http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980920727621353.html
Author Steven Johnson outlines a future with more books, more distractions -- and the end of reading alone
With Amazon.com's introduction of the Kindle, the history of books is taking a major, noteworthy turn. This is a really great and interesting article that I think you should read. The writer discusses some of the pros and cons of having devices like the Kindle.
With all the technology at our fingertips it is easy for a person to do reasearch for a paper without ever going to a library or even touching a physical book. Between online journals, newspapers, magazines, etc there has been a short instance of neglect of books. However, now with this Kindle books being accessible through this technology are once again available throught a few searches and clicks. It is really changing this the history of the book itself. You no longer will have to scan library shelves and collect all the books on a certain topic, page through those books to see if they even have noteworthy information, etc.
Not only this, but the article mentions how it may increase the impulse buy and how this can be a great tool to increase book sales. Knowing you are in the mood for a certain book, or hearing someone you know mention a good book they just read, now all you have to do is search the name and buy and you have it right there. "It is like the bookstore follows you wherever you go." Furthermore, now it will be even easier for people to publicly talks about books. The author of this article mentions it can turn into a never ending, large Google book-club. And it is true, now you can just blog about what you are raeding at that very moment and discuss what you like and dislike with others.
I mean, personally I do not know if I would be a fan of this. I like to actually flip through pages and, if doing research, have the ability to highlight important points, etc. Another con that the article mentioned was the notion of reading a book and being immersed in another world almost and how that may diminish with the likes of a product such as the Kindle. He did not go into to much detail here, but it is interesting to think about. Also, now you can "put down" a book one second and "pick up" another book the next second. It is almost as if you are carrying your personal library around with you. So it is easier to bounce between books and not so much be involved with one particular book, which is where I think he was trying to maybe go with that point.
Overall, it is definitely an interesting turn in history for the book and am curious to see how much this is picked up by people. Like I said I don't know if I would like it, but I could see how many people would. Do you think this really is going to hae a huge impact in the future for the book industry or what do you think will come of this?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Is It Brad or Is It Fake?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980973974821393.html
Breakthroughs in computer-generated characters open up all sorts of artistic possibilities. Just don't tell that to the actors.
This was a pretty neat article to come across in today's WSJ. The article discusses the progression of improvements made to computer generated characters for movies. Most recently, the most notable success of this is Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button. For most of the movie there is a computer generated version of the elderly Brad, not Brad himself. The article goes on to discuss some of the difficulties cg characters have come to face like the believability of these characters.
The eyes and mouth seem to be an area of difficulty as it is hard to exact the way skin moves in these areas, the lighting in the background being accurate for these characters, etc. This is just another example the incredible process technology has made in today's world. There is even mention of the possibility among perfecting this talent in diminishing the need for actual actors. I think that is a pretty crazy concept. Today, they mention that they use actors as a base for their computer generated characters to capture the accuracy, but what about in five or ten years?? Technology has really grown and this is definitely fascinating and good, but aren't there downsides to all of this?
Technologies progress, I feel, has really been threatening to some of the jobs in the world. You have factories developing special machines to do the work that took 20 people to complete. Or in grocery stores you see, increasingly, self-checkout counters. Now there is this future possibility of cg characters getting rid of the need for actual actors and actresses. I mean I guess what I said sounds a little extreme, but it is definitly not so farfetched that it isn't something we should think about. How much can computers and growing technology take over? Are they really a huge threat to some people's jobs. Sure they can be more efficient and cost-effective, but is that really worth putting people at risk of not really being needed?? I don't know..I obviously grew this into something a little larger than it is, but I think it is an interesting thing to think about and discuess and I am curious how other people feel about it.
In an earlier blog that I posted towards the beginning of this assignment, there was a YouTube video that I thought was really interesting and pertained to this very topic. It is interesting, but also a little scary to really think about. I will post the link again in case you did not see it the first time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8
Breakthroughs in computer-generated characters open up all sorts of artistic possibilities. Just don't tell that to the actors.
This was a pretty neat article to come across in today's WSJ. The article discusses the progression of improvements made to computer generated characters for movies. Most recently, the most notable success of this is Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button. For most of the movie there is a computer generated version of the elderly Brad, not Brad himself. The article goes on to discuss some of the difficulties cg characters have come to face like the believability of these characters.
The eyes and mouth seem to be an area of difficulty as it is hard to exact the way skin moves in these areas, the lighting in the background being accurate for these characters, etc. This is just another example the incredible process technology has made in today's world. There is even mention of the possibility among perfecting this talent in diminishing the need for actual actors. I think that is a pretty crazy concept. Today, they mention that they use actors as a base for their computer generated characters to capture the accuracy, but what about in five or ten years?? Technology has really grown and this is definitely fascinating and good, but aren't there downsides to all of this?
Technologies progress, I feel, has really been threatening to some of the jobs in the world. You have factories developing special machines to do the work that took 20 people to complete. Or in grocery stores you see, increasingly, self-checkout counters. Now there is this future possibility of cg characters getting rid of the need for actual actors and actresses. I mean I guess what I said sounds a little extreme, but it is definitly not so farfetched that it isn't something we should think about. How much can computers and growing technology take over? Are they really a huge threat to some people's jobs. Sure they can be more efficient and cost-effective, but is that really worth putting people at risk of not really being needed?? I don't know..I obviously grew this into something a little larger than it is, but I think it is an interesting thing to think about and discuess and I am curious how other people feel about it.
