http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ1AWw8ktLQ&feature=related
In this short 30 second commercial, They are comparing the Mac versus the PC. First off they start their argument by having a "cool" looking person argue in favor of the MAC, and then they have a dorky geek arguing in favor of the PC. The specific argument that they are trying to make in this commercial is that Mac is better, because it is a faster operating system. One of the ways it is faster is by not putting all the useless programs already loaded onto it. Mac says that they only put the stuff that people really want like iphoto and such. Mac is appealing to your emotion here, by saying that if your tired and frusterated with PC because it is so slow, than you should get a MAC.
Apple also does a very good job at advertising. Most people are unable to explain why they are even fans of MAC's. It is just the fact that Apple says and makes you beleive that apple is the cool thing. Instead of having a plain old PC you could have a more functional MAC, that is way cooler also. They are appealing to your emotion by making you think that you will somehow be cooler if you own a MAC. Somehow Apple has won this argument, because MAC's is the most popular computer on the market today, and that all the people that own one are cool.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
infosphere
Michael Vlahos wrote "Entering the Infoshpehere." In this chapter of the book, vlahos talks and describes what an infoshpere is. He says that " The Infosphere is shorthand for the fusion of all the world's communications networks, databases and sources of information into a vast, intertwined and heterogeneous tapestry of electronic interchange." Vlahos thinks that the Infoshpere has potential to bring everyone together into one place. The infosphere is changing us through a strange combination of technology and culture, Vlahos says. We are quickly moving to the infoshpere, even though it is a distant reality. We are entering the infosphere through an object. That object being, usually a pc or a new mac.
Michael vlahos idea of infoshpere is very interesting. I think that he is making a very valid argument in this chapter. By saying that our culture is moving faster and faster and faster and faster into a technologically advanced world, we are moving farther and farther and farther and farther away from what we Americans think is the good life. For example all of the technology could be taking time away from our families. We spend much more time buried in the internet or maybe a game that we forget that what we really long for is personal social interaction. Vlahos brings up the argument that all of this new technology could actually bring us closer to our family or friends. By making our work life easier, where we don't have to travel to talk to other companies. We might not even have to leave the comfort of our own homes to go to work every morning. We could just as easily do our work online and over the phone. But I feel as though this argument is very false. This technology has been out already for a number of years, and if it was going to bring us closer to our families than it would have already. But it is only distracting us even more than we already were. We are to focused on all our new shiny technology that it distracts us from the people that are supposed to be closest to us, which is our family and friends.
Michael vlahos idea of infoshpere is very interesting. I think that he is making a very valid argument in this chapter. By saying that our culture is moving faster and faster and faster and faster into a technologically advanced world, we are moving farther and farther and farther and farther away from what we Americans think is the good life. For example all of the technology could be taking time away from our families. We spend much more time buried in the internet or maybe a game that we forget that what we really long for is personal social interaction. Vlahos brings up the argument that all of this new technology could actually bring us closer to our family or friends. By making our work life easier, where we don't have to travel to talk to other companies. We might not even have to leave the comfort of our own homes to go to work every morning. We could just as easily do our work online and over the phone. But I feel as though this argument is very false. This technology has been out already for a number of years, and if it was going to bring us closer to our families than it would have already. But it is only distracting us even more than we already were. We are to focused on all our new shiny technology that it distracts us from the people that are supposed to be closest to us, which is our family and friends.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Ideal writing enviornment
My ideal writing environment, would definitely be in the most quiet place I could find. For example, the library, in an empty room, outside in a calm park. After I have my perfect spot I need some motivation to actually write, so preferably I would like to write before I was going to do something I actually like doing. When I know that all I need to do is write one little paper and then I get to go play football, racquetball, or go out with friends, I become highly motivated to do the work I need to. When I have the perfect spot and the perfect time of the day, I need a certain type of music going. It can't be some loud rap or hard metal music, It has to be soft and soothing. For example I love to listen to some Coldplay or Mumford and sons on a very low volume so I am still able to concentrate. The music thing just sets the mood and lets me really want to focus in and get it done. After all that is set and ready I would definitely need to be just a little bit hungry, like the kind you get in between meals. Then I would need a cold beverage on hand, doesn't matter what it is, could be water could be a beer. Then a nice full filling snack, like some trail mix or cheese crackers that i can savor for the length of my writing time. After that I am set to write!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Great Seduction Response
https://oc.okstate.edu/content/enforced/627074-J_ENGL1113TH_111_116/keen.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=c9dq8AyJllkXVEJE14j8aKw2wQA
Andrew Keen, a British author wrote a book called "The Great Seduction". He starts off the book by talking about his supports of the internet and how he thought it was a very useful tool. Andrew said that in 2004, after two days in a camp called FOO, he had totally changed his standpoint on the matter. At the camp he was introduced to the idea, Web 2.0. Tim O'reily, one of the heads of the camp, said that it was going to change everything. After the camp Andrew decided not to participate in the new and improved internet, but he was just going to take a back seat and watch. After two years of watching what Web 2.0 was doing, Keen said that he was appalled at what he had seen. Keen addressed in his book that one of the new goals of the web was to "democratrize". Democratizing to Andrew was basically the web's undermining of truth, and belittling expertise, experience, and talent. Which in turn would threaten the very future of our cultural institutions. Keen said that Web 2.0 was shattering the world into 1 billion personalized truths. Keen argues that the more the web grows, the less and less revenue is made from it all. The mass quantities that all this information and entertainment are being produced make it seem harder to get more people to watch and read it all.
