Week 10: Muddy/Megan's Law

Databases are used in a variety of ways, and in many different places and institutions.  As I was reading through chapter 10 in the textbook, I came across an article that I found to be of interest, so I decided to write my blog on it so I could do more research.  The article is about whether or not states should share criminal databases, and asked the question "should a database of people paroled or released for crimes be made public?"

In particular the article talks about Megan's Law, which is an informal name for laws in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders.  It is named after a seven year-old girl in California who was violated and killed by a paroled felon.  Individual states decide what information will be made available in a public database.  Some commonly included information is the offender's name, picture, address, incarceration date, and nature of crime.  The information is often displayed on public websites, but can also be published in newspapers, distributed in pamphlets, or through various other means.

Today, all states employee these databases and are required to share the information with a national database.  In some communities, when an offender moves in, the police inform the local school system, which in turn sends parents a notification that includes a history, address, and photo of the wrongdoer.  Some states share information with each other regarding almost all criminals, and some allow citizens to search for these offenders by name.  Below I have included a picture taken of a sign that is just outside the city limits of Wapello, Iowa.  It is a good example of a community that uses a public database to declare an offender-free district.

I believe that this is a good way to regulate sex offenders within certain communities.  Although some may argue that this is an invasion of privacy, I think people have a right to know when a sex offender or pedophile moves into their neighborhood, especially people who have young children.

Website cited:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law

Presentation and Web 2.0 Project

Presentation Evaluation Rubric

Name of Presenter: 

Your Name:  

	Missing or lacking	Meets the minimum but could be improved	Excellent
Is there a logical flow and sequence of content? How could it be improved?			Yes
Does the presenter anticipate questions and answer them in the right place? At what points did you have questions that were not answered?			I think I answered all of the questions
Did the presenter grab your attention in the first 30-60 seconds?			Yes
Did the presenter ask questions and spark your curiosity?		I didn't really ask questions but hopefully I sparked some curiosity
Did the presenter set the context with a concise explanation? Is it clear what the presenter is trying to share?			Yes
Did the presenter validate any claims?		Kind of
Did the presenter avoid inconsistencies and errors, typos and unbelievable claims?			Yes
How well did the presenter avoid clutter?			I believe I avoided clutter
What did the presenter do to ensure readability?			I left the text slides up longer so that people had time to read them
Did the presenter say it, and then show it or did he/she read the slides?		I basically just showed it

I reviewed Natasha Betty's presentation, and I was very impressed.  I could tell that a lot of thought and effort went into it.  It also had a personal connection with her, since she had studied abroad herself.  I believed in what she said, and she did a great job illustrating all of her points with graphic images.  All in all, I think her presentation was very effective.

This project taught me many things.  The obvious skill I obtained was the ability to create a presentation all on my own.  I learned that there are so many different tools and resources available to aid in the creation process.  It wasn't as hard as I thought it was going to be... once I got started, I began to enjoy it.  This will help me in the future because I am almost positive that at some point in my career, I will be required to present some sort of material to a group of people.  I feel confident that I will be able to create and deliver a presentation with ease.

Presentation link:  http://www.onetruemedia.com/otm_site/view_shared?p=c455cfdd199cff83ac8a96&source=category&category_id=all

Week 9: Muddy/Wi-Fi

I, as I believe so many others have, always assumed that the term "Wi-Fi" was short for "Wireless Fidelity."  However after this week's lesson I now realize that in all actuality that is completely wrong.  In fact, Wi-Fi isn't even short for anything, it is simply a name which refers to a range of connectivity technologies.  This comes as a surprise to me, so I decided to write my blog about it so I could research it further.

Before the name Wi-Fi came in to play, the name given by the Wi-Fi Alliance was IEEE 802. 11.  However, this name was obviously not suitable as a reference to Wi-Fi.  So the Wi-Fi Alliance hired a firm called the Interbrand Corporation to determine a name that was "a little catchier."  What they came up with was Wi-Fi, which wasn't supposed to be short for anything.  People began to associate Wi-Fi with Wireless Fidelity because the Wi-Fi Alliance itself had often used this phrase in its press releases and documents.  They also incorporated the advertising slogan "The standard for Wireless Fidelity," but later removed the phrase from their marketing.  Despite this, some documents from the Alliance dated 2003 and 2004 still contain the term "Wireless Fidelity."  There was no official statement related to the dropping of the term.

