http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030701540.html
After 66 years, Captain America was shot dead by a sniper in his last comic which was released today. Many in the comic book community are mourning the loss of America's beloved superhero.
Captain America was first introduced in 1941 as a patriotic adversary for Adolf Hitler. His Alter ego, Steve Rogers, enlisted in the army only to be rejected because of his physical infirmities. Later Roger's take part in an experiment and is injected with "super soldier serum" created by General Chester Phillips which eventually makes him incredibly strong and powerful.
I wrote about this today because I never thought the death of a superhero would e such a big deal. I love superheros, especially x-men, but I never saw myself becoming sad when one of them "died." Although, superheros never really die, their alter ego dies and someone else could potentially take over. Which is was happened in 1993 when Superman died.
Regardless, when I was surfing the web this morning for stories I found something about the death of Captain America on almost every page. Some of the headlines read; "Captain America shot, killed" "Captain America Dead at 66," and "Captain America Dead: National Hero Since 1941."
I don't know about anyone else, but I got the feeling that he was a real person when I read those headlines. Although, some weren't as serious; "Captain America Dead: Movie Still in Development." Nice. Way to acknowledge our national superhero! :)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Cell Phones as Bookkeeping Device?
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=31066
Talk about innovation. Who would have thought to use cell phones as data collectors instead of what they are intended for, talking.
I found this article to be quite interesting. A doctoral student at the UW has found a way for third world countries to use modern technology (one that we take for granted on a daily basis), and use it for bookkeeping purposes, and for authenticating whether or not coffee farms are organic.
Leading countries (like the US), have certainly found innovative ways to help the world! I appreciate that Tapan Parikh took a chance on proposing, and finding funding for his project. He is doing a great service not only for the people of India, but for us as well. He is establishing that innovation is not left to just those at Microsoft, Boeing, Smith Klein Beecham, or any other big name innovator or research facility, but people that have a passion and desire to help those that are definitely less fortunate, and don’t have the luxury or means by which to obtain our technology.
The farmers don’t object to this either. According to the article, they had to schlep journals (paper) with them wherever they went, and god forbid that they would drop their journal in a puddle! The new system affords these people of downloading the information and sending it to a main server, thus preserving the information. It’s a great idea, and my hat goes off to Tapan.
Talk about innovation. Who would have thought to use cell phones as data collectors instead of what they are intended for, talking.
I found this article to be quite interesting. A doctoral student at the UW has found a way for third world countries to use modern technology (one that we take for granted on a daily basis), and use it for bookkeeping purposes, and for authenticating whether or not coffee farms are organic.
Leading countries (like the US), have certainly found innovative ways to help the world! I appreciate that Tapan Parikh took a chance on proposing, and finding funding for his project. He is doing a great service not only for the people of India, but for us as well. He is establishing that innovation is not left to just those at Microsoft, Boeing, Smith Klein Beecham, or any other big name innovator or research facility, but people that have a passion and desire to help those that are definitely less fortunate, and don’t have the luxury or means by which to obtain our technology.
The farmers don’t object to this either. According to the article, they had to schlep journals (paper) with them wherever they went, and god forbid that they would drop their journal in a puddle! The new system affords these people of downloading the information and sending it to a main server, thus preserving the information. It’s a great idea, and my hat goes off to Tapan.
Wikipedia
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2928756&page=1
Even in our age of rapid speed technology, and having information at our fingertips, there is just no substitution for libraries.
Wikipedia is under fire for not authenticating its editors for the online web site. What I found most interesting is Middlebury College has banned students from citing information found on the site. Even though I’ve referenced the site, it should be obvious that most www sites are not authoritative.
With the Internet, it certainly eases the task of having to write lengthy research papers when one is able to hop online instead of making the trek to the local library. Who wants to sit wading through book after book, when you can go online and find virtually anything about anything?
I do think it’s important that when doing Internet searches that credible sites are used for citing and/or when making a determination about a subject or matter. I’ve done numerous searches on health issues, and have found soooooo many inconsistencies, that it is hard to believe that any source is telling the truth or is factual. I’ve learned that there is only one medical site that should ever be referenced when using the Internet (MedWatch), and think that when doing research, especially school related, that it’s important to find sites that journalists use, or actual scientists reference.