In this chapter of Keen's book I feel that he is making a cause and effect argument. He is saying that because of all the different facets of the web, it is making it easier for people to make up their own truths by piecing together a hundred of other peoples pieced together opinions. Also he is making a subtle proposal argument, that if we continue to use and abuse the internet like we do it is creating less culture, less reliable news, and a chaos of useless information.
Andrew Keen, a British author wrote a book called "The Great Seduction". He starts off the book by talking about his supports of the internet and how he thought it was a very useful tool. Andrew said that in 2004, after two days in a camp called FOO, he had totally changed his standpoint on the matter. At the camp he was introduced to the idea, Web 2.0. Tim O'reily, one of the heads of the camp, said that it was going to change everything. After the camp Andrew decided not to participate in the new and improved internet, but he was just going to take a back seat and watch. After two years of watching what Web 2.0 was doing, Keen said that he was appalled at what he had seen. Keen addressed in his book that one of the new goals of the web was to "democratrize". Democratizing to Andrew was basically the web's undermining of truth, and belittling expertise, experience, and talent. Which in turn would threaten the very future of our cultural institutions. Keen said that Web 2.0 was shattering the world into 1 billion personalized truths. Keen argues that the more the web grows, the less and less revenue is made from it all. The mass quantities that all this information and entertainment are being produced make it seem harder to get more people to watch and read it all.
In this chapter of Keen's book I feel that he is making a cause and effect argument. He is saying that because of all the different facets of the web, it is making it easier for people to make up their own truths by piecing together a hundred of other peoples pieced together opinions. Also he is making a subtle proposal argument, that if we continue to use and abuse the internet like we do it is creating less culture, less reliable news, and a chaos of useless information.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
You-Yes, You are time's person of the year, RESPONSE
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html
Lev Grossman, a journalist for Time magazine wrote an article in 2006 entitled "You- Yes, You- Are Time's Person of the Year." In it Grossman talks about how most people think of the history of the world mainly as the most powerful and wealthy people's biography. But Lev says that that theory has been destroyed, especially in this year. He says that its not about the powerful politicians or the fortune 500 companies or the conflicts of the world. History is made up of the average citizens. Its all about communities and families working together, and we have begun to see that much more than previous generations. Grossman says that the way that these communities have been making so much change in our generation is the World Wide Web. Its the tool that you can upload videos or share photos with your friends, all from your home. Its about bringing people together. Grossman says "This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person."
I believe that Grossman definately has a point in this article, about how the internet has changed our culture for the good and that it is making us a stronger community, but then again I would tend to disagree with him. I know that the internet is a great tool that has definitely changed our society from how we get our news to the entertainment we watch, but I think that the more interesting and powerful the internet becomes the more it is taking away from socializing. For some people their whole life is on their computer, they go to school and work online. But that takes away from meeting people out in the real world.
Lev Grossman, a journalist for Time magazine wrote an article in 2006 entitled "You- Yes, You- Are Time's Person of the Year." In it Grossman talks about how most people think of the history of the world mainly as the most powerful and wealthy people's biography. But Lev says that that theory has been destroyed, especially in this year. He says that its not about the powerful politicians or the fortune 500 companies or the conflicts of the world. History is made up of the average citizens. Its all about communities and families working together, and we have begun to see that much more than previous generations. Grossman says that the way that these communities have been making so much change in our generation is the World Wide Web. Its the tool that you can upload videos or share photos with your friends, all from your home. Its about bringing people together. Grossman says "This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person."
I believe that Grossman definately has a point in this article, about how the internet has changed our culture for the good and that it is making us a stronger community, but then again I would tend to disagree with him. I know that the internet is a great tool that has definitely changed our society from how we get our news to the entertainment we watch, but I think that the more interesting and powerful the internet becomes the more it is taking away from socializing. For some people their whole life is on their computer, they go to school and work online. But that takes away from meeting people out in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)