This was covered in an article in the New York Times today. The owner of this 1971 Ford Mustang is the original owner of the car. Since the man is by nature an inventor, he has been exploring ways to earn maximum gas mileage and keep the car running strong. The part you won't believe is that each and every mile driven in the car is logged in a book. There is more than 600k miles on the car so you can imagine how much paper he needed. Mr. Fuchs, the owner of the car had a passion for inventing and building cars since he was a child. Today, he is still a full time inventor and car enthusiast. The unlikely aspect of owning a car with a v8 engine is caring about gas mileage. Mr. Fuchs has continued to manipulate the car and his driving habbits to gain fuel efficiency.
I feel one can take away a few things from this man's story. Maintaining an efficient vehicle can be done by anyone regardless of what they drive. If you have an interest in something like cars, pursuing that interest can lead you to make improvements. But the part I like most is the 600k miles he drove the car. How can you get a car to last that long? If everyone copied Mr. Fuchs, the auto industry would be in serious trouble (worse than what they have now).
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Huffington Post
For this post, I selected the blogger hub/online newspaper known as the Huffington Post. The name comes from the woman who created it, Arianna Huffington. The information available on the site is just as thorough if not more thorough than a printed newspaper. It includes political news, business, sports and plenty of opinions to go with them. I was never a Huffington Post fan but I feel I will probably return. The homepage just seems to be a bit overwhelming. It quickly becomes a piece of cake after your first visit. The articles are already sorted into sections and can be found with almost no effort. No matter who you are or what interests you, there will be a story you want to read.
Again, I was never a Huffington Post fan before this post. The only online news I would regularly consume came from the New York Times website. I can now say this is no longer the case. Here you can find a vast array of news from a reliable source. It certainly goes a long way for it to even be called a blog. Check the site out and you will probably agree.
Again, I was never a Huffington Post fan before this post. The only online news I would regularly consume came from the New York Times website. I can now say this is no longer the case. Here you can find a vast array of news from a reliable source. It certainly goes a long way for it to even be called a blog. Check the site out and you will probably agree.
Hannity and Colmes
This post is in reaction to the "Hannity and Colmes" debate show on Fox. I do believe that the name is no longer Hannity and Colmes but now "The Sean Hannity Show." This man is God's gift to the conservatives! I feel no sympathy for the liberals as they have their own left wing news anchors all over the media. From the very beggining of a debate I watched with Sean Hannity and Colmes, Hannity was dominating with his conservatives views. He wants it to be clear he is right wing and will defend his views against anyone. Knowing the debates are this biased, Fox is falsely advertising them as "Fair and Balanced." It is great to refer to your news coverage in this manner, but Hannity is clearly the exception.
So what kind of topics does Hannity debate "Fairly and Balanced"? Since the current administration took office, Hannity has thrown all kinds of negative views regarding Obama. He suggests they are unequipped to deal with the economy and are consequently causing disaster for our country. I am a conservative, but most of what he says is downright crazy. But this craziness might be music to the ears of some Americans who can't tolerate the liberal shows.
So what kind of topics does Hannity debate "Fairly and Balanced"? Since the current administration took office, Hannity has thrown all kinds of negative views regarding Obama. He suggests they are unequipped to deal with the economy and are consequently causing disaster for our country. I am a conservative, but most of what he says is downright crazy. But this craziness might be music to the ears of some Americans who can't tolerate the liberal shows.
Monday, May 4, 2009
NPR In The Morning
I occasionally consult NPR to get a quick shot of news on way to class each morning. I recently heard on morning edition an interesting story about the future plan for Chrysler to join Fiat. The U.S government has forced Chrysler to pair up with the Italian car maker Fiat. By next year, all Chrysler models will be a blend of the two makes. If you think that this is the first time this happened, think again. Chrysler is currently paired up with a German manufacturer: Daimler. I thought it sounded familiar. If you have ever been to Europe, you have probably seen a Fiat driving around. These cars are very compact and cramped. Its hard to imagine what kind of cars are going to be produced.
