Mobile devices have become a huge, almost essential, part of our lives as Americans over the past decade. Today, anyone over the age of 16 wouldn't be caught dead without a cellphone. And mobile phones, like the rest of the technology in this world, is rapidly growing and evolving. Non-smart phones are almost becoming endangered at this point, forcing mobile phone users to upgrade to smart phones with data plans and internet access, some features users might not even care about. But as we grow and develop our mobile devices towards this new norm, the rest of society will eventually be forced to catch up.
There are some interesting statistics on mobile phones:
As of May 2013:
-91% of American adults own a cellphone
-56% of American adults have a smartphone
-28% of cellphone owners own an Android, 25% own an iPhone, and 4% own a Blackberry
-63% of adult cellphone owners use their phones to go online
-34% of cell Internet users use their phone to access the Internet over other forms of technology (desktop, laptop, tablet, etc.)
Only 8% of Americans do not own a cellphone, and one could assume that these are Americans who are living below the poverty line. However, it is becoming so essential to own a cellphone that I wouldn't be surprised if that 91% increased over the years. Over half of the population of the United States owns a smartphone, meaning they are paying a monthly fee to use the "smart" capabilities of it. This number will definitely increase over the years.
As of September 2013:
-24% of Americans ages 16 and older own an e-reader (Nook, Kindle, etc.)
-35% of Americans ages 16 and older own a tablet
These statistics are surprising and are rapidly increasing over the years. Over my past four years at college I have noticed the age of people with cellphones is getting lower and lower. I've seen twelve year olds with an iPhone walking around at the mall. When I was twelve I didn't even know what a cellphone was. It's very interesting to see where this will take us and how it will affect future generations.
Some other statistical information:
-74% of adults ages 18 and older use their phone for directions or other information based on their current location
-30% of adults ages 18 and older include their location in their social media posts
-12% of smartphone users check-in to certain locations
--39% of these check-in's are used on Facebook, 18% are used on Foursquare, and 14% on Google Plus
In a book by Sherry Turkle titled "Alone Together", she discusses how technology is destroying our ability to have meaningful human relationships with one another. When today's generation of young adults enter the real world and begin adulthood, their impact on society could be huge based on their current means of social interaction, thanks to technology. Does this create risk-free relationships? It seems as if nowadays we prefer voicemail and email over face to face conversations. The more social we becoming online, the less we want to interact in person. Turkle also believes that it is not the tools (cellphones, social media sites, etc.) that are responsible for this behavior, but rather the way we have chosen to utilize them to avoid the harder parts of being human, that is, socializing with one another face-to-face.
Location services are something we witness whenever we use a smartphone or make a post on a social media website. Now, if you're posting a new status or new picture on Facebook, it'll ask if you want to include a location you were at when the event of the post occurred. It seems to have come out of nowhere, and quite frankly it's more dangerous to the poster than entertaining to readers. Another site that was famous for using this location information is called Dodgeball, a location based social networking software provider for mobile users. With this program, users text their current location to the service, and they will receive a list of "crushes" in the nearby area that you could meet up with and get to know. This just screams bad idea, and giving away your location like that to strangers could easily lead to some sort of criminal activity.
We also witness it while using our phones. When using a GPS application on a smartphone, for example, it will prompt you to allow the application to use your current location. This process, called Geotagging, is adding geographical identification metadata to various media such as photos or videos, and is a form of geospatial metadata. It typically consists of latitude and longitude coordinates to pinpoint direct location information from users. Geotagging can be useful at times, and being able to use your cellphone as a GPS device can also save users money, eliminating the need for an entirely new GPS device.
What future do we get in the world of mobile and locative media? New technology ideas can be infinite with what we are using in today's technology world. Augmented reality projects, future geotagging services, and wearable computing are some of the major technological advancements that we can expect to see in the near future of mobile and locative media.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Violence in Video Games
This week we learned all about the gaming industry and learned about different aspects of it as well as how persuasive of an industry it is. With the average gamer being 30 years of age, and the gaming industry being one of the fastest growing industries in the world (expected net worth of $70 billion by 2017), gaming is definitely a prominent part of the world of entertainment.
Video games come in all shapes and sizes, with tons of consoles to choose from as well as an even larger variety of game genres to choose from. One of the biggest and most popular genres of video games are shooting games - be it first person, third person, or any other form of gaming where the player is required to shoot others to achieve a goal or reach an objective. This is obviously quite a violent genre of video games, with a good majority (if not all) of them being rated "M" for mature, meaning you cannot purchase the game unless you are at least 18 years of age. These violent shooting video games spark a serious controversy within society, with many people putting the blame for real-life acts of violence on these video games.
