Virtual Reality and Live Music

Image taken from Pixabay

We all know the joy and excitement of going to a concert of your favorite musical artist. In today's day and age, however, tickets have become harder and hard to buy. With popular artists, the tickets could sell out in mere minutes. Additionally, concerts are quite expensive, especially if you have to buy the tickets on resale. Well, virtual reality could be the new way to see your favorite artists.

MelodyVR, a virtual reality company, specializes in bringing musical perforces to VR headsets. Since its founding in 2018, MelodyVR has been able to work with a variety of different artists. MelodyVR allows users to switch locations while streaming the concert, whether they want to view from the crowd, backstage, or with the band.

Image taken from Pikrepo

The whole concept sounds pretty cool. I do wonder how virtual reality will change our perception of the world in the future. In theory, we could never have to leave our home to experience musical performances, travel destinations, or other forms of entertainment. This is yet another example of technology changing the way we live on a daily basis.

I believe virtual reality could have implications on how we communicate as well. If VR gets to a place where we are constantly wearing a headset, then face to face communication will decrease significantly. I am not saying that VR will get to that point, but it is definitely something to think about. In the meantime, I am going to look into MelodyVR and see if some of my favorite artists are available to watch.

Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/tech/vr-live-music-intl/index.html

Twitter is Testing a New Feature

Image taken from Pixabay

Twitter is joining many other tech companies by offering disappearing tweets. Twitter is testing disappearing tweets, called Fleets, in Brazil. The concept will allow users to tweet something, and it will delete after 24 hours. The Fleets will not be in a user's regular feed. Instead, it can be viewed by clicking on a profile's picture, or avatar. This feature is similar to Instagram stories or Snapchat. Additionally, Fleets cannot be retweeted or responded to by anyone. Only direct messages can be sent regarding Fleets.

The new feature is already attracting criticism. People are wondering how Twitter will be able to regulate content that disappears after 24 hours. A spokesperson from Twitter said that Fleets are "subject to the same rules as tweets and the company will take enforcement action against violators." It is also important to note that Twitter will keep Fleets in their system even after they disappear. Apparently, this is to help enforce Twitter's terms and conditions. If the Fleet is not in violation, it will eventually be deleted from Twitter's system.

I personally do not use Twitter. However, I am on other social media platforms that use similar disappearing technology. I think the feature can be useful when you want to post a birthday shoutout or even when you want to post a picture but do not want the pressure of getting likes. I believe this new feature could be a good way for Twitter to stay competitive in the tech community. I do think that Twitter needs to be transparent with users and let them know that their 'disappearing' content will be saved for a certain period of time.

It is unclear how long Twitter will test the technology in Brazil before releasing it worldwide. But, only time will tell if Fleets will be a success for Twitter.

Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/tech/twitter-disappearing-tweets/index.html

Evolution of Technology: YouTube

Image takne from Pixabay

YouTube is a platform that I use every day, whether that is for entertainment or educational purposes. There are so many different types of videos on a variety of topics. Until our class presented on the evolution of technology, I had little knowledge of the creation of YouTube. The platform was created in 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim. It is crazy how quick YouTube has grown considering it was created only fifteen years ago. The platform was originally envisioned to be an online dating service. However, the founders quickly changed the direction of the platform once users began uploading videos of all topics. 

It only took a few months for a video to reach one million views, which proved the power and popularity of YouTube. A year later, Google purchased for 1.65 billion dollars in October of 2006. After Google's acquisition, the platform continued to evolve. In 2007, advertisements were introduced to videos. They began as the little banners that pop up at the bottom of videos. Since then, ads have been added to the beginning of videos, and during the duration of videos. 

Just four years after the creation of YouTube, the site had one billion views a day. Just think about that number for a second. One billion views a day. It is crazy to think about how many people interact with the site daily. I know I add to this number because I use the platform daily. 

So where is YouTube headed? The future of the platform is hard to predict. I believe that YouTube will continue to change with the times. It will be interesting to see what kind of content becomes popular in the future.  I enjoy using the platform, and I hope that it is around for many years to come. 

Sources:

https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-youtube-in-photos-2015-10#october-2010-hurley-a-youtube-cofounder-steps-down-as-ceo-in-his-place-google-appoints-salar-kamangar-who-the-company-says-was-already-leading-youtubes-daily-operations-for-the-last-two-years-25

The Printing Press

Image taken from britannica.com

This week in class we were tasked with choosing something that changed the way people communicate. I chose the printing press. The printing press is a device that allows for the mass production of texts, whether that be books, pamphlets, or even newspapers. According to History.com, an early version of the printing press dates back all the way to around 868 AD in China. However, the printing press was not perfected until 1450 by Johannes Gutenburg.

Johannes Gutenburg

Johannes Gutenburg was a goldsmith and inventor born in Mainz, Germany around 1395. While he did not perfect the printing press until 1450, he began working on his invention many years prior. Gutenburg created only one book, a Bible. Today, it is commonly referred to as the Gutenburg Bible. He created around 180 copies of the Bible, with each one being slightly different from one another.

How it Works

To make the letters, metal was poured into individual molds. Once the metal was cooled, rods were attached to each letter. The rods could then be arranged and rearranged to form different words and sentences. Paper was clamped by the press, and the letters were pressed into the paper. While this may seem like a tedious process by today's modern standards, the printing press was a huge step in innovation. Prior to Gutenberg's invention, texts were often hand-copied, which took exponentially more time than the printing press. Clearly, the printing press was the most efficient way to mass-produce books, pamphlets, etc.