On the bright side, it might be a savior to Chrysler. A sporty and well designed Chrysler with some Italian engineering sounds exciting. The Italian Fiat can help lead the way to better gas mileage and quality. I agree NPR is a great resource for news. The station does a thorough job presenting the news and also providing analysis and background information. It seems the station is doing quite well with 13 million listeners some of whom are outside the United States.
On the bright side, it might be a savior to Chrysler. A sporty and well designed Chrysler with some Italian engineering sounds exciting. The Italian Fiat can help lead the way to better gas mileage and quality. I agree NPR is a great resource for news. The station does a thorough job presenting the news and also providing analysis and background information. It seems the station is doing quite well with 13 million listeners some of whom are outside the United States.
New Threat :Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
In recent international news, the Pakistani government was displaying signs of weakness as it struggled to maintain control. Their biggest concern: Al Quaeda and Taliban militants crossing into their country. Today, the New York Times published an article on the deteriorating situation. The country's government has responded with military action but have enjoyed limited success. If the government fails to maintain order and expel the insurgents, the world can be facing a deadly situation. The United States is no exception to the threat. Part of the reason they are failing is their military structure. The Pakistani military has everything it needs for a conventional war with a rival like India. However, the war they are fighting against the insurgents involves guerrilla tactics. This was not something they prepared for. To make matters worse, the Pakistani government refuses to cooperate with the U.S to help avoid disaster. They will not provide critical information like the amounts and locations of their nuclear arsenal. Their defense for that is fear of them being destroyed by the U.S if we deem they are vulnerable.
I feel the situation at hand is a very delicate one. If the internationally community does not join the United States in a coalition and stabilize this government, millions of lives could be risked. It is never a pleasure for a foreign government to acknowledge it has lost control of its own country. It would be in the best interest of many to act before this gets out of hand.
I feel the situation at hand is a very delicate one. If the internationally community does not join the United States in a coalition and stabilize this government, millions of lives could be risked. It is never a pleasure for a foreign government to acknowledge it has lost control of its own country. It would be in the best interest of many to act before this gets out of hand.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Daily Show v. Network News .. What a Surprise
I am putting together this post to compare the 6:30 network news and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I have recently become a fan of Jon Stewart to the point where I must watch it a few times a week. If you are reading this post, you probably know Jon Stewart is a comedian. His show airs on Comedy Central with other shows like Jackass and South Park. I give Stewart credit for being hilarious and at the same time maintaining high standards. Politics are the backbone of Stewart's comedy. Being a political science major, I consider myself well informed when it comes to politics. A good number of the jokes he tells require prior knowledge of the person or event he is referring to in order to understand the joke. So you have to do your homework if you want a nice laugh. The Daily Show is merely entertainment; if you think Jon Stewart is reporting the news, you are very wrong. But for many people who do not want to be bothered with the network news, Jon Stewart is the cure. Because of his jokes, these people will be somewhat more tuned into politics than they would be without him.
The previous night, I had watched Fox News. The overlap was pretty obvious. Stewart had used several topics that Fox News had reported. Even the dry stuff we already know and don't really see as funny was transformed by Stewart. Then there are stories like the Domino's video that are already funny. I do recall his joke about the swine flu that Chris mentions in his post. Dana Perino even admitted to using one of his jokes as her own. These jokes are quality jokes !!! Keep it coming Jon!
The previous night, I had watched Fox News. The overlap was pretty obvious. Stewart had used several topics that Fox News had reported. Even the dry stuff we already know and don't really see as funny was transformed by Stewart. Then there are stories like the Domino's video that are already funny. I do recall his joke about the swine flu that Chris mentions in his post. Dana Perino even admitted to using one of his jokes as her own. These jokes are quality jokes !!! Keep it coming Jon!
