8-Tracks to iPods

In the 1920s, the record player was king, kinda like Fonzie in 1950s Wisconsin. If you wanted to listen to your favorite band all you needed to do was go to the record store, by their album and pop it in your record player.

Then we had tapes. They were cool, right? Double-sided so you could put more music on them, cassette players eventually became portable and eventually cars were made with tape-decks in them. 1963 was when the Philip’s compact audio cassette made its debut.

In 1979 the Sony Walkman was introduced, and that thing had a long run. Look hard enough and you can still see people running with Walkmans, listening to them on the Metro, walking to class with theirs on. Of course the technology is now better than it was in 1979, but it’s worth noting that this technology has lasted even with the competition of CD players, mp3 players and iPods.

1982 is the year that the first ever CD was made, and 6 years later CD sales had already surpassed LP sales. Word on the street (according to Wikipedia, since that’s the only source I can find that seems to care about this topic) is that the first C.D. manufactured and released in the United States was Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the U.S.A. New Jersey, for the win! Definitely fitting for the first American CD, and definitely on my iPod. The first album to be released on CD, (again, according to Wikipedia) was Billy Joel’s 52^nd Street. Another obvious winner.

After the CD came mp3 players and the beginning of online music sharing, including sites like BearShare, Limewire, Napster and more. Of course, along came Apple and the iPod and the music biz was forever changed. One thing I did not realize is that the iPod is less than ten years old. October 23, 2001 is the release date for Apple’s first iPod music player. Today is April 17, 2010 and it’s becoming difficult to find someone who doesn’t own an iPod.

Photo credit: Kelly O

Detailing the past and the evolution of the music industry leads me to wonder—where is it going? How are we going to listen to music next year? In 5 years? Books used to be spoken, then they were printed on paper, now they’re available on somewhat futuristic devices like the Kindle and the iPad. How is music going to change? & more importantly, how is the music industry going to adapt to that? These questions are going to start being answered in the next few years, but for now I’m good with my iPod and my 6-disc CD changer.

If you’re at all interested in this, and would like to take a look at a more in-depth outline, check out this Web site, which chronicles music formats and recording history from Thomas Edison up to the iPod shuffle.

Rule of Thirds 3.0: Don't say I didn't try

Caution. Broken stairs outside of Hagerstown.

WARNING: I have no photography experience. Bear with me.

This was one of the first shots I took while on my lovely Thursday afternoon photo-shoot. I left Hagerstown, my humble campus home,

and saw the broken bricks on the stairs, said "This is kind of artistic," and took a picture.

I think I lack inspiration.

This week I got a different assignment in Info 3 pt. 0. I wasn't assigned a blog topic, I was assigned....an assignment. We were sent out with our cameras & camera phones and told to learn something about photography. To take what we were taught in class and apply it in real world settings.

I tried.

So the photo above is my first example. While not perfect, I think I did some good things here, that I would like to point out. The rule of thirds, as I mentioned in my previous post, is a way of positioning the subjects of your photograph so that the most important, most eye-catching items are placed at the intersections of divisions of thirds. In my cleverly named "Traffic-Cone Photo," the black railing is roughly one-third of the way down the photo, marking the top third of the scene. The bottom third roughly coincides with one of the steps in the bottom of the photo. The black railing, which is a color that stands out against the reddish brick dominating the photo, leads the eye into the undoubtedly most exciting part of the photo--the orange traffic cone. The traffic cone is positioned in the top right third, and coincides with the top right intersection (of the rule of thirds lines.) The lighting is a bit bright in the top of the photo-which I was going to edit out-but I decided to keep it because it makes the reflector strips on the traffic cone glow, which I feel adds more emphasis to the focal point of the picture.

Try #2.

I like this one. Probably because of my lovely model Jenn. Once again the black railing in this photo pops against the color. Whereas in the other photo, the horizontal divisions were extremely clear, the vertical divisions in this one almost draw themselves. Jenn is standing on the left division, the green tree takes up the middle, and the black railing and the red tree set the third division. Cool.

