Violation

My personal feelings about Jaron aside, he brings up a good point about the violation that happens on the internet.  Kathy Sierra was the target of a several death threats over blogs and emails, when she was slated to be a guest on the O'Reilly Etech conference.  But she isn't the only one. How many cases have been out there about Teenagers being bullied over the internet and even worse, how many of them have committed suicide because of it.




Even here at Lawrence we have seen a similar incident, as a twitter account @hatingonLU have posted some very defamatory statements towards the LU community explicitly towards the members of the GLOW members.  But how do you combat these attacks? Bullying has been an issue in schools for years. When I was younger, it was always ignore them, they're just trying to get attention and when we get upset about what they say you give them the attention they want.  Obviously when you get death threats you shouldn't just ignore them, but that's why step two tells us to get an adult.  Again, Obviously the police need to get involved in certain situations but there is one thing that we also need to be teaching our children and ourselves about the internet and it's bullying.

First, that there is such a thing as blocking and reporting things as spam.

Second, that you can change the station- it's like TV if you don't like what's on, you don't have to watch it, I've been saying that for years.

Lastly, that there is an inflation rate inside the internet.  Not everyone hates you or thinks the same way as other people, it's still ok to go talk to someone.



Bullying, death threats, and other violations are already locked into the minds of those on the internet, Trolls have made it so that people think that it is cool to do so and that is maybe the saddest part of the Internet.

Rationally beliving

In Habits of the Heart, Bellah talks a lot about the role of religion in the development of the self, even though the act of belonging clearly belongs to the realm of community. he says "Tocqueville saw religion as reinforcing self-control and maintaining moral standards but also as an expression of benevolence and self-sacrifice that are antithetical to competitive individualism." (223) but what does that mean: that's what I found myself asking. Now I grew up in church but I do not see myself as particularly religious, so it stands to reason that he is not speaking to me as he said earlier that being religious and believing are different. Religion is the place where normative behavior are placed above almost anything else. Self control is something that I needed to understand before I was allowed to express myself. Likewise, there is a sense of what have I done wrong that can only be found in religious services. There isn't many places that ask you to punish yourself and then forgive yourself.

But while the world is telling us that we need to show why we are better than someone else religion asks us to see and praise the good in others; to realize that we are not as good as we think we are and accept the fact that there is room for improvement. Now the self sacrifice part is tricky as most of us see that as laying ourselves down for others. At least that is where my mind takes me, the soldier who covers the grenade with his body to save others being the clichéd example. But I think what it really means is what Eric Thomas who I've posted about before says, "to be able at any moment to sacrifice what you are for what you will become." (The secrets to success). This seems to be exactly what Bellah means for us to realize.

The last thing I have is a prayer that I believe is the at the heart of this idea:

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

iDisorder

The issue of multi tasking is a particular issue when it comes to children and their study habbits. Obviously students need to be paying attention to their studies but in an age where so much happens online it's impossible to ask them not to multi task.  Now i brought this up in class but i think it's important to reiterate that we do this all the time.  We, as college students, talk and study at the same time (i would argue that this might actually help us understand the subject matter) but we read and listen to music, we read and work out, at least there are those of us who do.  My problem with what Larry Rosen said at his talk is that there are some serious upsides to multitasking. http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=663726 will link you to a article that talks about how multitasking may improve our ability to integrate sensory information. while there will always be downsides to any arguement about our use of technology, click here for that http://www.awovi.com/is-multitasking-making-us-stupid/ , there must also be an upside.

multi-tasking will never go away.  It's apart of our world.  But Dr. Rosen should focus more on how to make it better, or how we can use it better rather than just telling us the negative aspects of the world.  What are the sociological impacts of Skype? how can we learn while multitasking better?  if i have a youtube video open that takes me step by step how to do long division and i'm doing long division shouldn't that help me?

I don't want to make it sound like he won't say anything good. He has a solution- tech breaks in class, tech tower at meals, and a return to parenting- knowing what you're kids are watching, listening to, and even what they're searching for.  and i've been telling people that for 18 years, because i'm anti FCC (or at least some of their policies).

on a different note: Can anyone explain the Harlem Shake?

THE SOCIAL NETWORK and Individualism

The Social Network brings up points about the division of private vs public domains. In the two hour ordeal, in which Zuckerburg is made out to be a real douche bag, but that's a different story.  Two quotes really popped out at me when watching the movie. and i'll take them 1 by 1.

It should be noted that these are in most likelihood taken well out of context.  I'm using them as Individual and Complete statements.

Also note, i'm in a semi-sarcastic mood so be aware.

1. "Private behavior is a relic of a time gone by."

Nothing can be more true, since the dawn of the mass media internet. It used to be that you could have things contained to a small area, a town, the police, the neighborhood, etc. And you could deny it and destroy the evidence, believe me, I've burned the pictures of me naked in the bath, all that i can find at least. but not today, in ten years children who were born when facebook was founded will not be able to escape embarrassing moments in their childhood, because their parents, will have posted so many pictures on facebook of them.  Maybe they can beg their parents to take them down.  Thank goodness for non-digital photo albums- they burn easier.

2. Even a few people leaving would reverberate throughout the entire user base.  Users are interconnected, that's the whole point."

IT IS!!!! I'll wait for the shock and awe to calm down.

Yes social media's point is to be social with others. Good job Zuckerburg. But more than that he's talking about community building. The Facebook was fastly becoming the place to meet people and keep in touch with them and as the movie does a great job demonstrating hooking up. But back to my point, Facebook is supposed to be this ever connected web of people, if a friend a of a friend b posts something on friend b's wall, you see it. NO MATTER WHAT TIME.

The informat-huh

I'm. Not going to pretend that I understood most of this article, because I didn't. There are a lot of things in this article that I have no knowledge about or have even considered thinking about. That being said, I did understand that this is really about the beginning of computer based communities. Turing and Shannon were both doing the same thing but couldn't talk about it, so they talked about something that interested them both.

Much like today, when we use compunities to share with people feet to miles away, we share our common interests. On Facebook we can belong to groups, like certain pages and so much more. It isn't that we are sharing all aspects of our lives but rather that we are choosing to share small parts of the whole with anyone who will read what we post.

Seeing Vs Observing

OK this seems like it could have been a great argument for why Google may or may not make us stupid.  Now I'm a nerd, of the literature kind, and one of my favorite characters is Mr. Sherlock Holmes.  Now the master of deduction makes a very keen point in "Scandal in Bohemia" when he tells Dr. Watson that he has seen but hasn't observed.  He makes his point with stairs, now we all have daily encounters with stairs, like the WCC but do you know how many stairs there are from the bottom floor to the main floor? My point exactly, now we know that you can look up an answer on Google, but does this act of looking does not teach you anything else but what the answer looks like. To truly observe we have to know more than that.  This exactly why Math teachers make us show the work, because then we have observed it.