A Farewell to Arms Post 3

“Well, I would eve see him now. I would never see any of them now. That life was over.”

This quote is said when Henry leaves the Italian Army, hopped on a train, and headed toward Milan. It is pivotal moment in the narrator’s journey. This was when he decided to leave his life in the front of the army in order to live with Catherine Barkley. Henry knows that he made a life altering decision and is aware that he has created a new life. Afterward, he became a criminal on the run because he abandoned the army.

255/332

A Farewell to Arms Post 2

Hemmingway has a unique way of using dialogue and interpreting conversations. He often uses dialogue without using quotation marks. He cleverly portrays back and forth conversation as simple sentences all in a paragraph. This makes the conversations seem short, even though a lot has been said. It is a good way to hear a conversation as the narrator most likely experienced it. This technique can make the book challenging though because it is tough to tell who’s saying what.

136/332

A Farewell to Arms Post 1

     In A Farewell to Arms, by Ernest Hemmingway, the most interesting thing that I have read about so far is the overall nature of WWI. Through the narrator’s thoughts and actions, Hemmingway describes the war in an extremely vivid way. He has also expresses a number of different internal struggles the narrator is going through. It is interesting be in the mind of an emotionally wounded character in the midst of a chaotic global conflict.  

Page 81

A Trip to Barnes & Noble

      If I had 30 minutes in Barnes & Noble, I would look for a book that is appropriate for the requirements of an independent reading at adult level. I would probably choose a novel that is a classic. I would not choose a book I have never heard of. I would like the novel to be one that is often referenced by society.

irp post3

This article poses several questions about the different ways people can communicate or receive news. The author, Paul Ford, begins by listing these mediums and their purposes in terms of the media they provide. Ford describes the movies as a place to get out of the house and have an experience; the television is a way to distract yourself without leaving the house; radio as a way to make a mundane thing more interesting; and the newspaper as a way to find out what is going on locally, at length. Each medium serves a specific purpose and has its own specific niche. Many think that the web is something that encompasses all of these different mediums, able to be applied to everything. However, Ford suggests that the internet is its own separate thing.

Ford says that each medium poses the same question: Why wasn’t I consulted (WWIC)? He wrote, “Humans have a fundamental need to be consulted, engaged, to exercise their knowledge (and thus power), and no other medium that came before has been able to tap into that as effectively.”

So, the internet is a way to get many people engaged in different topics. It has become a major way of spreading news. According to Ford, if you visit sites like Facebook or Youtube more than you do sites like ESPN and the New York Times, then the web is your native medium.

The author concludes by saying there are many mediums through which people entertain themselves, but the internet is the place where people discuss it and best answers the question: “Why wasn’t I consulted?”

 I agree that the internet is where a vast majority of the population receive their day to day news. I also agree that each type of medium fulfills its own specific purposes. The internet is not another form of each of these mediums, but rather an entirely separate thing. So many people are stubbornly unyielding about their preferred medium and refuse to accept any other. But it’s clear that the internet is the best way to consult the most people. It serves its purpose as well as any other medium serves theirs.

Ford, Paul. "The Web Is a Customer Service Medium (Ftrain.com)." Ftrain.com. 6 Jan. 2011. Web. <http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html>.

irb post 2

This article addresses the idea that the world has changed from an age of ideas and enlightenment to an age of information and social networking. The “big idea” no longer exists in today’s society because people are more focused on obtaining knowledge for the purpose of staying in the loop.

The author, Neal Gabler, begins by referencing great thinkers from history, such as Albert Einstein. He praises them for their intellect and ability to drive society forward. He then goes on to say that our generation has taken a step backwards and we are getting dumber. He describes it as “post-enlightenment”; meaning a “style of thinking that no longer deploys the techniques of rational thought.” Gabler credits the internet for the Age of Information and knowing everything we could ever want to know. We have an abundance of information in our world, more than we can process.

Gabler also mentions friends of his who are artists. They say that because the world lacks great critics, the art world is beginning to feel adrift. The same can be said for other parts of society, such as politics or economics. The world is simply more focused on spreading and gaining knowledge and not many people are coming up with big Ideas.

The thing I take issue with in this article is that Gabler is so critical of the way the world is shaping to be. For example, Gabler writes, “We have become information narcissists, so uninterested in anything outside ourselves and our friendship circles.” It seems as though the author is displeased with the current Age of Information. I believe that the world is simply becoming more efficient. People nowadays still create and innovate, just in different ways. We use the internet and social media as a way of communicating. But we also use it to share our ideas and educate ourselves on current events. The internet is not one sided and cannot be categorized into just a few genres.

Yes, the world is evolving into an Age of Information and yes, social networking has become the primary way to communicate amongst young people. But just because the world is changing doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. It just means we need to observe the changes and adapt to them.

Gabler, Neal. "Thr Elusive Big Idea." The New York Times, 13 Aug. 2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-elusive-big-idea.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all>.

IRP

I find it interesting to learn about the origins of the telephone industry and how it has evolved into its current state. This article offers a detailed overlook of the history of the telephone industry. The article is divided in to five time periods. These periods include 1879, 1894-1900, 1900-1907, 1907-1932, and the modern day.

The method of transmitting speech electronically was first patented by Alexander Graham Bell on March 3, 1876. For a short time after, the bell systems main clientele was composed of businessmen, retailers, and professionals. Angus Hibbard developed a system for providing telephone service for more common people and came up with the Bell nickel phone, which is similar to a modern payphone.  By 1932, Bell controlled 79 percent of the national telecommunications market. As technology shifted, AT&T became more focused on wireless and long distance services. The company made some key economic decisions by merging with SBC and Bellsouth. Even now they are looking to buy out T-mobile.

The authors main question is: Will AT&T become a monopoly again? If this were to happen, the telephone industry would drastically change. Many argue that a competitive industry is an effective way to regulate the market, so a merger to between AT&T would be detrimental to telephone business. However, others welcome a growing company that will control the network. For those telephone users who are not customers of AT&T, their businesses may be closed out because large electronic companies like Apple who work firstly with AT&T.

 After a century dominated by one phone company, it’s difficult to imagine a world without one.  However, I feel that there are other phone companies, such as Verizon Wireless, with loyal customers, so I don’t think AT&T will become a monopoly again. There should always be competition in the telephone industry. Even when the telephone was invented, there was competition between Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray. I feel that competition is the nature of the industry.

 There is no sure way of telling how a merger this big would change the telephone industry. If AT&T conquered one century, who is to say they couldn’t do it again?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/how-att-conquered-the-20th-century.ars/1