The horizontal divisions are drawn by the end of the pavement (and the beginning of the tree) and the top of the tree, which almost lines up perfectly with the bubble-wand and the bubble Jenn is blowing.

But Kelly, these pictures are not of technology!

I know. But I have a point.

Jenn's blowing bubbles. Jenn's also almost 20 years old. Some other friends of ours walked past while we were shooting these photos and amused themselves by chasing the bubbles around and popping them. Simple pleasures.

I've also got a friend with an iPhone. This friend has an iPhone app which, to the best of my knowledge, consists of nothing other than popping virtual bubbles on virtual bubble wrap. Seriously? Some new things (virtual bubble wrap) will just never replace old things (real bubble wrap, or real bubbles.) In short, technology is not always the answer. Sometimes it's better just to do things the simple way.

Some Others:

The red car is sitting on the top third intersection in this photo. I wanted to highlight the several aspects of technology in this photo--the cars, the brand new building and the crane in the background. I also enjoy the lighting in this photo.

Chinatown. I had to go see a play for another class near the Verizon Center, so I went up early and walked around a bit. This photo is taken at the intersection of the Verizon Center part & the Chinatown part. I know, that sounded intelligent. But, hear me out--the left third of the photo contains the colorful chinatown arch. The middle and top center part are of an at&t building, but they incorporate the same colors as the arch. The bottom center and the right third are full of grey cars and a gray building to the left. The bottom third is divided by the digital bulletin boards on the at&t building, another immediate contrast to the gray cars and the boring building in the background.

MOVING ON.

I may not have followed all of the rules for this photo (AKA please don't grade me on it Prof Yaros!) but I had to share because it's downright adorable.

Back to regular blogging next week!!

Happy Saturday & Happy Easter =]

Photography Unit

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -- Ansel Adams

Remember rotary phones? I don't. They're that old. Older than me, which, my friends like to remind me, is old.

This photo represents my topic in an almost perfect comic sense. The iPhone, one of the newest and most popular tech toys of today, with a rotary phone screen. A blend of new and old in a much more fashionable package.

It relates to my topic, but it may be one of the least visually stimulating photos I've ever seen. Definitely funny though, just boring.

So I've decided that my topic is not easily communicated visually. It's not exactly simple to capture the constant struggle between new and old technologies. It's not very easy to search for either. Technology images, technology photography, photos about technology--not a lot going on there.

So I've decided to stretch the limits of my topic a little for the sake of this project. Just FYI.

This photography depicts a solar energy plant, a building covered with solar panels in Chicago. Though not the most exciting photo, it does follow several must-have photography rules. The "rule of thirds" is simply a way to split photos into nine different cells, with the most important pieces of the photo being placed at the intersections. The photo is also in focus and well-lit, without being over-or underexposed.

In the photo above, the top third of the photo is designated by the top of the highest row of solar panels, coinciding with the bottom of the brick structure in the top right cell of the photograph. The bottom third is also separated by a solar panel. The vertical lines almost lay directly on the white pipes coming up and out of the surface of the building; the above all culminate in an almost perfectly placed photograph.

I like this photo the best. Cool red phone booths in a cool red line in cool London. The color is vivid and pops against the drab grey stone. However, the photographer did not consider the rule of thirds in this picture. The 'telephone labels' almost line up, creating somewhat of a top third division, but the rest of the photo is just there, which begs the question--does it really NEED to follow the rule of thirds? I like this photo, I think it's the most interesting, the most engaging, and it's fun. But I'm not a photographer, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.

One negative point to ALL of these photos--they don't communicate anything. I don't get a message from any of them, no meaning, no story. I get phone, solar panels, phone booths. The latter makes me think of Superman and my own cheesy picture inside a London photobooth, but that's not really a story. Professional photographers strive to communicate meaning with their photographs, to literally portray "a thousand words." I got two words at best from any of these photos, as interesting or funny as they may be.

So what is it that makes a good photograph? Is it a good subject, nice lighting, the rule of thirds, or a good story? I would have to guess it's some perfect combination of all of them-I wish someone would let me in on the secret.

As always, Happy Friday!

Online Dating: Phenomenon or Phreaky?

