Is "The Machine" using us?

The video, "Web 2.0... The Machine is Us/ing Us" created by Michael Wesh went into detail about how the web went farther than anybody ever thought it would go- size wise. HTML was originally the simple format for most webpages, but now it has expanded and more elements are being added. This changed the format of web pages, and made using them easier than ever. It's surprising to think that the web wasn't necessarily designed to expand this much, just because we're all using it so much. I agree with just about everything that Wesh said in his video because the main idea is the changing of web from 1.0 to 2.0.


I think Wesh created this video to inform people about how HTML really changed the internet by separating form from content. Millions of internet users depend on internet 2.0 every day, so it's important to know how HTML webpages evolved so much. Later in the video Wesh typed "We are the web". This statement is very true, because the internet is something that defines a lot of us. The internet is such an important tool.

Should "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Stay or Go?

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy established in 1993, has been controversial to some people. The article “Obama seeks stay on don’t ask, don’t tell ruling” by Charlie Savage, tells about how Obama wants the military policy to remain the same, after. Clifford L. Stanley of the department of defense argued that we should not restructure a major policy that has been in effect for years. Some people think that the policy is unconstitutional, but I think it is the right policy.

I think that it’s fine for people to be open with their sexuality. Anybody should be able to express their sexuality and feelings, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t ever encounter judgments. I think that it’s a good idea to keep the policy, just because it has a big effect on what people will interpret that person to be. Some may think that people in the military shouldn’t have to keep it personal if they don’t want to, but think about it- will homosexuals be able to sleep at night feeling safe from judgments?- Maybe not.

Obama said “anybody should be able to serve, and they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve”. The policy however doesn’t involve lying about sexuality, but not knowing about their sexuality. It has no need to be abolished, and it helps protect our soldiers from judgments. Sexual orientation shouldn’t define us as a good or bad person, but sometimes knowing somebody’s sexuality just isn’t necessary.

Kentucky License Plate Causes Trouble

The Article, “Kentucky Group Sues Over Nixed ‘in God We Trust’ License Plate” by Diane Macedo brings up the topic of what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to freedom of belief, and burden of seeing something you might not like. An organization (ROCK) applied for a specialty “In God We Trust” license plate. There are certain things that however, can be considered very offensive, but something like “in God We Trust”- something that’s printed on all currency- shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

                This seems like a very small topic, but I think that banning a national motto from being printed on a license plate is a little bit too far. Farther into the article Chuck Wolfe says,“It just wasn't clear how the national motto -- somebody just seeing that on a license plate-- would be able to tell from that that this is an organization with the stated mission of being opposed to pornography and the sex industry.” It really makes me wonder why such a small organization for a good cause can have such bad impression on certain people.

                Would you rather have a license plate supporting pornography, or one supporting a religious belief, that happens to be a national motto? I’m not trying to be bias in any way, but if people have religious beliefs, it is their right to support it in any way they can, even though some people might now agree with them. There is nothing morally wrong with a simple motto, so why should people care so much?

                What we see everyday influences us and effects us in some way. We see advertisements for alcohol and makeup everyday on the television, so why should something like “In God We Trust” be any different? Overall, I think that people shouldn’t worry about a harmless license plate, when they could be supporting their own beliefs and ideas. 

Our Online Footprint

                The article “Footprints in the Digital Age” by Will Richardson clearly describes how our impressions are given off on the Google, not necessarily good or bad. In the first paragraph, he describes about his worry of his daughter not being recognized positively when searched on the internet. He says, “That quick surf through the top five hits will fail to astound with examples of her creativity, collaboration skills, and change-the-world work.” This was interesting me, because it seems that people should also be recognized for doing something incredible, and not just for a negative post about something that they might truly regret.

                For the most part, I agree with Richardson when he talks about students learning the internet without the help of teachers. He said that we are creating, publishing, and learning on our own. It’s weird to think about, but the internet is such an important tool for people, that kids these days are teaching themselves how to use Web 2.0. Another point that Richardson makes is that we are not being taught by educators how to use the web correctly for creation, navigation, and networks of learning. I do agree that the web can be used for much more than just Facebook and Youtube, because it is also an incredible learning tool, like Richardson said.

