Are Social Networks Messing with Your Head? - David Disalvo

1. Are there two-or more- different points of view on the subject? do all sides make clear what they are trying to prove? Summarize their claims.
A: Their is only one point of view for the subject that social networks is unhealthy for people and it have a long term affect that first change the ways we interact then change who we are. The author makes very clear for what he is trying to prove with a lot of examples, cites, and analysis. David claims that the growing of social networks is too fast, make user lonelier, and addicted, but beside that social network help adolescent boot up their self-esteem by study what other people do.
2. Do all side share the same goal? if not, how they are different?
A: since their is only one side, so I have no answer for this.
3. How important is definition of key terms? do all sides agree on the definitions? if so, what are they? if not, how they differ? does definition become a significant issue in the controversy?
A: questions are not applicable
4.  How important is evident support of the claims? does the support fulfill the appropriate criteria? if not, what are its weaknesses? do the authorities have convincing credential?
A: The support of the claims is very important because it show that the author claims something that basic on a serious and effective study of scientists. The support fulfill the appropriate criteria. I don't think the author convincing credential, but he convincing people that should be aware of what they are doing with social networks, it is unhealthy even though it helps in many aspects of life.
5. Do the arguers base any part of their argument on needs and values that their readers are expected to share? what are they? do the arguers provide examples of the ways these values function? is there a a conflict of values? if so, which seem more important?
A: I think that the arguer have one part that base on the value that social network help people to boot up their self-esteem. Something that I think the reader share is that the amount of time that users spend for social network and how addicted is it. Yes the arguer provide a lot example for that. I don't see any conflict in his values.
6. What warrant or assumption underlie the claims? Are they implicit or explicit? Do the arguers examine them for the reader? are the warrants acceptable? if not, point out their weaknesses?
A:  I think their is one warrant for his claim is that people will be more and more relied on the internet that they will later be control by the internet, because he argue that the need of internet and social networking is increase rapidly and the distinction between online and offline seem to be disappear. It is explicit since he give example and say very clear about it. He also examine them for the reader and I think the warrants acceptable.
7. What is the main issue? is there a genuine debate- that is, does each side try to respond to arguments on the other side.
A: the main issue for this article is that the problems of people using social networks. The author is addressing his point of view and their is no respond to his argument as a genuine debate.
8.Do the arguers propose solutions to the problem? are the advantages other their proposals clear? are there obvious disadvantage?
A: he does propose any solution for the problem, so their is no advantages and disadvantages.
9. Does each argument follow a clear and orderly organization, one that lends itself to a good outline? if not, what are the weakness?
A: the argument follow very clear and orderly organization since the author give a thoroughly view of what is the current social network status and how fast it growth to what the problem it created like more loneliness and addiction.
10. Does language play a part in the argument? are their any examples of misuse of language- slanted or loaded words, cliches, slogans.
A: language is a big part of how effective is the argument, it help aid the reader to follow the argument in each claims. There is loaded word such as vigorously  or flower of banality.
11. Do the arguers show an awareness of audience? how would you describe the audiences from whom the various arguments are present?
A: I think the arguer should awareness of audience since he point out specifically right before he start his article. He asked that think about the type of people who use the social network? I think he is very aware of who is his main reader. For me, the audience is everyone, the main one should be people who use social network as a daily activity.
12. Do you think that one side won the argument? can you find examples of negotiation and compromise, of attempts to establish a common ground? explain your answer in detail.
A: the is only one side, so there is no win or loose.

Fast Entertainment and Multitasking in an Always-on World

1.  In my opinion, the term "fast entertaining" means easy and convenient entertain. In short, It means that people can be entertained everywhere and in a short amount of time. Today, we have a lot of devices to access to the entertaining sources such as Ipod, smart phones, tablets that is associated with high speed internet such as 3G and 4G that allow user to download or stream to videos, musics, clips, and website in a blind of an eye. It is, in fact, fast as its mean. The term " snack culture" means that people spending more time for entertaining because entertaining time is also relaxing time back in a few decade ago when people eat snack while watching television. However, nowadays, we don't have to sit in a particular place to get entertain, it is snack time whenever we want it to be because we can get entertain wherever and whenever we want.
2. Watkins means by saying" in the digital media age, more equals less" is that people watch more video, but the length of each video is short. Therefore, the information that people consume is less then what they actually spend for their time. In the digital media age, the more entertaining program that people consume, the less specific information they get.

Video Game and Art!!

I the Article," Video Game Can Never Be Art," Roger Ebert response to Kellee Santiago's claimed- video is a form of art- that video game doesn't meet any principle to qualify as art works because art is something consider from natural like painting, poems, or movie. He argues that video is just a as simple as a game who player play the game and win the game just as simple as that without experience anything. However, Kyle Chayka, the author of," Why Video Games Are Works of Art," responses to Ebert that video games are art because they inspire us and make us feel and give us experience unreachable within the realm of the real. Kyle explains that the winning of the game just doesn't mean player done with the game because they have gone through experiencing the game. I personally have to agree with Kyle that video game is a form of art since it is visually developed based of talented artist of graphic motion and video game all contain a story behind it. Player don't just play the game and win it like "shooting" and simply like what Ebert claimed. Moreover, I strongly agree with Kyle that a person have ignore to play video game even a single time in his life can never make a clear claims about what he claims to be expert about. We can't just argue that video game can't compare to a chicken scratch in the cave of some ancient storytelling, so it can't be art. The definition of art is large enough to cover every subject that I believe if we see something as an art and it make us feel that way, it should be arts. Art doesn't have to meet those principles that Ebert point-out; thus, it doesn't have to come from natural.     

 

24 Hours Without Skype!!!!!

Skype is a very convenient internet software that makes long distance communication possible, easier, and cheaper. People, who have long distance relationship like me, may consider Skype as an important ways to keep the relationship go on. I, fortunately, have a fiancée, who I will marry this coming summer, in Vietnam, so Skype is our best way for me to communicate with her because it is free, webcam-calling available and high speed internet transfer. I spend average 10 hours per week days and more time for weekend on Skype. The reason that I choose Skype to give up for my 24 hours testing is that I used every day and two time per day. Moreover, for an accurate experiment, I have done 48 hours without Skype. I can tell you that it was a very difficult time for me because I have to suffer from my willingness of vision interact. I hate talking over phone and chatting without webcam because it limits the observation of mood expression. For the 48 hours, I called her by phone instead of Skype even though she didn't surprise at all for the first time because I usually call her by phone sometime I drive to school. However, she was a little upset that I didn't let her see me for two day, and I didn't feel so good as well. She told me that why should I have to obey the rule, I can cheat it easily by writing a fake report for this experiment, but I didn't want to because I also want to experience the feeling of going without internet. It wasn't easy to ignore using Skype when I am sitting on my computer have my smart phone with me. Therefore, I avoid using my computer and deleting Skype application in my phone. I couldn't really go on without communicate to her because this is a really important time that for two more month we will marry, so I purchase about 500 international calling minutes to make me available to call her whenever I want to. Even thought this is a good way to solve the problem, but I prefer webcam calling then only voice communicate. I thank to genius scientists, who invented telecommunication and worldwide internet that make communication available and easier for people around the world. In conclusion, without video communication, especially Skype life may become tougher for me at this time.