I am strongly opposed to the idea that violent video games are the reasoning behind the tragedies such as mass shootings or any other violent gun crimes. I have many reasonings behind this, and I'll be sure to cover as many as I can think of at this moment, because it is a controversy that I feel strongly about.
http://kotaku.com/grand-theft-auto-blamed-after-eight-year-old-shoots-gra-1201375715
Above is an article about an eight year old boy who shot his primary caretaker, his grandmother, dead in their trailer park home in Louisiana. After finding out that the boy had been playing the video game Grand Theft Auto IV just moments before finding and shooting the gun, the media went crazy over it and instantly blamed the game for the violent behavior. There are so many things wrong with this picture. First of all, why does the kid have access to a loaded firearm in the first place? That's the first major problem. Secondly, although this woman is his grandmother and is quite old, I still don't see why the eight year old was left unsupervised to the point where he can play these violent video games and play with a gun. Also, if the media is so upset over the violent actions these games are causing, why are we letting these retailers sell the games to such a young audience in the first place? The game Grand Theft Auto IV is not purchasable unless you are at least 18 years old. That is over double the young boy's age. Sure, you can easily get around an age limit by having your parents or someone else above the required age to purchase the game for you, but these older consumers should be forewarned as of what the game's content includes if they don't already know. Even still, the game is named after a crime related to stealing an automobile, which should already raise some flags if you're trying to be a responsible caretaker. There are plenty of factors here that prove that the boy playing the game did not provoke him to shoot the gun at his grandmother.
Now, the above situation involved that of a young, naive child who, for the sake of argument, might not have known better or even known what he was doing. It's highly likely, more likely than for the game to be literally telling him what to do (even still - you don't shoot your grandmother in Grand Theft Auto). Back to the topic, there are plenty of violent occurrences out there performed by older individuals that who are more responsible and old enough to purchase these violent video games. This is where the topic gets even more controversial, with the media saying that there are underlying problems within the individuals such as the individual being mentally unstable. THIS would be the main cause behind the gun violence. This alone would explain all of the actions any shooter involved in a mass shooting would do. Violent video games are just a part of entertainment. I have been involved with violent video games ever since I got an XBOX - and I admit that for a couple of those years I was under the age of 18. Call of Duty - one of the world's largest first-person shooter franchises, has been my favorite series of video games to play for years now - and not once I have ever gotten the urge to go out and shoot some random people or join the military because I think I'm experienced with a gun. I've had hands-on experience with a pistol before at a shooting range. Between the preparation required, the recoil of the gun itself, and the feel and sounds of the gun - I would definitely not be an experienced gun handler in any situation, regardless of all the years of "simulating" a shooting game.
I understand that this post may be a bit hectic and all over the place, and may not cover the entire content of the persuasive gaming industry. However, I really feel like this is a topic that gets an over-abundance of attention from the media for the wrong reasons. Violent video games are not the underlying causes behind mass shootings. It's a combination of irresponsibility, poor parenting, and possibly derived from any sort of disabilities. If a video game - something that is not even close to being real - can push you to want to do thing as horrible as shooting people for no reason or running people over with a stolen car - there's something more to it that is unique to the individual. This is coming from a gamer, someone who has grown up with video games for a good majority of his life, a gamer who is very experienced in shooting/violent video games - but in no way is experienced to associated with real life violence.
Finally, I'd like to end with a poll from FOX news regarding violent video games. When non-media have a say, it looks more like this:
Video games come in all shapes and sizes, with tons of consoles to choose from as well as an even larger variety of game genres to choose from. One of the biggest and most popular genres of video games are shooting games - be it first person, third person, or any other form of gaming where the player is required to shoot others to achieve a goal or reach an objective. This is obviously quite a violent genre of video games, with a good majority (if not all) of them being rated "M" for mature, meaning you cannot purchase the game unless you are at least 18 years of age. These violent shooting video games spark a serious controversy within society, with many people putting the blame for real-life acts of violence on these video games.
I am strongly opposed to the idea that violent video games are the reasoning behind the tragedies such as mass shootings or any other violent gun crimes. I have many reasonings behind this, and I'll be sure to cover as many as I can think of at this moment, because it is a controversy that I feel strongly about.
http://kotaku.com/grand-theft-auto-blamed-after-eight-year-old-shoots-gra-1201375715
Above is an article about an eight year old boy who shot his primary caretaker, his grandmother, dead in their trailer park home in Louisiana. After finding out that the boy had been playing the video game Grand Theft Auto IV just moments before finding and shooting the gun, the media went crazy over it and instantly blamed the game for the violent behavior. There are so many things wrong with this picture. First of all, why does the kid have access to a loaded firearm in the first place? That's the first major problem. Secondly, although this woman is his grandmother and is quite old, I still don't see why the eight year old was left unsupervised to the point where he can play these violent video games and play with a gun. Also, if the media is so upset over the violent actions these games are causing, why are we letting these retailers sell the games to such a young audience in the first place? The game Grand Theft Auto IV is not purchasable unless you are at least 18 years old. That is over double the young boy's age. Sure, you can easily get around an age limit by having your parents or someone else above the required age to purchase the game for you, but these older consumers should be forewarned as of what the game's content includes if they don't already know. Even still, the game is named after a crime related to stealing an automobile, which should already raise some flags if you're trying to be a responsible caretaker. There are plenty of factors here that prove that the boy playing the game did not provoke him to shoot the gun at his grandmother.
