com 125 #12

Network Neutrality is a type of subject that is very much overlooked by society both in reality and on the internet. It can be defined as “a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks”. In other words, broadband providers will discriminate between what sites will be accessed and what sites won’t. This is where the concept of network neutrality comes into play. It permits everyone to be able to access whatever they want. It is something that is not really recognized as a major conflict because so far it has not been. With the institution of so many new aspects of technology and the internet combined, you can see why their might be a problem with network neutrality. Some people who are launching new sites, new products or anything or revolutionized on the internet are obviously in favor of network neutrality. It gives them a better chance of having their site or service over the internet to be recognized. Without this, many users over the internet would not be able to witness some of these services provided because they would be blocked by their broadband provider.

The people whose interests are at stake here is virtually anyone who has ever used the internet. It is not fair that some users are able to view some service or use it for that matter, and others are not because of the decision that a broadband provider or whoever is running their internet had made. People who are everyday users, just normal people in society I think are at the biggest loss in this issue. Much of their work, communication and daily living are done over the internet, so why should some of them have access to other things that others may not? The types of interests that are at stake here are essentially the ones that all people have. Whatever the interests may be, whether it is shopping online, playing online games, doing work over the net, running a business, the list is endless. It is basically every interest that had been incorporated from everyday life into a computer networked with millions of other computers. Many applications that probably a lot of users are interested in can be blocked, for no reason, but the decision made by the network provider. This may discourage them and find them selves asking questions about the internet and about the service that they are running the Web on as well.

I am a definite supporter of network neutrality. I am a person who believes that all people. Regardless of what the subject is, should have the same rights to everyone else in that applied aspect. Network neutrality is something that keeps all users of the internet on the same page. It keeps the basic line of unity of all users who access the net on a daily basis in order. I think that with out the concept of network neutrality then there would be much chaos, confusion and disorientation through out the net. Companies would probably go out of business or be bought out by other ones, as well as the interests of people would start to have a declined because of possibly the services, applications or programs that may be blocked or inaccessible. We see today that the internet is obviously better when network neutrality applies, so why would anyone have second thoughts about it. No, it may not be the safest place due to rapists, stalkers, pornography or any of the dirty stuff, but try to imagine what it would be like with it being disoriented because of the discouraged users.

com 125 #11

The use of online virtual realities can be very deceiving to society today as technology continues to grow. As we watch the amount of innovation that technology has brought to our world, we can also observe that the amount of change that we have had to adapt to as well. Certain aspects from specific parts of people’s lives can sometimes be interfered by these online virtual realties. Within them, the realities each posses some sort of economy where funds are exchange, whether they be real or fake.

The use of these online realties does cost some sort of real fee to be access them to their full potential. For example, an “open” virtual economy that is very popular that I had recently been exposed can be “Second Life”. This is a 3-D world where you can travel to all sorts of places, purchase and by property, all for the cost of real money. They have something called linden dollars, which is translated into real money that you end up having to pay. Since this cost is coming directly from you and the actions that you take as a user who is actively involved with this virtual reality, it is considered an “open economy”. The reason for the start of this was that some professors had come together and decided that if people were interested enough in this and it became an actual reality for them then they would start to make a profit off the types of actions they could perform, and it would also benefit and profit the game itself. This is all regarding the use of open virtual economies.

The use of closed online virtual economies is a different story. An example of something like this is World of Warcraft, which has recently become one of the most, if not the most played user-to-user game on the internet. I personally think it is the most popular game out there, and I don’t even play it. The reason that World of Warcraft is not considered a open virtual economy is because users are not investing money in it to make money. Yes, there is a cost of something like 15$ for every months pay, but then that is it. There is not any money being exchanged between users or something, nor is there any sort of property or land that can be exchanged, or sold between users like you can do on Second Life.

The reason that World of Warcraft discourages this online virtual open economy is because it is there for the sheer interest and amusement of the users. I think that there is a much greater risk involving virtual open economies because it is affecting the user’s actual bank account, and their personal life. People can and will mistakenly get too involved with these online open virtual economies, and start to develop a sense that it is their “life”, when in reality, it is a game online. People start to “lose it” I think when they get caught up in these sorts of online realities. I’m not saying that these are a bad idea; I just think that people should probably be investing their money in something worth it.

COM 125 #10

When hearing about a certain topic in the news today, you tend to hear the same basic information about it over and over. Depending on the type of subject it is based under politics, business, sports, or whatever, you will usually hear the same crap about the article. When comparing two different articles on the same topic, one of which was from the internet, and one from a news paper, as a reader you catch certain things about the articles content, as well as the structure and formality of the article. It is not all the same when you read in depth of the article from the perspective of two different sources.

The two articles that I have chosen for this assignment have both been based on a familiar topic all sports fans are aware of, which is the upcoming rivalry game between professional footballs top two powerhouse teams, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. The Colts and Pat’s square off this coming Sunday in the RCA Dome, home of Indianapolis. The information that I had taken for this topic came from two well known sources. The internet based one I had viewed ESPN’s perspective and read about what they had to say about the upcoming brawl between these two teams. For the newspaper source, I had read through the front page story of the sports section on the Colts/Pats game of USA Today. After reading both of these articles, there were some significant differences in the way that some internet based articles and newspaper based articles take as their approach to getting their news feed to the public. In USA Today’s article, they gave some different information about the past of these teams. There had seemed to solely base their article on the upcoming event and the reasons to which team they though would win the game. The article pointed out some significant statistics of each team their best players, and the recent games of the past between the two. It was more of a general article, something you were likely to expect from a nationally recognized newspaper.

On ESPN’s website, the leading source for sports news and information, they gave more of an in depth analysis of the upcoming game. They gave some general opinions and stats of both teams, to look to decide which one of them will finally be beaten after the 9^th week of the 2007-2008 NFL Season. As you might or might not know, both the Patriots and the Colts are the only undefeated teams left in the NFL this year, so this game is pretty big for both clubs. With the article online, it seemed that when reading it you had a better sense and a better knowledge of what you thought about the game, as well as football in general. The articles content consisted of a many inputs from former pro players, and hall of famers in the NFL. Their interviews with ESPN had seemed to give them an edge in reliability in terms of information, over USA Today’s article. This is just my opinion. It may seem reasonable that ESPN’s article seems more reliable because they are “the leading source in sports news”, according to their motto. This may seem that I am taking the side of the ESPN article, but I think it is natural because they are a sport based website that delivers information. This is probably not true for every article in general that is printed There is a major difference in general, however between print news and online news. It seems as if online news you get more of a real insight to ones opinion, where as if you are reading an article from a news paper, you seem to just be getting the “facts of the story”. To me it seems this way. IN the online article, it gave me a better way of understanding the upcoming game. In the print article, it seemed like they were just reiterating stats and the story of the game itself. Both get the job done in delivering information, but some may consider one to be a better prospect then the other.

References:

Bell, Jarret. "A Rivalry thats tough to beat". USA Today. 1 Nov. 2007: C1.

Garber, Greg. "View from the top: Hall of Famers analyze Brady, Manning". ESPN. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=3088115&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1. (1 Nov.2007).