Does it matter?

Everyone always says that things are too complicated these days. We have too much information, too many stories trying to get our attention, and too many people trying to rile us up for various causes. What is a [nearly] sane person to do? Well, I am developing a formula so that I only get upset at the most upset-worthy things, and rest just slides away so that I can catch up on Facebook in peace.

(Issue + Viewpoint 1 + Viewpoint 2)PossibleOutcome - OutcomeSoFar = HowMuchICare
*Please note that this only works with a minimum of two viewpoints.

Let's take a rather controversial example to illustrate my process. When Barak Obama bowed to a foreign dignitary, much of America was in a firestorm over the event. Me? My main thought was "What's for lunch?". I just wasn't revved up for either side of the debate.

I'm going to give a little detail into how I got my Viewpoint, PossibleOutcome and OutcomeSoFar variables, first:

1. The meaning of a bow is cultural and there are tons of contextual nuances to consider.

a). Viewpoint 1 is that the bow was a sign of respect. If that's the case, I'm okay with that. I like to think that we respect other nations, and I'm sure they appreciate such sentiments (PossibleOutcome). It just seems like something positive that helps keep everything spinning.

b). Viewpoint 2 is that the bow was a sign of subservience, in which case it could be taken two ways. It could be a sign of disrespect to Americans. I grant that. But it also occurs to me that the symbolic gesture could actually do us a great deal of good in international relations (PossibleOutcome). I know this is incredibly hard to believe, but a good portion of the world sees America as kind of arrogant and pushy. If we really are as powerful a nation as we believe, I'm pretty sure we can absorb a hit to our pride for the cause of goodwill and future cooperation. So, I don't consider the disrespect thing to be a heavy hitter.

c). Whatever happened symbolically, in the more relevant matters of America's power and safety and nationalism, it really doesn't change anything (OutcomeSoFar). Our military is still there, our economy (such as it is) is still ticking, our government still meets and our bargaining power with other nations doesn't seem to be affected.


Now, I'm not a math genius, but if I add all this up I get:
(Bow + PossibleRespect + PossibleSubsurvience)AngryAmericans/ PositiveInternationalRelations - NoChange = More Cheetos.

...Oops. Make that, "= Doesn't change anything, hurts only pride in a country famous for arrogance, so not feeling the urgency".

As another example, let's take the scenario of a magazine announcing that researchers may have found another clue to curing some disease. I see these fairly often. Then I read the article and realize that the discovery, albeit in a promising direction, has so many "might's" and "maybe's" and "possible's" attached, it's like navigating a minefield to find the meat of the article. Basically, many of these wonderful discoveries are actually akin to getting the gas cap off your car so you can fill up for a cross-country road trip. When I encounter one of these, I just skim the article before moving on to truly enlightening discoveries- like about how to achieve bikini abs.

(Discovery + ThisIsPromising + ThisIsn'tGettingUsAnywhere)CouldCure - Hasn'tCuredAnythinYet = Don'tBetYourLifeSavingsOnIt

On the other hand, we really do sometimes have things that affect us. Take the illness of a close family member, for instance:

(Illness + LessNaggingNow + ILoveFamily)GuiltLaterIfNotHelpingNow - OpportunityToHelp = Yes,ICare

Now I must come up with a name for this brilliant new formula...

Look me in the eyes

I have a theory that our society is both too connected and not connected enough. We are too connected in the sense that we can immerse ourselves in news from across the country or across the world, but we often don't have any sense of the undercurrents and background behind the stories. And yet, we have so much information at our fingertips, we assume we know what is going on. That is how we are too connected.

As for how we are not connected enough, we know a lot of people and hear stories of many more, so it can become hard to assign individuality. It is much too easy to become callous and forget that these people have faces, stories, and feelings. We do not live near them, nor do we see them at work or the store, so we are not confronted with their reality.

That is how we are not connected enough.

For myself, I am working on a phrase to ground me whenever I catch myself falling into one of the above pitfalls.

"Would I say the say the same thing if I had to look them in the eyes?"