"Good Night and Good Luck"
So what exactly is this movie "Good Night and Good Luck" all about? Do not let the black and white turn you away! I was fortunate enough to view the movie in my media politics class. While this film is infested with so called communists and the struggle to expose them, it also raises a very up to date point. What do we Americans want from the media? Do we wish to be entertained with garbage like "Girls Next Door" or do we want more information on what is happening in the world we live in? This is exactly what Edward Murrow was debating. The only difference for him was his career depended on it. If you watch the film or read this post, Edward Murrow ends up putting the brakes on Senator McCarthy. McCarthy's only cover throughout the plot was accusing anyone who disagreed with him of being a communist. The choice is ours: Do we want to hear about things that make us uncomfortable and force us to think, or do we want to stick to Girls Next Door?
My support is behind Murrow. He undoubtedly made the right decision to expose the Senator. This man had his entire career to lose and very few to gain but his sense of duty gave him the courage to go through with his plan. Reporters today should aspire to do the same;however, their superiors direct them to do otherwise. Reporters are pressured to produce stories that sell not stories that they see important. Part of the problem is that people are more interested in America's Next Top Model than HIV in Africa. Nowadays, the majority of news hardly contains anything informative for this reason. I hope our generation demands quality information from the media.
My support is behind Murrow. He undoubtedly made the right decision to expose the Senator. This man had his entire career to lose and very few to gain but his sense of duty gave him the courage to go through with his plan. Reporters today should aspire to do the same;however, their superiors direct them to do otherwise. Reporters are pressured to produce stories that sell not stories that they see important. Part of the problem is that people are more interested in America's Next Top Model than HIV in Africa. Nowadays, the majority of news hardly contains anything informative for this reason. I hope our generation demands quality information from the media.
Blog Review : Air Force One Over NYC
I read Andy’s blog post regarding the Air Force one flyover incident that took place a week ago. The media sources have responded to the event by calling it a waste of taxpayer dollars. But, as Andy discusses in his post, the unannounced flyover caused panic and disruption for Manhattan and down town Jersey City citizens. For some unknown reason, the Air Force thought it needed some cool shots of the aircraft with New York City in the background. The 747 was said to be one of a small fleet of planes that are used as Air Force one for the president’s transport. The panic and fear were a result of the low altitude of the flight and the two f-16s that were accompanying the plane. Concerned citizens flooded operators with calls fearing an attack. Things would have much different if the public had knowledge of the flight before it took place. Apparently, the pentagon wanted to keep it a secret for safety reasons but never imagined it could cause an unsafe situation. Only the New Jersey State Police and NYPD were informed.
The flyover can fairly be called a waste of tax dollars. The money spent on fuel and the pilots could be spent getting something we need done. Do we really need those photos that bad? In addition to that, many citizens who worked in high rise buildings spent a good portion of their morning outside as they evacuated. On the bright side, things improved once people knew they were safe. As Andy mentioned, the stocks for the day had been declining until the fear was cleared up. Then they recovered. It just seems like bad joke to play on people who still remember what happened to their city about 8 years ago.
The flyover can fairly be called a waste of tax dollars. The money spent on fuel and the pilots could be spent getting something we need done. Do we really need those photos that bad? In addition to that, many citizens who worked in high rise buildings spent a good portion of their morning outside as they evacuated. On the bright side, things improved once people knew they were safe. As Andy mentioned, the stocks for the day had been declining until the fear was cleared up. Then they recovered. It just seems like bad joke to play on people who still remember what happened to their city about 8 years ago.
The Girls Next Door > Be Warned !!
