This week I saw an interesting news article relating to mobile phones. A mother misdialed her daughter's number only to find out that the stranger was willing to pay her mortgage payment she was going to miss. Click here to read the whole story. This made Yahoo!'s front page in the weird news classification. Weird sure is right. It is pretty amazing that people are still willing to help each other out in times of need. But I don't really understand how the mother could've misdialed. I would assume she had her daughter on speed dial or at least have her number in her contacts. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't dial numbers out anymore. I use speed dial or navigate in my contact list on my cell. I also wonder how long it took the mother to realize that it was not her daughter on the phone--long enough to get her point out at least. It was nice to hear that the real estate agent was nice enough to pay for her mortgage payment. I'm sure, being a real estate agent, she has seen firsthand the trouble people have making their mortgage payments.
This story kind of reminds me of what we're talking about in class. Mobile phones allow us to access anyone, anywhere. We no longer even have to wait to be at a computer to send an email. As I see in this story, a complete stranger can become a helping hand by the simple use of a mobile phone. I just wonder how this mobility has affected our society.
Everyone in my family except for my stepdad has a mobile phone. He does not have one because he probably doesn't want to figure out how to use it, and he also doesn't like the idea of being able to be reached anytime, anywhere. He works on people's farm equipment and stuff all the time outside of his regular work, so people are always calling the house looking for him or asking favors. I think if he'd have a cell phone, it would ring too much for him!
I also know a few people who like the idea of not having a cell phone but still have one because it's ultimately cheaper than having a landline. These people don't like that they're able to be reached while out at dinner or at the movies. If it weren't for text messaging, I wouldn't either, but I think that texting is so convenient and a great way at communicating to multiple people at once without having to stop what I'm doing. I try not to text too much when I'm with others because that gives the impression that I'm not interested in being with them, especially when we made time to see each other like during dinner. Unfortunately, it's not always that easy. I still am guilty of sending texts while at dinner with my friends or family. Sometimes I don't even realized I'm doing it. I should turn off my phone and enjoy dinner and conversation with the people whom are physically there with me! Being a waitress, I've seen people talk on the phone throughout their entire meals! I think chatting on the phone during a get together with a friend or family is even worse, and I hardly ever do that.
What do you think? Should people text when they're with others? Is that rude? Do you do it? Do you even notice when you are doing it?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Week 14 - Search engines and myths
Sometimes when I'm struggling with a topic for a blog, I go to MSN's homepage to look for a catchy heading because there is always something interesting featured on there Today, I found an article about the nine car-care myths I should ignore. As I read through the article, I found four myths that I thought were facts and followed closely. I'm not a big car enthusiast, but I've been taught a number of things by my stepdad who is a diesel mechanic and my boyfriend and a couple guy friends who work on cars as a hobby.
Myth number one that I believe and follow and always will probably: engine oil should be changed every 3,000 miles. In fact, my stepdad, told me to get my oil changed every 2,000 miles. According to the article, most cars are made to go 7,500 miles between oil changes. Well, that may be true, but cleaning up dirty engine oil and sludge will probably lengthen the life of your engine, I'm assuming--only assuming. On to myth two that I used to believe and follow: inflate tires to the pressure shown on the tire's sidewall. I believed that myth until I got new tires this summer. The sidewall on my tires said like 54 or something. My pressure gauge doesn't even go up that far! According to the article, that number is the maximum the tire can hold, not the set standard. Also, I believed the myth that I should let the engine warm up several minutes before driving (during our harsh winters here, not just always before driving). Apparently, modern engines warm up a lot quicker than those from the past. The article does warn, though, not to rev the engine up too high during the first couple minutes of driving. I only follow this rule when the temps aren't freezing! I have Astrostart and always let my car warm up before driving it during the winter because it is just so cold. I let it run for a couple of minutes just so that when I get in the car, I will be warm or at least not frozen.
Now, how does this relate to what we're talking about in class? I thought of these myths in relation to search engines. Most search engines show results from anywhere, including Wikipedia and places like Wikianswers and Yahoo! Answers where anyone anywhere, regardless of their expertise, can post information that will ultimately end up on a search engine. Many of those answers to Yahoo! Answers questions are probably myths or age-old rules that used to be true (like letting the car warm up used to be true when people had older vehicles). When researching for a class, I'm careful not to use search engines because of the huge possibility of inaccurate sources. I use Google Scholar or a search database through the libarary instead. However, when I'm looking up basic, everyday information for myself, the first place I go is Google.