“Chivalry is dead.” – idk who originally said this.

Remember when people would meet their true love at the carnival, hop in their ferris wheel cart, write 365 letters to each other, swear we’re a bird if they’re a bird, and then get married, write a book and live long happy lives?

Probably not, but that’s how it went down in The Notebook.

My point is, for most people, that’s just not how things happen anymore. There is no courting period, there’s no wooing, and things have just gotten a whole lot less romantic. Yes, The Notebook is set in the 40s, so things were bound to change, but in my opinion, somewhere along the line, a whole lot of dating how-to info got lost in translation.

Goodbye chivalry and old-fashioned romance, hello ease of online dating.

We all know the online dating stereotypes. Losers, computer nerds living in their mother’s basement, creepy 80-year-old men posing as 24 year old multi-millionaires. The usual. Online dating has often been associated with a stigma in our culture; those who cannot get a date turn to online dating, only desperate people date online, only weirdos would go out with someone they met on a Web site. But times have changed and online dating has moved away from savior of the awkward to matchmaker for the masses.

Several movies have poked fun at online dating – there’s the famous You’ve Got Mail, where Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks begin an online relationship where they end up falling in love though they actually despise each other in “real life.” He’s Just Not That Into You chronicles the difficulty of dating in today’s technological age where online dating, texting, emailing and Facebooking are common methods of pursuing (or avoiding) a relationship, and Must Love Dogs, which ends in love for two successful attractive individuals for whom dating in the real world did not work out, but their love of dogs posted online was a source of immediate attraction. Online dating takes a less than pleasant starring role in many crime dramas-unfortunately, one of the daters almost always ends up dead. Online dating has invaded multiple areas of society, and it looks like it’s here to stay.

There are hundreds of online dating sites, ranging from those like chemistry.com or eharmony.com which are general sites targeted towards everyone, to sites like planearthsingles.com, veggiedate.org or farmersonly.com. There are even online sites to teach you how to utilize and maximize your potential on online dating sites. Here’s one example which actually has several video tutorials on topics like how to take the best profile picture, how to stay safe while dating online and which online dating site is right for you.

According to several online sources, more than 40 million people use online dating sites and the average users spends $239 dollars a year. Some of these dating websites claim to be the key to happiness. eHarmony says “On average, 236 eHarmony members marry every day; that accounts for 2% of U.S. marriages.” 2 percent? Chemistry.com promises they’ll be so helpful, you’ll feel like you already know the person you choose to date. “Match.com has helped redefine the way people meet and fall in love. Match.com provides a rich tapestry of ethnicities, interests, goals, ambitions, quirks, looks and personalities from which to choose.” But do these sites really hold the key? Is online dating really the answer?

Some research may suggest otherwise.

When you meet someone in person, your first impression is often formed by noticing things about their appearance: apparent age, height, attractiveness level, weight, physical build etc. This impression does not occur online; 1 in 10 users are scammers, with fake profiles and fake pictures, and the other 9 out of 10 commonly lie. American men lie most about age, height and income, while women tend to lie about weight, physical build and age. 1 out of 10 of these real users then leaves within the first month.

According to a CNN article, “The type of people who misrepresented themselves online is the same type of people who do so face-to-face,” saying that some people know what others like and configure their personal profiles to fit those stereotypes. These people desire inclusion, and acceptance, and feel the need to be well liked. However, these desires will persist online or not. The same article says that while men are more likely to lie than women, gender is not the biggest indicator of lying. The study attributes a propensity for lying to being a “high self-monitor.”

Self-monitoring is a part of the impression management process. Impression management, as defined by Dale Leathers and Michael H. Eaves, authors of “Succesful Nonverbal Communication,” is an individual’s conscious attempt to exercise control over selected communicative behaviors and cues. This happens in all walks of life, online and offline—but do we have more control over it online? We obviously use impression management often-when we’re applying for jobs, meeting someone new, or trying to make friends-but we cannot control our appearance. Online, we can control everything. Our name, our age, our height, our interests, our this that and the other thing.

So in the end are we all that different? Is there that much separating Noah from The Notebook and John Doe from eHarmony.com?

