{Tech Nerds--------------------------------------------------------------------Everyone Else}

There's this gap. It's kind of a big gap, troubling in fact. Because, I mean really, we're the future. And this gap, it's kind of based in technology. There's people like me (this will sound kinda pretentious) that are fairly computer literate and can interact with the Internet. We enjoy technology, enjoy learning about new things and the latest gadgets, enjoy trolling the Internet in search of the latest and greatest new website. Then, there are others. There are kids that, even though they have the ability to, can barely check their e-mail. They get confused doing the most common tasks on the Internet. How is this possible? Whose fault is this? Should the public education system get the blame? Or teachers? Or parents? Or, maybe, even the kids' fault?



Let's start with public education. Isn't the responsibility of education to better and prepare students for their later lives and to help them perform well in the "real" world? And, if this is so, why do we still have teachers who are unwilling to make this change, from a staid curriculum that hasn't changed in decades, to a more technologically advanced one? I know it is hard to change, but making students re-write, verbatim, the Constitution (and, trust me, one of the teachers at my school does this) is not doing anyone any good. Least of all, the students. Teachers certainly don't teach to make money. They teach (at least I think they do...) because they enjoy teaching and bettering the lives of their students. If they are not giving their students the tools needed to survive in an ever-changing technological infrastructure, they are not doing a good job. They are failing their students in the one area where students need the most help; planning for the future.



The students themselves, actually, may be the most to blame. After all, how can there be people who have grown up and lived in the same circumstances as myself, but not know how to do half the computer stuff I do? There's a disconnect there, and where is it coming from? Our education is similar and I would assume our home life is similar. Is it the motivation? Do I just care more about technology than others my age? Of course there are those that simply can't afford this kind of technology. This is perfectly acceptable; it is no fault of the students that they cannot afford a computer. As a matter of fact, the public education system should provide computers in schools for this purpose (but that's a different story.) However, I'm talking about those that have the ability to learn, to better themselves. Technology is the future, and people need to realize that. New skills need to be mastered. It's not a question of wanting. These Web 2.0 (and beyond) skills are a necessity.

So, I really don't feel bad about those students that cannot master these simple Internet tools. The knowledge is there, either through a teacher or a plethora of online sources. If you are not ready to adapt and learn for the future, don't expect everyone else to stop their lives to coddle you. You are responsible for you. Don't expect others to hold your hand. I need people to take control of their lives and their futures, cuz it's really starting to bother me.

Why the iPhone's Competition Fails (Before it Even Begins)

Everyone knows the iPhone is the most amazing phone ever made. OK, I may be a bit biased, but it honestly completely revolutionized what people do with their phones and how they do them. At the risk of sounding like a commercial, you can google a restaurant (either through an app or the actual google website), read the website on the restaurant, and call the restaurant and make reservations through the internet. This is massive step forward from normal phones. It is like Web 2.0 in a way, where one can access any information they need to access instantaneously and use the information they've gathered to make other decisions. This is why people love the iPhone. Because it is more than a phone, it's basically a computer in the palm of your hand.

However, there is another reason people lurv the iPhone. The brand. Apple is the cool thing to love. Having anything apple automatically makes one hip, trendy, and nonconformist. (Because, back in the 90's, Microsoft was the big bad wolf that was suffocating the younger up-start companies, like Apple. Now, Apple is almost as big as Microsoft. Those who are trying to nonconform by using Apple are actually still conforming by using Apple. The only way to nonconform is to either not use a computer, or use third party software/browsers/etc. But that's another blog entry.) People buy iPods because that is what everyone from ages 10-50 has. No one buys a Zune. People buy Macs because they think Macs are the hip thing to do, even though most of the claims Apple makes about the security of Macs are largley untrue. This is the second reason people buy an iPhone: to be cool. To fit in.

The iPhone has basically cornered the market on smart phones. There are many other smart phones out there, but Apple does it better. Verizon, however, seeks to change all this.They have recently started marketing their "Droid." Their ad campaign focuses on what the iPhone doesn't do (it does have some faults - we just got picture messaging last month, though that was largely AT&T's fault) and it could use some improvement. Verizon's "Droid" (made by Motorola) promises the ability to have a physical keyboard (some think the iPhone's touch screen keyboard is too finicky; I personally love it) as well as the ability to run multiple apps. These are all valid points, that I'm sure Apple is working on addressing, but are they really important enough to make consumers drop Apple/iPhone, a well established brand and product, for something completely new and untested? Some also feel that this was a bad move on Verizon's part, severing any ties they hoped to have with Apple and ending any dreams of having a Verizon iPhone. People are defensive of Apple; launching a direct assault on the "underdog" may not prove to be a smooth marketing move.