This is just a link to a Yahoo! Answers Q&A about the oil change myth. Most people who answered the question said 3,000 miles for regular oil and city driving, so that kind of proves that just because an answer is common doesn't mean it's always right. So, even though I think Google is great, I'm careful not to believe everything I read on a search engine. I've actually seen people ask questions like, "Is it safe to mix medicine X with medicine Y?" I think that's a serious enough issue to ask a doctor!
Myth number one that I believe and follow and always will probably: engine oil should be changed every 3,000 miles. In fact, my stepdad, told me to get my oil changed every 2,000 miles. According to the article, most cars are made to go 7,500 miles between oil changes. Well, that may be true, but cleaning up dirty engine oil and sludge will probably lengthen the life of your engine, I'm assuming--only assuming. On to myth two that I used to believe and follow: inflate tires to the pressure shown on the tire's sidewall. I believed that myth until I got new tires this summer. The sidewall on my tires said like 54 or something. My pressure gauge doesn't even go up that far! According to the article, that number is the maximum the tire can hold, not the set standard. Also, I believed the myth that I should let the engine warm up several minutes before driving (during our harsh winters here, not just always before driving). Apparently, modern engines warm up a lot quicker than those from the past. The article does warn, though, not to rev the engine up too high during the first couple minutes of driving. I only follow this rule when the temps aren't freezing! I have Astrostart and always let my car warm up before driving it during the winter because it is just so cold. I let it run for a couple of minutes just so that when I get in the car, I will be warm or at least not frozen.
Now, how does this relate to what we're talking about in class? I thought of these myths in relation to search engines. Most search engines show results from anywhere, including Wikipedia and places like Wikianswers and Yahoo! Answers where anyone anywhere, regardless of their expertise, can post information that will ultimately end up on a search engine. Many of those answers to Yahoo! Answers questions are probably myths or age-old rules that used to be true (like letting the car warm up used to be true when people had older vehicles). When researching for a class, I'm careful not to use search engines because of the huge possibility of inaccurate sources. I use Google Scholar or a search database through the libarary instead. However, when I'm looking up basic, everyday information for myself, the first place I go is Google.
This is just a link to a Yahoo! Answers Q&A about the oil change myth. Most people who answered the question said 3,000 miles for regular oil and city driving, so that kind of proves that just because an answer is common doesn't mean it's always right. So, even though I think Google is great, I'm careful not to believe everything I read on a search engine. I've actually seen people ask questions like, "Is it safe to mix medicine X with medicine Y?" I think that's a serious enough issue to ask a doctor!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Week 13 - Economy and Pets
One thing I'm passionate about is respect for life, especially for those who cannot speak for themselves. Domesticated dogs and cats have a hard time making it on their own, so they need loving families to take care of them. Most dogs were bred to be of assistance to their humans. Dogs want human contact. Unfortunately, some are left neglected and in shelters.
I am a fan of ASPCA on Facebook. This morning, I saw a sad update from them that said, "Like organizations across the country, the ASPCA is witnessing firsthand the impact of the recession on pet parents who can no longer afford to care for their furry friends." I am also in the middle of writing an article about pet over-population for another class. The people I have interviewed have mentioned the recession causing pet homelessness. I just don't understand. I am a huge animal lover and wouldn't ever think of putting a living being in a shelter because I couldn't afford it anymore. Are these people putting their own children in a foster homes because they can't afford to take care of them anymore?
I am aware that taking care of a pet is expensive from food to chew toys to vet bills. Plus they require a lot of work and time to be able to properly train and socialize them. (That's exactly why I am waiting until after college to get a dog.) This article says that we spend 40 percent more on our pets than we did a decade ago. It also said that 70 percent of dog owners list their pet as like a family member. (Which is good or there would be even more pets in shelters.) I'm one of those who considers a pet a family member. I would give up way more things before a pet if I had felt the effects of the recession and needed to rethink my spending. I'd cancel my Netflix and just watch my movies I already own. I could totally live without cable. I wouldn't eat out as much; I'd cook at home. I'd walk to class and work instead of drive to save money on gas. I would not send my pet to a shelter or even worse to the streets to fend for itself. My personal opinion is that some people have a hard time prioritizing their spending, so they think they can't afford their pets, when in reality, they just need to spend their money better. Does a person really need $20 unlimited text messaging a month? Or can that money go for the food that their dogs literally do need?