I think so, but then again, that’s just my opinion.

(If you’re considering online dating, check out this list of Web Sites to find the one for you! BUT—always be careful. Research shows that 1 in 10 sex offenders use online dating to meet people. Know your stuff and don’t become a statistic!)

Happy Thursday.

E-mail as an online social network

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke

One year, for my birthday, I got a Winnie the Pooh Stationery Box. I had some stationery with butterflies on it too, but I definitely liked Winnie the Pooh better. I used this stationery like it was my job. I used to write letters to my best friend on Long Island, my elementary school friends, my cousin and my aunts and uncles.

That stationery set was the last I ever received—because then we got a computer, and letters were out and e-mail was in.

E-mail is an often overlooked online experience. When we think about social networking, we often jump to sites like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, or Twitter. But what about e-mail? Shouldn’t it be included too?

Think about it—every single student at this University has a mail.umd.edu account. So do TAs, professors, advisors, administrators—even departments have UMD addresses. Do they all have Facebook? No. MySpace? No. LinkedIn? No. Twitter? Half my friends don’t even understand what Twitter is, let alone have one. Whether or not we use our @umd.edu address or have it forwarded to another e-mail provider, we all have one. E-mail is an often overlooked social networking tool.

I guess it boils down to how you define social networking. www.pcmag.com defines online social networking as:

“A Web site that provides a virtual community for people interested in a particular subject or just to "hang out" together. Members create their own online "profile" with biographical data, pictures, likes, dislikes and any other information they choose to post. They communicate with each other by voice, chat, instant message, videoconference and blogs, and the service typically provides a way for members to contact friends of other members.”

Now think about your email provider (or providers—I personally have 3 email addresses.) UMD mail is simpler than most, but if you have yahoo or gmail, hotmail or aol you probably have the majority of the options mentioned in the definition of online social networking. Admittedly, it lacks the glitz and glamour of sites like Facebook, but it definitely gets the job done. It connects you to people-whether 1-on-1 or 1-on-10 (etc.)-it allows you to share pictures, documents or folders, and it's private. Whereas many sites are specialized (Facebook is for friends, LinkedIn is for colleagues) email allows you to send pictures of your spring break trip to your friends, a list of snacks to your mother who's coming to UMD to save you from diner food, one of those super annoying messages about how you'll die in 10 days if you don't forward this story, or a cover letter and resume to a prospective employer.

So how 'bout it? How do you guys feel? Is e-mail online social networking or is it just a way for us to communicate?

Response to Cell Phone Study

"When it comes to privacy and accountability, people demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else." -- David Brin, American sci-fi writer

Girl in the blue shirt broke up with her girlfriend, very tall Maryland guy “CAN’T HEAR YOU,” drunk girl walking home “doesn’t need you to come get me, I’m FINE,” guy leaving my COMM class apparently really hates our teacher, and loud girl in the library does not enjoy when people, namely me, politely ask her to shut up or go talk somewhere else. (There are shhhh! Signs everywhere. It’s a library, what did she expect? I’m not trying to be the library police, I just want to study. She might’ve been annoyed, but I was thanked by several people on my way back to my seat.)

How did I learn all these things? It really was not that hard. I listened. I walked around campus for the last week and I eavesdropped on every single phone call I passed. Mind you, I was forced into eavesdropping on most of them because most people

A. Don’t care how loud they’re talking

B. Don’t know how loud they’re talking

C. Really want me to hear their conversation.

This week, in JOUR289i, Info3pt0, we had to read a study titled “Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wireless era.” The study identifies cell phone users as singles and withs, singles being those who are alone, and withs being those who are accompanied by at least one other person. The majority of the people I noticed on campus were singles, but my observation of my friends’ cell phone usage qualified each of us as a with, since we were together.

(I believe that these, along with other terms like normative cell phone behaviors and caller hegemony were easy to understand, and largely correct.)