Before I put together this post, I had the displeasure of watching an episode of the so called reality show “The Girls Next Door”. The show stars Hugh Hefner and his playboy playmate girlfriends. There is close to nothing real about this reality show. The show is produced as the cameraman follows the girls and around as they do all these cool things. In real life, not many average people have the time or money to put up any competition to the action packed lifestyle these girls lead. It is wrong for viewers to think they are second class human beings because they cannot afford to lead a life like theirs. But who really cares to watch these girls who know absolutely nothing about anything make fools of themselves all around the world. In the episode I watched (and will never bother with again), Hugh took them out to a ski resort and provided them with just about every piece of luxury you can think of on a vacation. Everything from the limousine ride to the fancy dinner by the fireplace was provided for them. Their only assignment in exchange for this: produce as much drama as possible and make an idiot of yourself.
The messages viewers are left with after watching this show are all scary to imagine. It is especially important for teenage girls and anyone else who watches the show to understand the show is all fake. Not every girl will be handed the opportunity to have a hideously old man as a boyfriend and live in the lap of luxury in exchange. Even if it is offered to a girl, would she really want to live that way? The idea of the perfect body image is also contributed to in a negative sense by this show. Parents should explain to teenagers there is nothing wrong them if they look different from these girls. The broadcasting company produces the show, E!, would probably not think twice about the show’s informative content (0) as long as the profits keep coming in. Finally, I think watching the show to laugh at its stupidity is alright, but expecting anything else is absurd.
The messages viewers are left with after watching this show are all scary to imagine. It is especially important for teenage girls and anyone else who watches the show to understand the show is all fake. Not every girl will be handed the opportunity to have a hideously old man as a boyfriend and live in the lap of luxury in exchange. Even if it is offered to a girl, would she really want to live that way? The idea of the perfect body image is also contributed to in a negative sense by this show. Parents should explain to teenagers there is nothing wrong them if they look different from these girls. The broadcasting company produces the show, E!, would probably not think twice about the show’s informative content (0) as long as the profits keep coming in. Finally, I think watching the show to laugh at its stupidity is alright, but expecting anything else is absurd.
Friday, May 1, 2009
New Administration = More Freedom for Women ?
The title of this feminist blog is “ Reproductive Freedom 100 days into the Obama Administration.” We all know by now that Obama has been in office for over 100 days now and counting. The author of this blog clearly attributes many new freedoms given to women to the Obama administration. I feel that is somewhat unfair to the Bush administration. The author’s evaluation concludes that more reproductive freedoms have been given to women by the new administration so far than from all eight years of the previous administration. So what exactly are these reproductive freedoms she is talking about?
In his first week in office, President Obama voided the Global Gag Rule. As a result, U.S funding will be provided to international organizations that promote safe and legal means of abortion for women. These women will now have access to contraceptives and become more informed about things like family planning. Obama has provided more adequate funding for the United Nations Population Fund which will help educate more people worldwide on family planning. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is also raising awareness abroad.The "freedoms" the author cites also include many domestic victories. About a month ago, President Obama signed the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Assuming all provisions are enacted, an affordable means of birth control will now be available to the less fortunate. In addition, women can not be denied access to birth control pills or information by anyone or any institution. More recently, a pro choice Secretary of Health and Human Services was confirmed to the Senate.
There is even a more surprising court ruling that I recently found out about that the author does not mention. Just last week, a federal judge has ordered the FDA to make the sale of the morning after pill to 17-year old girls legal. No parental notification or consent is required. I personally think this last "freedom" has the potential to cause greater harm than good. There will most likely be many angry parents as a result.
I feel there is some unfair misrepresentation going on here by attributing all these "freedoms" to the current administration and criticizing the past one. Any other Republican president in the place of George Bush with similar ideologies would have adopted similar policies towards women. At the same time, if another Democratic candidate had been elected to office 100 days ago, hardly anything would be different today in terms of this type of legislation Nevertheless ,I feel the evidence presented by the author is concrete enough to make her point clear. Women in the United States and abroad in developing countries have made substantial gains. The legislation also provides a morale boost here in the United States and sets the stage for future gains in womens' rights.
