After reading the article about Scratch and exploring the Scratch website, what are some observable benefits in creating a space to share student work?
After reading the article Scratch and learning about Scratch, there are a lot observable benefits in creating a space to share student work. Scratch is a way of programming for kids and younger adults. The article says that, "'Digital fluency' should mean designing, creating, and remixing, not just browsing, chatting, and interacting." And that's what Scratch does. Scratch's primary goal is "to nurture a new generation of creative, systematic thinkers comfortable using programming to express their ideas." Scratch greatly expands the scale of what you can create, how you can express yourself, all with the computer. "It also expands the range of what you can learn." Programming involves "the creation of external representations of your problem-solving processes, programming provides you with opportunities to reflect on your own thinking, even to think about thinking itself." Scratch is designed to be highly interactive. The article states that a blog post from a computer scientist who introduced Scratch to his two children said: "One of the nicest things I saw with Scratch was that it personalized the development experience in new ways by making it easy for my kids to add personalized content and actively participate in the development process. Not only could they develop abstract programs to do mindless things with a cat or a box, etc… but they could add their own pictures and their own voices to the Scratch environment, which has given them hours of fun and driven them to learn." Scratch knows what kids like and knows how to make their environment fun. They get the learning done with fun and are very successful.
The large number of projects on the Scratch serves as inspiration as well to the consumers. Scratchers are able to get ideas for new projects and learn new programming techniques. "The site is also fertile ground for collaboration. Community members are constantly borrowing, adapting, and building on one another’s ideas, images, and programs. Over 15% of the projects there are remixes of other projects on the site."
Scratch just has so many benefits to share student work, because they can all inspire and motivate each other through the site. They can collaborate, have fun and learn at the same time. Scratch is very successful is what it accomplishes for young adults and kids.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
"JMU only" Wikipedia
The "power law distribution" or "long tail" phenomenon, as seen in behavior online on the Wikipedia, suggests that the concept of an average user of Wikipedia is meaningless. Support your answer: how do you think a local, "JMU only" version of the Wikipedia would compare to the worldwide version? Would it be very similar? Higher quality? Less quality? Why?
In Chapter 5, Shirky described Wikipedia as a "power of law distribution". Basically, users will at first post a majority of the information at first and then later the contribution will level out since people will casually add to the site, not as much as was first added. Therefore, I think a "JMU only" version of Wikipedia might have the same effect of the "power of law distribution" and a lot of people would at first post a lot of information because of the fact they want to get their facts out on the web, but then it would eventually taper off and be at a constant adding rate. I think certain organizations that would want to get their name out, like Student Ambassadors and Greek life, and promote why people should join and all the good things they do and that they continually change, they would continually update the Wikipedia on their progress. However, compared to a worldwide version, the "JMU only" version would have a lot less contributors. The "JMU only" version would have a lot less hits than the worldwide version since the contributors is only limited to the JMU community. The only thing that would be similar between the two is the "power of law distribution". The number of hits and number of people contributing information would be a huge difference. However, the "JMU only" version would be a higher quality because the people that would contributing information would know specifics and know what they were talking about. In a worldwide version, so many more people are adding their own facts and own opinions in the Wikipedia and the information given can get so distorted sometimes. That's why in a "JMU only" version, the community would be so much smaller, therefore the information would not get as distorted, therefore being higher quality.
In Chapter 5, Shirky described Wikipedia as a "power of law distribution". Basically, users will at first post a majority of the information at first and then later the contribution will level out since people will casually add to the site, not as much as was first added. Therefore, I think a "JMU only" version of Wikipedia might have the same effect of the "power of law distribution" and a lot of people would at first post a lot of information because of the fact they want to get their facts out on the web, but then it would eventually taper off and be at a constant adding rate. I think certain organizations that would want to get their name out, like Student Ambassadors and Greek life, and promote why people should join and all the good things they do and that they continually change, they would continually update the Wikipedia on their progress. However, compared to a worldwide version, the "JMU only" version would have a lot less contributors. The "JMU only" version would have a lot less hits than the worldwide version since the contributors is only limited to the JMU community. The only thing that would be similar between the two is the "power of law distribution". The number of hits and number of people contributing information would be a huge difference. However, the "JMU only" version would be a higher quality because the people that would contributing information would know specifics and know what they were talking about. In a worldwide version, so many more people are adding their own facts and own opinions in the Wikipedia and the information given can get so distorted sometimes. That's why in a "JMU only" version, the community would be so much smaller, therefore the information would not get as distorted, therefore being higher quality.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
USA Patriot Act
Some news reports have suggested that the Bush administration used the USA Patriot Act to look at the e-mails of American citizens without a warrant. What's your position if this was indeed the case? Should citizens be willing to give up their privacy? Does it bother you to know that your online communications are very potentially semi-private instead of private?