There is so much information flying out there, that it takes a sleuth to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. And, above all, DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ!
Even in our age of rapid speed technology, and having information at our fingertips, there is just no substitution for libraries.
Wikipedia is under fire for not authenticating its editors for the online web site. What I found most interesting is Middlebury College has banned students from citing information found on the site. Even though I’ve referenced the site, it should be obvious that most www sites are not authoritative.
With the Internet, it certainly eases the task of having to write lengthy research papers when one is able to hop online instead of making the trek to the local library. Who wants to sit wading through book after book, when you can go online and find virtually anything about anything?
I do think it’s important that when doing Internet searches that credible sites are used for citing and/or when making a determination about a subject or matter. I’ve done numerous searches on health issues, and have found soooooo many inconsistencies, that it is hard to believe that any source is telling the truth or is factual. I’ve learned that there is only one medical site that should ever be referenced when using the Internet (MedWatch), and think that when doing research, especially school related, that it’s important to find sites that journalists use, or actual scientists reference.
There is so much information flying out there, that it takes a sleuth to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. And, above all, DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ!
Sunday, March 4, 2007
REPERATIONS: officially not going to happen…anywhere.
I found this article on the BBC Americas page, and was blown away that I hadn’t heard a thing about it from our local media. Maybe because I was out of touch with technology for three whole days, I could have just missed it. The article discussed a recent vote held within the Cherokee Nation on whether or not to extend the rights and privileges of Nation membership to the descendants of Black slaves owned by members of the Nation. Needless to say a resounding NO! was heard in the Nation’s community. A 76.6% of voters denied access to tribal registration, and the turnout to vote no eclipsed the last constitutional ratification vote held by the Nation. Should membership privileges be extended, then the descendants would be eligible to apply for the federal funds, housing allowances, and medical benefits. Either way I found quite interesting the juxtaposition of the use of western democracy to enact the denial of rights/benefits to a minority, previously enslaved population. It seems that unfortunately the treatment of native populations and forced assimilation to western tradition was finally successful; the mistakes of the USA have come round to being repeated, imitated, and acceptable. It really doesn’t pay to be Black in America; every culture with any leg up seems quite content to deny opportunity to those who helped put them there. How interesting that education, health care, and housing still seem so hard to come by.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6416735.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6416735.stm
Christmas in the Bahamas
An article on MSNBC entitled "Smith's death has been boon for Bahamas," highlights how this small island chain has dealt with the media attention surrounding her burial. Barricades were established, tattoo parlors offered "Anna Nicole" tattoos, and people were offered a tour of the hospital, mansion and church where many events in this saga took place. This article and the whole circus around Anna Nicole Smith's death has been overblown. Circus mentality is proven in a statement by a Nassau resident comparing Anna Nicole's memorial and burial to Christmas. The fact that a big majority of Nassau's residents extorted and manipulated the media is a statement relating to the goodness of people these days. It should make everyone feel a little queasy to know that others can and relish the opportunity to find anyway to turn a buck. Interestingly enough, the concern of the island residents forms a strange dichotomy. Are people these days really good or evil? There is no direct and clear answer, but there is no doubt about the revenue huge media events can bring to the Bahamas. The article also goes into some of the other lengths local residents went to for “Anna Nicole” viewing. One shop resident set up scaffolding and charged $500 for any media outfit to have a view. Other places like the mall which was adjacent to the cemetery was going to charge $5000 for access until the large majority of people spoke out. All of these actions seem to perpetuate both a fascination and sickness we have these days with death. Curiosity is sometimes effective to help us grow as people, but sometimes, it borders on invasion.
watch your mouth
MSNBC reported that conservative columnist Ann Coulter used a deogatory slur at the American Conservative Union’s Political Action Conference on friday. She called presidential hopeful John Edwards a "faggot." Both democrats and republicans alike have spoken out against her use of language in her speech, and Edwards has started a campaign to raise $100,000 to "fight back against the politics of bigotry."
