CCT205+LABS

//**HI JEREMY, I HAVE TAKEN OUT THE LABS THAT I DID NOT WANT YOU TO MARK. THERE ARE EIGHT HERE FOR YOUR MARKING PLEASURE :)**//

There are many example of how we implement design into everyday functions. We see this in cars, cell phones and computers, the list goes on. Good examples of how function and design intertwine together are buildings and technology. This can range from skyscrapers, houses, condominium and apartment buildings to computers, MP3s and mobile devices**.** The environment in which we work, rest and play in must be visually appealing for us. Why is this?
 * LAB 3: DESIGN**

Humans like and are drawn to visually appealing objects. Not only must it be pleasant to look at but it also has to be functional as well. There is a reason why everyone does not have the same phone, have all houses built by the same contractor and are attracted to the same people. This is what the market place thrives, as transnational corporations cater to a variety of different tastes. This maximizes profit. Attraction is important but there has to be some sort of connection. Let’s take Apple products for instance. The look of these products is a fashion statement. Sleek and modern are words to describe a "trendy and stylish" individual. The product is now part of the individual creating an emotional engagement.

Condos and apartment buildings are great examples of attractive engagement to the consumer. This engagement is what is believed to make the difference in a “house” and a “home”. The latter having an emotional attachment to an essential structure. Live High condominium complex in located in Mississauga and is currently under construction. There are 5 towers all together each being described as “iconic...majestically rising...luxury and elegance”. Those that feel or wish to associate with any one of those words will automatically feel drawn in to purchasing. The function in its most basic form is protection, but the market creates an environment that connects this to the individual. If the object can create a deep relationship to the individual, then object has become a part of the individual (a sense of self-definition).

I found this article to be a great read. Firstly, i agree with her stance. Nothing is wrong with technology but, its a bit overpowering at times. The use of technology has become in escapable. Now this is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. I believe that we need to take a critical look at how the constant use of technology is effecting our social relationships but also how thought process (creativity). Now let me explain before i get called a luddite (yes i know what that means).
 * LAB 4: TURKLE'S ARTICLE**

I have a cellphone, im always on facebook and i love my xbox. In all these forms, i am communicating with people, yet all through optics. I almost feel like my texting and BBM's are the most convenient thing to have ever been created. Facebook is great for sharing. I love films and film culture so i am consistently changing my status so reflect what is going on in tinsel town. Now xbox, i love it, call of duty, gears of war, halo, halo reach, left for dead....i could go on for days, three words....first-person shooter.

Alone together is such a great title, along with the fact that again, i totally agree. We are never alone and never being alone we have come to rely on ways that we can be accepted. When my blackberry goes off that red lights is a religious calling. I must see who needs me. If i send an important message and i dont get a response back right away, im sitting on the edge of my chair. What did i do? Did i say something wrong?...i really thing that technology makes us social unresponsive. What i mean by this is that we no longer thing in terms of what would be rational in a normal social interactions but we start to think what is right in digital interactions. We become insensitive to people, but sensitive to peoples technology. We really dont know how to be alone anymore. An i agree that solitude can stimulate creativity. Why? because when we are in solitude we reflect, its natural. Next time your by yourself in a room doing nothing, try not to think...you cant....its what we do, reflect, think, analyze. This natural state that we are pulled into stimulate creative ideas and thoughts. This is the beginning of innovation. Take solitude away and there is no creativity. This is why we are all L-minded individuals, we have forgotten what it is to be R-minded.

I suggest we take a step back and take Sherry's thoughts into consideration. Dont through your blackberries away and dont hide your IMacs but set them aside and reflect...in solitude!

Is privacy important? Why do we crave privacy so much more then we used to? The former CEO of Google said that if you are skeptical of being tracked them maybe we shouldnt be doing it in the first place**.** One could easily refute that if one isn't doing anything wrong then the government and institutions have no reason to watch. I have to say i do agree with that statement, not to say companies and governments have nothing to gain. Firstly lets look at why companies and the government like to track us.
 * LAB 5: PRIVACY**

We are tracked to find out information. How will corporations succeed? how will governments squeeze some extra pennies out of us? The power hungry need ways to control us. The more information they have on us, the larger the competitive advantage they have achieved. They have the power to get us to buy what they make us need and want. They therefore control how we spend (through perks cards) and what we spend it on (through customization). Now if companies and governments want to monitor us and they do so not for marketing reasons, why? should they be limited and to what extent?