At first when I read this question, I was against the Bush administration doing such a thing but now when I think about it, I am for it. If this indeed was the case, I support it. If it's for our safety as a citizen, then I think it is needed. If someone was emailing another person talking about terrorist attacks, I would DEFINITELY want the Bush Administration to handle it. If they didn't have the USA Patriot Act to look at the emails, then our safety is at risk. Citizens should be willing to give up their privacy for their own safety. If it's for national reasons and for national security, citizens need to be willing to give up some of their privacy for the nation. If people really have a problem with this Act then maybe they're the terrorists planning something. I would find it a little weird that citizens wouldn't be willing to give up some of their privacy for the sake of national security and other U.S. citizens. It does not bother me at all that our online communications are very potentially semi-private instead of private because I know it's for a very good reason. If the Bush administration was just reading through emails to spy on citizens' personal life, that is one thing and that would be wrong, but if they are trying to protect this country from something happening in the future, then by all means, I'd rather have semi-privacy. If we don't allow the government to potential look at our e-mails, we could be endangering our lives. Therefore, I support the Bush administration using the USA Patriot Act to look at e-mails for our own national security and to try and prevent potential dangerous acts.
At first when I read this question, I was against the Bush administration doing such a thing but now when I think about it, I am for it. If this indeed was the case, I support it. If it's for our safety as a citizen, then I think it is needed. If someone was emailing another person talking about terrorist attacks, I would DEFINITELY want the Bush Administration to handle it. If they didn't have the USA Patriot Act to look at the emails, then our safety is at risk. Citizens should be willing to give up their privacy for their own safety. If it's for national reasons and for national security, citizens need to be willing to give up some of their privacy for the nation. If people really have a problem with this Act then maybe they're the terrorists planning something. I would find it a little weird that citizens wouldn't be willing to give up some of their privacy for the sake of national security and other U.S. citizens. It does not bother me at all that our online communications are very potentially semi-private instead of private because I know it's for a very good reason. If the Bush administration was just reading through emails to spy on citizens' personal life, that is one thing and that would be wrong, but if they are trying to protect this country from something happening in the future, then by all means, I'd rather have semi-privacy. If we don't allow the government to potential look at our e-mails, we could be endangering our lives. Therefore, I support the Bush administration using the USA Patriot Act to look at e-mails for our own national security and to try and prevent potential dangerous acts.
Protected by WEP/WPA
If your mother uses wifi at home to send you e-mail, and your home network is not protected by WEP or WPA, what reasons would you suggest to her for enabling one of these two protocols at home if the liability of reading those e-mails still exists once her message leaves your home, on it's way to school?
Throughout this class, I have learned that nothing on the Internet is safe, and if my mother was sending an email with our home network that is not protected by WEP or WPA, then that's even scarier. Not having your Internet protected and allowing basically anyone and everyone to either use or research your history on the web, is very dangerous. A hacker could easily get onto your network and send you a virus as well as take valuable information. I online shop a lot or even look at my bank statements, anything that potential holds valuable information, would be out in the public for anyone to see since there is no barrier stopping them. I remember a couple years ago, my neighbors wifi would come up on my computer and they didn't secure it. If one of our other neighbors were the "shady" type and decided to hack into their network, they could do so. Anyone around you could potentially wipe out any information and send viruses to your computer. They could find out anything in your history, just like that email my mom sent. It's very scary to think about.
So not only could someone near by steal your network, they could hack into your network and steal valuable information, and also send viruses. Overall, having a secure network just makes the Internet a lot safer than if you didn't have any protection at all. Even the slightest protection is better than none. However, your home networks should be protected by WEP or WPA to ensure your computer safety.
Throughout this class, I have learned that nothing on the Internet is safe, and if my mother was sending an email with our home network that is not protected by WEP or WPA, then that's even scarier. Not having your Internet protected and allowing basically anyone and everyone to either use or research your history on the web, is very dangerous. A hacker could easily get onto your network and send you a virus as well as take valuable information. I online shop a lot or even look at my bank statements, anything that potential holds valuable information, would be out in the public for anyone to see since there is no barrier stopping them. I remember a couple years ago, my neighbors wifi would come up on my computer and they didn't secure it. If one of our other neighbors were the "shady" type and decided to hack into their network, they could do so. Anyone around you could potentially wipe out any information and send viruses to your computer. They could find out anything in your history, just like that email my mom sent. It's very scary to think about.