Now, the above situation involved that of a young, naive child who, for the sake of argument, might not have known better or even known what he was doing. It's highly likely, more likely than for the game to be literally telling him what to do (even still - you don't shoot your grandmother in Grand Theft Auto). Back to the topic, there are plenty of violent occurrences out there performed by older individuals that who are more responsible and old enough to purchase these violent video games. This is where the topic gets even more controversial, with the media saying that there are underlying problems within the individuals such as the individual being mentally unstable. THIS would be the main cause behind the gun violence. This alone would explain all of the actions any shooter involved in a mass shooting would do. Violent video games are just a part of entertainment. I have been involved with violent video games ever since I got an XBOX - and I admit that for a couple of those years I was under the age of 18. Call of Duty - one of the world's largest first-person shooter franchises, has been my favorite series of video games to play for years now - and not once I have ever gotten the urge to go out and shoot some random people or join the military because I think I'm experienced with a gun. I've had hands-on experience with a pistol before at a shooting range. Between the preparation required, the recoil of the gun itself, and the feel and sounds of the gun - I would definitely not be an experienced gun handler in any situation, regardless of all the years of "simulating" a shooting game.
I understand that this post may be a bit hectic and all over the place, and may not cover the entire content of the persuasive gaming industry. However, I really feel like this is a topic that gets an over-abundance of attention from the media for the wrong reasons. Violent video games are not the underlying causes behind mass shootings. It's a combination of irresponsibility, poor parenting, and possibly derived from any sort of disabilities. If a video game - something that is not even close to being real - can push you to want to do thing as horrible as shooting people for no reason or running people over with a stolen car - there's something more to it that is unique to the individual. This is coming from a gamer, someone who has grown up with video games for a good majority of his life, a gamer who is very experienced in shooting/violent video games - but in no way is experienced to associated with real life violence.
Finally, I'd like to end with a poll from FOX news regarding violent video games. When non-media have a say, it looks more like this:
Friday, October 25, 2013
Politics, Polarization, & Partisanship
This week we learned about the 3 P's - Politics, Polarization, & Partisanship. There were two sides of this topic, with each side being represented by different people; Horkheimer, Adorno, and Sunstein. Media effects are generally more limited than critics would have you believe they are, which really puts the whole movie rating system into a new perspective. If the media effects are so limited, what is it that we as the consumers of media are missing out on and being held back from? Horkheimer and Adorno did not appreciate the positive role that was being played by the general interest intermediaries, while Sustain may have idealized them.
In today's day and age, business models are constantly changing. However, this does not stop personalized nor mass media from being produced. Neither are disappearing any time soon. Despite Sunstein's concerns, some sources of information are more diverse than ever before. As we grow, our knowledge increases and we store this knowledge in various ways. This means that our sources of vast knowledge and information are constantly growing and changing as well.
Finally, we learned about a man named Dan Kreiss. Kreiss believed that new technologies for convening political supporters don't necessarily coincide with deeper underlying changes in the management of campaigns. This means that the two things don't necessarily work together like a clockwork mechanism; it is simply coincidental that the two are happening at the same time in today's society. Just because political figures such as presidential candidates are now using social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter to gain more supporters for their campaigns does not mean they are the reason behind the new and changing ways that these campaigns are behind managed.
My question relates to the final paragraph. Will new technology and campaign management ever fully coincide? Since our technology is evolving faster and faster every day, who knows what future political figures will be using for campaigning in the coming years. Will we one day rely on technology so much that we can't have "deeper underlying changes" without it?
In today's day and age, business models are constantly changing. However, this does not stop personalized nor mass media from being produced. Neither are disappearing any time soon. Despite Sunstein's concerns, some sources of information are more diverse than ever before. As we grow, our knowledge increases and we store this knowledge in various ways. This means that our sources of vast knowledge and information are constantly growing and changing as well.
Finally, we learned about a man named Dan Kreiss. Kreiss believed that new technologies for convening political supporters don't necessarily coincide with deeper underlying changes in the management of campaigns. This means that the two things don't necessarily work together like a clockwork mechanism; it is simply coincidental that the two are happening at the same time in today's society. Just because political figures such as presidential candidates are now using social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter to gain more supporters for their campaigns does not mean they are the reason behind the new and changing ways that these campaigns are behind managed.
My question relates to the final paragraph. Will new technology and campaign management ever fully coincide? Since our technology is evolving faster and faster every day, who knows what future political figures will be using for campaigning in the coming years. Will we one day rely on technology so much that we can't have "deeper underlying changes" without it?
