Textbook Google

In our society, all things bound in a textbook are considered fact. When we read war dates, accounts from the trenches, or what side was good and what side was evil, we take it as gospel. When something is printed in a textbook it's the closest we come to say, "I know that to be certain!"

However, there have been many articles concerning the veracity of Japanese textbooks. They’ve excluded and downplayed some WWII atrocities…and that changes history! This changes what Japanese schoolchildren learn to be true and factual. However, this is not the focal point of this entry, this is an example of what's quietly happening to our society since the prevalence of Google.

To no fault of their own, Google has become an incredible search engine. We type in something we're looking for, and BAM, we've got our answer within milliseconds. The only problem is, we read what Google's computerized algorithm considers to be important. I don't have any idea how the algorithm works, but I'm sure most people only look at the top results on the first or second page. We're voluntarily monopolizing Internet search and it scares me.

What if there are 50 better articles out there, but Google only considers them page six worthy? We need to diversify our search engines and our algorithms or else we're all just pooling from the same source. Google doesn't provide results in order of their veracity. Google starts to develop trends, and culls more highly trafficked sites. Notice that Wikipedia and twitter and facebook all start to accumulate above the fold? We're all reading the same textbook and there isn't an impartial authority checking the authenticity.

What's stopping Google from putting some disparaging blogs or articles about their company on the 35th page? I by no means am accusing Google of doing anything like that, I'm just making sure we're all aware that we've accepted Google as the only search engine...and that's dangerous!

WAP it. WAP it good.

WAP is great. E-mail, Google, CNN, Facebook, ESPN or whatever you want right in your palm. As most "great" things go there is a catch. In this case, the catch is a mobile internet addiction. "Hi guys, my name is Ian, and I'm a WAPaholic." WAP is a drug, and to be quite honest I'm surprised the DEA hasn't created a new department to adddress it. As scary as it may sound, the first thing I did upon crossing the border from Canada to the US was check my e-mail. I was driving home, still had hours to go, but couldn't resist the temptation of checking my e-mail. I don't know what I was expecting to receive on a Sunday afternoon that could have been that pressing, but I love to check the mail. I hate that I need to check my mail all the time, but I do. I think it is an epidemic with my generation. We've learned from past experience that most e-mailers expect timely responses. Therefore, we've created a situation where it is "0kay" to check the mail whenever we wish. I know this pathetic dependence on technology will somehow rear its ugly head in my life at a later date, but what about the people that cannot afford WAP? This is where the rift exists. What is going to happen when people assume everyone has their e-mail all the time. Currently, I pay $45 per month to get an unlimited data plan from Verizon Wireless. Are these astronomical rates going to persist? Is bandwidth going to lose its value? Is a company like Google going to make WAP free as long as you allow yourself to be inundated with ads? I am so confused.

High speed mobile internet will one day be available to the masses. It has to. I've read about the future, I've seen movies about the future, I've even postulated my own future, and it always has people with WAP. So what is going to change to make WAP cheaper. In my mind, the only thing holding companies like Scanbuy, Slingbox and every company that uses the internet as a delivery method back is the lack of WAP proliferation. Will this expense just be something that people add to their list of essentials? I think that is the only way. I know that WAP will come down in price, but by how much?

Let's imagine it's 2020, everyone has a smartphone. Cellphones have been dead for 8 years. Everyone is logged on all the time. Exclusivity concerning the internet or WAP for that matter is dead like a Dodo. Everyone has access. If everyone is checking their e-mail all the time, and 85% of the country finds out about the newest celebrity overdose within 2o minutes are we all addicted to WAP? If everyone uses WAP are we all addicts? Were we addicted to radio and newspapers before TV? Were we addicted to landlines before cell phones? Yes and no. Yes because you can probably classify much of human behavior as "addictive," but no because unlike real drugs, there isn't physical repercussion when refraining from WAP. We're in a time of transition, where the "haves and the have-nots" are separated. As time marches on, we'll all be on an even playing field again, where WAP is as common as a car radio. I don't know how it's going to financially occur, but I know it will. I just know it.

Websight?

People are getting Flash happy...way too Flash happy. I fully appreciate the UI benefits of Flash programming and am all for it. However, too many websites are getting cluttered with stuff. Whether it's news updates, concert tour information, or RSS feeds, many websites are becoming hard to navigate cluttered. I'm having trouble navigating through all the hubbub. CNN.com does a good job with "BREAKING NEWS" but everything else is so annoying. You have to search what you are looking for opposed to have it cleverly presented to you. I assume at every large company there is specific person in charge of maintaining the website, and that person is gets nervous when seeing empty space. I understand how addicting it can become to fill all empty spaces with 'stuff' but after a while it all becomes a blur. Does anyone remember why Google.com became so popular? I do. I remember hearing that it was a better search engine and that it didn't have anything on the web page. To be honest, I was never disappointed with my Yahoo! searching experience , but I was intrigued by the Zen style Google homepage. I know that I was able to convince myself to switch based on 'quality' but I assure you that was not the case. The general populous will credit Google's superior algorithm for searching, but they're lying to themselves. It's the aesthetics of Google. Google was very clever with iGoogle, as it came into effect far after many people has switched. Google won because Google was cool. They changed their little logo everyday like a Simpsons intro, and it worked. Although the acronym gets too much airtime in recent years, KISS (keep it simple stupid) is a great policy. It's time that websites merged design and content into an 'easy to navigate' experience. For now, I'll just continue sifting.