Category: Charlotte Southern

Besides gaming, how could AR be utilized in more every day situations? Would something like was shown in the flash article help people explain concepts during business meetings?

How could we use AR for educational purposes? For specifically, for children that are unable to go to school or take field trips because they are hospitalized for long periods of time.

Is AR the next big thing, or are people satisfied with using avatars in programs like Second Life. It seems like some people like to hide behind their avatars so will this really become popular in the gaming world?

I have never really been that into video games. I’m not very good. We had a nintendo when I was a kid but that was well after more up to date models had come out. I liked duck hunt and super mario brothers but I don’t think it ever got in the way of running around the house or outside. I played Sonic the hedgehog on the computer and donkey kong at a friends house. Other games that I remember playing are Oregon Trail and mathblasters.

Now the only video games that I am good at are ones of the wii. I’m the demographic that those type of consuls are trying to reach. I have never gotten the hang of the 3d games where you have to look in the direction that you are walking. I have not really practiced but then again I dont really feel the need. I have movies, and books, and other activities to occupy my time. That being said I do know a lot of people that love video games and I can see why. Its just not my thing.

I think that the video we watched was really sad. The problem is China was not completely new to me because I have seen some news reports that say that the amount of gaming that being consumed by male young adults is actually having an effect on the culture. Men are living with their parents longer and dating less. I remember hearing that they were worried that there would be a decrease in population for the next generation due to this cultural shift.

I am glad that those kids have the opportunity to go to those schools although it seemed like some of them probably needed a longer stay than 2 weeks.

Schell says that video games have gone from fantasy to reality in the last few years because people have an urge to have things that are real. Gaming now allows people to interact with actual objects: plastic guitars and drum sets, webkins, ect. If technology has made us crave reality then why not go back to reality? Instead of playing a plastic guitar along with a video game why not learn the real thing? Are people just lazy and want to experience something without really learning it? How is this going to affect the generations to come? Will technology allow people to merely fake reality?

I am not really into gaming. I played duck hunt and super mario brothers, but not when it was cool, when the game consul was on sale at a Woolworths closing sale. I also remember playing donkey kong (the railroad part was our favorite) but I have never been great at video games. As a kid I would rather be playing outside. Even when playing inside it was imaginary role playing not video games for hours. How is the permeation of video game technology (it seems that its for everyone now) going to change our culture as a whole?

I got a book in the mail today called “Multimedia Journal” by Richard Koci Hernandez. He is a multimedia journalist who used to work for the San Jose Mercury News and now works at Berkeley. In the section called Newspapers are Dead he says: “Trying to answer or even ponder the questions on the future of journalism are a huge waste of time and stop you from doing what you’re good at: being creative. Who has time to consider all the implications of the future when we have a huge story telling opportunity right in front of us. Let’s take a deep breath, relinquish control of the future and concentrate our creative energy, on capturing moments and building great stories.” While its hard for me not to think about the future of journalism, especially because we talk about it so often in this program, I do think that he has a good point. We should work to be great multimedia storytellers and in the end hopefully that will prevail over everything. It may be wishful thinking but I’m going to go with it for the moment. Everything happens for a reason, and it will all work out in the end, even if we have to start from scratch.

Michael Schudson, the sociologist of journalism at Columbia University, sees the promise of “a better array of public informational resources emerging. ” This new ecosystem will include different “styles” of journalism, a mix of professional and amateur approaches and different economic models — commercial, nonprofit, public and “university-fueled.” I agree that there is going to have to be a mix of approaches and economic models. I wonder is a commercial model is feasible in the current economic state and whether it ever will be again.

“Most news organizations — new or old — are becoming niche operations, more specific in focus, brand and appeal and narrower, necessarily, in ambition.” When I read about all the things we should be doing I get really annoyed because people have been saying these things for years but newspapers have not been listening to the people (specifically younger people) who have been making suggestions for change. If newspapers were not so set in their ways maybe our only problem would be the economy. The problems in the industry right now can not be blamed purely on the recession. Can we just start over?

Can we install a successful subscription system that allows the media outlets enough revenue to operate in the black? People pay for cable and netflix. Could we use model like that or even one like pandora where you hit a “pay wall” but it gives you a low-cost yearly subscription.

Since people will go to a different source when told they have to pay how can we create a system where professional organizations create a subscription program (like cable) without breaking any federal laws? Also, how do we keep competition alive if people are paying a subscription for several media outlets?

The Miami Herald, The Sun-Sentinel, and Palm Beach post share content. How can one of them expect to be on top when there is less competition not only in the specific readership area but over three counties?

The whole time we were talking about de-monitization I was thinking, “oh god, what am I going to do?” What are a lot of us going to do? Its pretty amazing that one small change due to the advent of technology can turn billion-dollar industries into million-dollar businesses. Its crazy that so much money can be taken out of the economic world. Its not like we have 40 people making 100k each instead of 100 people making 40k. . .there is actually a large amount of money being taken out of the market. As a visual journalist I have done a lot of work for both newspapers and magazines. One of the reasons I came to this program is because newspapers are dying and I feel like the people that are coming out of undergraduate school right now are ahead of me when it comes to technological skills. I want to remain a visual journalist so in order to compete in the shrinking market I need to expand my skill set. Print products are obviously on their way out but how are we going to replace them? I think that access to news is a right and we should not necessarily have to pay for it individually, but, who is going to pay for it?  I wish there had been some foresight to the internet. Its seems like technology kind of hit us all at once and some already establish businesses who were rolling in money at the time (newspapers) didn’t create a plan because they didn’t realize that they needed too. They had lots of money so it didn’t matter that they were giving away their content online for free.