I have my moments of a Social Darwinist attitude. If people are not competent enough to survive, it is the way of nature that they are eliminated from the gene pool. But if confronted with someone who fits the profile, would I voice my attitude? I don't know.

If I don't like the health reform and say that those of us who work should not have to support those who don't... would I hold to that if I had someone unemployed in front of me? What if I knew that person's reasons for unemployment? Or what if that person had a serious illness and got caught in the "doughnut hole" of coverage? Would I stand firm on principle?

If someone is ranting on an online post in a way that I don't like, do I jump in and start firing back? Or do I moderate my words, remembering that just because I don't have to face the person directly, that doesn't mean that words don't still hurt?

Since I cannot take one position from a distance and another from closer in without becoming a hypocrite, I feel that this approach will only benefit me and those around me. If we all conducted our lives as if every interaction were face-to-face, I wonder what differences we would see...

Truth, Where Art Thou?

Modern scientists say that water is the most diverse element known to man. It can exist as a solid, a liquid, and a gas, and requires very little environmental change to effect these transformations. I contend that as wondrous as we may find the properties of water, the properties of the element “Truth” are far more varied and difficult to pin down. Unlike water, which exists in its various forms regardless of perspective, the many forms of “Truth” depend on the mind of the beholder. However, for the purposes of this discussion it will be useful to view Truth through the lens of elemental properties.

For example, take Truth in its solid form. I have felt some ideas so powerfully, I could no more imagine them untrue than I could credibly think concrete was soft. I have met people for whom “Truth” is as unyielding and unchanging as an actual solid. Entire religions are based on such principles, and millions (perhaps billions) of people around the world accept the premise that their religion’s Truths possess that level of solidity. Plato famously proclaimed in his Theory of Forms that there are ideas so pure and fundamental, they exist outside of human perception. Effectively, he characterized “Truth” as an external force, an independently existing “solid”.

Then we have Truth in liquid form. This occurs when the information used to determine Truth changes, or when new circumstances come to light. Or, it can also arise when a person changes his or her mind about something. If that person’s attitude was the subject of the Truth, then it now must shift with the changing perspective. Truth is also now different in the mind of the person, so in the universe defined by that person’s beliefs and history, Truth has changed. In some ways, this scenario could meld seamlessly with the earlier discussion of Truth as a solid; one could argue that the Truth has not changed, just the human perception as we gain or lose varying levels of access to the greater Truth.

Consider Truth as having the properties of a gas, however. This concept is a favorite of modern philosophers, atheists, and social anthropologists. (This is not to say that everyone in these professions ascribes to such a flexible notion of Truth, but there is something to be said for the professional leanings in that direction. However, I digress.) Sometimes Truth has all the presence and force of water vapor, invisible and without weight or substance. Some people contend that Truth is not externally defined and then sought, but rather internally defined and acted out. When enough people with similar definitions of Truth congregate, larger ideals of an archetypal Truth are born (but are not necessarily accurate). This perception requires a different mindset from the other two, because it is by necessity a big picture mindset. It requires seeing Truth as a human perception that makes us feel better about the chaotic world in which we live.

The funny thing about the different forms of Truth, is that we will never know which (if any) is correct. Those who favor the “gas” form of Truth will not accept someone’s word that Truth is a solid thing beyond our ability to affect change. Those who believe in solid Truths will not have any reason to believe in the gaseous model. The liquid is the fence-sitter, and could go either way in the discussion. The binding element- if you will pardon the pun- between all three is that each is blinded by its own biases and assumptions. The constraints that make them beliefs are also the blinders that keep those inside from seeing events objectively.

As a reader picking your way through this meandering discussion, you may wonder what the take-home message could possibly be. To me, the message is that is we believe many things, but we know nothing for sure. And yet we proceed through our daily lives assuming that we have the answers. In my opinion, the path to making this world a more tolerant (and pleasant) place begins with us being open-minded... and perhaps even humble... about our own and other people’s view of the Truth. That sounds like a worthy goal to me.

Mosque Madness

I keep on hearing a lot of controversy regarding the proposed mosque near ground zero. Frankly, I am baffled by it. I know some people who have very strong feeling regarding this project, but I have trouble seeing their side of the issue.