The Verizon "Droid", image courtesy of slashgear.com

I read an article in Time a few months ago about the market for a smartphone. This article mentions how, instead of giving Apple direct competition, some phone manufacturers should focus on a less "smart" smartphone. Basically, there should be a stepping stone for those who may not be the most technologically advanced between a normal phone, such as the Razor or Envy, and smart phones. There is not a smart phone like this on the market now, and it might prove to be a lucrative area. This may be a chance for another company to make worthwhile amounts of money on a smart phone. Companies must adapt instead of trying to copy. Apple is currently the Leviathan of the smart phone market, and nothing is going to change that for a very long time.

Objectivity=Subjectivity?

So, I read a pretty interesting blog today. It concerned the objectivity of journalists in the web 2.0 world and, this is the most interesting part so pay attention, how important (or non important) objectivity really is.



How about an equation?



Objectivity =/= Subjectivity.



Seems pretty straightforward, right? Well, this blog does not think so. In fact, this blogger basically equates objectivity to subjectivity inasmuch that readers want, NEED, subjectivity in their news stories and articles.



Let's face it-when we read an article, we know we are getting a biased opinion. Whether it's through Fox News or MSNBC, Time (which I will give props to for at least attempting to remain unbiased) or the New York Post, we read articles as much for the "need for narrative" as we do for the hard facts. I'd hazard a guess that gossip mags sell more than any newspaper. And why is that?



Because people love sensationalism. They crave it.



So, bringing this back to the originial point (and how this relates to Web 2.0.) A memo from the Washington Post (leaked, of course) told all journalists on staff that it was OK to have an objective point of view, to be human basically, but not to let in interfere (noticeably) with their articles in research.



Wut?

It is impossible to not have a bias. It is almost as impossible to hide that bias. And that is what this blogger is saying. That the transparency of objectivity is an OK thing. We all know journalists have bias, and that's just fine with us.

Google's Plan to Make an OS Obsolete

Last year, I heard talk about a new tool Google was inventing. Google Wave is an application that can be installed in Internet browsers that allows multiple users to basically share a desktop. Google Wave will allow for the instantaneous (that's certainly become a Web 2.0 buzzword) sharing and editing of documents, the ability to play games together, have an IM conversation, and much more. It is basically the best of every neat web tool put together in one easy to use/see flow. Kinda like a RSS feed on Ritalin. Or an iPhone in a browser. Well, you get the idea.

Google Wave, if done successfully, (and Google certainly has an excellent track record) could mark the turning point of something greater, bigger, than Web 2.0...perhaps, and you heard it here first, Web 3.0? Google Wave will make everything that came before it obsolete, as anything you could want to do is available right in your Internet browser. Need to edit a document and share it with a colleague? Simply place it in Wave and you can edit it together. Need to have a web cam conversation with your spouse and review your finances? Simply open up a web cam chat window in Wave and share a document. And, if there is something you do need to do but can't find on Wave, clever Google has made it an "open source license" basically saying that amateur and not so amateur developers can make widgets and new features for the Wave. It is a constantly evolving microcosm of the Internet.

So, I admit, not most teens are like me. Many teenagers do not get excited over the latest and greatest in Internet technology. A lot of them, quite frankly, don't care. Why should they? Well, because, if they want to exist and thrive in the future, they're going to have to become adept at the usage of these new Internet products. Technology is a very slippery slope; once you fall behind, it becomes almost impossible to keep up with the newest and best ideas conjured by the nerdiest minds on the planet. Just as our parents had to learn how to use a computer, the Internet, and communication tools, we will have to learn even more advanced technology to compete in the job market. Imagine, if you will, a 2010 high school graduate twenty years from now. They haven't kept up with the technology, as they don't care, but a 2030 high school knows the ins and outs of recent technological breakthroughs simply because they lived through it and experienced it. Why would an employer hire someone who would take months to learn new info when they could hire a bright, fresh new mind?

Technology is born out of necessity; perhaps, then, it is fair to say adaptation to technology is born out of the will to survive. A 21st century case of Social Darwinism where only those who know exactly what they're doing have any chance of surviving.

Web 2.0...And Beyond.

The dot com bubble was born in the 90's, and the world never looked back. People could look up information, view pictures, and communicate with each other virtually instantaneously. The internet became staid almost, though it was still regarded as one of the greatest inventions of the twentieth century. However, as the new millennium began, the Internet became invigorated by a new term and new concept; Web 2.0. The definition of Web 2.0 itself is hotly contested, though Tim O'Reily, who coined the term Web 2.0, has offered one definition. His concept of Web 2.0 is far broader than the ideas that are bandied about now. Some think Web 2.0 is based around social networking and idea sharing, though O'Reily considers any way in which people can instantly communicate with each other as Web 2.0 technology.

