I made quite a few changes to the student charter. They appear in red
I made these changes as I believe personally they are key assets to a properly functioning classroom. Students need to make the most of class time so a respected student charter is vital in a healthy class room.
Google Docs and File Sharing are fantastic ways to collaboratively work as a group or team. It is an easy way to explore and share a variety of different views and ideas.
When we think of Apps, we automatically think
Apps are relatively new, and only on iPhones and Androids. Apps weren’t around 10 years ago!
How wrong we are! The thing is, Apps, or Applications, have been around for a lot longer than we all think. What’s really changed are the platforms, and market places of which they run in!
Formely, Apps were things we would buy from a store, in a box, that was usually expensive.
Using a floppy disk or CD, we would load and install these Apps to our computers.. this could take hours!
Today, Apps are things we can download from an online App Store amazingly fast, and can do anything from monitor our sleep patterns to be able to tell us the name of the song by simply holding the phone up to a speaker. There are millions of Apps today that can do pretty much anything!
| App Pros | App Cons |
| Millions of free Apps | Take up space on device |
| Time saving | Need constant updating |
| Apps will never ‘sell out’ | Steal your personal data |
| Translates to several different languages | Cause ‘eye strain’ |
| Simplifies life | Intrusive Ads |
| Thousands fit on one small phone | Interfere with other apps |
| There is an app for just about everything | Slow down phone |
Apps I recommend:
It’s where she dropped her books. It’s where he helped her pick them up. It’s here that their eyes crossed. It’s here they fell in love.
Jenny was rushing from an arts lecture to a politics tute. She raced through the basketball court, headed for Building 9. The stairs were approaching. Just as she started to skip them, she tripped, her books went flying. How embarrassed she was.
Marc had just finished uni for the week, he was casually strolling down Building 9 from Level 3. He had just made it to the ground floor. How excited he was. He had nearly exited Building 9, until he spotted a girl running his way. He couldn’t make out what she looked like, just that was she was running late. She went for stairs, she had a great fall, and the books landed on Marc’s feet.
Three years later, Jenny and Marc are celebrating their anniversary. What a way to meet. What a story to tell.
Unfortunately no matter how hard I tried, I could not download the photo, so, I was forced to take a screenshot and upload. Hence the poor quality
The first video I watched was “The Sound of my Voice”. This was an incredibly intriguing yet weird story. Initially, through dark lighting; eery sound effects; suspense background music, the audience is led to believe the video is a horror. It is confusing and quite scary. I felt quite uncomfortable watching it to be honest. However once the main characters are welcomed into the ‘group’, the complete vibe of the video changes. There is a warm, welcoming, community like vibe and all of a sudden we feel more safe and comfortable. However this is again turned on its head when Maggie approaches from the next room, we wait in anticipation to see what she will bring to the narrative. All in all, her story is quite abstract, and along with what the whole video is, weird.
Personally, the lighting, music, sound effects, camera shots and mise-en-scene are all super effective in telling this story.
However, it leaves the audience to not fully grasp the concept of the video, and if it is just a cult or club, why are the opening minutes so daunting to watch?
This video was effective in digital storytelling.
I then watched “Goldilocks”. This was a short clip about men who shoot people and capture a lady by the name of Locks. The video is effectively edited and makes the audience intrigued through the fast paced editing. I however was quite confused as to what was going on… why were these people being killed? Who was the man on the motorbike? Who is the girl jogging? As an audience, the director has effectively allowed us to quickly build a relationship with the girl who is running, as we spend a lot of ‘dead time’ with her. We are left pondering at the end: Does she get killed?
The strengths of this video was certainly the editing. It was so fast paced and action pack it managed to tell us so many things in such a short period of time. The footage in the back of the van was also quite good.
A weakness was it was quite repetitive and predictable, we could tell the man on the motorbike was going to continue shooting people.
This was effective at telling a story in such a short time amount of time!
Finally, I watched a video called “As far as I could go” (http://digitalstorytelling.ci.qut.edu.au/index.php/story/as_far_as_i_could_go), this was a very short yet intriguing story. It was the lady by the name of Lois and her take on September 11. It was very personal, a true story that was told with passion and depth, through expressive language and projection. Lois didn’t need to mention once what was she talking about, the audience automatically know that it is September 11. As it progresses, it is interesting to hear how anti-American Lois is. This is strange, her being American herself. Once Lois moves to Australia, the vibe of the story changes, it is more upbeat and positive, and effectively closes on the line of the stories, she went as far as she could to get away from America and it’s suffering following September 11.
The strengths of this video are the fantastic and genuine voice overs. We feel as though we really know Lois and can trust her. The music is also supportive.
This is quite an amateur video, so better image use could be used.