In an earlier blog that I posted towards the beginning of this assignment, there was a YouTube video that I thought was really interesting and pertained to this very topic. It is interesting, but also a little scary to really think about. I will post the link again in case you did not see it the first time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8
Lean Times Bring Workouts Home
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123984558896723563.html
There have been several blogs within The Blogaroos that discuss the effects of the recession that the economy has been facing. A couple blogs discussed making sports gambling and weed legal in the country. I have another interesting article that relates to this area, but on a more individual level than a nation-wide one. When reading the WSJ last week, there was an article talking about people no longer going to gyms for exercise and are starting home workouts.
The article notes how some people are either doing workouts from Exercise TV or getting them from ondemand on their Netflix subscriptions. Also, sales of personal workout dvds and mats etc have seen an increase, where high-end gym memberships have been either flat or seeing a decrease.
I thought this was a good article because I think it is interesting to see how people change their everyday activities when facing economic downturns. Some people stop buying their cup of coffee before work and start brewing at home, some carpool to work or take the bus rather than fill up on their own cars, and now, some workout and exercise at home rather than pay a gym membership fee every month. People really begin to realize what the need and what they don't need, or at least how to use their resources to more efficiently enjoy the things they are used to. So my question is, do you think that once the economy gets back on its feet that people are just going to be jumping back into these daily luxuries? I feel like once you realize the money you can be saving and essentially getting the same outcomes like cups of coffee or at home workouts, do people just go back or do they realize their savings and keep it up?
Obviously there are more conveniences with these luxuries, but I do not know if I necessarily think they outweigh the cost benefits that you save. Once again, I just thought that this was an interesting side-effect to the recession the economy is facing and wanted to see what other thought...
There have been several blogs within The Blogaroos that discuss the effects of the recession that the economy has been facing. A couple blogs discussed making sports gambling and weed legal in the country. I have another interesting article that relates to this area, but on a more individual level than a nation-wide one. When reading the WSJ last week, there was an article talking about people no longer going to gyms for exercise and are starting home workouts.
The article notes how some people are either doing workouts from Exercise TV or getting them from ondemand on their Netflix subscriptions. Also, sales of personal workout dvds and mats etc have seen an increase, where high-end gym memberships have been either flat or seeing a decrease.
I thought this was a good article because I think it is interesting to see how people change their everyday activities when facing economic downturns. Some people stop buying their cup of coffee before work and start brewing at home, some carpool to work or take the bus rather than fill up on their own cars, and now, some workout and exercise at home rather than pay a gym membership fee every month. People really begin to realize what the need and what they don't need, or at least how to use their resources to more efficiently enjoy the things they are used to. So my question is, do you think that once the economy gets back on its feet that people are just going to be jumping back into these daily luxuries? I feel like once you realize the money you can be saving and essentially getting the same outcomes like cups of coffee or at home workouts, do people just go back or do they realize their savings and keep it up?
Obviously there are more conveniences with these luxuries, but I do not know if I necessarily think they outweigh the cost benefits that you save. Once again, I just thought that this was an interesting side-effect to the recession the economy is facing and wanted to see what other thought...
Friday, April 10, 2009
Big Rapper on Campus
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932118390206983.html#mod=todays_us_nonsub_weekendjournal
Asher Roth courts fans with a suburban spin on hip-hop
More and more Asher Roth has been entering the musical spotlight with his hit single "I Love College." Funny enough, my friends and I have actually been listening to this song for months now and think it is so funny, but true at the same time. I feel like a good portion of people in college can relate to his song which is why it has become so popular in the recent past.
This article, I thought was interesting, because the highlight of Asher Roth is that he is a white rapper, comparable to Eminem. There have been very few succesful, noteworthy white rappers in an area of music that is predominantly African American. Not only this, but many rappers rap about the hard times they have lived through and overcame and it is an outlet for them to express their feelings and ask questions. Asher Roth is from an opposite end of the specturm: "Mr. Roth is challenging that cultural barrier -- in part by joking about it with rhymes about his suburban roots and supportive nuclear family." Does this hurt him in the hip-hop industry? I am curious to see his success.
This is an interesting area in music as a medium for me. Here we are as a people trying to completely dimolish stereotypes of people and equalize America whether dependent on race or gender. For some reason, however, the hip-hop industry has been hard to overcome and break-away from the African-American hold that it has. With few successes such as the Beastie Boys and Eminem there has been little success otherwise. Why is it so hard I am wondering? Is it really because certain people do not fit the mold of rappers that has been created over the past few decades, or is it simply that there is just simply no talent?
I have not heard many of his songs besides his hit single, which I think is funny and good. But I can see him being another short-lived artist and am curious to see him try and overcome the pressures that have already been applied to him. I am curious to know what others think about this topic and Asher Roth the artist.
Asher Roth courts fans with a suburban spin on hip-hop
More and more Asher Roth has been entering the musical spotlight with his hit single "I Love College." Funny enough, my friends and I have actually been listening to this song for months now and think it is so funny, but true at the same time. I feel like a good portion of people in college can relate to his song which is why it has become so popular in the recent past.
This article, I thought was interesting, because the highlight of Asher Roth is that he is a white rapper, comparable to Eminem. There have been very few succesful, noteworthy white rappers in an area of music that is predominantly African American. Not only this, but many rappers rap about the hard times they have lived through and overcame and it is an outlet for them to express their feelings and ask questions. Asher Roth is from an opposite end of the specturm: "Mr. Roth is challenging that cultural barrier -- in part by joking about it with rhymes about his suburban roots and supportive nuclear family." Does this hurt him in the hip-hop industry? I am curious to see his success.
