My blogging is somewhat limited, but I try to do more and more as the years go by. I really enjoy blogging on political sites where I can get my opinions out to those who care to read them. I feel that blogging helps me to express myself and I do feel like I am contributing to the betterment of our democracy through my participation.

As I have thought about blogging, I have pretty much only thought about people uninvolved in politics taking part in the blogging. Today I got an email saying that Ted Strickland (my friend/Congressman running for Ohio governor) is meeting with a group of political bloggers today in Cleveland. His goal is to get his message out directly to the people who run blogs so that his message does not get skewed through the blog. Also, if those running the blog are impressed with him there is a probability that they will start blogs about the candidate. This is exactly what candidates want and need. They need their names to get out to the public. Kind of like I am doing now.

Well, as I hope to be involved in politics for the rest of my life it will be very interesting to see the evolution of blogs and the role that they will play with respect to elections and candidate image. As we all know image os everything in a candidate and blogs with positive images help and even those that are negative get the candidate's name out. As the governor's election approaches, I hope to be more actively involved in getting out the message of my candidate for governor through the use of the internet and political blogs.

So, Blog away everyone and change the world one word at a time!!

New Orleans is starting the first free wireless internet network owned and run by a major city. They hope that the internet will boost the city's economy that has been slipping due to the recent hurricanes. The system started in the French Quarter today and will be available to the rest of the city hopefully within one year. Most of the equipment was donated by three major comapnies and was rallied for by Mayor Ray Nagin.

With all of the trgaedy that has occurred in the Gulf Coast, I am glad to see that technology can play a positive role in helping the people of New Orleans. It seems somewhat fitting that in the city where there was a major breakdown in communication (downfall of FEMA), there is going to be the nation's first free wireless internet for a major city.

The article does not mention how the internet will help to boost the economy, but some potential thoughts that I had were:
1. helping to find jobs for those unemployed
2. online shopping in New Orleans based businesses
3. information available concerning aid

My only concern with this was that a lot of the homes of people were completely destroyed. Do people even have computers? Do they have the funding to get them? I know things are slowing evolving in New Orleans and this news is great. We need to keep these people in our hearts and our prayers becuase there is still so much work to do.

This story intrigues me as to the role that the government played in getting this plan implemented. Throughout the course we have talked about the role that government has/should/can play in technology. So, I ask everyone to be on the lookout for any more articles concerning this recent announcement.

What the author said is eaxctly true however. People think that it is okay to be late for a meeting or event because they have a cell phone and can communicate with someone about how long it will be before they are there. I know that it sounds weird, but I find it very rude when people show up late. Just because you call does not mean that you are present. I wish there were a way to reverse the trend that has ocurred due to the availability of mobile technology.

Going along with the social implications of cell phones, the author said that when people talk on a cell phone they are in two distinct separate spaces. This may seem very trivial, but when you stop and think about it this is very different from what our grandparents had ever known. A person can be making an impact in their current physical space and also be playing a role in a situation in which eh is communicating but not necessarilly physically present. The telephone does exactly this, but the mobile phone allows people to have their presence known in two spaces continually with very few limitations.

Its very interesting to step back and think about the social implications of mobile technologies on our lives as well as the people around us. As we continue on into the future it will be very exciting to see what types of mobile technology will evolve that will allow us to be perhaps in three or four different spaces all at one time. So, I pose this question to everyone. Do you think this will happen and if so, when?

As I was listening to him speak, he began discussing "networks of terror" and "evil networks." He was saying that those devoted to terror were all connected in one way or another. He went on to discuss the tactics that the United States is implementing to break up such networks. He said that the US has made significant strides in killing and capturing the leaders of these evil networks. He placed heavy emphasis on this. He said that those that are focussed on terror are so focussed due to the leadership of a small number of people.

