Are Wii the Children of the Revolution?

Journal Entry Question for Everyone
( # 6)

The latest gaming system from Nintendo is the Wii. So, is this new console a true technological revolution or just hype? Well in my opinion, it is just hype. The Wii is the first gaming system to come out with a motion sensing remote, and that is without saying totally awesome, but a revolution? Not really. Gaming systems have advanced quickly and this is just the next step in the process. Consoles will continue to create new ways to entertain the one playing; it will not just stop at a motion sensing remote. I think that some people are putting too much emphasis on the Wii remote. Whatever happened to the old-fashioned controller? But the Wii is still something that should be experienced. It is fun and can actually make games easier when targeting or aiming is required.

The Wii is a very interesting gaming system, but the true purpose behind the console design is in its name itself. It is no coincidence that this gaming console is pronounced "w-ee", or that it has two "i"s. Its pronunciation is to indicate that it is to be played by more than one person, just as the double "i" in the name represents 2 people. Another benefit of the Wii's pronunciation and spelling, is that it is the same in every language, unlike Nintendo's previous vision, the Gamecube. Creating this name was the first in many efforts by Nintendo to create a gaming system that can be enjoyed and played by people of all age groups including adults. It is because of the Wii's ability to do this that adds once again to the hype of the Wii being a revolutionary product. But I do no think the Wii will be able to "democratize" gaming for people of all ages because adults will not care to play it. They will maybe play it once, and probably enjoy it, but it will not matter. Adults simply to do have the time or the patience needed to really play the games available for the Wii.

Personally, I feel that the Wii is a good product and fun to play, but it still is just a console for video games. Nintendo did make a good effort in trying to bring people together to play with this system, but the fact still is that video games are designed for teenagers and kids; they will never attract adults in the same way no matter how the format for game play changes.

Reading In Cyberspace ?!?

Journal Entry # 5

This new library-based digitization will weaken Google's relationship with publishers. This is because the publishers do not believe that what Google is doing (providing an access to books limited by their copyright and consumer availability status) should be considered "fair use", and is therefore illegal. Google has three categories of books contained in its index. The first category is for books who are not under copyright and are assessable to the public (books that are in print). These books are fully displayed by Google and so can be read online. The second category is for books who are under copyright and are available to the public. For these books Google will display as much as the publisher will allow. Take for example you search a certain word in a book. Google will find a few pages that center around that word and let you read. The third category is for books who are under copyright and are not necessarily available in print. For these books Google will only display "snippets". This means that if you were to search a word in a book, Google will only let you read a couple sentences around that word. This is because for most of these books there is no publisher or copyright owner to contact in order to discuss how much of the book can be displayed. It is this third category that is causing controversy. Because Google is not able to ask for permission to display the "snippets" of the books and because Google is profiting from the book fragments, publishers believe that this is going against the law of "fair use", and is illegal. So far this has not been proven true, but it has dramatically weakened the relationship between Google and publishers.

Google Book Search has not only been able to obtain the attention of publishers, but also of other competing companies. Despite Google's battle over what is "fair use", its profits still continue to grow. As an attempt to keep up with Google, other companies are joining together, such as Yahoo! and Rogers. This can only be expected as the Google industry continues to grow.

This project will only increase the access people have to information. Because of this new project, people can research and find books that they would not be able to find in a store. They would either be able to read a whole book online, or just a few pages of it, and then decide if they want to buy it. But the whole potential of this Google project is that a history would be preserved. Because the majority of books held in Google's index is not available in print, most of those books will be forgotten. But what Google has done, is found a way to preserve them. One would easily be able to search over a relative history of books and compare them to what is available now. We would be able to see the evolution of the written word over the century that has just past and up to today. Not only would the access of modern information increase, but also older information.

Librarians will not be threatened by the new development. This is because Google only gives full displays of books that are no longer in print, and only parts of those that are available. You could research a book on line but you would not be able to read the whole thing. Therefore people will not just stop going to libraries because of Google Book Search. If you wanted to read a book, you could find it on Google, read a couple pages, and if you found it interesting you could borrow it from the library. Librarians would not be threatened because there is no threat.