As I've said previously in this blog, we are the techno generation. We live on the internet; Facebook in one tab, a google search or wikipedia entry in another, our e-mail in a third, and iTunes minimized. We live in forums, we developed our own language (bbl, ttyl, brb, and the endless parade of emoticons), and we can constantly be interacting and connecting with others. A student in America can share and talk with a cubicle worker in Bejing. This fascinates me. The Internet fascinates me. It is the lifeblood of the world now. We cannot exist without the Internet. It may sound pathetic, but I am not ashamed to admit that I feel withdrawal when I am not able to access the Internet for an extended period of time. I have an Iphone and can check my e-mail and facebook multiple times a day, and that's without even sitting down at a desktop computer.


So, what does this have to do with anything?


The future of the Internet is of great interest to me. Widgets and RSS Feeds, wikis and blogs, flickr and IM. All these technologies occurred in the last decade. What awaits us around the corner? Just one example is the latest web based addon Google has unveiled, a tool that allows users to comment on/give extra information about a web page. The greatest features of this tool are the instantaneous feedback and the ability for multiple comments to appear on multiple web pages. This is quintessential Web 2.0.

My goal is to learn more about what the Internet can offer, the odd/quirky ways in which people utilize Internet tools (del.ici.ous comes to mind), and the rapidly growing and expanding technology that makes up the infrastructure of the Internet. Is it really that hard to imagine a time in the future where the human race has (d)evolved into cyborgs? Where computers are embedded into our brains, where we can look things up simply by thinking it? Nothing ever stays the same, especially technology.

Blogging isn't just for ranting anymore!

We are the techno generation. We grew up with PC's and laptops, cell phones in our pockets at the age of twelve, iPod earbuds entwined around our necks, and the Internet anytime we want it. In the middle of this deluge of information, however, a large percentage of this generation is woefully ignorant of the vast majority of tools the Internet can provide. Sure, most teenagers can e-mail, check facebook, shop online, and maybe even check Wikipedia. However, blogging is something that many more students should be made aware of. It is a way for students and teachers to interact in a less formal setting, a way for students to feel more at ease completing an assignment, and way for students to become more connected with the outside world.

Blogging in schools is fast on the rise. It's a way for the students to share their thoughts and feelings in an environment that is controlled but untamed at the same time. Theoretically, anyone could comment on any blog post a student does. But, what exactly does a student get out of blogging? Well, for one thing, it allows the student to express themselves in a way that might otherwise be uncomfortable for them, say in the classroom. Also, a student way wish to look at their classmates blogs, which could lead to a sharing of ideas and information. After all, isn't that a main goal of education in the twenty first century; to make students more well rounded and worldly?

Blogging also provides the amazing ability to connect to other stories, articles, and ideas. There is nothing better than presenting a point and then linking to someone else with that opinion; it makes your thought sound more real and more accepted. A student writing a blog can link to an article discussing the facts of the case, present their opinion, post a picture of a concept, and then get feedback from others. It is a self-contained world of action and reaction.

However, a blog may have drawbacks. Privacy is always an issue. Though I mentioned earlier the privacy afforded by a blog, the opposite may be true as well. You can be as anonymous as you want on the Internet but, at the end of the day, your ideas are still your ideas. People who you may not want to read your writing have every right as anyone else to. Also, there is always the chance of a blog to go off topic, or of a student not completing an assignment. After all, it's easier to keep track of a student manually writing an assignment as opposed to setting them loose on the Internet.

The Internet and technology are here to stay. My generation, the techno generation, knows more than Generation X or the Baby Boomers. However, our children will know even more. Today, we scoff at the ideas of typewriters and rotary telephones. Maybe, in the future, our kids will scorn us for our cell phones and laptops. Maybe, this is the future:

Image courtesy of: petitinvention.wordpress.com

I Can Haz Hyperlink?

I think the most important thing we've learned so far is the structure of a news article and how to write one. The inverted pyramid and bottom up editing have been helpful because it shows how a real newspaper would run its articles. I hope to continue to learn what makes a story interesting to someone, how to obtain a larger readership, and what to do to keep people reading. I have learned that news can vary greatly in how it is presented and its accuracy. News can be biased or objective, fact filled or fluff.

The ways we look at different types of media (such as blogs and wikis) was also important as it helped to better understand the type of news on these sites and the people who post them. For example, by reading many different types of blogs, it will be easier to determine which blogs are interested in reporting the "facts" (though it is next to impossible to remove all personal bias when writing in such a personal way) and which blogs blatantly put a spin on a story. In the future, I hope to learn more about the different ways media can be manipulated and to continue to work on writing news articles and more informal forms of journalism.