The article mentioned that America's love for pets comes from the idea that we're trying to fill a void from either a divorce or working too many hours. That brings me to another point that I kind of already mentioned. Pets are a lot of work and money. Plus, they require some knowledge the be able to take care of them. That's why I think that people should think things through before getting a pet. Otherwise, it might end up into a shelter. This website lists reasons people give up their pets. None of those reasons are justifiable in my opinion. If the dog has behavorial problems, it's probably because it's not properly trained, fed, and exercised and is neglected. If you have too many pets, why did you get another one? Also, another reason listed was relocating or moving to another city. Unfortunately, lots of places don't allow pets, and big cities don't allow pets over a certain size. If that happens, I think it's up to the owner to find a loving home--maybe to a family member or friend who lives on a farm.
This is a link to a site about what pet owners can do if they're moving to an apartment. The home page also lists many other reasons people give up pets and what they can do. On the site it says, "If this means no pets because some pet owners in the past have caused trouble, the pet owner has three options: give up the pet, give up the apartment, change the landlord's mind. I'd give up the apartment before the pet...
What do you think?
I am a fan of ASPCA on Facebook. This morning, I saw a sad update from them that said, "Like organizations across the country, the ASPCA is witnessing firsthand the impact of the recession on pet parents who can no longer afford to care for their furry friends." I am also in the middle of writing an article about pet over-population for another class. The people I have interviewed have mentioned the recession causing pet homelessness. I just don't understand. I am a huge animal lover and wouldn't ever think of putting a living being in a shelter because I couldn't afford it anymore. Are these people putting their own children in a foster homes because they can't afford to take care of them anymore?
I am aware that taking care of a pet is expensive from food to chew toys to vet bills. Plus they require a lot of work and time to be able to properly train and socialize them. (That's exactly why I am waiting until after college to get a dog.) This article says that we spend 40 percent more on our pets than we did a decade ago. It also said that 70 percent of dog owners list their pet as like a family member. (Which is good or there would be even more pets in shelters.) I'm one of those who considers a pet a family member. I would give up way more things before a pet if I had felt the effects of the recession and needed to rethink my spending. I'd cancel my Netflix and just watch my movies I already own. I could totally live without cable. I wouldn't eat out as much; I'd cook at home. I'd walk to class and work instead of drive to save money on gas. I would not send my pet to a shelter or even worse to the streets to fend for itself. My personal opinion is that some people have a hard time prioritizing their spending, so they think they can't afford their pets, when in reality, they just need to spend their money better. Does a person really need $20 unlimited text messaging a month? Or can that money go for the food that their dogs literally do need?
The article mentioned that America's love for pets comes from the idea that we're trying to fill a void from either a divorce or working too many hours. That brings me to another point that I kind of already mentioned. Pets are a lot of work and money. Plus, they require some knowledge the be able to take care of them. That's why I think that people should think things through before getting a pet. Otherwise, it might end up into a shelter. This website lists reasons people give up their pets. None of those reasons are justifiable in my opinion. If the dog has behavorial problems, it's probably because it's not properly trained, fed, and exercised and is neglected. If you have too many pets, why did you get another one? Also, another reason listed was relocating or moving to another city. Unfortunately, lots of places don't allow pets, and big cities don't allow pets over a certain size. If that happens, I think it's up to the owner to find a loving home--maybe to a family member or friend who lives on a farm.
This is a link to a site about what pet owners can do if they're moving to an apartment. The home page also lists many other reasons people give up pets and what they can do. On the site it says, "If this means no pets because some pet owners in the past have caused trouble, the pet owner has three options: give up the pet, give up the apartment, change the landlord's mind. I'd give up the apartment before the pet...