This is an interesting area in music as a medium for me. Here we are as a people trying to completely dimolish stereotypes of people and equalize America whether dependent on race or gender. For some reason, however, the hip-hop industry has been hard to overcome and break-away from the African-American hold that it has. With few successes such as the Beastie Boys and Eminem there has been little success otherwise. Why is it so hard I am wondering? Is it really because certain people do not fit the mold of rappers that has been created over the past few decades, or is it simply that there is just simply no talent?
I have not heard many of his songs besides his hit single, which I think is funny and good. But I can see him being another short-lived artist and am curious to see him try and overcome the pressures that have already been applied to him. I am curious to know what others think about this topic and Asher Roth the artist.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Lost in Ficton
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123880307592488761.html#mod=todays_us_nonsub_weekendjournal
Alexander McCall Smith on the intense personal relationships readers form with characters and the ways that complicates the lives of authors.
This is an extremely interesting article I found in the Weekend Journal of WSJ. It is from the perspective of an author of fictional novels and how his job is complicated by people who look at stories too realistically as if they were true stories.
I thought this particular article worked really well with what we have talked about in class previously, especially remembering Dr. Lule's book. For instance, he brings up an issue of reader expectations when reading a crime or mystery fiction novel and how all of these stories follow a classic pattern: "First there is peace, then this peace is shattered bty the occurrenve of a crime, usually a murder. This leads to a search for the wrongdoer, his apprehension and punishment, and finally a return to peace." The suggestion here is that as readers, people want to see the moral balance restored. "It is these traditional novels that reassures us that we live in a moral universe."
I thought this particular comparison correlated really well with some of the points Dr. Lule was trying to get across in his book and what we talked about in class. How these templated stories, whether news stories or fictitious stories, provide a balance for society.
There is a lot more being talked about in this article and I think it would be a good read for everyone to check out. I just wanted to bring up that particular point in the article. In the end, the article is just trying to point out that it is in fact, just a story and authors should have a bit more freedom with where they want to take their work. Unfortunately, readers opinions sometimes skew where they take their stories.
Alexander McCall Smith on the intense personal relationships readers form with characters and the ways that complicates the lives of authors.
This is an extremely interesting article I found in the Weekend Journal of WSJ. It is from the perspective of an author of fictional novels and how his job is complicated by people who look at stories too realistically as if they were true stories.
I thought this particular article worked really well with what we have talked about in class previously, especially remembering Dr. Lule's book. For instance, he brings up an issue of reader expectations when reading a crime or mystery fiction novel and how all of these stories follow a classic pattern: "First there is peace, then this peace is shattered bty the occurrenve of a crime, usually a murder. This leads to a search for the wrongdoer, his apprehension and punishment, and finally a return to peace." The suggestion here is that as readers, people want to see the moral balance restored. "It is these traditional novels that reassures us that we live in a moral universe."
I thought this particular comparison correlated really well with some of the points Dr. Lule was trying to get across in his book and what we talked about in class. How these templated stories, whether news stories or fictitious stories, provide a balance for society.
There is a lot more being talked about in this article and I think it would be a good read for everyone to check out. I just wanted to bring up that particular point in the article. In the end, the article is just trying to point out that it is in fact, just a story and authors should have a bit more freedom with where they want to take their work. Unfortunately, readers opinions sometimes skew where they take their stories.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Graduating With a Major in Go-Getting
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123845358462571299.html
In this past Tuesday's WSJ there was an article talking about after-graduation jobs. Unfortunately the article states that college-campus recruiters intend to hire 22% fewer graduates from this year's class than last year's class. That is a really big number and I feel like the article is really relevant for us and thought it would be interest to post and get some feedback on what the article is saying.
One of the advantages of being a graduate has over a senior professional has to do with our youth. Although newly graduated students do not have the amount of experience, they are cheaper to hire, hard working, and more flexible than senior professionals. The article also offers some tips like taking on internships even if they offer little or no pay for the experience that can set you aside from others on your resume. I thought this was an interesting suggestion and it made me think of class yesterday.
The end of class we were talking about how we feel about unadvantaged people and the opportunites they have in going up society's ladder. With that being said, I do not think it is everyone's abilitiy to take on internships that pay little or nothing at all. I know I could not do this. I have bills and rent that keep coming whether the money is there or not, just as everyone does, but absolutely no outlet of income besides my job. Unfortunately, my family can not really help me out with most of these expenses. There are the options of loans, but with already having loans out for school, I do not see how it would be smart or feasible. So are the same opprotunities and ability to take advantaage of these opportunities there for everyone?
The article further talks about students being creative and reaching out to their industry. I thought this was some good advise that would be helpful for everyone. Networking is such a help when looking for a job and the alumni at colleges can often help even more. I know Lehigh has a great alumni base so I found this to be some good advise as well.
Overall, I thought the article was good and offered some helpful points that would be relevant to us in class. However, I also thought it was interesting the link I found to class as far as whether everyone has equal opprotunity to set themselves apart from every other student as far as internships go. Either way, I wish the best of luck to everyone and pray the economy turns around in the next year!
In this past Tuesday's WSJ there was an article talking about after-graduation jobs. Unfortunately the article states that college-campus recruiters intend to hire 22% fewer graduates from this year's class than last year's class. That is a really big number and I feel like the article is really relevant for us and thought it would be interest to post and get some feedback on what the article is saying.