So not only could someone near by steal your network, they could hack into your network and steal valuable information, and also send viruses. Overall, having a secure network just makes the Internet a lot safer than if you didn't have any protection at all. Even the slightest protection is better than none. However, your home networks should be protected by WEP or WPA to ensure your computer safety.
Wiki
Please post a blog post with 5-8 of the most important parts of the wiki presentation.
Ward Cunningham created the wiki, which invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site. Linking between the wiki pages are made very easy. If you don’t know what something is, and there’s a link, you can click on the link and be directed to it instantly. Wikis allow you to link to pages that don’t yet exist through red links. Wikis have a lot uses: can meet agendas, internal blogging, can be collaborative spaces, documentation, collection of action items, “focused compact group”, and focus on internal community. Ward’s specific purpose for the wiki was “to create an environment where we might link together each other’s experience…” He valued conversation and communication. Wikipedia’s can tell you how to cite the information in the article and also will give you related topics and changes to help you with searching the wiki. Some wiki examples are PB Works, Wiki Spaces, Media Wiki, and Google Sites.
Ward Cunningham created the wiki, which invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site. Linking between the wiki pages are made very easy. If you don’t know what something is, and there’s a link, you can click on the link and be directed to it instantly. Wikis allow you to link to pages that don’t yet exist through red links. Wikis have a lot uses: can meet agendas, internal blogging, can be collaborative spaces, documentation, collection of action items, “focused compact group”, and focus on internal community. Ward’s specific purpose for the wiki was “to create an environment where we might link together each other’s experience…” He valued conversation and communication. Wikipedia’s can tell you how to cite the information in the article and also will give you related topics and changes to help you with searching the wiki. Some wiki examples are PB Works, Wiki Spaces, Media Wiki, and Google Sites.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Right to Know Side Effects?
The official website for the drug Olanzapine probably didn't mention the fact it might cause diabetic symptoms in patients. Another website obviously did. Commercials on TV now are required to mention possible side effects. Should drug companies be required to come clean about situations like the one with Eli Lilly's Olanzapine in their commercial websites? Why or why not?
I most definitely believe that drug companies should be required to come clean about situations like the one with Olanzapine in their commercial websites. Not even for the patient's sake but for legal issues. A patient who has not been told about the correct side effects and symptoms from a doctor or a high medical reference, such as a physicians assistant, about a drug they are going to take, the doctor or whoever is administering the drug could potentially be in danger of as big as a lawsuit. Not paying attention to certain side effects of drugs can have serious side effects, such as Olanzapine might be causing diabetic symptoms in patients. Now I'm not saying that for commercial websites that there should be a huge headline scrolling and blinking across the top of serious symptoms and side effects, but there should definitely be a section given about those. A consumer should know everything possible that is going into their body. And if the drug companies do not own up or tell everything they should, it will get leaked out onto the Internet or TV somehow. As Abelson said in "Blown to Bits", hearing of a "secret" side effect can be leaked very easily. Just takes a matter of time from person to person or person to websites to find out the true symptoms and side effects of a drug product. The drug companies should just take it upon themselves to disclose the information, rather than other websites and companies spreading the word. Bringing back up the legal issues, if someone were to find out these symptoms and side effects through some where or someone else besides the drug company, then that just easily brings up a law suit.
Therefore, the drug company should be required to come clean about situations like the one Olanzapine in their commercial websites. For their own company's sake, they should come clean. The information doesn't need to be broad casted nice and slowly, or have big red flashing lights, but it needs to be there for the patients sake of taking the drug. It's very easy to upload this information on the web, or attach a long information insert to the bottle of the drug. A drug company shouldn't question putting the symptoms and side effects on their drugs, it's for the sake of their consumer and their own company's legal issues.