Here are some of the points I have heard, and my reactions to them:

I have heard that the building of a mosque in that particular spot is a "slap in the face" to the people who died there. My first thought is... why? The people building the mosque are, by reputable reports, peaceful people who abhor the violence preached by extremist groups. They have also been praying there for years in a nondescript building that the mosque will merely replace (according to the New York Times). The only change is the symbol of the building itself, which despite propaganda still represents a religion of peace.

I know it is tempting to point out that there are many high-profile cases of terrorism perpetrated in the name of their religion, but let's be honest: which of us can legitimately point a finger? Christians, put your hands down- the Crusades alone are a black mark. If you're not convinced, think of the recent murder of a doctor performing abortions. Whether you agree or not, it was murder in the name of religion. If you ask a Palestinian, the actions of Jews in Israel in their long conflict is tantamount to terrorism. A Jew would say the same thing about Palestinians. Catholicism, besides its bloody history in Europe, has a history of legal scuffles regarding their strict behavioral code in schools. Are we all tarred by the brush of our religions?

I have heard exhortations to protect America by protesting the mosque. My first thought? How does that protect America? Let's break this down a bit. America is a land of the free. A place where we can pursue happiness without fear of persecution based on religious beliefs. I believe that America stands as the land of tolerance. The way to protect these ideals, it seems to me, is to perpetuate them. By bringing down an effort to peacefully worship (and if you disagree on their intent, prove it. Innocent until proven guilty), we make ourselves into the very type of people we say we despise: full of irrational hatred, willing to lash out at people we don't know just because they have different beliefs.

If we act as if the mosque has any power over ground zero, 9/11 remembrances, or the memories of the fallen, we have already betrayed the sacredness of those memories. If we remember in our own hearts, NOTHING can touch that. So why do we get so upset about a mosque?

Bottom line: I would rather create peace instead of war. If what goes around really does come around, I can live with my decision. How about you?

Opinion vs. Fact

Okay, it seems that it is time for a little vocabulary lesson (pay attention- there will be a quiz later).

1. Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

2. Opinion: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

Do we see a difference here? I have seen many discussion boards, online posts, and heard or been part of conversations where these two become mixed up. All too often we want to emphasize our point... or we are just in the habit of assuming a "my way or the highway" attitude... or whatever, but in the end we tweak the presentation of "truth" to bolster our points of view, perhaps without realizing what we're doing.

Let me give you an innocuous example: I see a dress in a store, and I say "That is an ugly dress. Who was stupid enough to design it?" This may seem pretty harmless, but the principle is that I am making my opinion into an absolute. To be accurate, I could have said "I think that dress is ugly and the designer incompetent". The difference is that in the second statement I am stating my own point of view and nothing more.

This may seem like nit-picking, but what if I switch the example and move to politics? How often do we get frustrated because people make statements that sound like fact, but because we disagree we say it is just an opinion? (i.e. That candidate is a lying, career politician.) How often do the people on the other side of the fence accuse us of the same tactic? Once we get into that kind of mud-slinging, nothing is solved and people just get more deeply entrenched in the opinions they already had. Then we go and vote.

What if I change the topic again to healthcare or science? Or religion? The sticky thing about these is that people think they have facts to back up their positions. Traditional healthcare people have medical studies to point towards; alternative medicine advocates use history and different medical studies as their proof. Atheists use science as their backup, while religious individuals can point towards documented events that science can't currently explain. EVERYBODY has fact on their side... so who is right? I'd say that as long as we are talking about things that can't be proven or disproven, due to conflicting evidence or the nature of the question itself, assume that each point of view is an opinion and be tolerant of other ideas. Until something happens that is absolutely conclusive, it is premature (and immature) to gloat.

The thing that gets to me most is the automatic tendency of humans to self-congratulate. We find the "facts" that suit us and we stop there. We don't often look too deeply into where our facts came from. We don't usually research the opposition's viewpoint. We don't even consider that something will appear in the future to totally change our thinking on the subject. We tend to automatically assume that we have THE ANSWERS (caps intentional) and that they are eternal.

