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.

today's news

Digital Nation

i found this and thought it very much related to what we watched in class on thursday. The film we watched in class was a documentary about the extremes of technology and its effects on our culture and society. It was basically entirely focused on the effects of technology on the youth of today and how they differ from adults who grew up in an entirely different environment. It evoked questions from the viewer such as "Is it a bad thing to be constantly in touch with your peers?" "Are we getting dumber because we can't focus on any one thing for a long amount of time?" and "Is it dangerous use technology for extended periods of time?"

I felt very much like for adults who didn't grow up with technology at their fingertips, they found the concept of technology everywhere more disconcerting. But for today's youth who are growing up to be constantly on their phone, accessing the internet, talking to friends, doing schoolwork, pursuing interests, it is just their normal life. It's what they do on an everyday basis and has become the norm for them.

Most of the documentary showed studies of students and how they do their work. One study took students from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (known for its most technologically advanced students in the nation) who were hand-picked for their multitasking abilities and put them through a series of tests that measured if they were as good at multitasking as they thought they were. THe results were suprising to me because i could relate to those students who thought they were great at multitasking. I'm never focused on one media at once. If i'm on the computer, i'm on facebook looking at people's pictures, on iTunes listening to music, talking to my friends on instant messenger, texting, watching tv. Here i am thinking i'm doing a great job, just like those students. WHat the study showed was that the students reactions were significantly slower when multitasking and were more prone to wrong answers.

The study also stated some interesting statistics such as that kids spend 50+ hours a week with digital media- more han a full time job.
90% of kids use media and out of that 90%, 10-15% are at high risk for addiction to heavy gaming. THis is most obvious in South Korea where they have internet cafes for kids, or even adults, to pay for cheap internet service and play 24 hours a day. In one of these gaming places, one extreme incidence occurred where a teenager died because he played for 50 hours straight with no food or nutrition. Although it is probably the only case of this happening, or if not, a very VERY rare case, it has earned gamers a bad name with people who argue that gaming is a negative thing. South Korea has started setting up these Internet Rescue Camps where parents can send their kids if they feel their gaming affects their grades, or their health. AT these camps, the children aren't permitted to use computers for about a week. The organizers have the children participate in outdoor team activities in an effort to "recapture a childhood lost to the computer. "
Basically there are two opinions on technology- the good opinion, and the negative opinion.
The negative opinion basically says that students nowadays can't focus on any task for an extended period of time and aren't capable of the same level of work as former students who didn't have so much technology at their fingertips. Then you have those with positive outlooks on the influence of technology who say that shorter attention spans are the price of gain. It's the price we pay for a more advanced society, that students are smart, just not in the conventional topics that society holds so revered. The world has sped up so much from technology but the education system has not. We teach children to sit in their seats and be quiet, but in the future, no job will have there employees sit dopwn and be quiet.

I found this movie to be extremely interesting and brought up valid points for both sides of the Technology argument.

technology

The technology that i gave up for 4 days was tv. I pretty much regretted that immediately because i missed the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Even though i knew i watched a significant amount of tv i didn't realize exactly how much until i had to pointedly not watch. One the positive side, giving up tv showed me how much free time i had and i was able to use it to finish the art projects that had accumulated so far. The first day i didn't watch tv was the easiest i would say, because it was new and i was excited to start the assignment. I always had work i could have been doing and i was able to accomplish a lot more than usual.

the second day i was still excited but found it a little tricky to stick to my conviction. The way my house is set up, the first floor is a wide open space with my kitchen having a full view of the tv in the living room. Unfortunately, just because i gave up tv for 4 days doesn't mean that my family did too. So whenever they watched tv i had to leave and be isolated in my bedroom. My boyfriend, Aaron had actually come down from school this weekend for valentine's day so i spent a lot of my time with him. This, of course, made things much easier. <3 One the third day, it was Valentine's Day and I really didn't have much of an issue with staying away from the tv. I had some family come over during the day so most of my morning consisted of getting together food. My mom was happy though because usually my sisters and I are very distracted by the television and she's constantly reminding us to clean off the table, vacuum, etc. Then that night we went out to dinner at a Chinese restaurant where there were no TV sets so there was no temptation there. Afterwards however I felt a little sorry for my boyfriend. We usually enjoy watching a movie or Law and Order SVU on tv, but since i had given up tv and couldn't watch, he couldn't either. But he was a good sport and we enjoyed playing a sort of trivia game as a way to keep ourselves entertained. The change of having someone to give up television with me was very nice and much welcomed. Final Day This was our vacation day and i was the most tempted on this day to watch tv. I always saw tv as a way to shut my brain off and just be entertained and relax so it was pretty hard for me to stay busy when i would ordinarily be relaxing. But on the other hand i also saw it as unproductive time where i could be doing something else and accomplishing things in this spare time. I saw this more during the past weekend because i did more things in a more timely manner and did accomplish more, as i always felt i would if i hadn't watched tv. Although i saw a difference in my daily work when i gave up tv, i was still excited to watch and cathch up on the shows i had missed. I also found that my boyfriend who is really into sports and watched the winter olympics every night was a little upset that i wasn't caught up. Even when i got to class the next day and everyone was talking about the opening ceremony and the sports i didn't know what they were discussing and i felt very much out of the loop. It was interesting to see that tv was something that so many people have in common and that was very much emphasized by something as popular as the Winter Olympics going on during the time i gave up television. Giving up TV was a difficult thing for me to give up because i felt like it kept me in touch with my peers and gave me time to shut down.

catching up

so after looking at some other blogs from the class i see that i have fallen way way behind in my posting.
My name's Amanda Letteri. I'm an Art Therapy major here at CW Post. I'm a commuter, which i consider a bummer- having to wake up that 30 mins earlier when i know that people who dorm are probably still sleeping gets to me. I have a really tight knit family consisting of my parents, my twin sister(fraternal) and my older sister. We've had my dog, Cocoa since i was in the second grade and we adopted a stray kitten about two years ago donned Edward (i though he should have been named Jacob..) . Right now I've got a pretty killer workload as an Art Foundations student who is also in the honors department. I have a boyfriend of almost one year (feb 28 coming up quick!!) who attends SUNY Albany. I work at a card store in plainview doing the cash register, stocking shelves, lotto machine, pretty much anything that needs to be done. My birthday is august 21st and I've always had a chip on my shoulder about not being able to celebrate my birthday with the class in elementary school haha.