I really enjoyed this video and even though it is the shortest of the three videos I watched, I was able to completely understand and grasp the nature of the story and the in’s and out’s much better than the more abstract other two.
The eBook’s phenomenon was first brainstormed in the 1930’s when a man by the name of Bob Browne thought of the concept when watching his first movie with sound.
In the 1970s, an e-book implementation called the Dynabook was created, this was able to display books for reading, digitally.
In 1992, Sony launched the Data Discman, an electronic book reader that could read e-books via CDs.
In 2007, Amazon launched one of the most popular eBook readers today, the Kindle.
In 2012, Apple released iBooks, an app that could be used on Macs, iPhones, iPod and iPads.
eBooks are fantastic for being able to store so many books, on such a small product. With so many more competitors entering the market share, the products are becoming cheaper.
A consumer can store, broadcast and publish details using an eBook.
As several of the flipped lectures suggest, the world is so quickly transforming to a technologically advanced lifestyle, and eBooks are simply keeping up with this rapid trend, hence their importance.
| eBook Pros | eBook Cons |
| Millions of free eBooks available for download | eReader machine very expensive |
| Space saving (a library can fit in one small eReader) | Hardware malfunction |
| Book will never ‘go out of print’ | More companies selling eBooks raises compatibility issues |
| Translates to several different languages | Cause ‘eye strain’ |
| Readable in various different lights | A virus can wipe all data immediately |
| Text to speak software | Piracy |
| Dictionary and Definition functions | Unreliable life spans |
Using my RRS Feeds, I found some interesting information in regards to Mercedes-Benz‘s, a brand I have a keen interest in. Through the information I was delivered, I discovered the following:
Interesting Discoveries:
I also discovered some exciting new upcoming models, and when they will launch:
| Model | Anticipated Release Date |
| A45 AMG | 2013 |
| CLA | 2013 |
| Sprinter | 2013 |
| E63 | 2014 |
| S-Class | 2013 |
| C63 AMG Edition 507 | 2014 |
| SLS | 2014 |
The first video I watched was “Web 1.0 v 2.0”. It contrasts the significant differences between these two stages of the internet. ‘Web 1.0’ was the internet in the early stages of development, it illustrates how the internet was more of a research tool. People could seek information from the internet, whilst also using it for movies, reading, emails, videos and music. ‘Web 2.0’ is the what we more know it as today, and focuses on more on interaction between people no matter of the location (Facebook, Twitter, Blogging etc.). Put simply, ‘Web 1.0’ is producer to consumer, while ‘Web 2.0’ is consumer to consumer, consumer to producer and producer to consumer.
The second video “Evolution Web 1.0, Web 2.0 to Web 3.0” nuts out the differences and development of the early stages of Web 1.0 through to Web 3.0. Again put simply, the internet is a place where information is shared between computers using interaction. Whilst the web is more present, it will become less visible in everyday appliances (including fridges, washing machines, computers, tablets, phones, cars etc.) Web 3.0 incorporates the internet having a personal assistant type role in everyday life.
The third video “Web 2.0..The Machine is Us/ing Us” contrasts the difference in text to digital text, and through examples shows how much more useful digital text is. It also explains HTML, XML and development or ‘behind the scenes’ of webpages, and how digital text is their back bone. The video also clarifies how consumers machines will try to be in sync with our own personality. Remembering our details, and being trained to act just like us, in order to produce results quickly and effectively.
The 4th video, “Intro to the Semantic Web”, feeds the audience with exactly what the title suggests. It explains how ‘semantics’ is the meaning behind what we actually mean, while the ‘syntax’ is the wording, punctuation etc. For example, in the sentence “I love netmed” the syntax is all the letters, words and punctuation in that statement, while the semantics is the meaning. If you replaced the word ‘love’ with a love heart picture, the statement would still read the same, as the semantic is still the same!
This video brings up the issue that the computer is only displaying the webpages the consumer is after, and not understanding it. Sure, it understands the syntax, they do not recognise the semantics. If the internet could recognise exactly what the consumer was after, it could actively help the consumer opposed to just passively helping the consumer.
This is the purpose of the semantic web: to actively understand what consumers are searching. The semantic web is much more beneficial, time consuming and effective to the consumer.
The second last video, “The Semantic Web of Data Tim Berners-Lee”, outlines how the semantic web is phasing in. There is no date for the official “semantic web” release, more of an exponential growth pattern. Tim Berners-Lee uses examples that give the feel of the web having a brain. He illustrates the semantic web as being able to think for the consumer, by comparing pre-downloaded data from the web and producing further comparison reports. Through the use of calendars, emails, web usage and the computer programs generally talking to each other, it is clear how much simpler life could be with the semantic web. Both for the private consumer and effect it would have on the business world.