One of the advantages of being a graduate has over a senior professional has to do with our youth. Although newly graduated students do not have the amount of experience, they are cheaper to hire, hard working, and more flexible than senior professionals. The article also offers some tips like taking on internships even if they offer little or no pay for the experience that can set you aside from others on your resume. I thought this was an interesting suggestion and it made me think of class yesterday.
The end of class we were talking about how we feel about unadvantaged people and the opportunites they have in going up society's ladder. With that being said, I do not think it is everyone's abilitiy to take on internships that pay little or nothing at all. I know I could not do this. I have bills and rent that keep coming whether the money is there or not, just as everyone does, but absolutely no outlet of income besides my job. Unfortunately, my family can not really help me out with most of these expenses. There are the options of loans, but with already having loans out for school, I do not see how it would be smart or feasible. So are the same opprotunities and ability to take advantaage of these opportunities there for everyone?
The article further talks about students being creative and reaching out to their industry. I thought this was some good advise that would be helpful for everyone. Networking is such a help when looking for a job and the alumni at colleges can often help even more. I know Lehigh has a great alumni base so I found this to be some good advise as well.
Overall, I thought the article was good and offered some helpful points that would be relevant to us in class. However, I also thought it was interesting the link I found to class as far as whether everyone has equal opprotunity to set themselves apart from every other student as far as internships go. Either way, I wish the best of luck to everyone and pray the economy turns around in the next year!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Firms Seek Profit in Twitter's Chatter
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123793945676332341.html
I thought this article from this past Wednesday was good in relation to some conversation we have been having in class lately. I do not use Twitter, but do not what it is. Although it has become increasingly popular and is mentioned almost everywhere you turn, apparently it's ability to make profit may be minute. So what better wat to create profit than to somehow include advertising in people's "tweets?"
Basically, advertisers place bids to place their advertisements in tweets that mention specific words like iPod or NCAA. Then people who follow those people's twitters will see the advertisements while reading their updates. Advertising has really flooded everything around us, and anywhere there may not be advertising they are now finding ways to make their way there.
It is so crazy how much advertising there is around us. Just like in that presentation two weeks ago when we watched the clip on advertising placement in movies becoming a bit much, they are becoming a bit much everywhere. I am just curious as to how effective all this advertising even is. There has to be a point where the additional advertising does little to help the company. There has to be a point where the return diminishes in comparison to the money paid for the advertisements.
I thought this article from this past Wednesday was good in relation to some conversation we have been having in class lately. I do not use Twitter, but do not what it is. Although it has become increasingly popular and is mentioned almost everywhere you turn, apparently it's ability to make profit may be minute. So what better wat to create profit than to somehow include advertising in people's "tweets?"
Basically, advertisers place bids to place their advertisements in tweets that mention specific words like iPod or NCAA. Then people who follow those people's twitters will see the advertisements while reading their updates. Advertising has really flooded everything around us, and anywhere there may not be advertising they are now finding ways to make their way there.
It is so crazy how much advertising there is around us. Just like in that presentation two weeks ago when we watched the clip on advertising placement in movies becoming a bit much, they are becoming a bit much everywhere. I am just curious as to how effective all this advertising even is. There has to be a point where the additional advertising does little to help the company. There has to be a point where the return diminishes in comparison to the money paid for the advertisements.
Are Looser Travel Restrictions Ahead?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811752650153857.html#mod=todays_us_nonsub_weekendjournal
Since President Obama has been in office he has certainly been tackling a bunch of different tasks. One of the many things he has mentioned to do is to loosen travel restrictions to Cuba.
As you may know, Cuba is the only country in the world that does not allow Americans into its country, aside from reporters and relatives of Cubans. Now, Cuban Americans can visit Cuba once a year and can spend up to $179 a day. I thought this was interesting that they try to cap the amount of money you can spend in one day. Although, while reading the article it said you can get a great seafood dinner for $6, so maybe that amount in a day is reasonable.
Further loosening of travel and trade restrictions does not look too likely, but I think this is definitely a step in the right direction. I was surprised to read how many Americans visit Cuba illegally each year, as well as Cuba's visitor policies like no visas, etc. Being Mexican and Cuban myself, I know this kind of news has meant a lot for my family. My grandmother was born in Cuba and came to the US when she was 18 and has not returned since. Even though she has family in Cuba, it is still difficult to travel there.
I just thought this was an interesting story that was a little more personal for me and thought I would share the story with everyone. I hope to travel there one day, but would love it if the travel restrictions loosened up a little bit more by that time.
Since President Obama has been in office he has certainly been tackling a bunch of different tasks. One of the many things he has mentioned to do is to loosen travel restrictions to Cuba.
As you may know, Cuba is the only country in the world that does not allow Americans into its country, aside from reporters and relatives of Cubans. Now, Cuban Americans can visit Cuba once a year and can spend up to $179 a day. I thought this was interesting that they try to cap the amount of money you can spend in one day. Although, while reading the article it said you can get a great seafood dinner for $6, so maybe that amount in a day is reasonable.
Further loosening of travel and trade restrictions does not look too likely, but I think this is definitely a step in the right direction. I was surprised to read how many Americans visit Cuba illegally each year, as well as Cuba's visitor policies like no visas, etc. Being Mexican and Cuban myself, I know this kind of news has meant a lot for my family. My grandmother was born in Cuba and came to the US when she was 18 and has not returned since. Even though she has family in Cuba, it is still difficult to travel there.
