MIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNDD CONTROL!!!!!!!

The article "How Computers Change the Way we Think" I one that I understand and agree with on the most part.

The only part that I didn't get was the part about "transparency", cause it's not a computering concept that's thrown around much anymore. Cause most of the people who might be considered part of this internet generation, have only been using computers since around Windows 3.1 at the earliest.

But the individual issues brought up are both important and relevant.

•Privacy: I've been using the internet for a decade or now so I'm pretty sure that all my personal info is out there somewhere, cause when I was younger I didn't know any better about putting my name and email and other things put there. But in recent years I've mostly just made fake email addresses, and given fake name whenever something required registrations of any sort. I have an email that I only use for fake registrations so that it gets most of the spam. Though I disagree with the statements about not caring about the incursions into privacy. I just watched "Enemy of the State" last week and I certainly wish to keep my life out of the surveillance of anyone else.

•As for the whole issue of powerpoint, I've never really been affected by it, I've only used it about 4 times in my life, and three of those times were in middles school. But I guess those were so that info could be presented as a visual representations of facts, and easily understood without all the hubub of a lecture. Though that might be good for some younger people, cause they do have shorter attention spans. Though the points brought up about the losing of the narrative in the presentation of information do seem valid.

•I love the word processer myself, I type faster that I write, and I do find myself able to be more productive with a keyboard than with pen and paper. I have a better ability to just make information flow, and that combined with the ability to edit what I've said makes writing for me much easier. I can type fast enough that my hands don't have to play catchup as they would if I were writing.

The part about the constrained environments provided by most computers Is indeed and accurate. The portrayal of video games as a pattern of danger/safe danger/safe is like one my dad always provided.

He always said that he didn't like the same type of games I did because they were just wanering through a maze and shooting monsters, the environments and the monsters changed but the activity stayed the same.

And it is this sameness that the author fears. I agree with what she says in her closing that it's something we have to work against, and that we still need to ask the who's, what's ,where 's, why's, and when's.

"When I first began studying the computer culture, a small breed of highly trained technologists
thought of themselves as "computer people." That is no longer the case. If we take the computer
as a carrier of a way of knowing, a way of seeing the world and our place in it, we are all computer people now."

Where's Zack de la Rocha when I need him?

Frankly the Youtube video didn't seem to me that important.

Sure It points out some helpful evolutions that the internet has gone through, but really just about every technological advance starts off complicated and over time becomes more streamlined and user friendly. The whole "The future is now" aspect of the video kinda seemed cheesy and very much like some sort of student project. (Which I'm pretty certain it is).

So while yes all the new Web 2.0 stuff is cool and all, being it's all happening in the present, I just don't really have much appreciation for it, cause really the internet has always been a helpful tool, and only when new stuff is created can we look back and say "Gee I can't beleive nobody though of that sooner".

And also I thought the music was kinda annoying.

I still think that "Generation X" sounds cooler than "The Myspace Generation"

I read this article about 4 times before I realized where it was coming from.

To me it was a deceptively written piece talking about social networking. It was written for "Business Week". All I can imagine is some old crusty CEO-type guys sitting around saying things like "Those blasted kids and their newfangled internet might be a use for making us some money". It seemed as though the writer was really trying to hide the clear intent of the piece, but I think that the article was written more as a social networking primer for out of touch business types than for anything else.

It gives numerous examples of all the sorts of tactics that the bigger companies are using to try and entice teens and tweens and kids with their brands. But the article itself seems to do the same thing, it starts off with a neat little anecdote about some teenager using the internet to find other people who like her favorite band, and then it devolves into business practices. After the part about the girl it talks about "Buzz Oven". The article says, 'hey local social networks are cool aren't they? look at this one that's growing.' Then it gives examples of the bigger ones and tells of how much advertising goes into them.

After reading the article I felt that if I were some crusty old CEO-type guy, I would be telling my peons and subordinates to check out this newfangled internet and try to understand what sort of things the kids are into these days.

BUT, I'm not a big CEO-Type guy at all. I'm a college student who uses or has used many of the sites mentioned in the article. I used to have a xanga, back when it was about blogging and not much else. Now I've got a myspace, cause that's where all my friends moved to, and currently use Facebook the most cause I like the nice organization, privacy, and ease of use.

The whole thing with companies trying to sell me stuff through social networking sites, really just makes me feel used, and less inclined to support their brand or products.

"Kids don't buy stuff because they see a magazine ad. They buy stuff because other kids tell them to."

I feel that's really the most truthful thing said in the entire article. And while the article gives examples of company driven social sites that have failed, miserably. It also talks of how major companies have been buying up most of the ones out there. So while major company influences may not be readily apparent, and they might claim to be taking a hands off approach; it's much more likely that they're taking the role of puppet master.

As we've already seen through large companies and their attempts at viral marketing, sometimes those other kids telling us to buy stuff aren't really other kids.