napster + seven years after = ?

Response to Grade 10 Journal Entry Question: How Napster Changed the WORLD?

Napster was infamous at the beginning of the new millenium because it offered an easy way to get music. It was this very application that opened up the world to illegal downloading that still continues on up until now. Napster was a prime example and one of the pioneers of a more general public-initiated P2P (peer-to-peer) online music downloading.

Of course, Napster didn't begin illegal downloading. In fact, it had existed for many years through sources such as IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channels. Napster brought a simple user interface to the art (if you can call illegal downloading an art, anyways) that didn't involve complex commands to get music. But of course, from Napster spawned more P2P applications, as well as the awareness of general Internet users and record labels of the situation.

Napster was originally created to help distribute music digitally, and record labels paid no attention to the matter until it began to affect their revenue. In fact, I think it triggered the whole market for pirated music in a reverse effect. Record companies can't stop music pirating 100% because of applications such as Napster - take a look at programs such as KaZaA and Gnutella that also aided in the deterioration of legal music distribution. There really hasn't been a victory in online downloading, although people have the option of paying for their music to support the artists. Some artists find online music distribution as a great way to market themselves; others find it as a vehicle to take away their income if their CD's get bootlegged.

And it's not just affecting record companies - look at all the music stores that are suffering. It's rare to find record stores without DVD's or games to help their income these days. Online music distribution doesn't only have an effect on record label executives or music artists, but also normal people that run stores filled with CD's. I recall walking down the Danforth and seeing an old specialty record store that was selling off all their CD's, in hopes of converting to a vinyl-only shop. I saw a frown appear on the owner's face as a customer said, "It's cool, I already downloaded like, half the album." People have to accomodate digital downloading now, and it's definitely taking a toll on buyers and sellers alike.

Don Dodge's article had given me the message that we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves when dealing with technology. Napster had grown so quickly that it has taken a huge bite out of the music record industry, and has affected our methods of getting music drastically. We don't need to go out to buy a CD to get the album you're really anticipating - just point and click and you've got all the tracks on your computer. Instead, we should anticipate what needs to be done, the effects that our solution may have, and to conduct many trials before releasing a final product. Trial-and-error production methods are much better than trial-and-error in the real world, in my opinion.

The bottom line? Napster, thanks for revolutionizing music distribution as we know it.

wii... would like to clarify.

Response to Generic Journal Entry Question: Are Wii the Children of the Revolution?

The Nintendo Wii, better known as the motion sensor gaming wonder. We've grown accustomed to Nintendo's past releases - namely that of the GameBoy and many other gaming consoles, as well as its multitude of characters and merchandise (can you say Mario?). What could possibly be so special about this, you ask? I'm seeing a whole different side to this story.

Not every family is interested in a good old game of Monopoly anymore, and that the Wii brings a more digital and fun method of gaming for everyone. But are any of its methods particularly new? I don't think so. The physical gameplay aspect of the Wii is definitely something that's been around for a while: think DDR. Motion sensor games such as ParaParaParadise (check Pacific Mall - it's hard to miss para-dancers when you're going down the escalator) have also been around for a good seven years now. Speaking of which, the neglected PlayStation EyeToy was also brought to my attention. The game variety could've been just as extensive as the Wii's collection, had the EyeToy been more popular and had better sensors. I personally perceive the Wii as a combination of gaming technology that we've all seen over the past 10 years.

I do have a lot of respect for the Wii because of its unique gameplay. It's a different combination of motion sensors as well as your imagination taking shape through the controller. But I wouldn't call it "revolutionary" just yet - while the Wii is a spectacular device, I don't believe that it will transform our society into a congregation of gamers. Not everyone will be totally entranced by the Wii, although it is a thought. Digital gaming is appealing for the younger generation as well as some of their parents.

As a game system, Wii is definitely a top contender with a concept of introducing a gamer's imagination to a console that can truly deliver past button-mashing. But I'm not personally ready to call it a revolutionary device, because there's aspects to the Wii that have been scattered throughout the gaming industry for years.

this is what happens when you've got bonnie pink on repeat, a bad vector job and extra stock photos to spare.



namely, the stock is a photo i took in july 06 on a trip to new york city. my cousin brought me to a humble port in brooklyn, almost underneath the brooklyn bridge and has one of the best views of the nyc skyline in town.

enjoy :)

using e-print

Response to Grade 10 Journal Entry Question #5: Reading in Cyberspace ?!?

Google has introduced a new service called Google Book Search. It's basically an online library of sorts, where you can find digital copies of various titles offered by the service.