Friday, October 11, 2013
Ambient Awareness
This week in class, we talked about ambient awareness. Ambient awareness is defined as, in academic tradition, distributed cognition. Distributed cognition is a hybrid approach to studying all aspects of cognition, from a cognitive, social, and organizational perspective. The most well known level of analysis is to account for the complex socially distributed cognitive activities, of which a diversity of technological artifacts and other tools and representations are an indispensable part of.
One example we used in class was a three-layer naval bridge:
-The first layer: Crew Member - Artifact
-The second layer: Crew Member - Crew Member
-The third layer: Captain - Crew Members
This is a representation of how information is always traveling anywhere and everywhere. There is inter-relatedness among people and artifacts, where information is distributed and transferred. We get our information from artifacts and spread the word to cause information to rapidly grow and spread.
Further examples include one with planes and cockpits. On planes, they redesigned specific instruments in the cockpit. Once before, anyone could see the information, and after the change, only the captain could. This had a negative impact after it was reveled that pilots could still reference the instruments even though they aren't used very often. This proves that people make more thoughtful decision s when they are socially exposed.
Another example of how distribute cognition has changed technology is with social networking and software. With computer information technology, it used to be one person to a machine, and that was it. Nowadays, people use their machines to socially interact with many others who are behind their personal computer screens. Social Networking Sites, or SNS, shares information on the user with many other users. Before, software interfaces were for only 1 specific user, but now it serves multiple users simultaneously and helps them coordinate one another.
With forms of communication such as email or texting, it is all asynchronous. The sender of an email doesn't know the current social status of the receiver. They could be sitting at their computer screen, anxiously waiting for that email or they could be out and about playing baseball or shopping at the mall, not focusing on the email conversation. In class, we discussed how technology is changing the way we communicate with one another. Email conversing is demanding. Especially in the workplace, people who communicate via email will be wondering "hey, did you get my email yet?" or "why haven't you responded to my email?" because they don't know the social status of the recipient. Once again, it's not like they are always eagerly awaiting that inbox to fill with a new message, having nothing better to do than to reply. Sometimes, as we discussed in class, we are overwhelmed with emails and end up deleting massive amounts of them without reading any, which could cause us to delete important emails. And what is our way out of it? To simply blame the technology... "oh, I didn't get that email, that's why I didn't respond." With other forms of online communication, such as Twitter, it's not as demanding and there is no pressure to respond to a twitter mention as soon as possible. If you don't read your tweets, they won't sit there on your feed waiting for you to reply, they'll move along with the other tweets from all of the people you follow. Twitter and Facebook are new communication outlets and do not demand your attention like earlier technological communication tools.
One example we used in class was a three-layer naval bridge:
-The first layer: Crew Member - Artifact
-The second layer: Crew Member - Crew Member
-The third layer: Captain - Crew Members
This is a representation of how information is always traveling anywhere and everywhere. There is inter-relatedness among people and artifacts, where information is distributed and transferred. We get our information from artifacts and spread the word to cause information to rapidly grow and spread.
Further examples include one with planes and cockpits. On planes, they redesigned specific instruments in the cockpit. Once before, anyone could see the information, and after the change, only the captain could. This had a negative impact after it was reveled that pilots could still reference the instruments even though they aren't used very often. This proves that people make more thoughtful decision s when they are socially exposed.
Another example of how distribute cognition has changed technology is with social networking and software. With computer information technology, it used to be one person to a machine, and that was it. Nowadays, people use their machines to socially interact with many others who are behind their personal computer screens. Social Networking Sites, or SNS, shares information on the user with many other users. Before, software interfaces were for only 1 specific user, but now it serves multiple users simultaneously and helps them coordinate one another.
With forms of communication such as email or texting, it is all asynchronous. The sender of an email doesn't know the current social status of the receiver. They could be sitting at their computer screen, anxiously waiting for that email or they could be out and about playing baseball or shopping at the mall, not focusing on the email conversation. In class, we discussed how technology is changing the way we communicate with one another. Email conversing is demanding. Especially in the workplace, people who communicate via email will be wondering "hey, did you get my email yet?" or "why haven't you responded to my email?" because they don't know the social status of the recipient. Once again, it's not like they are always eagerly awaiting that inbox to fill with a new message, having nothing better to do than to reply. Sometimes, as we discussed in class, we are overwhelmed with emails and end up deleting massive amounts of them without reading any, which could cause us to delete important emails. And what is our way out of it? To simply blame the technology... "oh, I didn't get that email, that's why I didn't respond." With other forms of online communication, such as Twitter, it's not as demanding and there is no pressure to respond to a twitter mention as soon as possible. If you don't read your tweets, they won't sit there on your feed waiting for you to reply, they'll move along with the other tweets from all of the people you follow. Twitter and Facebook are new communication outlets and do not demand your attention like earlier technological communication tools.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Impression Management Online
This week we talked about impression management online and different pre-web forms of communication that use technology. Before the World Wide Web was established, there were three main forms of communication using the Internet, all of which contributed to the way we use the Internet to communicate today.
