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Textbooks will eventually become outdated, and I think much of the material will change to an online format.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?