. For the most part, people having a face to face discussion about politics would not use vulgarity towards each other to win the argument. However, on the Usenet it seems as though there are no societal restrictions and that people will stoop to any level to dominate the discussion.
Through my observation of the Usenet, it was clear that the original purpose of the new communication technology had not been fulfilled. The idea that online communication would break down social hierarchies was proved to be false. Instead, this new form of communication developed stronger social hierarchies and fostered a type of communication lacking societal restriction.
Sources:
Kollock, Peter & Smith, Marc. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 109-128). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Whitaker Chapter 3
The article for class New Media and Web Production was quite interesting. This chapter was about new media and web production. According to Jason Whitaker, new media is a term applied to the various components that constitute digital production, whether for the web or other formats such as digital video. There are differences between old media and new media. It is a step toward digital formats opposed to old analog formats.
Hypertext is a fundamental component of the World Wide Web. Without a formal protocol for transmitting documents using the HTTP, the Web would not exist, and without a standard format for creating pages, including the ability to link between them (hyperlinks), web pages would loose a great deal of there usability(Whitaker). Whittaker also states an easy way to understand what hypertext is, is to think of hypertext as text composed of blocks of text. Hyperlinks may work with other components such as images or videos, creating hypermedia that link from page to page, image to image, video to video, or any combination of these.
In this article Whitaker says how with the new innovation of digital imagining seeing may not be believing. We are now beginning to treat the image with the same suspicion once reserved for the printed word.
I believe that the internet is its own developing city. It works hand to hand with technology. As we become more technological advanced I feel that the web will continue to grow and become a greater medium for information. Hypertext and new innovations such as audio and video help the internet flow more smoothly. It is easier to get around and access information with these inventions
Hypertext is a fundamental component of the World Wide Web. Without a formal protocol for transmitting documents using the HTTP, the Web would not exist, and without a standard format for creating pages, including the ability to link between them (hyperlinks), web pages would loose a great deal of there usability(Whitaker). Whittaker also states an easy way to understand what hypertext is, is to think of hypertext as text composed of blocks of text. Hyperlinks may work with other components such as images or videos, creating hypermedia that link from page to page, image to image, video to video, or any combination of these.
In this article Whitaker says how with the new innovation of digital imagining seeing may not be believing. We are now beginning to treat the image with the same suspicion once reserved for the printed word.
I believe that the internet is its own developing city. It works hand to hand with technology. As we become more technological advanced I feel that the web will continue to grow and become a greater medium for information. Hypertext and new innovations such as audio and video help the internet flow more smoothly. It is easier to get around and access information with these inventions
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Picture It
Picture it, you are walking down the street and someone suddenly asks you a question. What is the internet? What would you say? The internet is a channel that allows access to numerous different kinds of information and enables communication between humans. It is a form of communication and technology that has greatly impacted the world. According to Adam’s and Clark, the internet is a worldwide network of computer networks and all the supporting structure. The internet is made up of methods for delivering messages which are: File Transfer Protocol (FTP), email, chat, and a host of others.
The internet was originally created to develop a way of communication if there was an atomic bomb dropped on United States soil. After a nuclear bomb is detonated it sends out Electro Magnetic Pulses which disrupt all types of electronics. When the Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki EMP’S reached as far as Hawaii, over 800 miles away. (Adams & Clark) The EMPS knocked out electronic devices used for communication. The government then asked themselves if a bomb was dropped on United States soil and knocked out communication, what would we do? A group of scientists were put to this task and developed a network. Adams and Clark explain, they designed the network with the assumption that no single computer or communication line would be needed for total system survival. If one of the computers went down, they would look for any other computers that would still be up. They would be able to communicate directly, instead of going through a centralized computer system.
To understand the internet more clearly Chris Edwards has a very easy definition to understand. He says that the internet is short for international network. Now a household name, the Internet (or World Wide Web) consists of millions of computers linked together to provide people with access to information from anywhere in the world. The way the internet works is that all of these computers are linked together and are able to receive and deliver messages and information.
When scientists first came up with this network they didn’t perfected how information would travel through this system. (Adams & Clark) This led to the development of FTP, File Transfer Protocol. This is a network protocol used to transfer data from one computer to another through a network such as the Internet. When you download any file from the internet most of the time you use this process. Basically, when you download something you are transferring one file to another computer.
