Presentations : Week 1

I thought all five presentations for this week were unique and the content/argument interesting.  All five papers sound like they will be intriguing.
     Lorena discussed an interesting subject that has been in the news a little while back.  I didn't realize how much was truly censored on Google in China.  When Lorena discussed the hits comparison for U.S. and China, China was far less seeing the rest of the world.  China couldn't see much that the the U.S. could see.  I had always wondered, since this news broke out about China and Google, how it was being enforced.  Lorena said there were about 40,000 internet police.  This astounded me.  It sounds like they really want to keep violence, sex, and the whole area out of China.  I didn't find it a surprise that China blocks all social networks, including Facebook and Twitter.  China does not want any U.S. influence there, and that's exactly what most if not all of these social networks would bring to China.  I didn't know about tudou.com in China.  I thought Lorena was more thorough in her argument by tying the video from tudou.com (China's YouTube) in with her presentation.  It showed how China promotes themselves heavily while demoting some of the rest of the world at the same time.  It showed that China doesn't allow the sex and violence in their country any longer.  I was interesting that Lorena said that Google is standing on moral ground and defending themselves in this issue with China.
     Sheila's "Let's Talk About Gender Roles" was a very interesting presentation.  It shows that not everyone in any social network is gender specific.  As Sheila discussed, some people do not want to play that gender role, although most do.  This is shown by their non-gender avatar, such as an animal or other symbol of nature.  I really thought Club Penguin was a close-to-perfect example of this.  Kids in Club Penguin don't show any gender role, and what is said is not very gender-specific.  They do, however, have blue and pink penguins that gives it away if they are a boy or girl.  But, this may not always be the case.  I hope Sheila uses at least a couple of the CR sources in her paper, as they tie in very well with her presentation.
     Maruice's topic is something I would have never thought of in a million years!  Cell phones are being used to water and harvest crops?  If someone would have told me that before this class, I would have thought they belonged in a mental institution.  However, Maurice , through Silva and Benedikt in the CR, explains that mobile phones are changing cyberspace and RL society at a fast pace.  Cellphones are being used to do more and more things to make them more efficient.  One of these new age activities is taking care of crops and helping small farmers make a few extra bucks.  It seems to level the playing field between small-scale and large-scale farmers to a minor degree.  His example. African farmers, shows that the middleman can now be cut out with the aid of cellphones and their applications.  This leads to more money for crops, better crops, and faster sales.  The farmers know what the weather is going to be like and many other data, and can therefore adjust watering and harvesting.  I know Maurice's paper is going to be full of information and much support for his argument.  I find his argument very intriguing.  Who would have thought crops would be made better and a small farmer's life easier with cellphones?  Wow.
     Corrinda's "Educating Through Gaming" presentation had a great and worthwhile argument as well.  As parents and teachers alike, we want to educate our children.  They are our future and will eventually be in control of this planet.  Too many people say that children are wasting their valuable learning time with video games.  This might be true with bloody, violent games such as shoot-em-up games, but not all games.  As Corrinda showed us with Dena playing "Match" with dinosaurs on Funbrain.com, children pick up on every little aspect of most children's games such as matching.  The examples Corrinda used were perfect.  A child that plays this certain game will see what dinosaurs are, they will see a certain size grid, learn the differences and names between dinosaurs, learn about locations of things, and learn patience.  Children, as our friend James Gee has shown in his 36 principles of how games teach learning and literacy, learn much more from video games than parents would believe.  I liked how Corrinda "invited" Howard Gardner, and his learning principles, into the argument.  I believe it is a very good idea, although going to be very difficult, to contrast and assimilate Gardner's principles with those of James Gee on childrens' learning through video games.  I am sure Corrinda will figure it out and provide a great argument and support (much relied on Gardner's and Gee's principles) for this interesting topic that parents and educators alike need to consider in the education of the future owners of this planet.
     Kathy also had a topic I would have never thought of.  I think her argument needs to be defined to a higher degree.  I believe she has plenty of information to go on for her argument about the use of the Internet in campaigns.  I had never thought about it before, but the Internet, with blogging, forums, communities, and other groups of educated people, is the perfect place to hold conversations and campaigns for a would-be President of any company and group.  Obama, through blogging and reaching out to college students, educated and non-educated people, poor and rich people, and all groups that use the Internet (which is most of the population at least in the United States) can reach far more people for support in a faster time than can a candidate without the Internet.  Kathy does a great job in relaying this message in her presentation.  She mentioned how Howard Dean and his campaign advisor wanted to forego the use of the Internet.  This refusal of Internet campaigning possibly cost Dean his campaign win.  I really thought Kathy's contrast between Dean's and Obama's campaign hit her point (and possibly her argument) on the head.   I really think Kathy has a good idea with discussion about Obama's migration into new technology in his campaign.  After all, Kathy's paper is about how the Internet should be used as a campaign platform because so many people are using it.  We need to know how Obama chose to use the Internet, and the steps he took to campaign on the Internet.  Did he visit blogs and blog himself first?  Did he first go to communities?  Did he discuss use of the Internet with his many constituents before or after he started to use the Internet?  Which age groups did he primarily talk with?  As we discussed earlier this semester in Nakamura's text, race always plays an important role in most of society.  Did Obama talk to many races in different forums?  All these questions need to be addressed by Kathy in her discussion about Obama's migration into the Internet world for his campaign.  I was really interested about Obama being able to reach out to college students, as I am one myself, and my future, in part, depends on who the President is going to be and his/her plans for the country and my way of life.  All college students should be concerned and take part in the election of a new U.S. President.  Finally, I really thought Kat's statement about Obama's reach to those who could trust the media most was very interesting and of vital importance.  If you're going to campaign through use of the Internet, you know you need to be voted in by media-hungry voters.  Media use and coverage of the President is huge in campaigns and throughout Presidency.  If you don't trust media, then can you really trust the President?  Kathy should have a great paper if the argument becomes more guided and original.