During the pre-web era, impression management online wasn't really an issue. Typically, users remained anonymous, so your online identity did not define your offline identity. Because of this, there was no real need to manage an online presence.
The first of three forms of communication we used before the WWW is Bulletin Board System, or BBS. BBS is a computer system running software that allows users to connect and log in to the system using a terminal program, like the command prompt. Once you are logged in to this system, a user can perform functions such as uploading and downloading software and data, reading the latest news, and even exchange messages with other users that are in the system. Exchanging messages could be done in a variety of ways, including e-mail, public message boards, and direct message chatting.
The second pre-web communication system is the Multiple User Database, or MUD. This is a single database managed and accessed by multiple users. It was very popular during the pre-web era due to this anonymity, since users could remain anonymous while contributing and accessing the database. MUD still exists in today's Internet, and is used on sites like Wikipedia, where any user can edit information on pages within the database.
The final pre-web communication system is Internet Relay Chat, or IRC. It's a protocol for live interactive Internet text messaging or synchronous conferencing. IRC is mainly designed for group communication in discussion forums, which are called channels. However, IRC also allows for one-on-one communication via private messaging as well as chat and data transferring.
One part about this week's lecture that I found to be very interesting was the Social Presence Theory. It evaluates the communication technologies and how post-web communication technology are new and improved ways of communicating than its predecessor. BBS, a useful way to chat with others online, has been replaced with instant messaging, where users can instantly communicate with others and have online identities to refer to each other with. However, phone calls to be a more personable way of communicating than instant messaging, since you can physically hear the voices of those communicating. And to be even more personable, video chatting using programs such as Skype, where you can see and hear the other people.
Overall I think we've come a long way from pre-web era forms of technological communication. Nowadays, we can even video conference one another from our mobile phones. Today, we have instant access to communication technology wherever we go. My question is; what's next? With today's technology, we can send and receive messages in an instant, send and receive phone calls and video chats on the go, and so on. It really makes me wonder how we can improve our forms of communication from where we currently stand, and what the next step in the Social Presence Theory will be.
During the pre-web era, impression management online wasn't really an issue. Typically, users remained anonymous, so your online identity did not define your offline identity. Because of this, there was no real need to manage an online presence.
The first of three forms of communication we used before the WWW is Bulletin Board System, or BBS. BBS is a computer system running software that allows users to connect and log in to the system using a terminal program, like the command prompt. Once you are logged in to this system, a user can perform functions such as uploading and downloading software and data, reading the latest news, and even exchange messages with other users that are in the system. Exchanging messages could be done in a variety of ways, including e-mail, public message boards, and direct message chatting.
The second pre-web communication system is the Multiple User Database, or MUD. This is a single database managed and accessed by multiple users. It was very popular during the pre-web era due to this anonymity, since users could remain anonymous while contributing and accessing the database. MUD still exists in today's Internet, and is used on sites like Wikipedia, where any user can edit information on pages within the database.
The final pre-web communication system is Internet Relay Chat, or IRC. It's a protocol for live interactive Internet text messaging or synchronous conferencing. IRC is mainly designed for group communication in discussion forums, which are called channels. However, IRC also allows for one-on-one communication via private messaging as well as chat and data transferring.
One part about this week's lecture that I found to be very interesting was the Social Presence Theory. It evaluates the communication technologies and how post-web communication technology are new and improved ways of communicating than its predecessor. BBS, a useful way to chat with others online, has been replaced with instant messaging, where users can instantly communicate with others and have online identities to refer to each other with. However, phone calls to be a more personable way of communicating than instant messaging, since you can physically hear the voices of those communicating. And to be even more personable, video chatting using programs such as Skype, where you can see and hear the other people.
Overall I think we've come a long way from pre-web era forms of technological communication. Nowadays, we can even video conference one another from our mobile phones. Today, we have instant access to communication technology wherever we go. My question is; what's next? With today's technology, we can send and receive messages in an instant, send and receive phone calls and video chats on the go, and so on. It really makes me wonder how we can improve our forms of communication from where we currently stand, and what the next step in the Social Presence Theory will be.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Algorithms in Interactive Media
This week we learned about search engines and algorithms used in online media. Search engines, such as Google and Bing, are software systems designed to search for information on the World Wide Web. Results are displayed on SERPs, or Search Engine Results Pages. Their purpose is to provide the best results based upon specified search queries and keywords.
The three steps a search engine takes to provide users with what they require are:
Step One: Crawling - collecting data from the Internet and websites on the World Wide Web. about 0.5 billion websites are used for crawling in order to collect data for search engine results. A site must be public and linked in order to be a part of the crawling process.
