I want it back.

Privacy.

Its all over the news, in the courts, in parliament, and in our everyday lives, but how do we control it, especially after giving it up.

I'm talking about Facebook.

Good old Facebook.

But really, why is everyone so mad at Facebook? isn't it the user that signed up to show themselves to the world, and have the world look in?

Yes, I disagree with the whole 'your profile isn't really deleted, its just deactivated' feature, but all the other aspects are things that facebook shouldn't be blamed for.

If the whole world can see where you live... don't blame facebook, press backspace until every letter of the word 'Stratford' is gone. If there are pictures of you drinking on facebook, and your employer sees it, its your own fault for not untagging yourself.

But, the big thing is that people willingly gave all their information in the beginning.

They were so excited that they could share their vacations with the world, and let everyone see their wedding photos.

But now, we realize that we want good old fashioned privacy back,

funny how that happens, eh?

Sneaky...

So, another Evony-type deal is magazines.

They have no rating, right?

So, its super easy to sneak in all sorts of innuendos and hidden cleavage...

I was reading a cosmopolitan the other day and it struck me that any kid could read it... or even buy it. Sure, the cashier would probably say something if a ten year old is buying cosmo, but they can't deny the shopper their purchase can they?

Same thing with skater magazines and car magazines.

Fraught with cleavage, tummy and oozing sex appeal, these magazines can't just be viewed, or bought by younger audiences... unlike the cosmo, they are popular and accepted among younger viewers.

I can see a 'magazine rating system' being VERY unpopular with readers, can't you?

Not for Kids

I admit, I play online games. Miniclip, Addicting Games, Nitrome, heck, I'm even kind of addicted to Mindjolt games on facebook. A lot of people play on these sites, but of the people I know, the biggest audience is kids.
The games themselves are G rated, mostly, but I'm not writing this to talk about the game. I'm talking about the advertising on the game site, or before the game even starts. How many of you have seen these advertisements:

What gamers wil be unhappy to discover is that there aren't girls like this in the game. In fact, the game is about building a medival empire and waging war on other little empires. It's actually really boring.

But the point here is, little kids can see these ads. They appear on the side of the page, and stay there the whole game sometimes. These images are a few inches short of porn, and anyone can see them.

Who is responsible for these ads being on websites? Many would say that Evony is responsible for the explicitness of the ads, and the game sites are responsible for showing the ads. But what about the internet space that is bought en masse? Adversising space that isn't actually owned by the site.

But can we stop our children from seeing this? Is there a way to keep this off sites that can be seen by children?

Have you ever had a day, or a few days, where you watched a movie in each of your classes?
Isn't it great? No notes, no handouts, and it's interesting, most times.
Thing is, there are tons of movies out there that apply to our courses. There are even movies that are made, or specifically designed for specific courses. I am a strong advocator of in-class movies, and I think they are a great way to learn, and engage the class.
Now, I know that sometimes the movies can be painful, and some people will argue that it's just the teacher 'copping out' and an excuse not to do work. I can see where they're coming from, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that.
First, when choosing the movie, the teacher needs to keep in mind that it has to relate to the topic. If not, nobody will pay attention, and they'll just talk all the way through. Besides, if it's not that relevant, the teacher will permit the talking to go further, because she/he will acknowledges that the movie isn't really essential to the course.
Second, the handout thing is old. They just become so bothersome that it's better to just watch the movie, and try and fill in the answers after. If the purpose of the handouts is to make sure that the student actually watched the movie, then it has failed. Let the student watch the movie, and ask questions about it after the film is done.
Third, the ultimate way to incorporate a film/movie into a lesson plan is to stop it when points of importance come up. You'd think this would be a negative point, but I found it to be very helpful. In two of my classes, the teachers interrupt the movie at certain points to either relate it to the unit/lesson, or to point out certain aspects we have been discussing. Students don't expect to watch the movie uninterrupted, in complete silence anyways.
So when it comes to movies, teachers, embrace the 'historical drama', the National Geographic archaeological documentary and even CSI, you'll be happy you did, and so will your students.

CSI EFFECT:

We all know that media can have make changes to our world, and how we live.

It had leaked into our everyday lives, and now, it is impossible to function as a normal person in society, without the use of it.

Functioning normally is one of the things the court is finding hard to do, with the presence of media.

