last one - TEN

I had no idea at all how important the Internet is to society. I knew it was convenient and whenever I use it I always benefit from it, but it just never clicked that it was such a tool and resource for everyone, every business, government, etc. Stupid me, how frickin' obvious.

I thought I was more intuitive than that, so I guess it would be safe to call me naively ignorant or ignorantly naive. Does that make sense? Even a little? Anyway, yeah, never realized there was an open source software movement. I hardly knew what a podcast or blog was. BUT! I did know that the Internet was called an information super highway. Haha. At least I got something. Oh, and I knew about the Chinese intranet and that Jesse Ventura used the net to win his campaign. So I guess I wasn't totally oblivious to what was going on, just partially. You could call me semi-clueless. But now, with everything I have learned I feel like I'm ready to take on the world. Time to become a capitalist and take your money!

Selfish, I know, but I wished I had learned more about FREE software and where to find it. Like anti-virus software or any kind of up-to-date system to make my computer invincible. Or more about new technology such as the VoIP technology. It was interesting to me how the revolutionary telephone system is heading for a make over. I wanted to know more about these things so I could be at the head of the pack, change from being a "mid" to late majority adopter to an early adopter.

I wasn't particularly uninterested in any of the topics but some aspects of each topic turned me off. My attention span couldn't keep up the technical jargon of the readings. And the readings all had a dry and/or boring part at some point or another. Other than that, each topic was of some interest to me.

nine

Interesting stuff. I once talked to a friend overseas using the computer but it was so long ago I don't know if it was the VoIP technology. Yeah, it might not have been but if it was, it must have been the first version ever because I didn't hear a response for like two minutes. By the time I got a response, I was already talking over him saying "hello, hello, you there?" It was pretty lame, it took like ten minutes just to hear how he was doing.

Given that it was more than six years ago, I'm sure by now the technology is more advanced. But based on the cons, I still would take the safe route and stick with the conventional phone. I don't mind paying a little more for something that I can rely on. Not to mention, I think I only pay like $15 a month for my land line. It's worth it. But if the price was anything near Comcast prices, I might have to reconsider. I guess you could call me a "mid" to late majority adopter.

How do you expect VoIP to impact cable and telephone networks (both are regulated infrastructure industries) . Good question. That I do not know. Hopefully cellphone companies will adopt the same system so all the phone lines can be used in instances like 9/11 or 12:00am on New Years. They probably will have a bidding war to try to attain the rights of the technology. I do know that those guys will find a way to make money off it. And not just little money, "cable" money. That is especially if Comcast has anything to say about it. Mo fo's.

DQ's:
1. How has this service remained free of charge since its debut? I am in disbelief.

2. Is it compatible with cellular telephones? And has there been talk about incorporating the system if it isn't being already used?

3. IF computers with Wifi could use VoIP with no reception problems, could this be possible for cell phones as well?

eight

I often take for granted the many extra paraphernalia I own, which in many countries would be considered a "luxury". I realize this all the time but soon forget and return to my normal state of thinking that I'm poor compared to the super rich. The fact is that I am blessed to come from a extra middle-class family in America. I need to cherish the fact that I have many many things that people do not have in other countries. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to live without a computer or even better, a laptop, a telephone or cellphone, the Internet or wifi. We have been spoiled. I think that should be the new reality show. Not like Survivor, but one where an American who is used to having all the luxuries, is thrown out into a big foreign city and not allowed access to any type of communication medium. Everyone around them would be able to use modern technology but not the contestant, frustrating him/her even more. The only exception: face to face communication. And the reward would not be money. But without money there would be no contestants. Isn't that sad how the only thing that gets poeple moving is money?

What is the relationship between cyberspace as a public space and accessibility standards?
Cyberspace, is supposed to be a public space, where everyone is welcome for free. But to get there, there is an access fee. For a company, like those greedy COMCAST bastards, to take over the only entrance into a public place is just total BS. I understand that they think that they make the Internet "happen" for all of us but in reality this is not true. What do they do besides string the cable to your house and take your money? Not a whole lot. And after pocketing huge profits, they dont even have the decency to wire the rural areas of the nation and/or world. I would elaborate and explain further but I am cutting it close, so I have to leave it at this.

DQ's:
1. What ever happened to the talk about Seattle having free city-wide Wifi access?

2. Are schools and libraries in these rural areas Internet-less as well? I feel that at the very least they should be able to connect to the web.

3. If peple in these areas are computer/cellphone-less, how would they benefit from the Wifi radio signals?

cantwell v. mcgavick

After reading the article, my first imperssions were contrary to what I thought they would be. I have always leaned toward the Democrat side but regarding this battle, I may be inclined to side with McGavick. The article mentioned that Cantwell had "alienated some in her party for supporting the Iraq war, and she was one of only 19 Democrats who opposed an attempt to block Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court in January." Just hearing this made me not agree with her motives and beliefs. Although I do not know the whole story behind all of thins, I disliked the fact that she would "befriend" (too harsh of a word?) her own people and that she was the only one who was "anti-Alito". It seems to me as if she is a loose cannon who does not have the same views as other Democrats. To add on to this "even her allies urged her to concentrate on fewer issues" and she "has refused to characterize her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion as a mistake". I am the only one that sees something wrong here? She is obviously not a team player and won't admit to her own mistakes. I like an honest and cooperative person. As far as pros, the only thing I noticed was that she likes the Mariners, who suck!

On the other hand, although Republican, McGavick seems to live by the same rules as I do. He seems like more of a people person and even admitted Republicans "were partly to blame for high gas prices". The fact that he drives a Mini Cooper gives me the impression he is NOT a rich, vain shmuck and tends to deal with issues in a laid-back way. He seems to be the "not so Republican" Republican. He states, "I'm not asking the voters of this state to trust the Republicans. I'm asking them to trust Mike." I don't trust Republicans but I might give Mike the benefit of the doubt.