Clearly, one person's opinion has gathered far too much weight and media attention since word spreads so fast these days via the internet. Not only should it not have ever been said, it also should not have made the news, for that only intensifies the effect which politicians supposedly wanted to downplay. For Edwards to capitalize makes me question him as well. Not his sexuality, honestly, who cares? But I question his integrity for using something that should have just made the reporter look like a jerk to make a profit for himself. Why does this reporter have so much weight that candidates find themselves in a tizzy over her comments? Shouldn't a wise politician (especially a liberal one) just say, "Well, I'm not gay (or, I am gay), but my sexuality has nothing to do with the platform of my running for President."
link to article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17458248?GT1=9145
Clearly, one person's opinion has gathered far too much weight and media attention since word spreads so fast these days via the internet. Not only should it not have ever been said, it also should not have made the news, for that only intensifies the effect which politicians supposedly wanted to downplay. For Edwards to capitalize makes me question him as well. Not his sexuality, honestly, who cares? But I question his integrity for using something that should have just made the reporter look like a jerk to make a profit for himself. Why does this reporter have so much weight that candidates find themselves in a tizzy over her comments? Shouldn't a wise politician (especially a liberal one) just say, "Well, I'm not gay (or, I am gay), but my sexuality has nothing to do with the platform of my running for President."
link to article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17458248?GT1=9145
Fighting Crime with YouTube.com
Police are turning to a popular website to help nab criminals. Police departments are using YouTube.com as a law enforcement tool, asking the Internet-using public to help identify criminals. Video clips of suspected criminals are posted on the site and departments ask the public for their help in identifying them.
The most publicized clip was a surveillance recording in Hamilton, Ontario Canada that was posted on the site in December. The video showed a suspect in a fatal stabbing case that occurred outside a hip-hop concert. Detectives posted links to the clip on popular hip-hop Web sites to draw attention to it. Even though it was only 72 seconds long, the clip received more than 35,000 "hits" and led to an arrest within two weeks.
Members of police forces aren't the only ones using YouTube.com to their advantage. Groups that monitor police behavior use the site to post videos of arrests where officers used excessive force or abuse. Last year, a clip of an officer in Los Angeles repeatedly punching a suspect in the face triggered an FBI investigation.
Critics of the new law enforcement tool argue that posting the videos is an invasion of privacy. They feel that police should be required to gain consent of bystanders or victims before making the videos public. They also suggest that the videos be dated and removed once legal action has been taken. Critics also point out the risks of fruitless tips and misidentification problems.
Police departments can legally post surveillance videos online as long as the video doesn't somehow falsely accuse or defame someone. Experts say it's logical for departments to use the Internet to connect with the public. It provides them with the opportunity to reach younger Internet users who may know valuable information. Police are happy to be using the latest technology tools but still argue that it "will never replace the feet-on-the-street."
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/6299067.html
The most publicized clip was a surveillance recording in Hamilton, Ontario Canada that was posted on the site in December. The video showed a suspect in a fatal stabbing case that occurred outside a hip-hop concert. Detectives posted links to the clip on popular hip-hop Web sites to draw attention to it. Even though it was only 72 seconds long, the clip received more than 35,000 "hits" and led to an arrest within two weeks.
Members of police forces aren't the only ones using YouTube.com to their advantage. Groups that monitor police behavior use the site to post videos of arrests where officers used excessive force or abuse. Last year, a clip of an officer in Los Angeles repeatedly punching a suspect in the face triggered an FBI investigation.
Critics of the new law enforcement tool argue that posting the videos is an invasion of privacy. They feel that police should be required to gain consent of bystanders or victims before making the videos public. They also suggest that the videos be dated and removed once legal action has been taken. Critics also point out the risks of fruitless tips and misidentification problems.
Police departments can legally post surveillance videos online as long as the video doesn't somehow falsely accuse or defame someone. Experts say it's logical for departments to use the Internet to connect with the public. It provides them with the opportunity to reach younger Internet users who may know valuable information. Police are happy to be using the latest technology tools but still argue that it "will never replace the feet-on-the-street."
http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/6299067.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)