Jurors are now asking for more forensic evidence because of shows like CSI, Law and Order and NCIS. And when the evidence is not shown, their verdict changes by a long shot.

"prosecutors are now being allowed to question potential jurors about their TV-watching habits." says http://www.all-about-forensic-science.com/.

I think it's inevitable that technology will change for students.

Textbooks will eventually become outdated, and I think much of the material will change to an online format. Because you can 'edit' online documents so easily, textbooks could be updated on a regular basis and could constantly be checked for error.

Look at the Kindle

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Original-Wireless-generation/dp/B000FI73MA

It's a 'new' device that allows readers to download books and read them anywhere, anytime, and you can store thousands of books and texts there. Teachers have begun using them for school, and textboks are being made available.

I think there will continue to be more advancements like this, and the developers will contune to make things 'easier' for students.

The posted video at the top is one of my favourites from the 'Best of the Best: For Kids!' collection. Of which also comes The Cat Came Back and The Sandcastle. I have liked it ever since I was a kid, and I find it easy to see why. Without dialogue, the music is what sets the scene. Therefore, language need neither be 'dumbed down' or elevated for child or adult. I think anyone can watch this film, no matter of background or ethnicity, and enjoy it. It'a fun play on Darwinism, and highly entertaining.

The Next two videos I reccomend watching. The first has a Charlie Chaplin-type feel to it, and is slapstick-funny.

http://www.nfb.ca/film/ride/

http://www.nfb.ca/film/My_Financial_Career/

Superbowl Commercials: Worth $3 Million?

Superbowl is one of the biggest TV events if the year.
It appears 19 times on the '50 Most-Watched Television Broadcasts Of All Time'.

Superbowl XVI raked in 40.02 million households. At many of those households, there may be Superbowl parties going on, so the broadcast will reach many, many people. That figure also doesn't include, bars, pubs or public viewing areas.

Some people - myself included - watch the Superbowl for the half-time show, and the commercials.

Superbowl commercials have a proven high degree of effectiveness. A lot of thought process and money goes into producing a Superbowl commercial. As a result, mostly all of them are 'good'. And 'good' makes people interested in the product. 'Good' makes people talk about the commercial, which gets the brand out there. The potential number of consumers of a product with a Superbowl ad is huge, and if you can reach the masses all at once, why not?

I think $3 Million is worth it. The whole bundle. The risk could result in mass interest of a product, and if it's a good product, people will buy it again, and the money will keep on rolling in.

Plus, they keep the Superbowl fans - like me - who watch for other reasons, happy.

I know we havn't talked a lot about re-touching photos of guys... but here are two videos that I think illustrate this point well. How many girls read magazines and drool over the delicious eye-candy that are displayed in the pages? And how many girls have thought, "I wish there were more hot guys in our school."
What if the guys we're looking at don't really look like that?
Just the same as re-touching a girls' photo, these guys don't even look like their pictures.

What kind of message is this sending out to guys as well?
Not every girl is attracted to tan, gelled, and muscle-ridden men, who are sweaty and glaring at the camera. Just as girls fawn over unatainable feminine body-shapes, that are thin, toned and glowing, there are guys who feel they have to live up to the macho pictures in male magazines.

In the videos above, you see how photoshop can change a face so drastically, that it takes years off of people's faces. And the one guy gets tan, toned and builds muscle in 3 minutes. (I suggest skipping to near the end of the 2nd video, as it is a bit long). I think this is as much of an issue as re-touching women's photos, and should be adressed accordingly.

Do you really want to shoot him?

Recently, I logged onto Facebook, and what appeared on my Live Feed kinda surprised me. People were joining a group entitled: "If Justin Beiber comes back to Stratford, he will be shot".
Is this a bit drastic, or is this just people expressing their opinion?
I just tried to look for the same group,(to add the link to this post), but it appears to have been taken down. Now, I will say, I don't like Justin Beiber. I don't really like his music, his image, and I do not find him attractive. If you do like him, ok, cool, I'm not gonna hate you. You like what you like.
Now, back to Justin.
I know that almost 100% of the group members wouldn't actually shoot Justin. I'm guessing a large percent also don't wish that he would die, and are joining for comedic value.
What does that say about people though?
They'll say they are 'all for' the death of a celebrity for comedic value?

What do you think?