This was an element that we did not discuss Thursday in class. We discussed the role that networks play, why they exist, if they will continue to exist, etc.., but we did not discuss the hierarchical element within such networks. Who leads such networks? How do they garner support? What specific role do the leaders play? President Bush seems to think that the leaders play a very large role in the success of such "terror networks" and he has made it a priority of the US to seek out and kill such leaders. This is one thing that I can agree with the President on. I believe that leaders are the glue that keep all networks together regardless of whether or not the network is a group of terrorists or a group of Ebay users. There will always be some type of hierarchy within every group that allows the group to run smoothly and efficiently. If such efficiency is not reached, then the members of a network could replace or oust the surrent leadership. The leadership that I am discussing does not have to be formal leadership, it can be a leader that emerges from the cracks that takes on a role that helps to tie up the loose ends of a network.

Perhaps "Linked" will discuss this later on, but for now I would like to open this up to everyone. What do you think about leaders within networks? Do you agree with President Bush or is he underestimating the power of the members of a network? Please share your thoughts.

Anyway, after the race my family and I went to her team's tent to see her. She was taking off her running shoes when I noticed these little black clips on her shoe laces. I asked her what those were. She told me that they were called "chips". What? I asked what is a chip. She told me that instead of tearing off numbers as runners crossed the finish line, the chips told their official place. As a runner crosses the line, the chips (conating the runner's name, school, number, etc) are read by a computer. This helps to keep every runner in order and to get official results. It helps when there are close finishes at the line. No longer does a judge have to make the decision, the chip will whow who crosses the finish line first.

I thought about the chips on my drive back to Case and I knew that I had to write about it. It absolutley amazed me that such a device would be used in cross country. I got me to thinking about other sports. Perhaps a micro-chip could be placed in a football and when the football crosses the first down marker a light goes off. This could help the officials as to cut down on time for official measurements. The same could be true in soccer as the ball crosses the goal line. I don't know if such things have been debated, but if technology such as these chips are being used in highschool sports, then you would think that something of the sort would lie in the near future. What do you think?

While I was reading the chapters, I was watching the Cleveland mayoral debate between Frank Jackson and Jane Campbell. I do not vote in Cleveland, but I like to watch debates to see the way candidates answer certain questions and interact with one another. As I took a break between chapters I checked my email and found that I had an email from www.tedstrickland.com. He is my friend and Congressman who is running for Ohio governor. The email announced the creation of a blog on his site, so I immediately went to it and made a comment. After that, I went back to reading my book and then realized that I had just done what Manuel Castell discussed in his book. I had utilized technology to actively participate and engage in politics (via watching a televised debate and commenting on a blog). Castells talks about the way that technology opens the door to increased political activity and engagement and within an hour I had already done so in two different forms. My actions were proof of the increased availability of political information in today’s society.

This brings me to another point. This year and last year, I voted in the general election via absentee ballot. There were many names on the ballot that I didn’t recognize or know much about. The internet allowed me to search the candidate’s name to see their platform which I could base my vote upon. Without the internet, I would probably have asked my parents if they knew about the candidates, but I was able to find the information for myself.

There was a point made in the book that, “rather than strengthening democracy by fostering the knowledge and participation of the citizens, use of the internet tends to deepen the crisis of political legitimacy by providing a broader launching platform for the politics of scandal.” I do not agree with this statement and would like to hear some further support for this claim by the author. I do not understand how on one hand he can say that, “the internet offers extraordinary potential for the expression of citizen’s rights, and for the communication of human values” and “by broadening the sources of communication, it does contribute to democratization” and say completely the opposite on the other (quotes can be found on page 158 and 164.)

It is just very difficult for me to understand where he is coming from with these two very different statements which I feel contradict one another. Does anyone make sense of this? I wish he could explain, but maybe someone else can. Comments are appreciated.

It was hilarious and it made me think about how we are very skeptical of new technology at first and as we see the benfits or cons of it, we make a decision of whether or not to use it in our daily lives. In the show, the new technology hindered Kitty's night and therefore she became very agitated and upset.

This was a random post, but it was hilarious so I thought that I would pass it on.

My question then is... Can the government do anything right in the public's eyes? I am a pro-government person and take such stances on issues in today's society. In my eyes the people who are in government are, for the most part, good people. I know that we can always make exceptions on both sides of the aisle. These people dedicate their lives to serving the people of this country and all they get is ridicule.