Well, my favorite rebuttal is best encapsulated by a quote from-- ironically-- "Men In Black". A character says, "One thousand years ago, everybody knew that the world was flat. Five hundred years ago everybody knew that the earth was the center of the Universe. [...] Imagine what you'll know... tomorrow." The underlying idea is that we absolutely positively without-a-doubt know things, right up until they are disproved. Really, how intelligent can we be as a species if we keep on repeating this pattern over the ages?

Let's be ahead of the curve this time. Let's learn humility and tolerance, because they will last longer than fact, and they will make the world a better place than inflated opinions can ever manage.

Separation of Religion and Politics?

I saw a news article today on a debate currently raging: the separation of church and state. Should they be separate? What does that phrase mean, anyway? What are the implications in either direction?

Separating religion from politics sounds good to a lot of people in an idealistic sense. Even if we adhere to the religion currently in power, the wheel inevitably turns and we don't want to find ourselves at the mercy of an administration with opposing spiritual views. But how much can we really separate these two ideas? Morality may be hard to pin down, but a sense of it still pervades just about every facet of life. If religion tells us how to live, how can religious lawmakers act separately from their conscience?

These are tough questions, and unfortunately not easily answered. I make no secret of my preference for a more distinct separation than we see today, but I also acknowledge the challenge this poses for many people, both lawmakers and constituents alike. Furthermore, I also recognize that while I think I am "right", so does everyone else. And we all have our own good reasons for believing as we do. It could be due to faith, our personal experiences, or own own reflections, but we all choose our paths because we believe it is best.

Here is one of the reasons for my view... Keeping in mind that everyone in this democratic, free-thinking country has a different opinion on religion, and that we all have an equal say in the direction of our country, I posit that separating religion from politics/lawmaking is the fairest way to deal with the matter. From a logical standpoint, if we all have good reasons for believing as we do, who is unbiased enough to say who is right? (God may be unbiased, but multiple religions claim that he endorses only them, so perhaps that is not the greatest measure, either.) If mere mortals cannot determine correctness, the only fair alternative I see is to remove religion entirely from the laws that govern everyone.

Of course, that still doesn't address the "how". People who make laws and play politics are still people, and I don't have a guide for how they can accomplish this. I can claim that it is necessary, but I haven't gone through this process myself. Perhaps if someone who reads this has ideas, you will be willing to share.

Valentine's Reflections

*Note*: I had this post ready to go on the day itself, but for whatever reason it didn't post.

Valentine's day is such a perfect opportunity for a post, saturated as it is with soppy candy hearts and commercialized expressions of true love. People who have significant others typically plan and scheme and fret over their extra special dates... or they forget altogether and buy some flowers or chocolate from that store down the street that happens to be open today. Those of us without a special someone on this mushiest of holidays sleep late, eat ice cream right out of the carton, and generally do whatever we need to do in order to fight off feelings of lonliness and unworthiness.

You might have noticed that I lumped myself into the second category. Being seemingly doomed to eternal singledom, I am well acquainted with the spectrum of feelings we unattached can experience every February 14th. There are a number of well-worn guests called Lonliness, Despair, and Frustration who tend to visit, and there are infinite ways of handling them. Some years, I go for the approach that such a commercialized holiday has little intrinsic meaning, so it shouldn't matter if I am alone. Other times, I rationalize that being in a relationship is a huge drain on time, energy, and money, so I'm really better off avoiding the whole mess.

This year, my single approach is simply to be. Living in the moment and letting myself experience whatever comes will probably serve me best in the long run, but there is also a sort of comfort in honesty with onesself. Most of this Valentine's day was just another day for me, so I wasn't bothered by its presence. But now in the evening, I feel the weight of all my years alone becoming heavier by one more landmark. One more Valentine's Day can be crossed off the calendar, and I still have not experienced that romantic, magical experience of being in love on this love-centric holiday. There is some hurt in that thought, but this year I acknowledge it instead of pushing it away. The hurt is my clue that, as happy as I am most of the year to be single, part of me wants something different. And maybe if an opportunity comes along, that sting will remind me of the feelings that await next February if I pass it by.