I think that the Google Book Search is a good idea, but I would not use it that much. If I did use it, it would only be for modern books and those who are still in print. I do not think that it would be of use to me because I doubt I would spend the time to look up only small parts of books. I prefer to go to book stores and look at the books there. I think that the Google Book Search is legal and does not break the "fair use" law. I think that his project should be allowed to continue because although I don't find much use of it, other people probably do.

What Makes YOU Special?

The Genographic Project
Journal Entry # 4

The Genographic Project is lead by geneticists stationed all over the world. They each acquire their own field research and do their own analysis. But what helps to make this project above that of others, is that each geneticist helps the others and shares ideas, knowledge and methods of practice. Their are also a number of technological advances that accompany this project. These are such as advances in mining tools and machine speed calculation. This increases the efficiency in which DNA can be collected and the memory and overall ability of their computers.

But what makes this project only possible today is our highly mobile, global society.It is because of our transportation abilities that geneticists can travel to all parts of the world and retrieve the research that they need. They would not be able to do this project 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago. They could try, and probably find some crucial information, but not nearly as much as they would today. Even just 25 years ago they would not have the technology, the resources, or the transportation they would need.

The Genographic Project is a five-year study to establish the world's largest collection of DNA samples and to map out how mankind has populated the planet. It is an important project because it will reveal the migratory history of humans and help us to understand the connections, differences, and similarities that make up mankind. It will provide information on how we travelled the world, what kind of impact culture has had on the genetic variation of humans, and why then if we all share a common ancestor, do we all look different? The timing of this project is very important because only now do we have the resources available for such a research project, and there are still groups of people who carry the direct genes of their ancestors.

Indigenous groups are extremely important to the project because their genetic identities are isolated. They are not like most other people in the world whose DNA are mixed with people from all around the world. The indigenous group's DNA are easier to read and provides a clear understanding to the genetic signals of mixing populations.

When War meets Video Games

Journal Entry # 3

Why are video games so popular now? I think it has a lot to do with the improvement of graphics and the types of games that are available to the public. Video games started out with incredibliy bad graphics (at least compared to today's standards), and a very simple story line; either to just get past Donkey Kong and save Peach, or a race around a single looped track to win. However video games may have started, they are nothing compared to what they are now. Designers of video games only continue to outdo themselves when it comes to their games' animation. This is a very important since it is what gamers of all ages tend to look for when considering if they should buy it. If a game looks like garbage with rough edges, bad colouring, and totally unrealistic characters, it is mostly likely not to be bought. Animation is the eye candy to most people, and it usually can get the first game in a series sold, but it is not the initial reason why people buy games. Video games have to be entertaining. A game could have the best graphics in the world, but if it is slow and dull, or has a steep learning curve, people will not buy it. There are many varities of games on the market today, one of the most popular being role playing games (where you take on a character in a story and work your way through the game by most likely beating dungeons). It is the excitment that is created from playing such a game that people are compelled to buy others.Video games are so popular now because not only are the graphics becoming more realistic each day, but the quality and story line have also advanced dramaticly.

I do believe that realistic war games desensitive people from the horror of war because they are fun. War video games are exciting and the graphics are scary realistic. Video games appeal to people because when made correctly, can draw in the gamer. It is as if they are actually part of the game. War video games also hold true to this. But because they are just games, there is no real fear. The person controlling the war game cannot get hurt or injured. They can not die or feel any real pain or loss. And it is because of this that their outlook on how war really is, is distorted. War is all about pain, loss, and suffering. It is these things that creates the horror of it. But the gamer does not experience any of this, only excileration. Therefore, how can these video games not desensitive people to war, when they are conditioning them to believe that there is no horror, only fun?

Personally, I do not like war video games. I do find them exciting and fun to play, but also disrespectful to those who actually fought in a war. I feel that it minimizes the full impact and effect war had on the soldiers and everyone else, making it seem fun when those who were there would describe it as hell. Video games are exciting and entertaining, but i do think that a lot of them need to rethink the messages they are sending to the players.