Publishers are definitely going to need to get themselves updated with recent technology. Books aren't just limited to print sources anymore. Most publishing houses would definitely find this new method of finding books more convienent to their consumers and will highly consider putting their works on the Internet. This being said, Google is pioneering such a project and will be the centre of attention for many publishers wishing to put their material online. They must build their digital library together through the works of the publishers and the sources of Google, and will work more closely together as this project evolves.

Google offers a variety of user utilities as e-mail, chat, photo storage and much more. Its large-scale competitors, such as Yahoo! and Microsoft, also provide similar services. With the introduction of Google Book Search, perhaps they too will attempt to follow suite to improve and surpass the capabilities of Google's respective digital library. They can do it in many ways, such as accquiring the rights to certain publishers' works. Maybe even mini-features can improve their chances of success, such as offering them as word-searchable PDF files. Many people would find this quite efficient towards their researches - I know I personally would, since I'd find it easier to just copy a quote straight from the source than take the time to type out five lines. Hopefully the competition doesn't get too brutal, or that their services become too similar.

Google Book Search would give more access to print source information to many people who do not have the access to a library (although the scenario happens seldomly) or would find it easier to have a one-stop source for information. It's especially important to keep in mind that the Internet is an open source, meaning anyone can come and copy or edit material. An Internet hacker could break into Google Book Search's server and corrupt their files by photoshopping images, for example. The Internet cannot always be 100% relied on (a great example is the almighty Wikipedia) and I'm sure many people would prefer to stick to print sources, knowing that the information given is taken straight from a reliable source.

Libraries should not feel threatened by services such as Google Book Search. I personally don't think that books will soon become an ancient piece of history. Not everyone has an iPod that can read text, or will be able to read on-the-go the same way as holding a book in our hands turning pages. Even now, many people don't use computers - whether by choice or because of a lack thereof. The world is not 100% digitalized, so libraries should not fear any of the upcoming digital sourcing.

Overall, I feel that online book sources are a good asset to research. They provide an easy way to access basic information. But keeping in mind that many sources on the Internet are not reliable anyways, I'm a little skeptical about how this system will work. I'll just stick to the shelves and Dewey Decimal for now.

military combat in your hands

Response to Grade 10 Journal Entry Question #3: When War Meets Video Games

Every single day, we read the newspaper and watch the TV to see people dying and fighting all over the world. We all stand by and watch the list of casualties increase by the week, and some even say it's a shame. Our society is in the midst of wars being fought all over the world.

Video games bring adventure and fantasy to those who would otherwise be living out their plain and regular lifestyles. Some people find playing video games give them an escape from reality, and others just an opportunity to live in a world of fiction and fantasy. But in the case of war video games, reality touches base with adventure and a simulation of what could really be happening on the other side of the planet, is created.

Modern pop culture is influenced by recent events and trends that appear as time goes by. With all the talk about the war on terrorism and the violence in the Middle East, there has to be some sort of interest developped in the topic. War video games draw upon that interest, which is why they are so popular in this day and age. Our current events, media and news are flooded by daily combat. So why not bring it home to your television screen instead of outside your bedroom window, right?

War games have a very thin line between reality and fantasy. War is something that affects us in the real world and its inhabitants. Is it really all that fun to shoot people down, knowing that the same thing happens in real life by the day? I guess to some people it is, considering how popular the genre has become. But we should not let games deter our opinions on aspects of our real lives. In the same way that we believe that mystical creatures don't secretly crawl beneath the Earth, we should also keep in-game wars within their respective borders. Fighting real battles and real wars goes beyond the simulation, and gamers should keep that thought well in their minds. Playing war games are fun, so long as they are limited to the television screen.

Overall, war video games should not affect our sensitivity to the topic's regularity in our current events. I personally think that if people were to play games for a different perspective on war, they are totally free to do so. Many people learn and want to experience things differently, and if video games are the vehicle, so be it.

a top on your lap?

Response for Journal Entry #1: "With the GOOD, comes the BAD"

Modern-day communications technology is evolving at a fast rate. Look back to your parents' generation - presumably the youth of the baby-boomers, where Elvis was slowly taking over the radio airwaves and Star Wars was "in."
Now everyone's all about the iPods, the MP3 downloading, cell phones, PSP's, Nintendo DS's... You name it. Entertainment and technology have never been so heavily associated with each other, in my opinion.

More specifically, I'm here to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of something I constantly rely on: my laptop. Being an owner of one myself, I should know first-hand what having a laptop is like. And it's pretty nice!