Why should I put stock in the feelings that well up but once a year? After all, I am generally a happy person, and being single has made me strong. The answer is that it's the mystery of this "love" thing that gets to me, because the truth is that I don't have any way to comprehend what I am missing. The obvious answer is to go out and meet someone, but trying to hurry up and fall in love is like trying to fall asleep. It just happens when it happens, and trying to rush the process only makes me frustrated and cranky... and ultimately sleep-deprived.

In my own meandering way, I seem to be reaching out and describing my situation so that others can understand (or empathize, as the case may be). Whichever case is applicable for you, I hope I have given you some insight into what I, as one of many singles, go through each Valentine's Day.

Freedom of Speech

What is "freedom of speech"? Well, I suppose we could go into the right to speak one's mind, the right to protest, and the right to express thoughts and opinions that differ from those held by the ruling class. Those are all well and good, but I think I've found a better example...

The purest form of freedom of speech is expressed when somebody blogs about whatever they want becaue nobody is going to read it anyway.

... ironic, huh?

Well, I suppose that's it for tonight. I'd feel bad about leaving such an intriguing topic so suddenly, but since I'm pretty sure no one is reading there is no reason to apologize. Wait, wasn't that sort of an apology? Drat, I'd better stop before this gets

Taking out the Garbage

I had an interesting experience today at work, and it began with finding I had become a scapegoat. See, it is my custom to answer the phone cheerfully; I do this partly because it tends to make the whole conversation pleasant, and partly because I feel like everyone deserves at least one cheerful greeting a day.. Even my charms, however, were not enough to sweeten the irate customer from this morning.

From the split second that he knew a live, breathing person was listening on the other end, this person began a torrent of complaints, questions, and demands. It was such an intense outpouring of frustration, I had no chance to answer his complaints with a solution. Every idea I had was deemed wrong or stupid (although as it turned out, they were neither). I understand that sometimes a person just has to vent, but this stood out as going beyond the line.

After, I thought: "How often do we all do this?" We get frustrated at something in our lives and take it out on the nearest person. It doesn't all have to be as extreme as my example. It could be as simple as honking the horn to say "go faster or get out of the way", when we know that if we were not late for a meeting we would be content to trundle along behind. Or being curt to a salesperson when our feet hurt, the kids are misbehaving, we're tired and we don't want to hear that without the receipt it's store credit only.

Everyone deals with this kind of thing sooner or later, but the sadder thing is that we probably all deal it out as well. What have we become, such that we would rather make someone join us in misery than feel uplifted by their contentment? And, what have we become such that we would rather label those people jerks than acknowledge their hardships or our own lapses in courtesy?

Sometimes, people think I am too soft and that I make excuses for such behavior. Rather, I like to think that we can still hold people accountable for their actions without losing compassion. Because when it is our turn to step over the line, for whatever reason, the value of that compassion is immeasurable.

At the End of All Things

I find myself becoming maudlin here at the end of the Library 2.0 program... [sniff]...

But hey, life moves on. It was fun while it lasted, and I learned some great stuff! Some of it is more applicable to my personal life, and some I can see being more useful in a library setting, but I'm glad I know about the options. In particular, I found the lessons on the different Google applications useful, and the Flickr/MySpace lessons interesting from a social point of view (that's what comes of having a degree in psychology), but the lessons on YouTube and TravelBlog were downright amusing.

If I could have changed or added anything, I would have liked to learn more about how libraries might network information. Some of that was implied in the lessons (podcasts, blogs, myspace), but sometimes it's also nice to have things spelled out in a comprehensive lesson. To have one which just looks at ways in which institutions can mix and match their areas of expertise would be particularly relevant and useful. But other than that, two thumbs way up for the program!

Adios,
Sarcasm (Un)Lmtd.

Net worth of NetLibrary

... is rather on the low end for me. I like to read and I love to discover new books, but NetLibrary isn't yet broad enough to appeal to my tastes. For one thing, it is still new enough to lack all my favorite titles. That is not its fault, and time should cure that ailment. Another problem is the complete lack of ebooks. I love the silence of reading, and the complete freedom of my imagination to create images and voices for the characters. Audiobooks, then, have never been my favorite because by their natures they dictate the speed at which I "read" and the character's voices. So it was a little disappointing to find that the entire available collection is in e-audiobooks. Again, however, time should remedy the situation.