                The next major point Richardson makes is how the internet connects people. He refers to a guy that met another person who shared their common interest of mountain- unicycling. It’s strange to think that the internet can connect people in this way, but it can also do more than connect people. As Richardson said, “Twenty- Five Days to Make A Difference” made people share Laura’s experience by creating organizations.

                This article made some more important points about the way the internet is viewed from a kid’s point of view, and an educator’s point of view. The learning tools the internet can provide should really be taught in schools, because web 2.0 is capable of sharing, connecting, and learning, so we should embrace that fully.

The Internet Is Taking Over

                The article “The Web Takes Over”, By David H. Freedman from the October 2010 Discover Magazine makes a few points about how the web has transformed hundreds of millions of people. This may seem like old news; the internet being “big” and all, but the truth is that the internet is huge, and this article actually makes points about why it’s taking over, and how it’s improved our lives. I thought these points were interesting.

In the first few sentences, it talks about how the internet is making us healthier with the quick health information at our fingertips. It facilitates new gathering, people are able to know what’s going on in the world. It is an economic turbocharger, it enables anyone to start a business while just sitting in your living room. it is revitalizing politics, and it’s connecting us. I think that this is mostly true. Without the help of the web, our lives would be completely different. We wouldn’t be able to find information as fast as we can on any given day.

However, not all of this article was positive. It talked about how the web “poisons politics” and “alienates us”, meaning that lots of people get addicted to the web, causing obesity. It is important not to let the internet poison us, but help us, and do nothing more than that. It is a helpful tool for millions of people, but it is also a problem for millions of people.

Is the Internet Ruining our Brains?

          The article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr described about Carr’s experience of the internet making him less patient with obtaining knowledge. I found myself relating to this article quite a bit. Even reading the article I skimmed through it just to find the important things in it, as Carr described in this article.  He talked about how we rely on Google to find things that could take hours to find just searching through books in the library.

Another point he made was how the internet (Google) gradually made it harder to immerse himself in a book or article, because of how quickly you can find information or media. After reading through this, I realized that I can partially relate to what Carr was saying. I often find myself drifting off during a slower paced part of a book, and I cannot focus as well. I think that only trying to find main points in articles is okay, but a lot of information from the article might not have been read.

Carr also said that we do read a lot- with our text messages, emails, Facebook profiles, etc.., but it doesn’t help us in any way. Why aren’t we just able to read 10 pages of a book and not get distracted for at least a few seconds?  Why does it seem so impossible to find information in a book compared to the internet? What would the millions of people that rely on Google every day do if it was just taken away?

Finding information on Google however, does help with our learning quite a bit, but when we are required to read a few pages in our history textbook, or a novel, what do we do? We find it to be overwhelming so we won’t read as well as we would if Google didn’t exist. It tends to be much harder to find all the information in a book.

We all use it, we all make Google searches. I don’t think that Google is making us dumb at all. Google is just making us learn differently by obtaining information quickly instead of handling the duration of a whole 20 pages, but disabling us in a way that makes reading longer articles harder. I agree with Carr’s analogy, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet- Ski”, but I do not think it’s making us stupid. We’re not dumb, just handicapped.

New Schools in South Africa Serve the "Underserved"

The New York Times article, " New Schools in South Africa serve the Underserved" tells about how in South Africa, education for richer mostly white schools was sponsored for years, but fees became a problem for people with less money. South Africa is just now starting to serve blacks with quality private schools. This could be a  very important step for schooling in South Africa. Just imagine if the whole entire world was able to take a small step like this, it could greatly educate and inform people about our worlds problems. This might sound like an overstatement, but if other poor impoverished countries just took steps to have a decent education, it could greatly effect the future. Right now, there are only 500 students in these schools, but I hope to see this idea spark into a whole reform of schooling in South Africa for black or poorer families.