Step Two: Indexing - sorting and categorizing collected data and storing it in a database. The collected data by the crawler is passed on to the indexer. It analyzes and sorts the data into various categories. Once a user enters their search query or keywords into the engine, it tries to match it with already indexed data sets.
Step Three: Processing Search Keyword - providing the best result from the database. This is where the algorithms come in. It filters by search engine system. Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc all use different algorithms. Search engine websites update their algorithms quite often in order to make searches more relevant to what the user wants. For example, Google updates their algorithm 100 or more times per year.
We also learned more about these algorithms. An algorithm is a series of conditions. If something happens, you must respond with this action. It requires a lot of coding to make an algorithm, including the use of "if... then" statements. With multiple conditions, you get better algorithmic results. Items like Twitter's "trending topics," online recommended stories, top search results, and product recommendations are all brought to you by algorithms.
In the article "Can an Algorithm be Wrong?" we learn about Twitter's algorithms used in their "Top Trends" and how it can be controversial due to the fact that it was not displaying topics that were in fact popular and trending. After the Occupy Wall Street event, people were tweeting #occupywallstreet all over Twitter for days on end. However, it failed to show up on Twitter's "Top Trends" section, which, if their algorithm was correct, should have been there based on the number of tweets sent out with that "#" within the allotted time period. This proves that in the end, the one behind the computer screen at Twitter's headquarters gets the final say in what shows up on that trend list. We also learned about another example of this in class, where one student said that "Justin Bieber" had to be blocked from the trend list due to his continual popularity. It really makes you think about whether or not these algorithms are the best thing for you.
My questions for this week are can all algorithms be trusted? Should we believe the algorithms that are determined by your own decisions, or by other users? On search engines, they try and predict what you would like to search for based on previous searches. But on websites like Amazon or Youtube, you are recommended to buy a product or watch a view based on how much other users liked the product or video. Which of these algorithms are better? Is it unfair of companies such as Twitter to control their algorithms and adjust them accordingly without informing their users?
The three steps a search engine takes to provide users with what they require are:
Step One: Crawling - collecting data from the Internet and websites on the World Wide Web. about 0.5 billion websites are used for crawling in order to collect data for search engine results. A site must be public and linked in order to be a part of the crawling process.
Step Two: Indexing - sorting and categorizing collected data and storing it in a database. The collected data by the crawler is passed on to the indexer. It analyzes and sorts the data into various categories. Once a user enters their search query or keywords into the engine, it tries to match it with already indexed data sets.
Step Three: Processing Search Keyword - providing the best result from the database. This is where the algorithms come in. It filters by search engine system. Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc all use different algorithms. Search engine websites update their algorithms quite often in order to make searches more relevant to what the user wants. For example, Google updates their algorithm 100 or more times per year.
We also learned more about these algorithms. An algorithm is a series of conditions. If something happens, you must respond with this action. It requires a lot of coding to make an algorithm, including the use of "if... then" statements. With multiple conditions, you get better algorithmic results. Items like Twitter's "trending topics," online recommended stories, top search results, and product recommendations are all brought to you by algorithms.
In the article "Can an Algorithm be Wrong?" we learn about Twitter's algorithms used in their "Top Trends" and how it can be controversial due to the fact that it was not displaying topics that were in fact popular and trending. After the Occupy Wall Street event, people were tweeting #occupywallstreet all over Twitter for days on end. However, it failed to show up on Twitter's "Top Trends" section, which, if their algorithm was correct, should have been there based on the number of tweets sent out with that "#" within the allotted time period. This proves that in the end, the one behind the computer screen at Twitter's headquarters gets the final say in what shows up on that trend list. We also learned about another example of this in class, where one student said that "Justin Bieber" had to be blocked from the trend list due to his continual popularity. It really makes you think about whether or not these algorithms are the best thing for you.
My questions for this week are can all algorithms be trusted? Should we believe the algorithms that are determined by your own decisions, or by other users? On search engines, they try and predict what you would like to search for based on previous searches. But on websites like Amazon or Youtube, you are recommended to buy a product or watch a view based on how much other users liked the product or video. Which of these algorithms are better? Is it unfair of companies such as Twitter to control their algorithms and adjust them accordingly without informing their users?
Friday, September 20, 2013
Copyright and Copyleft
This week in class we learned about Copyright and Copyleft. It was a lot of information to learn, but it was very interesting to learn about different copyright laws and how it affects different groups. Copyright laws will affect a music artist in a completely different way it will affect a consumer of music.