While Maria Cantwell's page is clean, simple, and easy on the eyes, I was not able to locate any opportunities for interaction with the voters. There were of course places to "contact", "donate", and "comment". McGavick's website was too concentrated and overwhelming on the eyes at first but I found "Meet Mike" and an "event calendar".

I was not able to view Cantwell's views on anything but the stances McGavick took seemed to be typical Republican beliefs.

I don't know who to trust. Take the safe route and vote for Cantwell or take a gamble and vote for a "not so Republican but Republican" Republican who lives by decent rules. I don't know!

seven

Research methodology...I remember some of that stuff. Not all that fun to me. But it's amazing to me, the amount of information that leaves one's brain after the quarter ends. Anyway:

Wasn't it Jesse "The Body" Ventura who created that interactive website which helped him become Governor of Minnesota? Hey, that's weird. The state of Minnesota was included in both articles and now here I am bringing up "The Body". Back to him, I am pretty sure he was the one who responded to his supporters via his website and had a photos and a journal or something on his site which attracted many. From what I remember that was the main reason he drew so much positive attention.

I think Internet technology impacts politics in a subtle and simple but dramatic way. Politics, just like everything else in this world, is a business. Political parties are companies, politicians and their views are products, and campaigns are marketing strategies. With the Internet, what was once hard to get information about a new product out into the market for cheap is now much easier. By doing the simplest of things, Trippi made himself look like a genius. Websites, interactive ones especially, seem to be perfect ways to inform those who seek more information. By upadating and responding frequently, it lets the "customers" know you care, and that they are important to you. So simple yet so powerful.

DQ's:
1. With the media becoming more vulgar over time (i.e. the use of words such as "ass", "bitch", etc on TV, radio), and political campaign ads on politician's websites more controversial and hostile than on TV, how do you see these campaign ads evolving over time?

2. Given that the print, radio, and movie industry, which was thought to be on the brink of "extinction" with the debut of television, adapted, evolved, and fought to survive, won't newspapers somehow do the same with their coverage of local and national political information to combat the Internet?

3. Was what Trippi did to win the straw poll for Walter Mondale at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in 1983 legal? If no, how did he get away with it?

RSS...

The Seattle Times offers 47 (I may have counted wrong…) RSS feeds pertaining to these topics:

seattletimes.com, Business & Technology, Columnists, Entertainment & the Arts, Health, Living, Local News, Nation & World, Opinion, Politics, Real Estate, Sports,Travel & Outdoors, and Additional feeds

The Miami Herald offers many more RSS feeds than the Seattle Times, which are included under these topics:

NEWS, News Columnists, Editorial Columnists, Editorial Contributors, Features, Columnists, MIAMI-DADE NEIGHBORHOODS, BROWARD NEIGHBORHOODS
BUSINESS, Business Columnists, Technology Columnists, SPORTS, High Schools, Youth Sports, Sports Columnists, ENTERTAINMENT, Arts Columnists, LIFE & STYLE, and CLASSIFIEDS

I was not able to locate any blogs sponsored by The Seattle Times, however, The Miami Herald had two links; to Dave Barry's Blog and Liz Donovan Inomaniac

I cannot generate any concrete theories of why the Herald adopted this technology faster than the Times. However, there are many geographical differences between the two cities which may be contributing factors. Miami is in the Southeast, and there probably is much more pressure from the many other East Coast cities to offer the latest technology. Miami is a very large city with many upper class and lower class citizens. The gap between these two classes seems huge which might be reason for more RSS feeds. This is my sorry explanation: lower class citizens tend to not subscribe to hard copy paper which makes delivering an enormous activity due to the vastness of the city. The many upper class citizens are up to date with the latest electronics and demand more of the services that cater towards these technological advancements.

While RSS feeds help those who know exactly what they want bypass all other information, at the same time it might miss articles and posts that the reader would have been interested in. Because a story might not have any relevance to a topic a person has subscribed to, it would be overlooked and never seen or heard about. Thus, many stories, articles, or posts which do not have a concrete topic, or only labeled "miscellaneous", are probably not seen as they once might have been. Sometimes

It is free to view the material on both of these sites.

Will edit and finish soon...

six

What are the implications of blogging technology on established media? I see blogging technology creating competition for established media. Although established media is by far the victor in this battle, it seems that blogging has the potential to take away some audience from big media. On top of that, bloggers seem to give real viewpoints, those of the everyday man and woman. I would think that this may (or has already) cause the media to direct some sort of animosity towards bloggers, simply because of what they write. Besides stealing one’s "thunder", bloggers also tend to speak the truth or at least they seem real, almost like listening to a human being as opposed to a machine. Their perspectives are ones that everyone can relate to and often are not covered up and summarized in short by the media. By writing in blogs, people are also able to express whatever and however they want. The media can not use foul language, which may help express issues, they have to be politically correct, and are often swayed by the views of the owners, the government, and those who have money. Since blogs do not have to abide by any of those so-called rules, this makes the media seem fake. Of course bloggers are biased about most subjects, but the reader has the option to search freely for another blog which he can agree with. Am I making sense? Sometimes I don’t know if I even know what I am talking about…

DQ’s:
1. What are a few ways advertising can be incorporated into podcasts?
2. Will podcasts still exist and be popular enough to produce if webcasts can be viewed on a cellphone's LCD?
3. In the future, if every radio set came with a screen and radio stations began filming radio programs (like ESPN's Mike and Mike radio show), would that be the equivalent to the end of radio? Explain please.