Politicians are statesmen who work to serve their constituents in all that they do. I know this may be a rosy picture and does not always work, but it can. We can all agree that we need to get this country's spending under control if we hope to not leave my generation and our children's generations whith mountains of debt. This requires that the government make choices that we may not make us very pleased. Are we ready to cut programs and spending for the sake of technology research that may not reap benefits until after we are long gone? For the most part I would sya that people are not.

So, when we discussed the government today with skepticism I wondered as to what you think the priorities of the government are or should be with respect to technology. Hopefully I can get a wide array of answers as to see how the class feels that we can move forward in technology research in the government.

Please Comment!

If we embrace the idea that "what you don't know won't hurt you" mentality, then not knowing about the possibilities that technology has the possibility to bring doesn't create any problems. For example, was mailing letters with an envelope and stamp really a problem? Or did it become a problem when a new way to send information was created? Did the evolution of e-mail cause society to have a problem with the slow fashioned, unreliable mail system? Was there a problem with people using candlelight to light their homes or did the discovery of electricity lead to the idea that candlelight was ineffective and unsafe? People can not complain about a problem if they do not know of an alternative. Therefore, no problem may exist until the creation of a new technology that enables us to see the benfits it can have on our daily lives. Seeing the benefits may be what causes us to then isolate our "problems" that weren't problems until we were given an alternative. This may go along with the century old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Another possibility to the problem situation is that maybe people saw that some aspect of society could be improved and therefore people began to look and search for potential problems with things that society had for so long accepted. This seeking out of inefficiencies is not truly a problem that technology fixed, but rather a created issue that was targeted only for the purpose of technology.

Perhaps we will never know the true answer to this question and maybe there is no answer. We do not have the capability to go into the minds of those who create or enhance to see what their motive or objective. For now, I will look at technology as serving as an answer to societal problems, while still remaining uncertain as to whether the technology solves problems or creates them.

If I confused anyone I am sorry and I confused myself a bit while writing this because this is a topic in which we have the answer but are trying to figure out when the problem occurs!!!

Mccullough makes a very interesting point in chapter 7 when he alks about methodology. He says that, "Methodology hinders design." At first I read it and then I began thinking about it in a broad context. We are told that there are certain steps to take in life such as go to school, go to college, get a job. Who decides if this is the correct track for all people? Who holds this ultimate authority? If we, as a society, do not support those whose break this chain of events, then are we hindering one's individual "design?" Could this person encounter something that would change the societal preferences that we have so long been told and thus acted upon?

Of course there are some methods that have proven to be most effective (ie the scientific method). This will aide students and researchers in finding correct or the best results. However, is it possible for someone to create their own way of researching? If McCullough is correct then the scientific 'methodology' is inhibiting the design that people may have for the future.

McCullough is trying to demonstrate that the technological world must foster those who take their own paths or create their own ways of doing things if we are to ever make true progress. True progress means producing technology that is fit for its users, able to be used effectively while providing the best possible experience. Today we seem to look upon those who make their own trails as odd or weird. We need to look at these people as the pioneers of the future who are ready and willing to take the future of society on their backs as they dive into untread waters. These people are the true creators and inventors.

So, while methodology does serve its purpose in society, we must remember that it does hinder design and that shifting away from a formal method can benefit society as a whole. Thanks Mr. McCullough for opening our eyes!

Q. You do a lot of research and talked before about using text messaging and things like that to contact players, talk about how much technology has changed coaching since the time you got into coaching?

Now, I can go up to my system right now and say, let me look at all of the third down and three plays that Purdue has run this year, and in five seconds I have it. They are all right there and they are all on the list. There's all of the plays, third and three. There they are for the whole year. Now before, you've already given that step of making the little cut ups and you would walk into the room and there would be 50 cans of tape, and now it's something that you can literally do in 30 seconds.