In today's society there is little privacy. We thrive on social media, social networking and social interaction of all sorts. The last thing we need is lack of privacy. All our information is out there, so what are we protecting exactly. Personally, i think its all in our heads. If the government wanted to track us, they could easily do so. Giving information to facebook, hotmail and google just gives more people access to your information. It does not give more information up. Now, i feel the last thing we need to do is give more personal information to more people. The point is....for stalking purposes. Just like the creapers on facebook, the governments creap in the name of protection and security, yet still there are still pedophiles, rapists and murderers out there. Don't get me wrong, i don't think there are people sending explicit emails about their next sadistic attack, what i am saying is that tracking who shops where, or who watches pornography is pointless, nothing illegal there, focus your money and attention elsewhere. Keeping my information stored up in googles database wont help you with anything, unless you wanted to help me on my assignments and read emails from my boyfriend ( they are anti climatic...dont worry)...look elsewhere. Set up an email account on Google right now, you have to give your phone number to be sent a conformation number (HUH?)...why? what would that do? stop spam? track me more..yes. Get out of here Google, in an age where we have no privacy, you just dont make it any better.

Im not a privacy activist, all im saying is that we need privacy, if not in actuality, at least for our sanity. We dont need to give up our information at every corner we turn.

Instead of choosing one rule, i chose two that i think work hand in hand. They are the following:
 * LAB 6: RULES FOR RADICALS**

**Rule 2**: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat. **Rule 3**: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Firstly i find these two rules extremely interesting because they are completely and entirely true. If someone is taking about something they have no idea or experience about, it is easy to make them look like a deer in headlights. I think i have found myself in such situation several times. Funny, but true. To be well informed in the ideal tactical approach. This gives anyone a competitive edge on the front lines. Likewise, an uninformed opponent is easy to manipulate for the very same reasons. Ignorance is the main cause for this. When individuals are ignorant towards their goals, the outcomes and the effects of their actions, then being informed in a far thought....which ultimately catches up.

For the near approaching research paper, these two rules must be met. Rule number 2 must be met by our group members insofar that the members should not have no boundaries in their experience. The purpose of the research assignment is to be well informed. So well informed that we fall right into rule number 3. For our paper, we will be conducting an interview with the CEO of a leading plastic company in Canada. In tackling this, the interviewers must be prepared with well structured questions that cover all areas and sides on the issue of the garbage vortex and biodegradable plastic. The purpose of being prepared and well informed is to avoid confusion, fear and retreat yet inflict these attributes on our opponent. It may sound cynical, but these rules are tactics for group activism as stipulated by Alinsky. As our group is researching a topic that is of collective interest, I feel that applying these tactics will work in our favour.


 * LAB 7: VIRTUAL VS PHYSICAL**

This whole subject for me is touchy. The reason being is that there are pros and there are cons. Lets start with the:

Pros: Ok this is great, technology acts are such a liberator when it comes to classroom participation/learning. Gives participants the space and flexibility of learned when it is convenient for them (online lectures). If online exersices and material are implemented, then the learning of the participant is broadened into technical learning as well. Virtual supplements such as robots that can move around a conference room or lecture hall and transmit information back to the professor or manager is another way to space time and money. This again suggests that distance has become a small part in training and learning insofar that we can transcend the barriers of time and space. Money is also conserved because there is no need to accommodate to a group of people (lecture hall, hand outs). Everything can and posted and downloaded through fiber optics making learning and training easier. Depending on the type of learning that is participating, one may find this kind of interaction the same as or better. If there are video/voice recordings the participant may feel no different then being in a lecture hall as then voice of authority is still there. Interaction can be supplemented through emails, phone calls, and personal feedback on assignments and reports.

Cons: People lack personal interaction. While technology in the classroom/workforce is beneficial, there are many misleading factors. Technology can diversify the experience, but lack of social interaction draws individuals away from "reality" and into "virtuality". This leads to the rules of the virtual world. Im not trying to say that having technology in the classroom makes people forget how to reaction in face to face situations, but it draws individuals into more desocializing means. Thats is more use of email, rather then a phone call or visit, more texting and so on. This instills the need for convince in society. The use of video lectures may still feel less personal to some participants therefore resulting in poor performance. Technology is fast and ultimately convenient, making it the ideal option. The constant use and promotion of technology is what has been leading to the digital gap.

