Aside from the Homecoming Court, only one group was racially mixed, and they were recognizable mainly for their “artistic” attire—unnaturally col-orful hair, piercings, and black clothing that I recognized from the racks of Hot Topic, a popular mall-based chain store that caters to goths, punks, and other subcultural groups.
Could the internet and new technology possibly help to integrate some of these groups? It is also definitely possible the internet helps stay separate and NOT integrate.
they spent the bulk of the time facing one another, chatting, enjoying a rare chance to spend unstructured time together as friends and peers.
I have a feeling this might have been an odd one time thing. Usually, at least from my experience, when students have any type of free time they will be doing something on their phones. It is funny to see a group of people all siting with each other but none of them are talking to each other. They are all texting, on twitter, etc.
“You’d actually be surprised how little things change. I’m guessing a lot of the drama is still the same, it’s just the format is a little differ-ent. It’s just changing the font and changing the background color really.” He made references to technology to remind me that technol-ogy wasn’t changing anything important.
Very interesting that he uses references to technology. Could be possible that sings have actually changed so much things so much but it's kind of came full circle? Or did just the means of socializing change rather than socializing change?
professionally produced
Most credible sources on the internet are still "professionally produced."
the effect wasn't catastrophic
There can be problems with "dumbing" things down. If you continue to dumb things down so that everyone can understand it eventually you will make things so simple that there is no critical thinking involved. You need to find a balance between making information accessible to all to a certain extent and allowing for there to be analytical thinking and criticism on the subject.
"TV on paper" and held it up as further evidence of the dumbing down of American culture
Is dumbing down something really a bad thing? Simplifying something can be extremely beneficial. When you simplify something you allow more people to understand it and you make it accessible to even more people. The more people that understand a problem the better chance of solving this problem.
Despite its lack of longevity
Does this lack of longevity really mean anything? It seems like the movement made huge strides. Didn't they accomplish their goals to a certain extent?
To understand how internet memes function in social change in lower-freedom contexts like China, it is necessary to understand how memes and civic expression have intersected historically
Would it be possible for governments to use memes to combat social and political movements? Can the government "regulate" memes if they cause a clear and present danger? Would the world be safer or more dangerous if the government started regulating memes?
The rise of online symbolic action – clicking on ‘Like’ or tweeting about a political subject – though long derided as ‘slacktivism,’ may well turn out to be one of the more potent impacts from digital tools in the long run, as widespread use of such semi-public symbolic micro-actions can slowly reshape how people make sense of their values and their politics
Overall I think this is a good thing. However there can be negative consequences. Many times we are amused and entertained by memes for their humor, artwork, etc but not always the message behind them. When using memes for political or social movements we need to make sure that the message behind the meme is something we agree with and not just the overall appeal of the meme.
The rise of online symbolic action – clicking on ‘Like’ or tweeting about a political subject – though long derided as ‘slacktivism,’ may well turn out to be one of the more potent impacts from digital tools in the long run, as widespread use of such semi-public symbolic micro-actions can slowly reshape how people make sense of their values and their politics.
Overall I think this is a good thing. However there can be negative consequences. Many times we are amused and entertained by memes for their humor, artwork, etc but not always the message behind them. When using memes for political or social movements we need to make sure that the message behind the meme is something we agree with and not just the overall appeal of the meme.
Some of my colleagues have suggested to me that this account of the survival value of the god meme begs the question. In the last analysis they wish always to go back to `biological advantage'. To them it is not good enough to say that the idea of a god has `great psychological appeal'. They want to know why it has great psychological appeal. Psychological appeal means appeal to brains, and brains are shaped by natural selection of genes in gene-pools. They want to find some way in which having a brain like that improves gene survival.
I would disagree that the concept of "God" is of great phsychological appeal. When we talk about the concept of "God" we are more or less talking about the concept of religion. Sure there are certain aspects of religion that are of great phsychological appeal such as the community aspect, everlasting life, etc but most aspects of religion do not have great phsychological appeal such as self restraint, service, selflessness, etc.
Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence. Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation. The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
This is simply not always true. Faith and reason can go hand in hand. A lot of times they help inform each other. Many times reason helps strengthen faith and faith helps strengthen reason.