Impact

The creation of the printing press increased the spread of ideas. It allowed for literacy rates to increase and higher education rates. The printing press also helped ordinary people gain information. It was no longer just the wealthy that were able to learn and read about new innovations. It was able to bridge the gap on a variety of levels. Additionally, the printing press allowed for the creation of the first newspaper, which is still a prevalent mode of communication today.

Concluding Thoughts

Clearly, Johannes Gutenberg created something that transformed the distribution of information and knowledge. The printing press was revolutionary. It allowed for lower-income individuals to have access to information that once was only available to the wealthy. Without the creation of the printing press, we may not have things like newspapers today. Next time you pick up a book, a newspaper, or even a flyer, think about Johannes Gutenberg and how far technology has come. We should all be thankful for his innovation and creativity.


Sources:
1. https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/printing-press
2. https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-gutenberg-bible
3. https://www.biography.com/inventor/johannes-gutenberg
4. https://www.howitworksdaily.com/see-inside-the-gutenberg-printing-press/
5. https://www.britannica.com/technology/printing-press

Why Don't We Hear Antiwar Voices in America?

Image taken from Weldon Kennedy on flickr.com

Articles, news stories, or even blogs around antiwar are not easy to find. My professor showed our class two websites, ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative, both of which feature strong antiwar voices. Prior to this class, I had never even heard of the two websites. They are certainly not apart of mainstream media. After browsing the pages, I began to question why antiwar voices are not included in popular media. I came to one main conclusion; war is a large part of the American identity.

The United States military is an integral part of American culture. At every high school, college, and professional sporting event, the first thing to take place is the singing of the national anthem. At high profile events, such as the Super Bowl, a flyover often occurs. Why is this? I believe it is to showcase the power and strength of the United States military. It is a demonstration to the Americans, but also the rest of the world. With the military being so prominent in U.S. culture, many Americans see the military as a point of pride for our country.

I believe this is why we do not see many antiwar voices in mainstream culture or media. Speaking out against war is, in a way, speaking out against our military. This could be considered by many the un-American thing to do. It would not be viewed positively by a lot of readers. However, I do not think antiwar voices should be silenced. The Constitution grants citizens the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is our job to ensure that all voices are heard, even if it is not a popular opinion.

If you would like to read some articles from individuals with antiwar voices, feel free to visit the websites linked above.

An Antitrust Investigation into Google

Image taken from Simon Steinberger 

The tech giant Google is being investigated for violating antitrust laws by attorneys general from 48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Prior to hearing of the antitrust investigation into Google in an article by CBS News, I honestly had never heard of antitrust laws. Ironically, I turned to Google to learn a little more about what antitrust is, and why the laws are in place.

According to William Markham, a San Diego Attorney who has experience trying similar cases, antitrust laws "seek to promote competitive markets." The laws essentially are in place to avoid one company from monopolizing the market. So how is Google limiting competition? According to the CBS News article, investigators are looking to see if Google is dominating the "online advertising market and in internet searches."

I am not really surprised that Google is being investigated for dominating the advertising market. I am sure we have all experienced searching for something, and then within minutes, even seconds, an advertisement pops up for the same product. The idea of having advertisements tailored to what we 'want' to see has become a part of our lives. I never considered that this could be a form of dominating or monopolizing the market. However, it does make a lot of sense.

Lastly, I do not see an easy solution to this problem. If Google is found guilty of violating antitrust laws, I believe it will take a long time to solve the problem because Google is the most dominant search engine. Additionally, Steve Lohr of the New York Times claims antitrust investigations "can take years." It looks like we will not have a solution to this investigation for a long time. However, this probe into Google can serve as a reminder for consumers to look beyond the first things that pop up in a search.

The United States Supreme Court: The Importance of Marbury v. Madison

Image taken from Tim Sackton on Flickr

The United States Supreme Court was established in Article III of the Constitution. However, it officially was founded with the passing of The Judiciary Act of 1789 that was signed by President George Washington. According to History, the Supreme Court originally had six justices, with John Jay as the first chief justice. Today, the court has grown to include nine justices, and the current chief justice is John Roberts. While the Court has been around since 1789, the current Supreme Court would not have the extent of power it exercises today until the decision of the case Marbury v. Madison.

In the majority opinion, Cheif Justice John Marshall established judicial review. According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, judicial review is the principle "that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary." Essentially, this means the United States Supreme Court has the ability to strike down an act of Congress or an act of the president as unconstitutional; thus, making the action illegal.

Under judicial review, three main standards of review may be used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of an action: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. Strict scrutiny is considered the "highest standard of review," and it is used in cases dealing with discrimination. Intermediate scrutiny is utilized when the government "passes a statute which negatively affects certain protected classes." Intermediate scrutiny is a relatively difficult standard to meet; however, it is easier than strict scrutiny. The final and the easiest standard to meet is the rational basis test, which is used when "no fundamental rights" are in question.

Clearly, the case of Marbury v. Madison has had major implications on the United States Supreme Court. Without this monumental case and the creation of judicial review, the Court would have nowhere near the amount of power it does today.