205+labs

lab 2
The new Mac App Store makes me wonder how it wasn't around before. It seemed so obvious. Ten billion applications have been downloaded via gadgets such as the iPad and the iPhone. It makes sense not only in terms of lucrative means, but extending it to the PCs is just another way to keep the connection between those who prefer laptops or desktops as opposed to a smaller, expensive technology. The trouble, as drudged up in the labs would be that the store's guidelines is at the disadvantage to software and app developers.

Now, Apple is known for the sleek and simple interface, e.g. the iPod. They are enforcing this signature design feature on developers. While they demand simplicity, one can only do so much with the small amount they are left to work with. This, in my opinion, leaves a little less room for creativity. In another sense, What Apple has done here is made a high priority to target for "dummies" than to say offer or encourage something highly intelligible and advanced. It stops developers short of creating a potentially powerful application. For example, I was watching the Big Bang Theory a few weeks ago and the plot revolved around the creation of an app that could solve mathematical problems. While they joked that the target crowd would be about 80 people, it made me wonder how this is a step forward for technology or in any given field. Most people would not be interested in an application like that, but what would be the harm in having it regardless? Surely, if it proves to be unprofitable, it is at the loss of the developer. Here, a healthy sense of competition is required but Apple is overbearing and controlling. To further prove my point, duplicate apps are to be removed if they are too similar. Apple seems to be coddling specific companies. While it is explicit that apps of a violent nature will be turned away, Call of Duty is available. User-generated content is considered untrustworthy as pornographic or lewd material is an issue. Any application in the store can somehow be used to hit that level. With Safari, people can roam the internet for pornographic material. Someone can use a Facebook application and find something upsetting on someones account. I feel that if an app has administrators or some type of control, it should be okayed for use in the Mac App store. Considering this, the pull of Chatroulette may be unfair because there is in fact a report feature and they ask that people remain clothed.

There are many more rules that can easily be disputed as unfair and imperfect. I feel that as Apple monopolizes, it's just another silly campaign for your money. While purchasing apps is still a personal option, I cringe that I could easily be getting a heartier return on investment should Apple cease with the Big Brother attitude. There's so much more room for potential.

lab 5
Talk about your views/concerns about the future of privacy / does privacy really matter? why / why not?

In terms of privacy, I see it this way: so long as you're not doing anything illegal, the company can step in, provide information to the government the company is set up in. If you are not doing anything illegal or harmful, you have nothing to worry about.

We use things like facebook to connect to our friends, coworkers, colleagues, etc. Right now on facebook, we can post what we'd like and we can block certain people from seeing it. For example, if I have my professor on facebook (I don't know why I would) and I post: "I REALLY HATE CCT ___!", I can make sure he can't see it. If we can control things on our end, I think it is okay. On our end, it's mostly about connections, networking, friends, our social lives.

In recent years, we have things like wikiLeaks. Julian Assange sparked riots in Tunisia. People are upset with him but the Tunisian people are taking their country back. In the end, is it good or bad? That is up to a governing body who will decide according to their law and constitutions.

=lab 6=

tactical media: saul alinsky ... talk about a rule that inspires you: http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

Lab... March 17th

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/15/sxsw-2011-internet-online?mobile-redirect=false

As I was reading this article a couple of days ago, I found it necessary to include in this week's lab response

Burkeman poses these emphatic questions: "Did social media cause the recent Arab uprisings? Is the web distracting us from living? Are online friendships as rich as those offline? When the lines between reality and virtuality dissolve, both sides of such debates are left looking oddly anachronistic."

His thesis, the big argument, is that "Web 3.0 is the moment they forget they're doing it".

That is a profound statement. I see this in my own life now that it's been pointed up. I tweet, I Facebook, I digg. I rely on my iPhone for directions, messaging, email and have an app for all of the social media networks. We don't do it because we need to get there and progress communications technology. We do it now unnoticeably because we have it. We surpassed that hump.