In his first week in office, President Obama voided the Global Gag Rule. As a result, U.S funding will be provided to international organizations that promote safe and legal means of abortion for women. These women will now have access to contraceptives and become more informed about things like family planning. Obama has provided more adequate funding for the United Nations Population Fund which will help educate more people worldwide on family planning. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is also raising awareness abroad.The "freedoms" the author cites also include many domestic victories. About a month ago, President Obama signed the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Assuming all provisions are enacted, an affordable means of birth control will now be available to the less fortunate. In addition, women can not be denied access to birth control pills or information by anyone or any institution. More recently, a pro choice Secretary of Health and Human Services was confirmed to the Senate.
There is even a more surprising court ruling that I recently found out about that the author does not mention. Just last week, a federal judge has ordered the FDA to make the sale of the morning after pill to 17-year old girls legal. No parental notification or consent is required. I personally think this last "freedom" has the potential to cause greater harm than good. There will most likely be many angry parents as a result.
I feel there is some unfair misrepresentation going on here by attributing all these "freedoms" to the current administration and criticizing the past one. Any other Republican president in the place of George Bush with similar ideologies would have adopted similar policies towards women. At the same time, if another Democratic candidate had been elected to office 100 days ago, hardly anything would be different today in terms of this type of legislation Nevertheless ,I feel the evidence presented by the author is concrete enough to make her point clear. Women in the United States and abroad in developing countries have made substantial gains. The legislation also provides a morale boost here in the United States and sets the stage for future gains in womens' rights.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Fox News & CNN
As a consumer of media through news broadcasts, I must admit that each broadcasting station could very well present the identical story two different ways. The U.S. media interprets news and events; to do this, media frames the stories, provides opinions and even tells us what to think. CNN and Fox News are almost exclusively my two personal sources of television news. It is not unusual to be flipping through the channels and watch a segment of each. There is a strong chance that both stations are reporting similar news. In fact, I watched both Fox and CNN a couple days ago and the majority of each stations' news was concurrent with the others'. What sets them apart is their style of coverage and how they apply politics to the stories.
News stations do not own themselves. Fox is owned by News Corp and CNN is owned by Time Warner. A factor such as different ownership can be responsible for the type of interpretation news is given. Another key difference is audience. CNN knows it has a very large audience all around the world. The same can not be said about Fox News. Even if you have not been a viewer of either station for years like myself, after one viewing of both, you will agree that Fox falls on the conservative end of the scale and CNN falls on the liberal side. As for their coverage of major events, I know what to expect.
With major events, you can expect CNN to linger over them and really over exaggerate the events. Take the supposed Swine Flu breakout as an example. CNN devoted a great deal of time to cover it compared to Fox News who gave much less hype. Fox News covered the Swine Flu relatively early in the broadcast but quickly moved on to other local events. CNN seemed to have struck gold with this. I have to agree that such coverage is exactly what an international audience wants. Personally, I would prefer Fox News for coverage of a non political event. CNN would be my choice if I was seeking a concentrated political analysis of an event. If I had to choose between partisan coverage or objective coverage, I would choose partisan coverage. Partisan coverage is not such a nuisance if you share the same political ideologies as the party. It is also less likely to distort news than objective coverage. With partisan coverage, I can recognize the frame that has been placed on the news relatively easier.
News stations do not own themselves. Fox is owned by News Corp and CNN is owned by Time Warner. A factor such as different ownership can be responsible for the type of interpretation news is given. Another key difference is audience. CNN knows it has a very large audience all around the world. The same can not be said about Fox News. Even if you have not been a viewer of either station for years like myself, after one viewing of both, you will agree that Fox falls on the conservative end of the scale and CNN falls on the liberal side. As for their coverage of major events, I know what to expect.
