Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
First of all you need an overview of the PS Vita and what makes it such a dynamic product. First of all it has the ability to connect to Wi-Fi or 3G networks via AT&T's mobile broadband network. This will allow gamers to connect with their friends online and get real time scores and updates in the games that they are playing. Another big feature are the new front and rear cameras. With these cameras the PS Vita can use the background that you are currently looking at in real life as the back drop for your game. The front camera can put you in the game as well. One of the biggest selling points for the Vita is its Cross Play function. This gives you the ability to pick up whatever game you've been playing on your PS3 console, and play it on your Vita right where you left off. This feature also allows you to connect with your friends from your Vita while they are playing on their PS3 system.
Now what makes this so troubling is the fact that children in our society are already spending too much time on video game as it is. With the known correlations between excessive gaming and negative side effects, the fact that kids never have to leave their game consoles could be seen as a bad thing. For instance a kid that spends a lot of time playing games on his Vita with his friends online, especially violent games, could be seen as over exposing himself to violent material that he doesn't need to be exposed to. But you can also look at this another way. This kid could also be developing team work skills with these friends that he is playing online with. He could also be developing hand eye coordination with the use of the dual joystick control available on the Vita.
All in all I think it ultimately comes down to what you do as a parent. If you think your kid is playing too many video games, make them go outside(without his portable game console of course) and play with their friends or siblings. I think that Sony is just practicing good business by seeing a need that gamers have, and filling that need with a supply.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
My presentation will brief the different media holdings that the The Walt Disney Company has so that everyone has a better understanding of how dominant the company is. Further we will dive into how Disney goes about reaching the world on global and local levels. These efforts include the film, tv, internet, theme parks and consumer.The conversation that always immediately follows this different divisions are what are there effects. Because Disney is an American company, its influences are heavily american. As an american its harder to understand how problematic that is because that's life how we know it. In other our culture is pushed over theirs. In addition to certain themes that we see repeated in the content of the productions and films, there also leads to criticism of how accurate their journalist division is. The question can be brought up: Are there any bias in their news and are we not getting the full story.
I believe as the Disney company grows we will see less room for different ideas and opinions. The Disney Company's efforts to the own all parts of media will deny us the opportunity to see the different cultures and opinions of everyone
My presentation that I'll be doing later today is over MTV and its use of regionalization and localization to compete in the global market place. Regionalization links nations together based on geographic, cultural, linguistic, and historical commonalities. (Straubhaar, LaRose, & Davenport, 501) Localization goes hand-in-hand with this because its main use is the taking of a product and adapting it towards a specific local market. I’ll be looking at MTV’s history as a growing business entity which forged its own generation, the “MTV generation,” and I’ll note its content changes throughout the years. Next I’ll chronicle MTV’s exponentially growing global expansion of the channel while providing examples, like the UK’s Geordie Shore, which showcases the localization of a foreign product. Due to time constraints I’ll mostly be looking at MTV China to show the policies of Viacom, MTV’s parent owner, when it takes MTV into a foreign country. They believe in keeping complete ownership of the channel but also understand that if any success is to be had, locally produced content must be made to successfully market towards the Chinese audience. This includes using local VJ’s, DJ’s on the TV, and airing Chinese music videos as the majority content. MTV also partnered with local businesses like CCTV and SMG to make a Chinese music award show and style award show financially feasible. In conclusion, MTV continues to prove its worth as an excellent example of the global marketplace at work. Despite its seemingly low-brow, questionable content, its popularity is a product of the “give the people what they want” mentality. If people stop watching the channel, it goes away. I believe the main goal of the producers of this media content is, essentially, financial gain based on a competitive market economy and not one based on American indoctrination of a foreign people. Localization only helps to further discredit the notion of a complete westernization takeover in the ever growing globalized world.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Today, I will be responding to the question of the week: "What social & economic forces shape the communication infrastructure," and the case study I will present is over Skype. Skype is a computer program that transforms a computer into a telephone using VoIP (Voice-over-Internet Protocol). Utilizing the transmittal of voices over the Internet, Skype converts voice signals into data, sends it over the Internet from the host computer, and then restores the audio on the receiving computer. As an innovative VoIP technology, Skype produces quality services that are influential in the telecommunication industry. Some of the most popular Skype features are calling landlines/mobile phones, video calling, instant messaging and SMS text messaging. Each feature offers users a different way to communication over computers, mobile phones or Skype-ready TVs. With its increasing popularity, Skype has become more prominent in the classroom and business world. This expands the possibilities of how we use Skype in the future.
My main argument is how Skype shapes communication infrastructure through the services it provides. Skype is shaping communication socially by connecting users with each other, regardless of location and technology format, extending relations all over the world. Skype is also shaping communication economically by providing costumers with a free or very inexpensive way to communicate. In a world where people want things fast and free, Skype is helping set the standard for communication and Voice-over Internet Protocol.
For a better understanding of what Skype is, I recommend watching this short YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1mflr-kQlk
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Today, I will be talking about Net Neutrality. Net neutrality means that Internet Service Providers cannot discriminate or block the transmission of lawful Internet content. Since ISPs are between users and the net, it is theorized that ISPs could control access to websites. However, opponents to Net Neutrality would be quick to point out that for the most part, ISPs have not engaged in this practice. “But, why leave the opportunity open?” supporters would say. Supporters of Net Neutrality mainly argue from a business standpoint, and they think that ISPs have a great incentive to regulate content. They would most likely do so in order to promote their own services. Opponents argue from a technical side, in the sense that, the Internet’s normal functioning depends on regulating the transmission of data packets. In other words, the Internet is efficient because data is regulated.The FCC has enacted and put into practice a policy that has been described as Net Neutrality lite. This policy states that ISPs must be transparent in their operations and wired services cannot block or discriminate the transmission of lawful Internet content. Neither sides are in much agreement about this policy. Supporters state that it is too lenient and contains loopholes, and they question the FCC’s ability to enforce it. Opponents argue that the FCC has enacted a policy that has too broad an authority. Verizon has already gone so far as to sue the FCC for this policy, twice! Their first attempt was denied on the basis that the policy hadn’t been officially published, but their second attempt was only several days after publishing. The case has yet to be resolved, and the courts will decide the outcome.
This policy will likely continue to be debated, and Net Neutrality will continue to be a hot topic of today’s Internet.