First, we learned about the FCC. They are the Federal Communications Commission, and they control and regulate content on television, internet, radio, and so on. They can cause some controversy because of what they censor out of shows and artist's songs. We also learned about digital conversion, and how it benefits everybody. With digital conversion, television channels can have multiple sub-channels (for example, channel 8 can have channel 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and so on) which provides more television stations per channel. This allows the FCC to gain more money in order to sell more bandwidth, allows broadcasting and cable companies to sell more advertisements, and have more content to be in demand by television watchers.
Next we talked about intellectual property, which I found to be very interesting. Intellectual property is property that belongs to a certain individual that is not tangible. It refers to the creations of the mind; such as inventions, literary works, and symbols. It's crazy to think that we as individuals can own property that isn't even tangible. They are things we view, see, and discuss every day, and people own them. The two categories of intellectual property are Industrial Property and Copyright. Industrial property refers to inventions, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source. Copyrighted intellectual property consists of artistic and literary works, novels, poems, plays, films, music, drawings, paintings, photos, sculptures, and architectural designs.
Copyright was a big topic of discussion in this past week's class. Copyright helps original artists, musical artists, designers, and more protect their work from being stolen and used by others for profit. Without copyright, anybody could claim something as their own and take credit for it.
First, we learned about the FCC. They are the Federal Communications Commission, and they control and regulate content on television, internet, radio, and so on. They can cause some controversy because of what they censor out of shows and artist's songs. We also learned about digital conversion, and how it benefits everybody. With digital conversion, television channels can have multiple sub-channels (for example, channel 8 can have channel 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and so on) which provides more television stations per channel. This allows the FCC to gain more money in order to sell more bandwidth, allows broadcasting and cable companies to sell more advertisements, and have more content to be in demand by television watchers.
Next we talked about intellectual property, which I found to be very interesting. Intellectual property is property that belongs to a certain individual that is not tangible. It refers to the creations of the mind; such as inventions, literary works, and symbols. It's crazy to think that we as individuals can own property that isn't even tangible. They are things we view, see, and discuss every day, and people own them. The two categories of intellectual property are Industrial Property and Copyright. Industrial property refers to inventions, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source. Copyrighted intellectual property consists of artistic and literary works, novels, poems, plays, films, music, drawings, paintings, photos, sculptures, and architectural designs.
Copyright was a big topic of discussion in this past week's class. Copyright helps original artists, musical artists, designers, and more protect their work from being stolen and used by others for profit. Without copyright, anybody could claim something as their own and take credit for it.
Life without copyright.
I definitely understand the need for Copyrighting material. It helps original creators of different works to protect what is rightfully theirs. If a musical artist makes a hit song, it's their song to make profit off of, not any other musical artist's. Having protection from tampering and re-producing material is definitely a good thing to have.
Many people have different views on Copyright, however. Mark Helprin believes that Copyright is what protects all material from belonging to the rightful owners. This material, which could be a product of years and years of work, shouldn't just be available to anyone. In the wrong hands, it could cost a lot of money. Helprin believes that elongated Copyright years (100+ as of today) will help to benefit any beneficiary during the original creator's lifetime. Lessig, however, has a different view when it comes to Copyrighting material. He believes that it is important for us to make new material out of original concepts. To use previously created material as inspiration for future designs. With digital technology rapidly advancing, Lessig believes that we will continuously make new and improved content from original ideas.
I can see where both Helprin and Lessig are coming from in their standpoints on Copyright. On one hand, we need copyright to protect original works. But if we are so protective of them, it limits new content that can be released in the times to come. What will happen if we run out of ideas? What can we do to balance the two opposing sides of Copyrighting material? These are the questions that arise from this week's discussion.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Technology and Behavior
This week in class, we talked about regulation and the social construction of technology. The three E's in regulation are Education, Enforcement, and Engineering. The market, laws, architecture, and norms are all factors that majorly impact the way we regulate things in our everyday life, as well as online. We also learned about technological drama, and how less and less human power is needed to control and regulate what we do. Back in the day, there used to be doormen that would stand outside of a hotel or other building's door and open it for incoming patrons. Nowadays, we use technology and have these automatic doors that have sense when people are near it and then open by themselves, eliminating a need for human interaction with this specific action that happens so very often in our lives. One more example is an elevator operator, who you would find within the elevator that would control the floors you go to. Nowadays, elevators are completely controlled by technology, and you push a button for the floor you would like to go to. With the social construction of technology, many people view objects or symbols differently than they once would years ago. With the # function that is so commonly used on Twitter, the original meaning of that symbol has quickly faded away. Before Twitter, the # symbol was referred to as a "number sign"or a "pound sign" when using it on the telephone. Nowadays, whenever someone sees the # symbol, more often than not they will refer to it as the "hashtag," which is Twitter's name for it.