As already noted, the reliance on a biological metaphor to explain the way communication takes place — through practices of ‘infection’ — represents the first dificulty with the notion of viral media. The attraction of the infection metaphor is two-fold:
It seems silly that we have to make a metaphor for everything. Why must we label it? Why can't it just be what it is without us having to make up metaphors and names for it.
This issue really does just boil down to a lack of diversity. It's sounds pretty simple to say all we need to do to fix this is force diversity. That's a lot easier said than done tough.
I love google but this definitely makes me wonder if they have too much power? They are having a huge impact on the world by deciding what we see and what we don't.
I always thought websites like Facebook and Google were the good guys who were showing us all the information in the world. Part of the appeal of the internet is there's no one filtering what we can and can't see. This is why I am kind of shocked by this. The talk really interesting and eye opening.
Evan wasn't in it for the money, though. He was in it to satisfy his sense of justice. Because his commitment to the task at hand was emotional rather than financial, and because he was well-off enough, he was able to invest considerably more in the recovery effort than the phone was actually worth.
I think it's great that he was in it for the justice but I think his emotions got the best of him. If he looked at the situation from a calm and rational perspective he would have probably felt a little more empathy for Sasha.
Consider the story from Sasha's point of view. She's a teenager in a media-saturated culture, she's given a very expensive, very cool phone that someone found in the back of a cab, and she decides to keep it rather than try to track down the owner. This isnt the most ethical behavior in the world, but neither is it premeditated theft, and in any case, what could go wrong?
This is a great point. One could probably argue that this incident caused more harm then good. It must have been somewhat traumatizing for Sasha to have so many people rallying against her at such a young age. We have all probably done stupid things at her age but most of us haven't had a microscope put on them like she did. Also Evan's wife new phone still had her old information.
The story clearly struck a nerve. Evan was getting ten e-mails a minute from people asking about the phone, offering encouragement, or volunteering to help.
This is a perfect example of "the mob." People got together via the internet and they decided what was right and wrong. They made up their mind and there was no turning back. They work almost like a judge in a court.
So what does that tell me? I've got to go back now to my three sources and look at what they told me: the one who said the bridge didn't exist, the one who said the bridge wasn't in Hama, and the one guy who said, "Yes, the bridge does exist, but I'm not sure about the water levels."
This would definitely be an example of a "negative effect." Stories can be fabricated and lied about through word of mouth. I would argue that it's just a human problem rather than blaming it on new technology and connection.
But here's the thing. Algorithms are rules. They're binary. They're yes or no, they're black or white. Truth is never binary. Truth is a value. Truth is emotional, it's fluid, and above all, it's human. No matter how quick we get with computers, no matter how much information we have, you'll never be able to remove the human from the truth-seeking exercise, because in the end, it is a uniquely human trait. Thanks very much. (Applause)
Exactly. Computers and new technology aren't changing our perception of truth. Truth is a human trait, computers and new technology is just another platform in which we seek the "truth."
So 60 seconds was how long it took for the physical earthquake to travel. Thirty seconds later news of that earthquake had traveled all around the world, instantly. Everyone in the world, hypothetically, had the potential to know that an earthquake was happening in Managua.
This is unreal. It shows how connected we are today. This is clearly a positive effect of our global connection. I'd be interested in seeing a negative effect from getting information so quick.
"This is, for me, the biggest change — not a switch in rules, but a switch in how I see my role. Professors are at least as bad at estimating how interesting we are as the students are at estimating their ability to focus. Against oppositional models of teaching and learning, both negative—Concentrate, or lose out!—and positive—Let me attract your attention!—I’m coming to see student focus as a collaborative process. It’s me and them working to create a classroom where the students who want to focus have the best shot at it, in a world increasingly hostile to that goal."
I would definitely agree that maybe the main problem here is are the professors captiviating your attention? Maybe the professors can BE the distraction.
I would disagree with this statement. I don't think this is always the case. Sure sometimes multitasking can take away from the task at hand but I don't think it degrades overall efficiency.
This isn't a bad argument but people have to remember distractions aren't always a bad thing. Alot of times they can be a good thing. Some great ideas are born from "distraction." Often times we are distracted by the things that are really important to us. Another thing to consider is sometimes you need to frequently take breaks from a task in order to be totally focused while you are doing the task.