I just thought this was an interesting story that was a little more personal for me and thought I would share the story with everyone. I hope to travel there one day, but would love it if the travel restrictions loosened up a little bit more by that time.
Friday, March 20, 2009
HBO Tries No Sex, New City
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123750922919090551.html#mod=todays_us_nonsub_weekendjournal
The network of 'The Sopranos' programs a different kind of family show
In the Weekend Journal of the WSJ on of the articles was focusing on HBO's new approach to one of their newest series of shows. They have created a show that is more family oriented, it's the network's only series that will air at 8 p.m.
HBO is trying a new approach to maintaining as well as capturing a new audience and they are taking approach that is more tasteful than some of its most recent episodes, of which included The Sopranos. I found this article to be interesting because it made me think about some of the topics we've talking about in class pertaining to media and ideology. We have mentioned that a lot of television networks and producers have stayed away from controversial subjects in order to keep viewers happy and to keep people watching.
I feel like television has become a lot less conservative with shows displaying controversial relationships and topics and some have become popular; however, now just like HBO, some networks are reverting to a family-oriented type of programming in order to capture more viewers. I do not subscribe to HBO but have watched several of their series and I think this might be a good approach for them with what they are trying to accomplish. The show is based off of a novel series and it sounds pretty interesting. I am curious to see if this new approach does for HBO what they hope and I will be sure to keep an eye out.
The network of 'The Sopranos' programs a different kind of family show
In the Weekend Journal of the WSJ on of the articles was focusing on HBO's new approach to one of their newest series of shows. They have created a show that is more family oriented, it's the network's only series that will air at 8 p.m.
HBO is trying a new approach to maintaining as well as capturing a new audience and they are taking approach that is more tasteful than some of its most recent episodes, of which included The Sopranos. I found this article to be interesting because it made me think about some of the topics we've talking about in class pertaining to media and ideology. We have mentioned that a lot of television networks and producers have stayed away from controversial subjects in order to keep viewers happy and to keep people watching.
I feel like television has become a lot less conservative with shows displaying controversial relationships and topics and some have become popular; however, now just like HBO, some networks are reverting to a family-oriented type of programming in order to capture more viewers. I do not subscribe to HBO but have watched several of their series and I think this might be a good approach for them with what they are trying to accomplish. The show is based off of a novel series and it sounds pretty interesting. I am curious to see if this new approach does for HBO what they hope and I will be sure to keep an eye out.
Just Say No....to Smarties? Faux Smoking Has Parents Fuming
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123750945477390601.html#mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one
Crush Candy, Suck In Dust, Blow Out Puffs; Schools Fear It'll Make Cigarettes Cool
So, in today's issue of the WSJ I found this article and when I read the title I had to read the article. This is just more of an interesting, fun article, but I thought it was something the group might find interesting.
Basically, there is this new fad that has been going around middle school where kids "smoke" smarties. The way you smoke them is by crushing the candy until it is like a powder and then you suck it in from one end (not inhaling) and then just blow it out and it looks like smoke. Intersted in how popular this was I looked into it on Google and YouTube and there are a lot of videos teaching people how to smoke smarties.
Apparently it has parents really worries and school are banning it along the same lines as smoking cigarettes. There is no proof that it does any harm to anyone, I guess the sugar just dissolves and it really isn't a big deal. I suppose the bigger issue here is the fear of this fad making cigarettes popular among younger kids.
I have never heard of anything like that and am curious as to how it even started and spread so much. I am assuming the internet, that is the power it has. All it takes is one person to post one of those videos online and some of them have been views over 200,000 times!! That is a lot of people watching.
I do not think it is as big of a deal as maybe parents and school officials are making it out to be. I mean I played with those candy cigarettes growing up and I still eat them from time to time because my room mate loves them, but it never made me want to smoke. I think it's just kids being kids and I don't see the fad lasting that long. Nonetheless, an interesting read.
Crush Candy, Suck In Dust, Blow Out Puffs; Schools Fear It'll Make Cigarettes Cool
So, in today's issue of the WSJ I found this article and when I read the title I had to read the article. This is just more of an interesting, fun article, but I thought it was something the group might find interesting.
Basically, there is this new fad that has been going around middle school where kids "smoke" smarties. The way you smoke them is by crushing the candy until it is like a powder and then you suck it in from one end (not inhaling) and then just blow it out and it looks like smoke. Intersted in how popular this was I looked into it on Google and YouTube and there are a lot of videos teaching people how to smoke smarties.
Apparently it has parents really worries and school are banning it along the same lines as smoking cigarettes. There is no proof that it does any harm to anyone, I guess the sugar just dissolves and it really isn't a big deal. I suppose the bigger issue here is the fear of this fad making cigarettes popular among younger kids.
I have never heard of anything like that and am curious as to how it even started and spread so much. I am assuming the internet, that is the power it has. All it takes is one person to post one of those videos online and some of them have been views over 200,000 times!! That is a lot of people watching.
I do not think it is as big of a deal as maybe parents and school officials are making it out to be. I mean I played with those candy cigarettes growing up and I still eat them from time to time because my room mate loves them, but it never made me want to smoke. I think it's just kids being kids and I don't see the fad lasting that long. Nonetheless, an interesting read.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Littlest iPod Packs In Songs and Finds Its Voice
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123680765866800501.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_pj
So the latest model of the iPod shuffle is smaller than AA battery or a house key! It holds twice as many songs as the previous model and now has a voice?! The voice is used to tell you the song title and artist of the song you are listening too, you can also have it recite upcoming songs to you so you can skip ahead to a song you want to hear right now. Since it has no screen this is a really great feature for this model of the iPod. But honeslty, it blows my mind.