What do you think?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Week 11 - Online Gaming
Online gaming has been around for a while, I just have never gotten into it. I used to play the occasional poker game online. I remember playing Checkers on Yahoo! Chat a long time ago. Other than that, I'm not an online gamer. You might see me on Farm Town or FarmVille but I don't play either of them. I set up an account, but I just haven't had the time or patience to learn how to play them. I started the tutorial on Farm Town but quickly exited out because I lost focus on it. eHow actually has a "how to" on Farm Town with just six simple steps. While I'd rather read short steps that go through a long tutorial, I still didn't see the appeal. I know it's there, though, because I remember The Sims and Sim Town and Sim City--they were all partially responsible for my procrastination in my younger years.
This week I decided to take a better look at online gaming. While I'm quick to judge and say they're just a waste of time and an easy way to get nothing done, I have to wonder if there's anything a person can actually learn or gain from online gaming. A couple of my friends operate zoos on Facebook. Are they learning how to care for animals? How to operate a business? Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I've heard of people becoming experts at poker completely online.
Also, this site suggests that an online game called OurCourts is using computer games to help people learn. OurCourts also led me to an article called: How video games are good for the brain, where the article defines video games simply as a form of media and states that it has been researched that video games can improve mental function. One very key sentence in the article was "Video games are hard," said Eric Klopfer. The article then went on to state that most games involve a huge number of mental tasks. After reading the entire article, I actually think of video games a bit differently now. Playing video games is undoubtedly better for the brain than watching TV--especially particular shows.
What are your thoughts on online and video games? Are they beneficial in some aspect?
This week I decided to take a better look at online gaming. While I'm quick to judge and say they're just a waste of time and an easy way to get nothing done, I have to wonder if there's anything a person can actually learn or gain from online gaming. A couple of my friends operate zoos on Facebook. Are they learning how to care for animals? How to operate a business? Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I've heard of people becoming experts at poker completely online.
Also, this site suggests that an online game called OurCourts is using computer games to help people learn. OurCourts also led me to an article called: How video games are good for the brain, where the article defines video games simply as a form of media and states that it has been researched that video games can improve mental function. One very key sentence in the article was "Video games are hard," said Eric Klopfer. The article then went on to state that most games involve a huge number of mental tasks. After reading the entire article, I actually think of video games a bit differently now. Playing video games is undoubtedly better for the brain than watching TV--especially particular shows.
What are your thoughts on online and video games? Are they beneficial in some aspect?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Week 11 - Poke
A poke has gained new meaning after the popularity of Facebook. If you have a Facebook account, you mostly likely are aware of the poke feature. If not, you can just check out Facebook's long list of questions and answers about the poke feature, which, to me, essentially seems pointless. It's kind of random and funny but it serves no real purose. Awhile back, the application SuperPoke! became popular on Facebook. It was like a poke except that you had to add the application and there were way more random things to do to your friends other than poking. For example, you could dance with your friends, throw random objects at your friends, or even high fiiiive your friends. It's a virtual way of doing things with your friends without having to actually do them.
Back to the simple poke feature: What seems like an innocent gesture caused a Tennesse woman to be arrested for violating a protective order against her by poking the person who had the order against her. It's being determined if the poke was done by her from her computer or by a hacker. It's also being determined whether or not it was an imposter's site that did the poking. I don't really know what to say about this. Is a Facebook poke a violation of a protective order? I found the legal definition of it and one thing it said on there that caught my attention is that usually protective orders have a specified distance one party must stay away from the other party. But what about "virtual distances"? With the growth of social media, does that need to be considered in writing laws like this? According to the original news article, a poke is still a form of communication. What do you think? Should this woman have been arrested? Was a poke a violation of the protective order? Should it be?
Back to the simple poke feature: What seems like an innocent gesture caused a Tennesse woman to be arrested for violating a protective order against her by poking the person who had the order against her. It's being determined if the poke was done by her from her computer or by a hacker. It's also being determined whether or not it was an imposter's site that did the poking. I don't really know what to say about this. Is a Facebook poke a violation of a protective order? I found the legal definition of it and one thing it said on there that caught my attention is that usually protective orders have a specified distance one party must stay away from the other party. But what about "virtual distances"? With the growth of social media, does that need to be considered in writing laws like this? According to the original news article, a poke is still a form of communication. What do you think? Should this woman have been arrested? Was a poke a violation of the protective order? Should it be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