There are many examples like the one above that prove how much technology impacts the way we behave or think about something. One way I think that technology impacts behavior is the fact that it makes us significantly less social in the real world. Now that there are so many different forms of communicating with technology, either by phone calls, text messages, or social networking, there is less human interaction in the real world. "Why communicate face to face when we can communicate instantly from behind our computer screens, without even having to go anywhere?" is probably a sad truth thought of by many individuals. Even when you do spend time with your friends, think about how much time everyone spends looking at their phones throughout the time spent together. The more technology grows, the less social we become in reality. The only way around that is to simply put down the technology and spend time with the people you know and love. Here is a great video about cell phones and social behavior:
Another way technology impacts behavior is the way we view things. Just like the # - Hashtag debacle, there are many other symbols which we interpret in a different way than we once did thanks to technology. Again, because of Twitter (and now Facebook, YouTube, and a few other sites), the @ symbol's meaning has drastically changed. Sure, we still use it for email purposes. An email address wouldn't be an email address without the "@" symbol before the domain website the email was sending from. But now many people view it as a way to "tag" people in an online post. It's pretty crazy how much our behavior can be impacted by technology, and it certainly makes me curious as to how much it will change our lives in the future as technology grows.
There are many examples like the one above that prove how much technology impacts the way we behave or think about something. One way I think that technology impacts behavior is the fact that it makes us significantly less social in the real world. Now that there are so many different forms of communicating with technology, either by phone calls, text messages, or social networking, there is less human interaction in the real world. "Why communicate face to face when we can communicate instantly from behind our computer screens, without even having to go anywhere?" is probably a sad truth thought of by many individuals. Even when you do spend time with your friends, think about how much time everyone spends looking at their phones throughout the time spent together. The more technology grows, the less social we become in reality. The only way around that is to simply put down the technology and spend time with the people you know and love. Here is a great video about cell phones and social behavior:
Another way technology impacts behavior is the way we view things. Just like the # - Hashtag debacle, there are many other symbols which we interpret in a different way than we once did thanks to technology. Again, because of Twitter (and now Facebook, YouTube, and a few other sites), the @ symbol's meaning has drastically changed. Sure, we still use it for email purposes. An email address wouldn't be an email address without the "@" symbol before the domain website the email was sending from. But now many people view it as a way to "tag" people in an online post. It's pretty crazy how much our behavior can be impacted by technology, and it certainly makes me curious as to how much it will change our lives in the future as technology grows.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Recommender Systems
I was really interested in this week's readings on recommender systems and how they can affect users' opinions on specific products that a service has to offer. When using applications such as Netflix or Pandora, they will recommend movies, TV shows, or music that you may like based on your previous selections. These suggestions don't force you to choose them, they are simply suggestions, but they can help open a user's eyes to new content they have never heard of before. These recommender systems are formulated by specific algorithms in order to determine what each specific user may like. If I like watching comedy movies on Netflix, then the "suggested" section of my Netflix account will mostly be filled with other Comedy movies that I haven't yet watched on Netflix. Pandora's entire experience is based on recommendations and suggestions. When you choose an artist, or a band, or a specific song that you like, it creates a whole personalized radio station around that one choice and gives you a playlist of other songs related to that one.
These recommender systems aren't perfect. Maybe you don't like some of the suggestions that they give you. This is where Pandora's "skip" button comes in handy. Maybe you share a Netflix account (because almost everybody does) and the suggested movies and television shows are programs you would never even consider watching. There are a few flaws in these algorithms, but the majority of the time these recommender systems really help, and they've definitely been the reason behind some of my favorite features to watch on Netflix.
Some questions do arise from this week's information, however. As I just previously mentioned, there are some flaws with these recommender systems. What can companies like Netflix do to improve their "recommended for you" section of their application when dealing with shared accounts? Can Pandora recognize the songs you skip and go even further to make sure songs by that particular artist don't show up again on your playlist? How influential are the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" buttons on Pandora? Do many users take advantage of the recommender systems offered by these companies, or are they something people simply ignore? Do ratings by other users really affect how many others interact with that specific product? These are just some of the questions that I thought of while reading through the recommender systems article for this week.
-Frank Hines
These recommender systems aren't perfect. Maybe you don't like some of the suggestions that they give you. This is where Pandora's "skip" button comes in handy. Maybe you share a Netflix account (because almost everybody does) and the suggested movies and television shows are programs you would never even consider watching. There are a few flaws in these algorithms, but the majority of the time these recommender systems really help, and they've definitely been the reason behind some of my favorite features to watch on Netflix.
Some questions do arise from this week's information, however. As I just previously mentioned, there are some flaws with these recommender systems. What can companies like Netflix do to improve their "recommended for you" section of their application when dealing with shared accounts? Can Pandora recognize the songs you skip and go even further to make sure songs by that particular artist don't show up again on your playlist? How influential are the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" buttons on Pandora? Do many users take advantage of the recommender systems offered by these companies, or are they something people simply ignore? Do ratings by other users really affect how many others interact with that specific product? These are just some of the questions that I thought of while reading through the recommender systems article for this week.
-Frank Hines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)