Technology has really done some incredible things in recent history and although it's exciting, it is also kind of scary. With the progress and and capabilities that technologies are making in such little time, I can't even wrap my head around what could possibly be around in 40 years from now! Apple is definitely the most innovative company in the world, they have been ranked #1 several years in a row, with 3M and Microsoft taking #2 and #3 spots as most innovative companies in the world. It's just incredible what Apple has achieved with their iPod.
I am not too sure I would enjoy such a small music player, I would probably lose it among other things or sit, step, break it somehow. The article is really interesting to me and it really opens your eyes to the progress the iPod has made since brought into the world not that long ago. I remember my iPod Nano from my junior year in high school and then I look at my iPod Nano now, it's crazy the improvements that have been made!
I have watched this one video on YouTube several times that I think would tie into this article really well. It's called "Did You Know? 3.0" it is a video that talks about the progression of technology and the world today. It is really very interesting and I think everyone should watch it. Like I said before though, it's a little intimidating and scary to think about, but I guess what the future holds is meant to happen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8
Anyway, as far as the iPod article goes I think it is amazing. How many more improvements and variations can really be made? I am excited to see what else they could possibly come up with.
So the latest model of the iPod shuffle is smaller than AA battery or a house key! It holds twice as many songs as the previous model and now has a voice?! The voice is used to tell you the song title and artist of the song you are listening too, you can also have it recite upcoming songs to you so you can skip ahead to a song you want to hear right now. Since it has no screen this is a really great feature for this model of the iPod. But honeslty, it blows my mind.
Technology has really done some incredible things in recent history and although it's exciting, it is also kind of scary. With the progress and and capabilities that technologies are making in such little time, I can't even wrap my head around what could possibly be around in 40 years from now! Apple is definitely the most innovative company in the world, they have been ranked #1 several years in a row, with 3M and Microsoft taking #2 and #3 spots as most innovative companies in the world. It's just incredible what Apple has achieved with their iPod.
I am not too sure I would enjoy such a small music player, I would probably lose it among other things or sit, step, break it somehow. The article is really interesting to me and it really opens your eyes to the progress the iPod has made since brought into the world not that long ago. I remember my iPod Nano from my junior year in high school and then I look at my iPod Nano now, it's crazy the improvements that have been made!
I have watched this one video on YouTube several times that I think would tie into this article really well. It's called "Did You Know? 3.0" it is a video that talks about the progression of technology and the world today. It is really very interesting and I think everyone should watch it. Like I said before though, it's a little intimidating and scary to think about, but I guess what the future holds is meant to happen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8
Anyway, as far as the iPod article goes I think it is amazing. How many more improvements and variations can really be made? I am excited to see what else they could possibly come up with.
Madoff Pleads Guilty to Massive Fraud
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123685693449906551.html
Fallen Financier Apologizes; Judge Orders Jail, Revokes Bail
Well, there it is. Bernard L. Madoff is finally found guilty and is currently being jailed until sentencing in early- to mid-June. This has been really big news since word of the massive fraud came out this past December. This was (and still is) a huge news story covered by many outlets daily.
There is so much relief, or at least satisfaction, in the judges decision to jail Madoff with no bail in those that have lost so much money from this scandel. Unfortunately, all those affected have lost so much money and will not be getting it back. The only satisfaction they really can have is from Madoff's sentencing, and the fact that he will be jailed until that point makes those involved feel even better. The article also quotes some of Madoff's statements about how sorry and ashamed he is for his crimes. Give me a break! If he was so ashamed and felt so sorry he would not have carried it out for decades!! He also says he knew this day would inevitably come; to me, that's like well I thought I would hold out for as long as I could and see if I could get away with it. That's not being sorry. He knew he was robbing people of all this money and the situation only got worse over time. It's pretty ridiculous and I don't believe him. It's so easy to be sorry when you're caught doing something.
I do not think that this is a story that can be spun different by any news outlet. The construction done by the news no matter where you read or hear it from has the same story. This guy is a huge fraud and deserved to go away for life.
For me, I am just waiting for his accomplices to be prosecuted. There is no way this one guy is the only person in the whole business that knew about what was going on. It is mentioned in the article that his brothers and sons, even his wife all worked for him. Did they really have no clue? The sons are the ones who turned him in, but if I were him I would try and save my family too.
I think it's all so crazy. I am glad this issue has finally been addressed and he is getting what he deserves. His sentencing can be up to 150 years in prison, I have no doubt he'll spend the rest of his life there. I just feel so bad about the investors who trusted in this person and their firm. It's also scary because it just makes people trust less in a time when the economy needs people to not be scared to invest there money or it will be slow getting back to a stable economy. With situations like this happening, I don't think it's looking good.
Fallen Financier Apologizes; Judge Orders Jail, Revokes Bail
Well, there it is. Bernard L. Madoff is finally found guilty and is currently being jailed until sentencing in early- to mid-June. This has been really big news since word of the massive fraud came out this past December. This was (and still is) a huge news story covered by many outlets daily.