An iPod Classroom?

Journal Entry # 2

I think that I would learn well using an iPod to watch video lectures, but not as well as I would in a normal person-to-person seminar. I would benefit from using the iPod the most by exploiting the privilege of being able to rewind. Unlike sitting in a class, struggling to take notes, I would be able to rewind or watch the video as many times as I like. But even with these abilities to my advantage, I would still prefer the less technological approach, with a teacher in front of me. This is because, if I have a question, I can ask it. If I were to use an iPod, I would feel pressured to understand everything from the video alone. But when in a classroom with a teacher, I can ask questions or ask for further explanations. IPods may be more convenient, but they are not personal, as I believe they should be.

Although using the iPods would be “more interactive and more self-directed”, I do not think that Mary Ward, even with its commitment to self-directed learning, should embrace this technology. I think it would be a step too far. There is self-directed learning, as Mary Ward is now, and then there is just learning by yourself. If students had the opportunity to use iPods, they would take advantage and use them for purposes besides that of their education. It would be very easy to watch other videos or listen to music without the teacher noticing. You would not be able to tell if the student was reviewing a seminar, or slacking off. IPod seminars would most likely prove to work against what is required for the students to learn. Although large amounts of vital information would be made available right under a student’s fingertips, there is a very low chance they would actually watch it. Unlike person-to-person seminars where the teachers know if you showed up or not, nobody would know if you decided not to watch the video. Also, the students knowing the seminar is available to them 24/7, would easily take their time in getting around to actually watching it.

Using iPods to hold teacher lectures and seminars does not go without its advantages. Students would no longer have to worry about missing an important seminar ever again. They would either be able to finish their work early, and view the seminar without wait, or take their time to get it right knowing the seminar will still be there when they are ready. IPods would also become very useful to those students who cannot sit through an entire seminar in class, or are easily distracted. The seminar videos would be able to be paused, rewound, and fast forward.

Using iPods to teach would provide students with a freedom to learn like never before. But would it be too much freedom? Would the students pay instead of benefit? I think it does, but that does not necessarily mean it is so. It depends largely on the person actually using the iPod. So, would you benefit?

With The GOOD, Comes The BAD

Journal Entry Question #1

Communication technology has advanced exponentially all over the world and especially in the last decade. You could have a relative living on the other side of the Earth, and all it would take to reach communication with them would be a few seconds. Imagine how it was in the 1800's where the only way to communicate besides spoken word, was through letters. Letters, that would take months or even a year to deliver depending on the distance between sender and receiver. Could you live like that? The answer, almost certainly, would be no. Not now, when we all have grown up accustomed to having the liberty to almost limitless and instantaneous communication. One of the most common forms of communication among teenagers today is MSN.

MSN is an instant messaging program used by thousands, and brings with it many positive privileges. MSN can be downloaded without charge and can be used to talk to others all over the world for free. Teenagers use MSN mostly to talk to their friends, and it can be very valuable when one needs to send important information. Unlike email, which can take a while to go through the internet, MSN is instantaneous and can be used to send pictures and\or files directly through converstaions. MSN can also be a very useful tool if you are trying to learn how to type, or increase your typing speed.

But MSN also has its disadvantages. Although it can promote typing ability, it decreases the users' gramatical skills and encourages slang and word short cuts. MSN also has addictive aspects to it. Over time, the users begin to develop a dependence. MSN is a non-personal form of communication. When talking to someone using MSN, you don't have to see the other person, and emotion can be very hard to read. Because of this invisible wall that provides a form of protection, it is much easier to talk to other people. And sometimes what is said to others, can be very unkind, especially when you do not see the other's reactions.

Technology is continuously advancing, and over time there will be communication programs far beyond that of MSN's. They will provide us with the ability to complete things faster and seemingly make our lives easier. But even through all this, we must remember that too much can be a bad thing, and we must never become too caught up.

With the GOOD, comes the BAD!

The Blogger Bee!

Welcome to my blogger website!
I hope you enjoy mine and other people's posted comments!
Don't forget to read my journals!

P.S. Please leave comments for all my journals!
Thank You!