Below I have included a graphical image of the yin-yang style Wi-Fi logo, which was also created by the Interbrand firm.  The yin-yang logo indicates the certification of a product for interoperability.

I think that this is an interesting fact that most people don't realize, and now that I have researched it I feel that I am more knowledgeable about Wi-Fi and its uses and functions.


Websites cited:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

Week 7: Clear/The Takahashi Method

This week I chose to write about the Takahashi method of presenting slides during a presentation, because I thought it was very interesting and intriguing.  The Takahashi method is very similar to the Lessig method, which is known for its rapid display of short phrases and pictures.  However, the difference is that Masayoshi Takahashi is Japanese, and all of his slides are done in the Japanese alphabet!  Despite this difference, we can still apply the Takahashi method to any presentation that we wish to give.

The Takahashi method is very effective because it uses only one or two short words, using very large characters.  There are typically no pictures and no charts or graphs.  To make up for this, the presenter will use many more slides than in a traditional presentation, each slide being shown with a much shorter duration.  The slides use plain text in a visual manner, to help the audience quickly read and understand the material.  The words or phrases that Takahashi uses resemble Japanese newspaper headlines rather than sentences which must be read. 

Below is an example of one of Takahashi's slides.

I think that this method of presentation is great because it isn't giving your audience too much information all at once.  Rather, it is taking the most important word or words from a specific point that you are trying to make, and then expanding on it.  This way, people are focused on what you have to say instead of trying to read your slides or study the graphs you have provided.  When used in certain circumstances, I believe that the Takahashi method is a very effective way to deliver a presentation.

Week 6: Clear/Digital Rights Management

Digital rights management, or DRM for short, is a very controversial subject.  I had no idea how controversial it was until I started doing some research for this week's blog post.  By definition, DRM is a generic term used for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the usage of digital content and devices.  There are many companies and artists who use DRM to protect their rights to their songs, movies, ect.  While this does prevent some illegal distribution of their products, it does not prevent all.  DRM also has some ramifications which some may claim to be completely unfair to the purchaser of the product.

There are many reasons why DRM is so controversial.  One of the main reasons people oppose DRM is because the song, movie, or whatever the purchased item may be, can only be played on the one device to which it is downloaded.  So, for example, if I downloaded a song onto my computer that was protected by DRM, my computer is the only place that I would be able to listen to that song.  I would not be allowed to transfer it to my MP3 player, Ipod, or any other device.  This seems unfair to many, because even though the money was spent for the product, it is only attainable in one place.  In some ways DRM may even encourage illegal downloading, just for this reason. 

Many individuals and companies have spoken out in opposition of DRM.  Some opponents statements include "DRM is an example of a malicious feature - a feature designed to hurt the user of the software, and therefore, its something for which there can never be toleration."  "If you can't figure out how to afford it without charging, you may be doing something wrong."  Major opponents of DRM even include Bill Gates, who addressed the topic of DRM in 2006.  He stated in his speech that "DRM is not where it should be, and causes problems for legitimate consumers while trying to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate users." 

Upon my reading of the numerous opponents of DRM, it is obvious that it has a long way to go before it can find a balance which keeps both the manufacturers and consumers happy.  There are ways around DRM, an analog hole being one example.  Asus, which is a multinational computer product manufacturer centered in Taiwan, released a soundcard which features a function called "Analog Loopback Transformation," to bypass the restrictions of DRM.  This feature allows the user to record DRM-restricted audio via the soundcards built in analog I/O connection.  Despite these techniques, I believe that there are people out there who may not be comfortable with these methods of bypassing DRM, but who do, however, want these restrictions removed from their purchases.  It just may be that the average honest consumer of these products are being harmed the most.  

Website cited:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Controversy