References:
"Blown to Bits" Abelson
I most definitely believe that drug companies should be required to come clean about situations like the one with Olanzapine in their commercial websites. Not even for the patient's sake but for legal issues. A patient who has not been told about the correct side effects and symptoms from a doctor or a high medical reference, such as a physicians assistant, about a drug they are going to take, the doctor or whoever is administering the drug could potentially be in danger of as big as a lawsuit. Not paying attention to certain side effects of drugs can have serious side effects, such as Olanzapine might be causing diabetic symptoms in patients. Now I'm not saying that for commercial websites that there should be a huge headline scrolling and blinking across the top of serious symptoms and side effects, but there should definitely be a section given about those. A consumer should know everything possible that is going into their body. And if the drug companies do not own up or tell everything they should, it will get leaked out onto the Internet or TV somehow. As Abelson said in "Blown to Bits", hearing of a "secret" side effect can be leaked very easily. Just takes a matter of time from person to person or person to websites to find out the true symptoms and side effects of a drug product. The drug companies should just take it upon themselves to disclose the information, rather than other websites and companies spreading the word. Bringing back up the legal issues, if someone were to find out these symptoms and side effects through some where or someone else besides the drug company, then that just easily brings up a law suit.
Therefore, the drug company should be required to come clean about situations like the one Olanzapine in their commercial websites. For their own company's sake, they should come clean. The information doesn't need to be broad casted nice and slowly, or have big red flashing lights, but it needs to be there for the patients sake of taking the drug. It's very easy to upload this information on the web, or attach a long information insert to the bottle of the drug. A drug company shouldn't question putting the symptoms and side effects on their drugs, it's for the sake of their consumer and their own company's legal issues.
References:
"Blown to Bits" Abelson
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Proprietary software vs OSS
Some states and some companies are turning to open source software for a variety of reasons, some mentioned in this chapter. Some companies (say Microsoft) have gone on the record against open source software. Explain some of the advantages of using proprietary software and cite your advantages with websites that take or mention these positions.
Open source software, according to Wikipedia, "is computer software that is available in source code form for which the source code and certain other rights normally reserved for copyright holders are provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software." Proprietary software is "computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of its owner. The purchaser, or licensee, is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, but restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering." The main difference between open source software (OSS) and proprietary software is OSS is free to download, therefore is costs a lot less than proprietary software.
However, proprietary software has its own advantages over OSS. According to the Ivertech website's article, "OSS vs. Proprietary software", the "advantages of proprietary software include: 1) Reliable, professional support and training available; 2) Packaged, comprehensive, modular formats; and 3) Regularly and easily updated." Also, from cnet news article, "Why choose proprietary software over open source?", it states the biggest advantage for proprietary software, "that proprietary software is easier to adopt--captures a moment in time, but one that is also in retreat." Therefore, OSS may be free to download, but proprietary software seems to be a lot easier to use. Who wouldn't want a software that's reliable and regulated and easily updated? The disadvantages of OSS according to Ivertech, which hand in hand are the advantages to proprietary software are, "1) Lack of professional support; 2) Evolving developer communities; 3) Lack of release co-ordination; and 4) Erratic updates." OSS just doesn't seem as organized and well led as proprietary software and that's a huge advantage for proprietary software. Especially when consumers are looking for all of those advantages when looking for software. They want something they can rely on, and proprietary software, they can definitely rely on.
References:
http://software.ivertech.com/_ivertechArticle13894_OpenSourceSoftwarevsProprietarySoftware.htm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9789275-16.html
Open source software, according to Wikipedia, "is computer software that is available in source code form for which the source code and certain other rights normally reserved for copyright holders are provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software." Proprietary software is "computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of its owner. The purchaser, or licensee, is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, but restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering." The main difference between open source software (OSS) and proprietary software is OSS is free to download, therefore is costs a lot less than proprietary software.
However, proprietary software has its own advantages over OSS. According to the Ivertech website's article, "OSS vs. Proprietary software", the "advantages of proprietary software include: 1) Reliable, professional support and training available; 2) Packaged, comprehensive, modular formats; and 3) Regularly and easily updated." Also, from cnet news article, "Why choose proprietary software over open source?", it states the biggest advantage for proprietary software, "that proprietary software is easier to adopt--captures a moment in time, but one that is also in retreat." Therefore, OSS may be free to download, but proprietary software seems to be a lot easier to use. Who wouldn't want a software that's reliable and regulated and easily updated? The disadvantages of OSS according to Ivertech, which hand in hand are the advantages to proprietary software are, "1) Lack of professional support; 2) Evolving developer communities; 3) Lack of release co-ordination; and 4) Erratic updates." OSS just doesn't seem as organized and well led as proprietary software and that's a huge advantage for proprietary software. Especially when consumers are looking for all of those advantages when looking for software. They want something they can rely on, and proprietary software, they can definitely rely on.
References:
http://software.ivertech.com/_ivertechArticle13894_OpenSourceSoftwarevsProprietarySoftware.htm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9789275-16.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)