“If digital Free de-monetizes industries before new business models can re-monetize them, then everyone loses.” (pg 132) As a search engine Google indexes, organizes, and packages information. The book says that Google would like newspapers to stay in business because without a professional source of information it makes their job more difficult. Right now there are hyperlocal alternatives but they have not filled the information gap. Because this information is from alternative sources they (Google) can not use the fact of where it came from as an indicator of quality because it is not coming from a professional news outlet. Is Google doing anything to help newspapers, magazines, and other professional news outlets? They have gotten in trouble before with publishing books on their site and I have seen it before with newspaper articles. Sometimes you can get around the paywall by Googling an article.

If its easier for the newcomers than the incumbents when it comes to Free does that mean that businesses should in a way start over? What kind of business model is necessary to adapt without going bankrupt in the process?

Anderson says that these days Free really does mean Free. I am not sure that I believe that completely. I think the connections are just more diverse and spread out. If the cost of the digital world is being cut in half constantly and getting closer to zero everyday how do we put people into the equation. Anderson says its great when things get cheaper, but not if you are the employee that is no longer needed. How do we balance the Free digital world with the costly real world?

Today in class someone brought up the fact that when we buy tangible goods we are allowed to share them. So why can’t we share things that we purchase and download from the Internet? From a young age we are taught to share and now it seems like we are being told not to. Digital media is sometimes less expensive (a kindle books costs less than a hard copy) but do we really own it? Since its digital and controlled by a company we don’t have the freedom to do with it what we please. Hard copies of books can be passed around to friends and read by an infinite number of people. A kindle edition of a book could be shared, but only if the owner is willing to loan out their kindle. Although kindle books can be read on different platforms (ipad, computer, iphone, andriod) it can not be taken off the kindle platform.

I can see how some people may see breaking the law and pirating music as a slippery slope but I am not sure that it is that serious. I don’t think that it will lead to violent crimes but it may lead to a disrespect for the law in regard to petty theft. If you can download media online illegally and not get punished then maybe you think that stealing a magazine or dvd is not a big deal. I wonder if a lot of the kids that are downloading illegally even know that it is not allowed. They have grown up with the internet and might not even know that downloading media, something that is easy to do and widespread, is illegal.

I also thought it was interesting seeing how things have changed in such a short period of time. Jackie went to UM starting in 2004 and I started in 2001. When I lived in the dorms I don’t remember there being a block on file sharing. People downloaded music all the time because our internet connection was so fast. I don’t think that movies were downloaded that much but I think that was readily available. Three years later when Jackie started they had a ban on file sharing and apparently would cut off your internet if they saw that you had file programs on your computer. Also, napster was available to students in the dorms. They had accounts where they could download music for personal use. The music was only licensed to them while they were students.

I still don’t know if I have made a decision how I feel about remixing. I go back and forth because I really think that people can be very creative through the process of remixing and I enjoy consuming remixed media but at the same time I can relate to the content creator who is upset. I don’t want to stifle creativity but I also don’t want someone to use my work and manipulate it in a way that I am not pleased with. If someone “remixed” some of my images and created a negative message with them by changing their meaning I would not be happy. But, if someone wanted to used my stuff to create a positive message I would probably not have a problem with it. I guess I feel like I would just want to be asked. Its not hard to get in touch with me like a large company would be.

Most people don’t have a problem downloading music, movies, and software illegally off the internet. Why? Because its big business and corporate America. It doesn’t seem like the artists are really being affected by bootlegging, just the corporate middle-men, so we don’t care. As a content creator I do not want people to illegally use my work but I am conflicted at the same time because I do enjoy watching “remixed” videos on youtube like Buffy verses Edward. I would probably think it was cool if someone took my work and remixed it as long as it didn’t negatively affect me and they were not making money from it. Remixing does not seem to make much difference to the big shots in Hollywood but how does this phenomenon change things for the little guy?

The sharing economy does work in some ways (Wikipedia is everyone’s favorite example) but for some things it is not realistic. It would be great if I could give my work away for free all the time. If my work could be shared with everyone and expanded on but how would I pay my bills? Yes, we all belong to sharing economies in one way or another but leaning in this direction for only media does not work for the minor players. If I am going to work and create for free are the farmers going to give me food for free? No. So how do we create a balance in which professional media creators can make a living and also share?

The commercial economy has worked well in the entertainment realm. I am a huge fan of Amazon, Google, and Netflix. How could journalism outlets use this model to keep “newspapers” alive. If people are willing to pay $36 a year for no ads and unlimited music on Pandora would they be willing to do the same for news?

Look at any newspaper website and you can see that trolling is an issue in the comments section. Lanier believes that the design is mostly to blame. On many sites you have to sign up in order to leave comments, but with the ease of making a new email address and leaving a fake name it is easy to become anonymous. How do we design these sites better so that there is interactions between users but not the constant lack of respect that takes place online?

Lanier talks about lock-in and impending lock-in of web 2.0. How do we adapt what is already locked in or is he saying that we absolutely can’t? Who should be making the choices about the future of the web now?

Jenkins talks about fandom. There seems to be a fine balance to the production companies. They want to make money and the fans want the freedom to expand on the ideas that have already been produced. Is a turn back to a more folk-culture because of amateur works by fans a bad thing? Isn’t imitation the highest form of flattery?