News Report #3

Facebook suffers 'worst outage' in 4 years; Qwest sees packet loss

This article particularly sparked my interest. I am a devout Facebookian. It is almost an addiction; an almost dangerous addiction for that matter. My first semester of college has been somewhat rocky and definitely a hard adjustment, and therefore Facebook has been almost a crutch; a way for me to keep in contact with friends and family at home, as well as allowing stress relief from various assignments.

Indeed, a great distraction and time waster, Facebook as inexplicably stolen valuable time that I could be spending on assignments and studying. Therefore, it was inevitable that I would have to cut off my Facebook usage, because limiting it was not working. I made a personal goal to not log on my Facebook for one week. Don’t get me wrong, it was hard, and I literally had major Facebook cravings, but I found such creative ways to use my time. I completed all my assignments early and I even had time to do crafts and read (imagine that).  

Getting off this tangent, I will refer back to my article. This shows just what a big impact Facebook is having on our society. The fact that this social networking giant was down for a couple hours and a day at the most for some people was almost a cause for panic. My own Facebook went down this same day and I really did get quite frustrated myself.  However, should something as simple as checking your picture comments and Facebook chat be a cause for widespread panic? This outage not only made headlines on many tech websites but it also made its way to headlines on the news.

Ten years ago most people didn’t even know what a social network was, nor did they belong to one. Can you imagine not having a social network in today’s world? Are we a Facebook dependent society? You be the judge.

Krazit, Tom. "Facebook suffers 'worst outage' in 4 years; Qwest sees packet loss | Relevant Results - CNET News." Technology News - CNET News. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2010. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20017463-265.html?tag=topTechContentWrap;mostPopular>. 

News Report #2

Get a 2TB external hard drive for $99.99

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-20016192-58.html?tag=cnetRiver

This post is a bit unconventional, as I am posting about something for sale rather than an actual report, however, I am very interested in new technology, the concept of space, and price fluctuations.

Moofi, a sister version of Woot, is now offering a 2 Terabyte external hard drive for a mere $99. I am a huge fan of the external hard drive. It is a great way to store my music, pictures, and writing without a complete space capacity overload on my new Mac Book (my baby).  However, 2 WHOLE TERABYTES! The idea of that much space is almost unfathomable, at least for me.

A terabyte is one thousand gigabytes or one trillion bytes, respectively.  Just to put this in laymen’s terms, one terabyte equals about a thousand gigabytes, and one gig can hold about two hundred and fifty songs give or take. That means one terabyte can hold up to two hundred and fifty thousand songs. So when you purchase your 2 TB external hard drive, you have the space capacity to hold up to five hundred thousand pieces of music. Absolutely amazing.

Why do I think this is so incredible? I can actually remember in 2007 when Hitachi produced the first one-terabyte external hard drive. It sold for four hundred dollars, which at the time seemed like a steal to me. Now, in three years, the price is a fourth of its original and the product has twice the capacity. It is amazing how technology has such amazing price fluctuations based on supply vs. demand. I was pricing some electronics last night and the Walkman cd player, a staple in my childhood, was priced at and around $30. I remember when I was growing up; a cheap conventional Walkman could be purchased for $10. Because of the lack of demand, the supply has decreased, and the Walkman is now more expensive.

So really, who has 2 terabytes of data to store? It kind of goes back to our American philosophy that bigger is better and more is good. You may not need more, but you crave more.  

Reading #2

Is Wikipedia a Victim of  Its Own Success?

It is common knowledge that the Internet is always changing. I do not think people really spend a lot of time pondering this issue, nor do they really notice it. However, big websites like Wikipedia definitely face the changing times with a wary and vigilant eye.

When Wikipedia first hit the scene in the early Millennium, its growth skyrocketed...exponentially. The amounts of visitors flocking to the site were unprecedented and no one could see an end in sight for the free-based information giant, that is, until now.

With only a small about of contributors the site has become somewhat biased. Not only that, but the rules have tightened and Wikipedia is becoming quite strict and downright persnickety.  They have upped the ante when it comes to writing/ editing an article for the site. In my opinion, that is what made it so beautiful. Information could be found on Wikipedia about virtually any topic…whether it was necessarily true or not, it provided endless entertainment and sparked interest.

As a self-proclaimed Wikipedia lover, I will always support the website for what it is: a free, fast, fun selection of knowledge, as long as it stays this way. Wikipedia has a way of condensing information and making it easier to comprehend. Of course, I cannot use Wikipedia as a source for a paper, but I sure can read an article on Wikipedia to better my understanding of Nuclear Physics.

Indeed, I am saddened by the changes taking place with my beloved informational index. The community of Wikipedians has gradually dissipated and now only includes a small, limited, group of intellectuals that run the show. This “elite” has stripped the site of it’s varied information, quirky spontaneous quality, and most importantly…its profound diversity, to establish a website that is seemingly more scholarly. Wikipedia is what it is.

In my opinion Wikipedia is losing its authenticity, and becoming just another Britannica.  With only a very small class, race, and gender being represented, how does Wikipedia expect to continue to uphold its ostentatious appeal to an ever-changing world full of different people with different cultures and beliefs?

Reading #1

I admire Paul S. Piper and his unfastened approach to Internet fraudulence in his book “Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet”.  He provides an excruciatingly detailed outline of the various and MULTIPLE examples of erroneous information found on the Web.

The websites and their messages vary just about as much as the different types of categories they are placed. For example, there is a hoax about the animal rights group Anti Hunting Happy Association. The site claimed that deer were captured and put in orange vests so that hunters would mistake them for other hunters and not shoot them. This website, seemingly harmless and very funny made it to big entertainment/informative websites like FOX.com and ESPN.com. Shows how well they checked the validity of that news. Then again there are darker sides to Internet fraudulence. Sites like martinlutherking.org are malicious and provide disinformation.  They give false, unsupported information about King. These malicious/disinformation websites take a very radical approach to many events like the Holocaust. Many incorporate politics, and religion through pernicious content or parody and spoof.

While reading this article my first question was to ask, “Why haven’t these websites been shut down?” I realized however, that these conspiracy websites challenge people to think, and I am all for Internet neutrality and freedom. I admire Piper’s ability to look at both sides of the issue as well.  On page 19 he states, “Only a truly free society can allow free exchange of ideas regardless of how reprehensible they might seem.” Although these websites may provide false content, they still provide a new perspective and give people the right to think beyond and question things.

However, I do have qualms with a varied number of topics discussed. I was disturbed by the story about the Serbian hackers, the “Black Hand” and how easily they infiltrated the government websites of various countries. I also found the excerpt about false health information very unnerving. The information about AIDs  is dangerous and could really misguide people. Also, I think if information is going to be false, websites should not be allowed to trap the audience, like when the disinformation is linked with a title saying “Student Research Page”.

Indeed Piper researched his topic well and provided a mosaic of varied and resourceful examples. I enjoyed reading this article, although lengthy.