There is so much relief, or at least satisfaction, in the judges decision to jail Madoff with no bail in those that have lost so much money from this scandel. Unfortunately, all those affected have lost so much money and will not be getting it back. The only satisfaction they really can have is from Madoff's sentencing, and the fact that he will be jailed until that point makes those involved feel even better. The article also quotes some of Madoff's statements about how sorry and ashamed he is for his crimes. Give me a break! If he was so ashamed and felt so sorry he would not have carried it out for decades!! He also says he knew this day would inevitably come; to me, that's like well I thought I would hold out for as long as I could and see if I could get away with it. That's not being sorry. He knew he was robbing people of all this money and the situation only got worse over time. It's pretty ridiculous and I don't believe him. It's so easy to be sorry when you're caught doing something.
I do not think that this is a story that can be spun different by any news outlet. The construction done by the news no matter where you read or hear it from has the same story. This guy is a huge fraud and deserved to go away for life.
For me, I am just waiting for his accomplices to be prosecuted. There is no way this one guy is the only person in the whole business that knew about what was going on. It is mentioned in the article that his brothers and sons, even his wife all worked for him. Did they really have no clue? The sons are the ones who turned him in, but if I were him I would try and save my family too.
I think it's all so crazy. I am glad this issue has finally been addressed and he is getting what he deserves. His sentencing can be up to 150 years in prison, I have no doubt he'll spend the rest of his life there. I just feel so bad about the investors who trusted in this person and their firm. It's also scary because it just makes people trust less in a time when the economy needs people to not be scared to invest there money or it will be slow getting back to a stable economy. With situations like this happening, I don't think it's looking good.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
In Ads, 1 Out of 5 Stats Is Bogus*
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672828150888771.html
*Actually, It's Misleading, Incomplete or Obscured in Fine Print that Few People Read
So, this article was located in the Currents section of the first section in the WSJ. The article is focusing on how the "downward-spiraling economy" has had an effect on advertising for many food products. Some of the prime examples used in the article are Progresso vs. Campbell's, Domino's vs. Subway, and Burger King vs. McDonald's. Since the economy is in a recession and there is not as much cash flow to grow these food company's, they have begun trying to take their competition's pieces of the pie. If they cannot grow within the industry, they have to gain market share and grow within the current size of the industry pie.
Honestly, this has been an advertising tactic for decades. I remember watching commercials when I was a kid asking the audience why they take 6 Tylenols when they could be taking only 2 Advils to do the same job. I do; however, think that today's advertisers are stretching their boundaries a little in comparison advertising. As far as medicine goes, it is more scientific and easier to prove. Comparing Tums to Alka-Seltzer, or Tylenol Cold PM to Nyquil. These type of comparisons can be proven in studies. On the other hand, food comparison ads are more subjective based on "taste testing." The article talks about how some of the companies are not willing to show their research to support their claims.
It is becoming more and more prevalent in the food advertisements that they compare their tastes to the competition. Most recently has been Dunkin Donuts vs. Starbucks. How seriously can consumers take these ads though? Are we supposed to believe the numbers, and just because most people enjoy one taste over another says nothing for the consumer personally. Many people have already had a BK Whopper and McDonald's Big Mac in their life, some of these decisions are already made and I do not see how these ads really benefit some of the companies that do it. Domino's vs. Subway is a little more understandable because Domino's has this new product that they're trying to break into the market with, but even here I don't think people really ever compare in their minds Subway or Dominos.
We've talked about consumerism in class and the effect of advertisements on society. As stated in our presentation last class, just because the economy is facing a recession doesn't downplay advertisements, it just changes the way of advertising. More and more advertisements today focus on prices and getting the most value for your money. Or, like the food industry, advertisements have begun attacking the competition more and more. It is a tough time for the marketplace and to maintain a large share in your industry, and nearly impossible to really grow right now. I guess it's survival of the fitest, or at least survival of the most convincing.
*Actually, It's Misleading, Incomplete or Obscured in Fine Print that Few People Read
So, this article was located in the Currents section of the first section in the WSJ. The article is focusing on how the "downward-spiraling economy" has had an effect on advertising for many food products. Some of the prime examples used in the article are Progresso vs. Campbell's, Domino's vs. Subway, and Burger King vs. McDonald's. Since the economy is in a recession and there is not as much cash flow to grow these food company's, they have begun trying to take their competition's pieces of the pie. If they cannot grow within the industry, they have to gain market share and grow within the current size of the industry pie.
Honestly, this has been an advertising tactic for decades. I remember watching commercials when I was a kid asking the audience why they take 6 Tylenols when they could be taking only 2 Advils to do the same job. I do; however, think that today's advertisers are stretching their boundaries a little in comparison advertising. As far as medicine goes, it is more scientific and easier to prove. Comparing Tums to Alka-Seltzer, or Tylenol Cold PM to Nyquil. These type of comparisons can be proven in studies. On the other hand, food comparison ads are more subjective based on "taste testing." The article talks about how some of the companies are not willing to show their research to support their claims.
It is becoming more and more prevalent in the food advertisements that they compare their tastes to the competition. Most recently has been Dunkin Donuts vs. Starbucks. How seriously can consumers take these ads though? Are we supposed to believe the numbers, and just because most people enjoy one taste over another says nothing for the consumer personally. Many people have already had a BK Whopper and McDonald's Big Mac in their life, some of these decisions are already made and I do not see how these ads really benefit some of the companies that do it. Domino's vs. Subway is a little more understandable because Domino's has this new product that they're trying to break into the market with, but even here I don't think people really ever compare in their minds Subway or Dominos.