This illustrates the way in which technology has become part of our everyday lives. We shape our lives around the technology that is available to us. For example, if coach Weis knew that he would have to sift through mountains of film to find certain plays that the opposing teams use in certain situations he would allocate more time to it. The time that he saves due to technology provides him with more time to spend directly with his players or with his recruiting. In this sense, vide tape has become ubiquitous, for the most part we know how much time we must spend to complete tasks and we orgainze our lives accordingly.

This all seems so innocent and helpful, but McCullough touches on the "accursed computing" and how it affects our daily lives. The ability for coach Weis to go into his office and find the plays he wants with ease and in a relatively short time is one thing. However, what happens if the footage now has a mind of its own and shows coach Weis what it thinks he wants to or should know? McCullough uses the example of a computer software program capitalizing, correcting and rewriting senetnces for you. This is an example of how technology hinders fundamental progression.

The interesting thing to think about is how far we want our technology to prgoress without us holding the reigns tightly over it. I believe that we all want technology that will aide us in our daily routine, but at what point is one's aide anothers hindrance or vice versa? This is where individual wants and needs comes into account. The personalization of programs and features would be the 'best' way to utilize new technology. However, there are still questions that need to be addressed: What does the personalization entail? How much will this cost? Can we really hault/slow down the growth of technology? What is the "ultimate goal" of technology. If you ask 20 people what they think, for the most part you would get 20 different answers. This demonstrates that we all have a personal vision as to what technology should do and what role it plays in our daily lives.

We, as a nation, have spent approx. $186 billion on the war in Iraq and approx. $66 billion in Afghanistan. So, the assumption that we must "cut" federal, national and local programs to accumulate funds for my proposal of national technology education is unfounded. The money that could be spent on the children in minority neighborhoods across the United States is being spent on rebuilding a country thousands of miles away.

Regardless of the current political times, my point is that our government should, can and needs to make the education of the less fortunate a main priority. Educating them with today's newest technologies will only move us closer to a more equal and communitarian minded country.

Now that I have discussed the writing, I would like to discuss the content of the text. As we all know, companies put many hours into the creation and production of their products. However, the descriptive techniques discussed in the book caught my attention. The charts and tables Shneiderman uses demonstrates the emphasis that companies and producers are placing on the "universal" use of their products. By "universal" in this sense I am referring to the people surrounding the users of the technology (i.e. students, family, friends, peers, society). The needs and wants of all of the aforementioned people are at the fore-front of the producer's agenda. With this continuous effort to reach out to all people, technology will continue to prosper.

The focus placed on human-computer interaction was very enlightening. We use our technology devices every day as if they were a true "part" or "extension" of our family. The devotion that we have to the care and maintenance of these devices is one that I had not pondered before.

I know that the author had to include the skeptic's view of making technology available to the less fortunate. The skeptic’s view was that "dumbing down" the systems would have a negative overall impact. I refute that statement very much as Shneiderman does. As an aspiring politician, I feel that it is our obligation to reach out those underprivileged in communities around the nation. We especially need to make sure that minority students are having the opportunity to gain access to and gain knowledge about the most basic technological devices (i.e. word processor, internet, etc.) If these students are not given the proper training to use the technology then we, as a society, have failed. So, to the skeptics I say that the uneducated, the minority, the poor and the disabled all have the right to be taught and to learn.

Q. Text messaging is something that's gotten big in recruiting. How much do you guys use it and can you measure the success?

COACH WEIS: Depends. Quotes sometimes. I give them a little state of the union during the summertime. I sat there at the All Star Game and flat out texted about everyone known to mankind while my kid was saying, "Daddy, aren't you going to watch the game?" Any time you have an opportunity to let the kids know you're thinking of them when they would not think you were thinking of them, you either text them before a game, and then you text them after a game to follow up on what happened.

I'm not going anything that everyone else isn't doing. I just think that it's become just part of what you have to do.

http://und.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/083005aab.html

I found it very interesting that coaches and universities are using this form of technology to contact possible recruits. Times have really changed since the personal visits to the student's homes, though I'm sure that still does happen. I just thought this would be of some interest to those of you who follow collegiate sports or those who bleed blue and gold like myself!

This should work. It took me forever, so keep trying.