CCT205-Labs

=CCT205 Labs﻿ =

//**Lab One: What "digital innovation" do you feel best deserves the title of "revolutionary" and why? **//

Before I can answer this question, I first have to define revolutionary. Revolutionary, in my opinion, is defined as an introduction or invention that has spurred significant change. This significant change can be either good or bad, an improvement, progression or in contrast, a regression. The digital innovation that I feel best deserves the title of revolutionary is the cellphone, most evidently, smart phones. Smart phones such as the Blackberry and the I-phone have spurred significant change in the way people do things. For example, people have replaced basic face-to-face communication with applications such as texting, BBM and Facetime.

Because of the innovation of the telephone with these "smart-phones", basic communication has become a lost art. Though there are pro's and con's to this, I believe it has progressed society and made society much more efficient. Instead of calling people on a stationary phone, and having to wait for an answer, you can now with a cellphone get an instant reply. This has led for information to travel faster, for work to be completed on time and in turn, for the world to progress better.

//**Lab Two: So what do you think about me? (Mac App Store) **//

//**Lab Three: Choose one and discuss a real world example that demonstrates it (Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play, Meaning) **//

Daniel Pink uses the argument of design to convey to readers about the importance of the right brain. His argument focuses on how people who are more orientated towards the right brain will have a better advantage to those who use the left brain; which was traditionally the more superior side of the brain. Design, Pink discusses, is important in today's society and is just as important as function. In other words, form can sometimes make or break a company, just like function can.

An example, is Apple. Apple takes into consideration design before function. They design their products (I-pods, Macbooks, etc.) in an appealing way that consumers recognize and appreciate. Don't get me wrong--they also take time to work on their function, but form, according to Apple is just as important to them because they aren't designed like their competitors. In a classroom setting for example, an Apple computer is more widely recognized than say for instance, an Acer computer because its form is unique and visually pleasing.

//**Lab Four: "Alone Together?" **//

Sherry Turkle’s point about technology users alarmed me because I myself am a victim of the effects of “overusing technology”. As a Blackberry user, I couldn’t help but feel a bit of guilt as Turkle described people’s constant urge to check their message(s) when their Blackberrys blink red, even when the time is inappropriate. Though I do not go to board meetings, I constantly find myself checking my phone when I shouldn’t. Even when I have no reason to be, I find myself browsing. I do it when people are talking to me and though I’m not a rude person, it has become a habit and perhaps an obsession. As Turkle points out, it certainly does challenge our human values because never would I purposely ignore someone or intend to be rude.

Turkle raises other significant points throughout the interview. She says that we have grown into a generation where we are always connected, and only when we are not connected can we truly know what it feels like to be lonely. This is true. Back to an example in my own life, I feel like I am always connected with people, even though I rarely, if ever see them. For example, when one of my “500 friends” post a picture or a status on Facebook, I feel as if I am a part of their life; as if I was also in the picture or if they are talking directly to me through their statuses. Of course, this is not the case. Chances are I probably have only met that person once or twice but I’m their friend and I “connect with them” because of Facebook, Blackberry Messenger and other related technologies.

//**Lab Five: Discuss your views/concerns about the future of privacy**//

The issue with [online] privacy has continuously made headlines, especially in the last few years where the use of social networking sites have increased significantly. Social networking sites "invade" one's privacy naturally, but it is up to the user to determine the degree of the invasion. For example, in order to have a Facebook profile, Facebook demands that you provide them with certain personal information. Failure to provide the information results in a rejection of a profile. Criteria that must be given to Facebook to register for an account includes e-mail address, date of birth, first and last name--information you probably would never tell a complete stranger. Though you can choose to "hide" this information from the public, the information you provide to Facebook is theirs. So why is it that we are so lenient to provide online social networking sites our personal information? The focus of this discussion will be the views of the future of privacy in regards to social networking sites and everyday life.

In my opinion, privacy today has become a mythical concept, a concept that rarely exist in today's society where almost everything is accessible and made public. If a person was willing to, they could find information about anyone, without the help of a pricy investigator! Thanks to the revolution of the Internet and sites such as Facebook and Twitter, it is highly possible to know what anyone is doing. For instance, if you have Facebook, you can lurk almost anyone through their status updates, photos, their conversations with other people and the "info" tab on their profile. As for Twitter, you can find out what someone is doing or thinking at any time of the day. In other words, social networking sites is more of a social stalking tool. But the thing is, it's we, the users of these sites that are giving our information out as if it's not a big deal. Therefore, my thoughts on the future of privacy, is that it won't be an issue anymore. A majority of the world's population is willing to display personal information than they were years ago and this is highly evident through the vast memberships on popular social networking sites. Though this is not to say that there will be no such thing as privacy anymore, people will be willing to give out //any// information. This is just to say that privacy will not be a significant issue and people are more willing to display private things to be socially accepted and inclusive to today's norms.

//**Lab Six:**// **Rule 1**: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

I think the first rule in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is significant because I believe power is important whether or not you truly have it or not. To have power or to have people think that you have it is power in itself. I value this idea because I agree with it fully--you should always let your opponent think you have it all even if you don't. Let them overestimate you, frighten them and thus you will have more control over them. Also, it is important to hide your weaknesses. If you show your cards, the opponent can find ways to counter them. By being mysterious and making yourself appear powerful, you will be, even if you truly aren't. But nobody needs to know!

Lab 7

E-learning is a convenient and innovative way of learning. Convenient, as it can be accessed at your finger tips, anywhere where a computer is available. Innovative as it is not a traditional way of learning; where the traditional way of learning is through actually attending class and physically being in a room full of others who are also learning. What I think about e-learning is that it is innovative but I do not recommend it. Sure it poses advantages as being convenient and easily accessible, but it takes away from some of the merits of learning in the traditional classroom setting. In my opinion, e-learning is like what social networking sites is to traditional forms of communication. You're hiding behind a computer and thus you aren't able to talk to others face-to-face. The art of face-to-face communication has thus, disappeared.

Lab 9 What will/Should Web 3.0 be about?

Web 3.0 should be a step further from what Web 2.0 is, should be an innovation that further allows us to step out of the comfort level of web 2.0. Web 2.0 has already benefitted our lives in many ways that we could not have thought of to be imaginable. We have the world at the palm of our hands; we can search anything on our internet browsers and connect with people from around the world. Therefore, web 3.0 should go further than what web 2.0 has done for us. Instead of outputting data, it should analyze and interpret data. For example, Web 3.0 should personally market to our own personal preferences. Instead of giving us data from what we search for, it should already know what we want.