We've talked about consumerism in class and the effect of advertisements on society. As stated in our presentation last class, just because the economy is facing a recession doesn't downplay advertisements, it just changes the way of advertising. More and more advertisements today focus on prices and getting the most value for your money. Or, like the food industry, advertisements have begun attacking the competition more and more. It is a tough time for the marketplace and to maintain a large share in your industry, and nearly impossible to really grow right now. I guess it's survival of the fitest, or at least survival of the most convincing.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Confessions of a Facebook Social Climber
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569857063289235.html
You too can become important. To start, all you need is one celebrity friend.
Wow, I thought this was a really interesting article. It talks about a journalist who has worked his way up the "Facebook Social Ladder" only to be knocked down a couple notches when he realized Charlie Sheen wasn't really Charlie Sheen.
I am impressed with technology more and more every day. It is so crazy to be in touch with so many people at the same time, and now we can all be friends with movie stars?! Well they will probably reject our friendships, but to be able to say you were friend rejected by "so and so" is still pretty cool to think about. Technology has really pushed the limits in the way in which people can be reached and communicated to. With sites like MySpace and Facebook, super fans can be part of anyone's online entourage. MySpace is really big for music, most bands and artists have a site where you can get up to date information while sampling their music. But not only that, you can friend request them and most of them accept. Who needs their own personal website when MySpace is probably visited more often?
Back to Facebook.
I knew it was an expanding area; recently my mom, aunt, and uncle have all become friends of mine on Facebook. I think my aunt is more addicted than I am! Not only this, I had an instant messaging conversation with my high school physics teacher a couple weeks ago....how bizarre! Seriously, when I graduated never again did I really think that a few years from that moment I would Facebook friends with my professor and chatting with him? It's too weird. And now we can friend famous people and possibly become friends with them?
I remember when I was younger if I wanted any type of contact with my favorite actor or music group I would write a letter to their fan club. Sporadically get mail with paraphernalia or upcoming events or a mass printed autographed photo. Who needs that today when your favorite movie start is a search and a click away?
You too can become important. To start, all you need is one celebrity friend.
Wow, I thought this was a really interesting article. It talks about a journalist who has worked his way up the "Facebook Social Ladder" only to be knocked down a couple notches when he realized Charlie Sheen wasn't really Charlie Sheen.
I am impressed with technology more and more every day. It is so crazy to be in touch with so many people at the same time, and now we can all be friends with movie stars?! Well they will probably reject our friendships, but to be able to say you were friend rejected by "so and so" is still pretty cool to think about. Technology has really pushed the limits in the way in which people can be reached and communicated to. With sites like MySpace and Facebook, super fans can be part of anyone's online entourage. MySpace is really big for music, most bands and artists have a site where you can get up to date information while sampling their music. But not only that, you can friend request them and most of them accept. Who needs their own personal website when MySpace is probably visited more often?
Back to Facebook.
I knew it was an expanding area; recently my mom, aunt, and uncle have all become friends of mine on Facebook. I think my aunt is more addicted than I am! Not only this, I had an instant messaging conversation with my high school physics teacher a couple weeks ago....how bizarre! Seriously, when I graduated never again did I really think that a few years from that moment I would Facebook friends with my professor and chatting with him? It's too weird. And now we can friend famous people and possibly become friends with them?
I remember when I was younger if I wanted any type of contact with my favorite actor or music group I would write a letter to their fan club. Sporadically get mail with paraphernalia or upcoming events or a mass printed autographed photo. Who needs that today when your favorite movie start is a search and a click away?
Silencing the Lambs: Scientists Target Sheep Belching to Cut Methane
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561039911777481.html
Reducing Gas in Livestock Could Help World Breathe Sigh of Relief Over Global Warming
Ok, this is a very bizarre, yet interesting article. It was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this past Thursday and when I read the article title I was a little thrown off. Basically the article is an environmentally focused one and the topic is reducing the speed of global warming. There has been all this research about livestock emitting methane gases when belching. According to the United Nations, methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and is beginning to believe that livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change. They said that these industries are responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than cars are! I think that definitely puts it into some perspective, but who would have every thought about something like this?
They are doing a lot of research into this. Studying livestock stomachs as well as placing them into special chambers where they eat grass and remain there until they burp to analyze the atmosphere. It is a little farfetched I think. I mean don't get me wrong, I care about the environment, but this just seems extreme. Maybe it's not; if it is that big of a contributor then it really does need some research. But how do you even solve a problem like this?? I don't know, this was just an interesting article I thought. I just wasn't expecting to read that on the front page of the WSJ.
Reducing Gas in Livestock Could Help World Breathe Sigh of Relief Over Global Warming
Ok, this is a very bizarre, yet interesting article. It was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this past Thursday and when I read the article title I was a little thrown off. Basically the article is an environmentally focused one and the topic is reducing the speed of global warming. There has been all this research about livestock emitting methane gases when belching. According to the United Nations, methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and is beginning to believe that livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change. They said that these industries are responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than cars are! I think that definitely puts it into some perspective, but who would have every thought about something like this?
They are doing a lot of research into this. Studying livestock stomachs as well as placing them into special chambers where they eat grass and remain there until they burp to analyze the atmosphere. It is a little farfetched I think. I mean don't get me wrong, I care about the environment, but this just seems extreme. Maybe it's not; if it is that big of a contributor then it really does need some research. But how do you even solve a problem like this?? I don't know, this was just an interesting article I thought. I just wasn't expecting to read that on the front page of the WSJ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
