Open Sky Pt. II

          Part II of Paul Virilio's Open Sky was not much easier to read than the first part. That is my disclaimer in case anything I say here is completely wrong.
          Virilio starts off mentioning that "the human body will become the training ground for micromachines that will travel through it in all directions" (49). This specifically reminded me of two things: I, Robot, and Robo Bees. I, Robot is a movie about everyone owning and being helped by robots. One man, played by Will Smith, believes that the robots are going to turn agains the humans, but no one else does. So, naturally, they do and Will Smith saves the day. Virilio reminded me of this because the dependance of humans on technology is unbelievable today. For example, I de-activated my Facebook profile over the weekend. As a result of this, I lost many of my contacts on my phone, my Spotify account wouldn't work, my twitter was a mess, and so much more. We are so connected to the internet and mass media, that our generation has been the "training ground" for social media to work with.
          In my sustainability class, we watched a video on robotic bees. These were a result of the actual bee population declining due to a variety of factors. These robo-bees would produce honey like normal bees. This would be an example of how we truly would depend on robots for our products and lives. They would produce something that would no longer be available to us through natural means. These literally are "micromachines". Are there any other things that you know of that would fit this "micromachine" criteria?

          Later on, Virilio claims that "the world has shrunk, shrunk unbelievably; we no longer travel, we get around" (62). This also heavily relates to social media in my opinion as well as Skype, Facetime, and so many other devices and programs. To see a certain place or monument, all we have to do is Google it and BAM, there it is. Why would we spend all that extra money to go somewhere when we can just look at it on the internet?

To Blog or Not to Blog?

          While reading chapter 4 of Brian Carroll's Writing for Digital Media, I thought that it was really cool that I actually hyperlinked my sources in my first blog post. He talks about how important it is and how adding hyperlinks to primary sources gives someone's site more credibility. I actually only hyperlinked them after seeing that someone else had done the same. Realizing that it could be done, I played with my settings on Blogger and found out how to do this!

          Another thing that I thought was pretty coincidental is that Carroll referenced Jeff Jarvis in chapter 4 while talking about his golden rule of hyperlinking: "Link unto others' good stuff as you would have them link unto your good stuff", and that I had embedded a video of Jarvis speaking about the decline of newspapers in my previous post! I think I am definitely on the right track with this whole blogging thing, according to Carroll at least.

          Later on in the chapter, Carroll compares websites and what he thinks are good headlines as well as general layout of the site. I thought this was specifically interesting and relatable since Furman University (aka the school I attend) has just redone their website. It is incredibly more visual and aesthetically pleasing compared to the past site. My friends and I used to joke that to get anywhere within the Furman site, it would be easier to just google it rather than search using the site. With the new design, the website seems to be much easier to navigate as well as keep the attention of any user that is on it. Should websites cater to this new era or stay with their roots? Why or why not? What are the benefits of each side?

          Later on, in chapter 7, Carroll discusses the evolution of the blog and the advantages that it has. Specifically, he discusses the debate between journalists and bloggers. Are bloggers journalists or vice versa? He uses the analogy "is anyone with a camera a photographer?" (146). I own a camera and do take pictures. I consider myself a photographer. I may not be the best, or even an amateur, but I am a photographer. I believe the same to be of bloggers. Journalism, to me at least, is a level of blogging that some people aspire to be. They are journalists in the big world, who work for newspapers and big companies, but they all had to start somewhere. I think that journalists are people who are employed, while bloggers can earn money too, they are just self-employed if they devote that much time to it. Why should bloggers be considered journalists or vice versa? Should there be a standard?

Decline of the Newspaper?

          According to Brian Carroll, author of Writing for Digital Media, there is a "long-term decline in newspaper readership" (25). While this may be true for the majority of the world, my father proves them wrong. He saves up newspapers when he does not have time to read them, sets aside a Sunday, and thoroughly reads all of them all day. He picks out articles that he thinks apply to the various members of our family, cuts them out, and gives them to us when we pass by. I personally like the ability to hold the physical paper in my hand. I'm the same way when it comes to books. I've read a few books on my iPad, but its not the same as physically flipping the page and seeing your progress. Another example would be CDs. Most people seem to like downloading music or videos digitally, but I really like to have the album in my hand and the ability to play it in my car. Jeff Jarvis, an American journalist, professor, public speaker, and former television critic speaks in the video to the left about how newspapers are declining.

          Contrary to my past statements, I do agree with Carroll on his point that "the medium can deliver more" (25). I thoroughly believe that the Internet and digital media can deliver a much larger amount to an even larger amount of people. Products that are in print have to be individually purchased after a trip to a store, while digital media can we watched from the comfort of home with much less effort. Do you think that the internet and digital media are superior to print? Why? In what ways?

          Carroll later talks about HTML formatting and for me, it was like reading another language. I'm loving Blogger because I know how to manage it. If I had to put together a blog based completely on my ability to process computer coding, you would not be reading this right now. 

          In chapter 3 of his book, Carrol speaks mostly about how to improve a blogger's style and technique online. I found his case study on Google to be very interesting. Carroll points out that Google has kept its simplicity throughout the years and it made me think about whether or not there was a limit on simplicity. Yes, Google is simple, but they also change it up every once in a while. They change the design of the Google picture on their page to match up with a holiday or special occasion. I think that this is a good thing, but some websites or even blogs can reach a level of being too simple. When that happens, users are confused because they have no idea how to navigate the site without options of where to go. Where do you think the limit would be on the complexity of a site? Should there be hard rules, like a word limit? Should people be allowed to do what they want with their own sites? Google is a special exception in my opinion that has been able to stick to its simple roots.

Google is hereby NOT making me stupid.....Hopefully?

(http://sendible.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Image-1.jpg)

          When I finished reading Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr, I found myself relating to what Carr had to say. He claims that his reading skills are diminishing due to Google and the way that the internet want us to think. I used to read quite a lot at a young age, and like Carr, find it relatively difficult to immerse myself in a good book compared to the past. The way our minds work has changed based on the way information is presented to us. We are conditioned to have many things open at once, "television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets". I have noticed this in my Cosmo magazines (insert judgement here). They have a page at the beginning that gives the reader the low-down on the magazine if they do not have the time to read the whole thing.

          Carr later discusses how the invention of the clock changed our lives forever. No longer did we do what we want when we wanted, we had to follow societal rules based on this new machine. He compares it to the Internet. We no longer have to search through countless books in search of new information: we can now just 'Google' it, and the information is at our fingertips. Although many people focus on the negatives of having a greater amount of technology in our possession, many people do not recognize the advantages that it gives us. Do you think that the advancement of the internet is a positive thing or a negative? Are people too dependent on the internet and technology in their lives?

          Similar to Carr, Electracy by Gregory Ulmer starts off discussing how "we are to the internet what students of Plato and Aristotle were to the Academy and Lyceum". He then goes into how the Internet has sparked many inventions of its own. I noticed that he looks at the more positive aspects of the internet and advancement relative to Carr's criticisms. Although I did have a harder time interpreting Ulmer's work, I think that people should compare the negative and positive aspects of the internet. I know that I waste too much time on Pinterest and Twitter but it also helps me with research papers, and my lifestyle (vegan). I would not know as much as I would without the internet, so the question is, is the internet ideally a positive thing or negative? Is it used solely for the purpose of money-making or scholarly expeditions?