With major events, you can expect CNN to linger over them and really over exaggerate the events. Take the supposed Swine Flu breakout as an example. CNN devoted a great deal of time to cover it compared to Fox News who gave much less hype. Fox News covered the Swine Flu relatively early in the broadcast but quickly moved on to other local events. CNN seemed to have struck gold with this. I have to agree that such coverage is exactly what an international audience wants. Personally, I would prefer Fox News for coverage of a non political event. CNN would be my choice if I was seeking a concentrated political analysis of an event. If I had to choose between partisan coverage or objective coverage, I would choose partisan coverage. Partisan coverage is not such a nuisance if you share the same political ideologies as the party. It is also less likely to distort news than objective coverage. With partisan coverage, I can recognize the frame that has been placed on the news relatively easier.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Op Ed - 21st Century Military
This Op Ed was published in the New York Times today. The piece lays out a plan by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to "modernize" the military. The move focuses on adapting the military to warfare in the 21st century. Our idea of war today is no longer two countries confronting each other with fighter jets and tanks. The enemy has changed so the tactics must change too. Gates suggests there is no longer a need for the Air Force. The Army Navy and Marines all have there own aircraft. The Air Force hardly participated in the Iraq war compared to the other branches.
Gates feels the advancement policies also cause good soldiers to leave the military. If an enlisted soldier fails to move up the ranks he/she is forced out of service. This should be changed so the military keeps the valuable soldiers who have experienced combat. The selection process should be open to a wider variety of applicants. He suggests that everyone be required to serve and those who show talent and performance be offered a spot. At the same time he feels the move will make politicians more knowledgeable about the military and give many a personal connection whether they or a son or daughter have been in the military.
I agree that Gates is looking in the right direction with this plan. However, it is not a given that warfare will remain this way. It would probably be a bad idea to eliminate something as important as the airforce which has been around since planes were invented. He also makes a valid point saying that forcing out experienced soldiers who are not able to move up is bad for the military. After going through training and gaining experience, that soldier becomes a valuable asset.
Gates feels the advancement policies also cause good soldiers to leave the military. If an enlisted soldier fails to move up the ranks he/she is forced out of service. This should be changed so the military keeps the valuable soldiers who have experienced combat. The selection process should be open to a wider variety of applicants. He suggests that everyone be required to serve and those who show talent and performance be offered a spot. At the same time he feels the move will make politicians more knowledgeable about the military and give many a personal connection whether they or a son or daughter have been in the military.
I agree that Gates is looking in the right direction with this plan. However, it is not a given that warfare will remain this way. It would probably be a bad idea to eliminate something as important as the airforce which has been around since planes were invented. He also makes a valid point saying that forcing out experienced soldiers who are not able to move up is bad for the military. After going through training and gaining experience, that soldier becomes a valuable asset.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Progress in the case of the vanishing bees
In recent environmental news, honey bees across the country have been vanishing without a trace. Whatever was behind it could quickly wipe out the bees from existence. Experts had a few guesses like pesticides or cell phones but were not sure. A few days ago, scientists' search for their suspect which had apparently been causing bees to vanish did not come up empty handed. Before they had made the connection between disappearing bees and nosema ceranae scientists knew something was wrong but tried in vain to pinpoint it. The pathogen nosema ceranae was infecting bees and most likely played a major role in their disappearance. A blogger on Treehugger published a post on this new discovery. The treatment for such a pathogen is fumagillin. Scientists plan to treat surviving colonies with it and use it to protect healthy bees.
There is no doubt that finding out the cause behind the disappearing bees before it was too late is outstanding. The second part of the solution here is to find a way to cure the problem using the new information. The next task of locating infected colonies all across the country is going to be difficult. The bright side is that we found the cause before it was too late and fixing the problem is well within our reach. Hopefully these scientists recieve proper funding from the government to tackle this.