The final YouTube video “EPIC 2015”, predicts the anticipation of the internet and its function due in 2015. The vision is a concept that will revolutionise quicker than imaginable. The video focuses on the evolution of news over time, and suggests news organisations will be a thing of the past. The video gives the viewer a history of the evolution of technology, including Google, Amazon, Apple, Blooger, and emphasises Google’s footprint and its impact.
This video basically reminded us of information we were fed in the previous Flipped Lectures, whilst introducing the viewer to the concept of EPIC, and how mind blowing it will be.
I found these videos as a whole quite compelling and interesting. It is fascinating to believe how quickly each phase is evolving, and how significantly better each phase has been and will be. The evolution from Web 1.0 to 3.0 is extreme, and will play such beneficial assistance to the everyday human. However, it forces me to think, are we relying too much on technology? When the semantic web is in full swing and fully taken over our lives, we will depend on our brain less and less, not using its natural capability to its full existence. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It leaves me with the question, who do we want to run our own lives? The internet, or ourselves? I certainly what I would choose…
In this documentary, John Heilemann opens by questioning the audience what would the world be without google? It’s a daunting thought!
Finding thing’s on the internet was very challenging pre-Google. It was time consuming, tedious and usually ended up being ineffective. People did not, and could not use the internet like they do today.
Two men, Jerry Yang and David Filo, together co-founded Yahoo, as a way to hunt for obscure sports data, which would better there basketball skills. As Yahoo grew and grew, and was becoming more utilised around America, they decided to incorporate advertising on the website. This was a very reluctant decision, they feared it would have damaging effects and annoy users to seize from using Yahoo. However it did the opposite, in 1995 when Yahoo began using banner advertising, the amount of Yahoo users kept on multiplying. More users= more advertising= more money. This is when Yahoo made a statement, it was possible to make money on the internet.
By 1997, the search function on the internet had well and truly taken off. The search function then delved deeper and enabled Yahoo Mail, Yahoo News, Yahoo Images etc.
Then, the most innovative search platform was created. In 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, also from Stamford University, co-founded Google. Google was a search engine that cared about search. There search results were ranked by popularity, and was ordered by the most clicked through pages. Google caused Stamford’s university to nearly melt down, and the boys were asked to leave.
Initially, many people saw very little potential in Google. In fact, fellow search engines turned down offers to buy Google for $1,000,000. They would be kicking themselves now, with Google having a net value of nearly $200 billion.
It was when Larry and Sergey met with a former professor from Stamford, David Cheriton, who introduced them to Andy Bechtolsheim, a well known investor. Within hours, Andy saw enormous potential in the website, and had written a cheque on the spot for $100,000. This started an inflow of cheques for the boys, equalling up to $1 million dollars.
Following this, John Doerr and Michael Moritz invested a total of $24 million dollars in Google.
There was only one problem with Google, it wasn’t making money. Page and Brin could not stomach the idea of following other search engines in allowing advertising to the site.
Meanwhile, a man by the name of Bill Gross, of Idealab, had an idea that could help the boys business model. Gross saw the value in what people were searching on the internet. Known as ‘Key words’, people would be relatively and directly targeted. With this, Gross developed the website http://www.overture.com. Immediately, Google saw this as the answer. Google met with Overture, however failed to strike a deal. Later, Google coincidently released Google Adwords, which replicated Overture’s tactics. Google was then sued by Gross, and they settled out of court.
In 2004, Google went public on the NASDAQ. In the previous 5 years, the company had gone from $0- to $3 billion dollars in revenue. Google was the fastest growing company ever.
Today Google is continually to revolutionising. There is Google Library, Google Books, Google Maps, Google Earth, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Spreadsheets,Google Docs, Google Drive, Google Blogger, Google Images, Google Video, Google News, Picassa (photo sharing), and who can forget YouTube? Google today dominates the world.
Personally, I find Search such an important and crucial factor for the internet. It is nearly too easy to find things on the internet. Search engines like Google are so effective, and give answers immediately. Gmail and YouTube are also such fantastic websites.
However, I must question the data Google stores about individuals personal privacy. But I suppose they use our data efficiently, to make Google work better for us, and it has made them now worth nearly $200 billion dollars…so good on them!
Browser Wars is a documentary outlining the development of the world wide web. It plays out the war that occurred between “computer geeks” who revolutionised the internet through a company by the name of ‘Netscape’, and the company who wanted to ‘run’ the internet, Microsoft, or more directly, Bill Gates.
Undergraduates of the University of Illinois understood the undiscovered potential of the internet, and realised how accessible and useful it could be to the average human, rather than just “lines of text” where you “were unable to do anything on the internet unless you were a super geek”.
After tireless amounts of ‘coding’, these “geeks” created their first miracle program.