Although this study was written five years ago, and the world of cell phone technology changes weekly, the validity of the study is still relevant. While phones have changed, most phone-behaviors have not. The study discussed nonverbal communication while talking on the phone (with the caller and with the other person they’re with.) I noticed this quite often in my observations, and many of the motions seemed to be frustration – waving hands, shaking head, rolling eyes – and these motions were the same for both singles and withs. I also noticed myself engaging in “other activities” when my friends were on the phone. I would check my phone, read the Diamondback, pick up my laptop, drink my coffee – something to occupy me while I was essentially being ignored. Interestingly – all of my friends turned away while talking on the phone, avoiding eye contact like the study suggested (another reason I believe the results are still very valid.)

This was an interesting week for me to do this study, since my phone is more or less on the fritz. My own cell phone behaviors were very sporatic—since my phone likes to turn off whenever it pleases, so my calls were often interrupted, cut short, or prevented altogether. This led to many frustrated nonverbals by me, in addition to a bunch of “Seriously!?” and “This is driving me crazy” and a few other choice words after each ended communication attempt.

I personally have never witnessed anyone using a cell phone to cheat. I have noticed texting during classes, I myself text during class, and I’ve even noticed texting during exams, which I can’t do since I need to focus on one thing at a time. I also notice people playing games on their cell phones in class. One of my friends has Tetris downloaded on their iPhone and I’ve seen her get a new high score several times in COMM class (the same class that I caught the boy talking on the phone about how much he hated it…hmm.) Another cell phone behavior I notice a lot is people using their cell phone as a flashlight. People drop things, and everyone pulls out a phone. People can’t see where the last step is, somebody’s right there with their phone. I do it too, but my battery life just is not what it used to be, so I try to stray away from that action.

All in all my studies of people’s cell phone behavior were interesting. I certainly heard some conversations that I did not care for, did not care about, and definitely would have lived if I hadn’t heard them. A lot of the time I am amazed at just how far people are willing to go on their cell phones—people have conversations that I would not even begin to have in public, especially on a college campus where any number of people you may know could very well be in your immediate vicinity.

In the end I guess we’re all guilty. We’ve all done it sometime, right?

Phones of the future, straight from the past

Last time I talked about today’s views of cool future phones. But we already own pretty cool phones, we’ve all seen an iPhone or a BlackBerry, and it seems that each new phone has something better than the rest.

But what about before there were cell phones?

Star Trek’s Captain Kirk had his own communication device. The “communicator” allowed Captain Kirk direct contact with his ship, in the event Kirk ever needed Scotty to, ya know, “Beam me up!” The man credited with the invention of the cell phone, Martin Cooper, says that Star Trek’s communicator was an inspiration for the world’s first mobile device.

www.thinkgeek.com -->

Dick Tracy is a hard-ass, crime-fighting, bad-guy-catching, super-smart detective from a comic strip that ran from the 1930s till the late 1970s. One of Dick Tracy’s crime-fighting tools was a two-way wrist radio that allowed him to call the police department when he was in pursuit of super villains.

http://bit.ly/c786y4

LG seems to have stolen this idea to make a device Tracy would’ve been jealous of. The touch screen wrist watch was supposed to debut last year, though I’ve never seen it.

Ever seen Get Smart? A comedy satiring the secret agent lifestyle, the star of the show, Maxwell Smart, or Agent 86, had phones incorporated into several of his items of clothing throughout the show. Most notable was his shoe phone, which, of course, required he removed his shoe each time he needed to use it. What if he was in a foot chase and needed back up? Well, I have no clue. http://bit.ly/9Tn950

http://bit.ly/azKgvL

Last but certainly not least, everyone’s favoring falling-with-style toy, Buzz Lightyear. Buzz had a panel on the arm of his space suit that he could use to contact Star Command (or thought he had, since he was obviously oblivious to the fact that was a toy until Sid tries to kill them in as sadistic a nature as possible.)

>http://bit.ly/aFN50y

I’m certainly less creative than the producers/writers/geniuses behind these ideas, so as I grew up, my fake cell phone consisted of: my hand. Lame, I know. But it’s a start right?

Anyone know of any other (what I’m calling) past future views of cell phones? Let me know if you do! They’re pretty entertaining…

HAPPY SATURDAY :) GO TERPS!!