Pandora Radio is a website that uses a method of classifying music by its components and their levels of intensity to produce a "radio" station that only plays music that the listener wants to hear. By providing some information about him or herself, the listener is able to have Pandora create a station that plays music similar to the kind that he or she has inputted into the system. When I created my own radio station, my first reaction was, of course, to put this system to the test. I chuckled to myself as I put Bob Dylan and Lil Wayne in the same category. Naturally, I was displeased with the result. With such little information about myself Pandora could not possibly create a mix or songs and artists that fell under the category of folk rap. However, when I actually created a list of similar artists and provided the proper feedback of whether or not I liked the song they chose to play for me, the result was refreshing. I am a huge fan of these kinds of websites for the exact same reason i liked Pandora- I was able to discover different music from different artists that I would normally never had heard of on my own. In my opinion Pandora should be (if it isn't already) an app for iPods and iPhones so that people can hear this music like a regular radio station without having to pay to buy each song like they do on iTunes. For me, my biggest gripe with new music is that I don't like to use illegal downloaders out of fear of them crashing my computer, but paying a dollar per song on iTunes is just out of the question. Pandora is a practical solution that also does all the work of finding new artists for me.
For Pandora to become a profit-making system they would maybe work like XM radio where people would pay to subscribe over a long period of time. Naturally, I think that Pandora is so great because it IS free, and if it were to charge money it would lose much of its appeal, not to mention its fan base. Perhaps being sponsored would serve as a better solution because it would keep the practicality for its users.

1. Given the definition of "disruptive innovations" given in the Geekipedia piece, do you agree with the author's argument that the iphone is a truly disruptive technology. Explain why you agree or disagree.
I think that the iPhone could definitely be considered disruptive technology. When it first came out I believe that Apple intended it to just be a portable computer that could make phone calls. But it blew up and became a way for people to constantly be in touch and checking their social networking sites and e-mails and get the answer to any question they have, from directions to a friends house to the price of a new book. The apps that have since come out since the iPhone's invention can do anything imaginable. I'm pretty sure that the iPhone creators at Apple had no intention of the iPhone being used to calculate the force of a punch, but it does, and it can. After seeing and learning how people use their iPhones, Apple can adapt how it works and make it more convenient for the user. I believe that is what makes a technology disruptive- it doesn't just perform the functions of multiple technologies- it creates new situations that society has never seen before and improves the way the product is used.
2. Assuming that Winston, the author of the hand-out "Storm in Paradise", would claim that the iphone is actually just evolutionary, not revolutionary, what evidence could you offer from the "Wired" article and the other items, to support his point of view?
The entire Wired article discusses exactly how the iPhone was revolutionary. It went from the iPod, solely playing music, to this touch screen music-player/phone-call-maker/ internet-access-er/ gps/ everything-you-ever-dreamed-of piece of equipment. There were many templates, mistakes, re-do's that lead to the device that we see today. It was its progress, evolutionary-speaking, that to the revolutionary effect it has had on the way people view their cell phones and the actions it should be able to perform.
3. What comment would Winston make about the new ipad, and do you think it will be seen as " disruptive technology", a game-changer, as many-though not all- of the technology critics have been saying?
My feelings on the iPad are mostly of confusion. It seems like an inconveniently large version of the iPod touch. The fact that it's just a screen seems like it would be a very fragile item to carry around while providing the same conveniences of a laptop. I don't see it as disruptive beause I don't see it as providing any kind of new uses that computers didn't formerly have. I guess it could be a game changer because it changes the way the user interacts with the screen itself. Perhaps thats the only real impact it will have on the computer world- it will be seen as a gamer's tool and, as Winston predicted with the message not being the purpose but rather the medium being the message, provide a new environment for gaming sitations and open the door to new possibilities. As someone who is not a gamer, this doesn't appear to affect my life in a way that will prove to be disruptive.

Reactions to Articles

In "Cell Phones, Texts, and Lovers" by David Brooks I read very many valid points about how technology and subsequently constant contact with one another has changed many things, but in this case the dating scene, drastically. People don't seem to be looking for commitment or a serious relationship anymore. In fact, as shown by the sex diaries, they barely seem to want any kind of non-sexual relationship with one another. They don't acknowledge their suitors by real names (ex. Stage 5 Clinger, The One Who Cries) which may just be a defense mechanism that prevents them from becoming too attached to someone who can, and will, leave them for a more enticing offer. The author quotes Wesley Yang when he says the diarists “use their cellphones to disaggregate, slice up, and repackage their emotional and physical needs, servicing each with a different partner, and hoping to come out ahead.” This is very apparent in my life where, as discussed in class, characters on reality shows such as The Jersey Shore are renowned for making plans with multiple people, only to ditch them for the seemingly best option. Separation of emotion from technology is pervasive in our society where people no longer play the dating game, but rather try to market themselves for instant gratification.

This does not mean that young people today are worse or shallower than young people in the past. It does mean they get less help. People once lived within a pattern of being, which educated the emotions, guided the temporary toward the permanent and linked everyday urges to higher things. The accumulated wisdom of the community steered couples as they tried to earn each other’s commitment.

Today there are fewer norms that guide in that way. Today’s technology seems to threaten the sort of recurring and stable reciprocity that is the building block of trust.

In "Defense of Distraction," Sam Anderson quotes Herbert A. Simon, who wrote “What information consumes is rather obvious: It consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” I never knew there was a logical answer to why people could no longer focus as they used to. But after reading this i get the notion that it's one of those vicious circles- we have no attention because we have so much information which distracts our attention while we get more information which takes away more attention because we're accessing more information with less attention. Anderson's sense of humor is apparent throughout the article when she opens up naming all of the distractions that the reader is most likely involved in while reading the article. Later she goes on to describe how she conducted an entire interview with a man discussing the technological distractions of the 21st century, using social media. This is probably where I related the most to this article. I realized recently that I had lost a real connection with people I had always considered good friends. Great friends actually. We now communicate (barely) through text messages, facebook comments, and instant messages in the instant we catch a fleeting thought of each other. I saw something of my facebook feed that reminded me of one of my girlfriends- "just saw neil's profile picture, thought of you=)."

In "Digital Mistletoe" I have to admit I was a bit weirded out by the fact that someone could find a relationship with a practical stranger from facebook, as I always am by relationships that begin on the internet. It was an entertaining story though, cute. He reached out, she reached back, now they love each other. But I feel like that ability to reach out to a stranger or accept such an intimate friendship from someone met over the internet is not a quality I possess.