Mosaic Online was a free download browser, that started with a mere 12 users, however quickly overtime grew into the millions!
Mosaic had a lot of potential, and was obviously gaining popularity around the world, however it was missing one key ingredient, a strong backbone of cash. This is when Jim Clarke became involved. Clarke was the founder of Silicon Graphics, of which he had just resigned. He was in search of something new and exciting, and something to make him money. He staggered across Mosaic, and knew he’d found what he was looking for.
Jim Clarke, joined by a man by the name of Marc Andreessen (a co-creator of Mosaic), recruited a group of ‘geeks’ from the University of Illinois, that would later converge to be the founders of Netscape.
At this time, Microsoft and Bill Gates disagreed with the potential the internet held. Surprisingly, Gates thought the internet should be a paid service.
Netscape Communications formed in 1993. They had goals of extreme urgency to launch the best browser platform possible. They understood this was easy to develop, and realised a stronger company could development and release a similar product whilst Netscape was in development, hence their urgency.
The boys at Netscape were the first real competition for Bill Gates and Microsoft. This was a whole new ball game for Microsoft, who had dominated everyone competitor in the past.
In October of 1994, Netscapes first creative development ‘Navigator’ launched. This began the war between Microsoft and Netscape. Navigator was the true beginning of the internet revolution. It was unusual that a computer related revolution didn’t involve Microsoft. It was now that Bill Gates realised the importance of the world wide web.
Gates declared to his staff that the internets importance was on par with the development of the PC.
Gates directed all his staff to ‘drop everything’ and ‘find lots of ways to win this battle’, the battle against Netscape.
It was now when Gary Reback, Netscapes lawyer, discovered that Netscape’s business plan “grossly underestimated the threat of Microsoft”.
A team of Microsoft staff then went to Netscape’s headquarters, and much debate still today remains on what was discussed at this meeting. Microsoft claim they went to the meeting with strategies of how the pair can work together. However Netscape revealed the meeting was much more ruthless, intimidating, and a discussion of how Microsoft will beat Netscape, whether they chose to be involved or not. They apparently offered Netscape $1,000,000 to gain all of Netscape’s software. If they did not accept the offer, Microsoft would apparently copy them free of charge. This was obviously a lose-lose situation from Netscape.
Following the meeting, Netscape’s lawyer filled a lawsuit.
It was around this time that Netscape went public on the New York Stock Exchange. The price of their stock went through the roof. This caused Netscape to become ‘arrogant’. This Marc Andreessen even declaring Microsoft’s future as questionable.
This further fuelled the battle between the two companies, and made Bill Gates reek of revenge.
On December 7 1995, Bill Gates wanted everyone to know he had Netscape in his sights: launching ‘Internet Explorer’.
The expertise of Microsoft staff, their coding experience, and direction from mentor Bill Gates allowed them to be incredibly powerful. Gates pushed his staff to the max, working 18 hour days, ensuring they would miss nothing Netscape were doing. They were trying to put Navigator out of business, by whatever means possible.
Microsoft even went to distributors of PC, threatening if they used any of Netscape’s product, Microsoft would not allow them to use any of their product or software, meaning the PC wouldn’t be able to function.
Microsoft then used a clever tactic, using their heavy bank account, they embedded Internet Explorer into Microsoft Windows, meaning each PC came with it pre-installed, free of charge. Netscape were charging users for the software. This was a killer tactic.
September 1997, the Browser War was over. Microsoft had triumphed.
In 1999, on the slumps, Netscape was acquired by a bigger company, AOL, for $4.2 billion dollars.
However, a year earlier in 1998, following the browser war, the United States Department of Justice came knocking on Bill Gates’ door.
Following court hearings, Bill Gates and Microsoft were found Guilty of systematically breaking the law. On April 3, 2000, it was found Microsoft has committed monopolisation, attempted monopolisation. As a remedy, Microsoft was forced to ‘breakup’ by court order, in to two separate units. Microsoft appealed this decision. It was later settled.
Microsoft may have won the Browser War, however Netscape allowed massive competition for Microsoft, and was a huge influence in the development in sites such as Google, Safari, Opera, Firefox etc. All of these sites made Microsoft look old and clunky..
The team at Netscape also came out of the whole ordeal extremely well. Jim Clarke initially invested $5 million dollars into the company, and ended up with close to $2 billion.
The rest of the team at Netscape also came out of with millons.
I think the Browser Wars saga was effective in creating what is today such a fantastic and utilised tool, the internet. It made programs free of charge for the consumer, and allows us to connect and interact with who ever we want, whenever we want. Having the competition was also good, it taught Bill Gates that he doesn’t control the cyber world, and through a list of competitors, allowed a congregation of intuitive ideas and concepts form to allow an amazing and continuously growing tool in the internet.
charlesrmit 