There is no doubt that finding out the cause behind the disappearing bees before it was too late is outstanding. The second part of the solution here is to find a way to cure the problem using the new information. The next task of locating infected colonies all across the country is going to be difficult. The bright side is that we found the cause before it was too late and fixing the problem is well within our reach. Hopefully these scientists recieve proper funding from the government to tackle this.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Third world stoves contribute to global warming
On today's front page of the New York Times was an interesting article on how stoves used in the third world impact the climate. Environmentalists claim that although carbon dioxide is not the culprit here, the actual culprit,soot, can be equally devastating. In chemistry class, I learned that a complete combustion releases heat and has a byproduct of water. So where does soot come from and what can it do to our environment? The poor farmers of these third world villages use whatever they can gather to fuel a fire. In a country like India with a population of nearly one billion, little things can really add up. The soot eventually makes its way into the atmosphere and precipitates down onto glaciers. The soot attracts heat from the sun causing the glacier to melt.
Environmental experts in the United States and India seem to have been caught off guard with this one. In the U.S, laws were passed to regulate particulate emissions (like soot) in order to protect air quality and the health of the public. No one imagined that soot would contribute to global warming. What is more surprising than its global effects is where the soot is coming from. When you have a number of people greater than the population of the United States burning this stuff every day, it does not seem so far fetched anymore.
Clearly, global warming is a serious concern for all and now that we know such a thing, we can get to work on eliminating it. Would a realistic solution be going village to village handing out new stoves? Even if that was an option, who is going to write the check ? The matter will likely require international cooperation and contributions before this will ever go away.
Environmental experts in the United States and India seem to have been caught off guard with this one. In the U.S, laws were passed to regulate particulate emissions (like soot) in order to protect air quality and the health of the public. No one imagined that soot would contribute to global warming. What is more surprising than its global effects is where the soot is coming from. When you have a number of people greater than the population of the United States burning this stuff every day, it does not seem so far fetched anymore.
Clearly, global warming is a serious concern for all and now that we know such a thing, we can get to work on eliminating it. Would a realistic solution be going village to village handing out new stoves? Even if that was an option, who is going to write the check ? The matter will likely require international cooperation and contributions before this will ever go away.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Whether or not you have an interest in skydiving, watching this video will give you a greater appreciation for YouTube. I have to agree that YouTube is an asset to all of us and as for its reputation of containing nonsense I disagree. If you plan to go on your first skydive ever and want to gain some valuable information this is your lucky break! Where else can you find such a useful resource that is otherwise incredibly difficult to find?
The case I am arguing here involves the informative side of YouTube. This video is only one of several videos that offer step by step instruction on skydiving. The person who posted it wanted to make it a resource to whomever may need it. Unfortunately YouTube attracts negative feedback because of its tendency to contain useless videos of people doing pointless and/or stupid things. If you are still not convinced I suggest viewing a few videos on something that interests you and see how much more information others put out there.
The case I am arguing here involves the informative side of YouTube. This video is only one of several videos that offer step by step instruction on skydiving. The person who posted it wanted to make it a resource to whomever may need it. Unfortunately YouTube attracts negative feedback because of its tendency to contain useless videos of people doing pointless and/or stupid things. If you are still not convinced I suggest viewing a few videos on something that interests you and see how much more information others put out there.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
This afternoon's local news report on ABC presented local news which is predominantly geared to serve the New York locality. The order in which the news was presented was not structured or ordered in importance. ABC's priority is local news; therefore, the local stories were reported first and were then followed by national and international news. Tonight's report involved the following: a double murder in Long Island; a Bronx principal facing charges; a drinking death at a frat. Some national stories included the gas price increase, the pistachio recall, and a man rowing across the Atlantic. I must mention the stories are selected based upon time and public interest. The ones selected do a great job drawing viewers' attention and can be reported in a few minuites.
The Pistachio recall out of California is drawing attention around our area due to the possibility that the contaminated nuts were sold to markets in our area. The threat of Salmonella is very serious as nobody wants to take a risk. Check out CBS and what they had to say about it here .
The Pistachio recall out of California is drawing attention around our area due to the possibility that the contaminated nuts were sold to markets in our area. The threat of Salmonella is very serious as nobody wants to take a risk. Check out CBS and what they had to say about it here .
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