Its a bitter-sweet debate. I personally like both having to go to lecture, but i record all my lectures anyways. This means that sometimes im not as attentive in class because i have that back up. Does it demotivate me to stop listening in class, yes. Would i do better if the voice recordings were posted for me? Who knows, there is no real way to know because learning is a personal experience and differs in every instance. To each, his own. Each participate has a different learning style and may or may not benefits from approach A or approach B. The best way to get the maximum results is to create an environment that uses technology (diversify the experience) but also enforce social interaction because that is the most natural functions of humans to interact. This will ensure that participants have an equal balance


 * LAB 8: POSTER**




 * LAB 9: WEB 3.0**

In lab, there was an in depth discussion about web 1.0 and web 2.0. Although there is no structured definition, there in a general understanding. Web 1.0 can be defined as the use of internet that is based on the retrieval of information. This is the basic means of people using or gathering information from the internet. Web 2.0 was derived from using the information but also being able to interact with the medium that we are using. The era that we are in right now denotes Web. 2.0. We are constantly interacting with people through the internet and if we are not interacting with people we are in constant interaction with the internet itself. Websites like wikipedia, facebook and blogs all contain factors that allow individuals to participate. This can mean interaction, editing or commenting; anything that can allow a participant to take part in the communication process. The direction of Web 3.0 can be anything from AI to being connected to the internet in a more innovative way. An example of this was the guy from CCIT program, i believe we went to MIT before, having created a way to be connected to the internet via sunglasses. I am more prone to think of Web 3.0 to be driven in the direction of AI because we are already so connected to the internet. Some sort of device that can fit on to your head would be seen as an inconvenience in this day and age. Through smart phones/mobile devices, data plans, wireless internet and wireless hotspots, society has access to various was to stay connected through fiber optics.

Since the recent Jepardy vs Watson incident, the idea of AI has given people a new outlook on what computers can do. Before, many people could confidently say that humans are greater then computers because we can feel and emotionalize where as computers cannot. Watson has proven to the world that computers almost can. During the episode, Watson would lack when it came to questions that used emotional or personal thought but at the end, cleaned the floor. Now, I am not advocating that computers will get to the stage in which there will be no difference between computers and humans, but i feel that it would be optimistic to think that it will never be the case. Watson excelled because "it" was a database of information. Being able to process information and a faster speed then humans, "it" was able to find the answer, similar to a search engine. Although one can agrue that the human brain works the same way, the thought process is different. We think, feel and emotionalize alot of what we experience....experience is the key word because a computer or machine may never be able to experience anything. Right now, the extent to which a computer can experience is little, they explain the components of water, but never experience what water feels like....in my thoughts i feel like Web 3.0 will be the attempt to create AI that can experience things in the same way humans currently can...not only this but implicating these aspects into different infrastructure in our daily life.

NOTE: TODAY IN TUTORIAL (MARCH 24) we talk about this **http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/24/columbia-doctors-turn-to-ibms-watson-for-patient-diagnosis-cla/**


 * LAB 10: HOW SHOULD IT BE HANDLED? OR IF IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE, THEN WHAT INSTEAD?**

As a personal response to this question, There is nothing that can be done. Discussed in class, Jeremy stated that things are already being processed in order to "delay" the internet. This can be in the form of slowing down the packets that are being downloaded or uploaded. If every download/upload is already being monitored then how can we stop it. Government institutions have internet providers the authority to slow down the transfer of packets already with a "justified" cause, therefore i feel that there is nothing that we can do. If the justification is congestion people believe that the internet can get to the point of dial up (speed wise). Personally i believe that it could never come to that...what i mean is the internet is no vast. With so many providers and different networks, can the internet ever be TOO congested. I do not think it is possible but for agreements sake lets say it is. In that case, there may be no effective way of handled this because these providers are protected by the government. With vague legislation regarding such policies, it is hard to think of a way so solve this matter (other the petitions and protests which generally are ineffective).

This mysterious character Kempe should definitely be investigated because i think his practices are a bit shady in themselves. If one is working out of America, they can the laws of Canada and Australia apply to those who are being targeted. I think if this matter were to reach the public, then it would spark interest. Not only is this an invasion of privacy but also an issue of jurisdiction. Each country having its own laws means that the retaining and protection of information changes. If this doesnt spark some interest i do not know what will. I would be solely concerned about this. Again regarding the congestion of internet, i feel that its only possible if internet companies make it possible. Consistently monitoring what people are doing may having more to do with law suits and payments then actual congestion by users.

Again, i am completely uneducated on this topics, which means...may be the internet can get so congested it just starts to crawl. What strikes me as the most interesting is the issue of jurisdiction. I would also like to know more about Andy and his role in the various organizations that he is affiliated with. Yet, like Jeremy said, there is no way to prohibit use, but delay the process, something that is unavoidable. Again this is enforced by Canadian legislation. There may be a way around it because this fellow is linked to different countries, but at the end of the day, if Rogers is stopping the packets being uploaded and downloaded then what can be done. Unless we boycott them and put them out of business. Its probably because i feel regular ways of protesting an issue with legislation never works. Reason being, the rebuttal is always "its for the greater interest and safety of the public". Apart from is all, majority of society believes it! This is why there may not be a solution, well, at least for a while.