Electronic mail known short for email has helped shaped the internet into what it is today. Email enables one to store, forward, and send messages all over the world. Any one can come in contact with each other as long as there is access to a computer. One is able to create an email address over the internet. This is like having an address to someone that vacates a piece of property. Email can be sent almost instantly all over the world opposed to the United States mail system which can take days for someone to get a letter. With email it is electronic and almost instant.
Chat rooms are electronic rooms that work over the internet. They enable a certain number of people to communicate with text messages. New technology has enabled chat rooms to use webcams. Webcams are cameras that are connected to your computer that can broadcast someone all over the internet. The idea of these chat rooms is quite interesting. It lets you communicate with other people that can not see you. You can pretend to be anyone you want. There are some downfalls to these chat rooms. The numbers of minors that are able to enter into these chat rooms are growing. Certain sick and twisted individuals look to seek out children in these rooms. This is why when you enter the chat room you have to abide by the rules of the chat room or you will get kicked out of it. There are monitors in most chat rooms that monitor the chat and are able to remove someone from the room.
As you can see, the internet is a channel that allows access to numerous different kinds of information and enables communication between humans. It is a form of communication and technology that has greatly impacted the world. From its beginning to where the internet is today is truly remarkable. Things like FTP, email, and chat have helped shape the internet and the world we live in today. The internet is one of man’s greatest inventions of all time.
The internet was originally created to develop a way of communication if there was an atomic bomb dropped on United States soil. After a nuclear bomb is detonated it sends out Electro Magnetic Pulses which disrupt all types of electronics. When the Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki EMP’S reached as far as Hawaii, over 800 miles away. (Adams & Clark) The EMPS knocked out electronic devices used for communication. The government then asked themselves if a bomb was dropped on United States soil and knocked out communication, what would we do? A group of scientists were put to this task and developed a network. Adams and Clark explain, they designed the network with the assumption that no single computer or communication line would be needed for total system survival. If one of the computers went down, they would look for any other computers that would still be up. They would be able to communicate directly, instead of going through a centralized computer system.
To understand the internet more clearly Chris Edwards has a very easy definition to understand. He says that the internet is short for international network. Now a household name, the Internet (or World Wide Web) consists of millions of computers linked together to provide people with access to information from anywhere in the world. The way the internet works is that all of these computers are linked together and are able to receive and deliver messages and information.
When scientists first came up with this network they didn’t perfected how information would travel through this system. (Adams & Clark) This led to the development of FTP, File Transfer Protocol. This is a network protocol used to transfer data from one computer to another through a network such as the Internet. When you download any file from the internet most of the time you use this process. Basically, when you download something you are transferring one file to another computer.
Electronic mail known short for email has helped shaped the internet into what it is today. Email enables one to store, forward, and send messages all over the world. Any one can come in contact with each other as long as there is access to a computer. One is able to create an email address over the internet. This is like having an address to someone that vacates a piece of property. Email can be sent almost instantly all over the world opposed to the United States mail system which can take days for someone to get a letter. With email it is electronic and almost instant.
Chat rooms are electronic rooms that work over the internet. They enable a certain number of people to communicate with text messages. New technology has enabled chat rooms to use webcams. Webcams are cameras that are connected to your computer that can broadcast someone all over the internet. The idea of these chat rooms is quite interesting. It lets you communicate with other people that can not see you. You can pretend to be anyone you want. There are some downfalls to these chat rooms. The numbers of minors that are able to enter into these chat rooms are growing. Certain sick and twisted individuals look to seek out children in these rooms. This is why when you enter the chat room you have to abide by the rules of the chat room or you will get kicked out of it. There are monitors in most chat rooms that monitor the chat and are able to remove someone from the room.
As you can see, the internet is a channel that allows access to numerous different kinds of information and enables communication between humans. It is a form of communication and technology that has greatly impacted the world. From its beginning to where the internet is today is truly remarkable. Things like FTP, email, and chat have helped shape the internet and the world we live in today. The internet is one of man’s greatest inventions of all time.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
First Reading
The Internet is one of the greatest inventions. The Internet was originally created in the 1940's. It all started with the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Atomic Bomb sent out electomagnetic pulses (EMP) that reached as far as Hawaii, 800 miles away from where the bombs where dropped. The electromagnetic pulses disrupted electronic activity of many different electronic devices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)