You might be thinking... a laptop is a computer, right? Why's she talking about a laptop in specific? As you must probably already know, computers are generally divided into two physical body types: desktop and laptop. Desktops, while they are the bulkier of the two, can pack in much more RAM memory, disk space, and have the capacity to run much faster than laptops. Laptops, on the other hand, can also provide powerful systems that are portable. While you don't get the max performance, you do get portability bragging rights.

Having a laptop is perfect for me, since I hate when dust starts collecting on top of a computer that just... well, sits there. I love being able to bring it anywhere with me - all my data is all available to me, and I can use it without having to plug it into a power outlet. Not to mention that it's exceptionally easy to bring my computer to school when I have big projects. It's also convienent when there are multiple computers in the house - my Mom has a non-wireless laptop that she brings home from work from time to time, so we can hook that up to our router while I go to the living room and use my wireless there. There's no hassle to disconnect a cord from the back of a machine, or even not use the computer at all - the portability and power that the laptop packs in is extremely convienent.

At the same time, I also lack the power that a normal desktop would have. The processing power of my laptop is the equivalent of a desktop... that was manufactured around 5 years ago. My old desktop (2000-2005) packed a whopping 1.4GHz, and my current laptop runs on 1.7GHz. It takes forever to burn a CD or a DVD, sadly enough. A normal 4GB burn session usually takes about 20-30 minutes on a desktop, as where it takes double the time on my poor laptop. Something that's a little irrelevant to me as well is playing games or watching movies on my trusty sidekick - it's less than necessary for a girl like me, but they would be much better appreciated on a desktop (more specifically, a media PC). But I guess that's the price I pay for the portability of my laptop.

Overall, I think that a laptop is the perfect solution for someone who's always on-the-go and only needs the essentials. Sure it doesn't pack the punch of a desktop, but at least you can bring your data around easily and access it while you're not in the office or at home.

iLecture

Response to Grade 10 Journal Entry Question #2: An iPod Classroom?

I have a pretty long commute to school. It takes me an 8-minute train ride and an almost 40-minute bus ride to get to Ward - and that's not including the waiting time, standing out in the freezing cold or extreme heat. What's a girl to do to kill time on this vast and daily journey? I could read a newspaper, listen to music.. or possibly even a seminar delivered by my teachers.

York U has developed "downloadable seminars," available as video podcasts for the Apple iPod. I could simply listen in on a seminar anytime and anywhere, just as long as my battery life isn't totally dismal. It gives a lot of flexibility to the way I learn, and gives me a chance to learn outside of the conventional classroom. It would be a great convenience for times like a busy commute or waiting for hours at the doctor's, so I could be more productive and make better use of my time.

The not-so-great aspect of the concept of these "downloadable seminars" is that not all of us are blessed with having an iPod at home, let alone a portable video player. Having an iPod is a luxury for most, or perhaps an over-rated trend that some people aren't willing to buy into, myself included. I'm just fine with my super-cellphone, and I don't feel the total urge to have those white earphones, either. But what about the people that don't own these amenities? I don't think it's right to force all students to own an iPod or a portable-player-of-your-choice just because their teachers won't deliver traditional seminars. Although you could look at them as fancy high-tech textbooks, it's not conventional for your average student to be spending what-would-otherwise-be about 5% of initial university tuition. (Trust me, it's a pretty big deal.) At the least, keeping the downloadable seminars as an option would be more accommodating to everyone.

The flexibility and freedom of having my seminars at hand would lead to the P-word... Procrastination. Knowing that I could simply watch the seminars at any time, could result in last-minute seminar-watching. From that, would come the consequential cramming and rushing of dreadfully long assignments. Without the motivation to learn or perhaps the drive to get things over with right away, I could always put it aside until the last minute.

Sound familiar to any of you Ward students?

The situation's way too similar to the woes of Mary Ward students, that it's almost too perfect for us to have these seminar podcasts. How better to spend our time but to stare at our iPods all day than to (supposedly) watch our educational seminars? It just gives us an excuse to have our iPods out during the day - it doesn't necessarily mean that we'd actually be watching our seminars, either. We all find ways to procrastinate, and the downloadable lectures give us the power to do it with an excuse included in the package. The lectures would be convenient, but I don't think I would do as well as having an actual classroom with a teacher and students, drowning in my boredom or actually trying to learn. The best solution for seminar podcasting, where it to be brought to Mary Ward, would be a mandatory seminar covering the basics of a unit, and optional seminars that go into the detail of each concept could be podcasted. But overall, I think that integrating seminar podcasts into our school system at Mary Ward would simply add fuel to the great fire that is procrastination and slacking off.

Learning things old school doesn't really hurt. Sure, it can be boring and without focus it'll be a pain to even pay attention. But we shouldn't take the easy way out and just learn whenever we want to - time doesn't wait for everyone.