On the plus side, checkout and downloading is extremely easy. Even a technological neanderthal such as I can manage it without too much pain. I also liked the site's organization, which was pretty intuitive, and the impressive array of language options available (although this one doesn't really benefit me, since I'm not actually fluent in any other language).

When the pros and cons have been weighed, I find NetLibrary to have lots of potential, but it's not particularly useful for me at this time. I'll check back in few years, though, and see what the collection looks like then.

Podcasting. Is that a kind of fishing?

I got extremely confused at first by podcasts. I couldn't seem to find anything that would define them in a way I understood, and things weren't made clearer when I heard a few clips of random podcasts. This was because they all seemed to be random and without purpose, not to mention rather crude and reminiscent of a badly constructed fan fiction. I suppose it was luck of the draw that I managed, in my random sampling, to avoid all the good ones.

Finally, someone took pity on me and gave me some examples of what podcasts are and what they can potentially do. At the basic level, they seem to be an audible-only YouTube video. It's a cheap and easy way to "publish" something that would have otherwise had to compete for space on a radio station.

I couldn't figure out how to embed a podcast, but I've included a link at the bottom of this post which leads to one I found somewhat amusing. I listed to part of the Tues, May 13 broadcast, which was admittedly pretty aimless but which I nevertheless found most tasteful of the podcasts I'd sampled. So enjoy!

http://podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=27383

MeTube, YouTube, WhoseTube?

Part of this week's exercise was to explore YouTube. Well, I'm afraid I've already done that... extensively. Often using time I didn't have. But there's so much to see and learn about! If you can spell it (and often even if you can't) you can find a video about it. What I like about videos on YouTube is the immediacy of the experience, because it's so much more compelling and interesting to view a film clip than to just read about it or see a photo.

If I were to apply the concept of YouTube to libraries (which would make sense because working at a library started this whole journey), I can see many ways in which this could be useful. We could do video accounts of our programs, "teaser trailers" for upcoming programs (takes advertising to a whole new level), and create a video tour of the library for people who live too far away to visit.

Now for myself, I mostly use YouTube to watch funny or videos I find interesting . I suppose I could have gone in a scholarly direction with the video I chose to share, but this one captured my fancy so completely I had to make this my choice. Enjoy!

And the winner is...

Farecast! Or at least it is according to me. I agree with whomever awarded this site a Web 2.0 Award (2007), because I find it very useful. My extended family is scattered all over the map, meaning that we have to book flights if we want to see them. It's a constant headache to figure out when to book and when to wait. That's why I like this site, which can tell me how likely it is that fares will drop or rise in the near future.

The only downside I've found so far is that the predictions are only available for certain locations, which don't include most of the cities I need. Of course, I can always let the price for the nearest large city guide my purchase, but that's less exact. As far as I can tell, Farecast doesn't make predictions for international flights. Seeing as that's the site's specialty, the relative scarcity of options could have killed its usefulness. The saving grace is that even if the predictions are only available sporadically, the search results still show the lowest prices from many other airfare search engines.

Google Labs

I have a new fascination.

I think that I will now devote my free time to exploring all the different Google Labs out there. I particularly liked the one where we can create our own web page- very simple, very easy... it doesn't have as much flexibility as other programs, but seeing as the target audience is probably the technologically challenged (me) or those who just have a simple paper they want out there, it's ideal. I actually played around with one, and I've included the link below:

http://sjvandermolen.googlepages.com/home

(Just be warned- I did slip onto my soap box briefly at the end. It shouldn't be too onerous, but..)

I also had fun looking at the pictures of Mars, although that one seemed to be a bit of a dead end. Or at least, I didn't find any other links.

Again, this may be my own level of competence (or lack thereof) at work, but when I tried to do the search with extra information, I didn't really see any difference. Maybe I'll go back for another look when I'm less sleep deprived and check whether I missed some crucial step...

Still, I really liked the web page function, and may use that as a medium to get some ideas "peer reviewed" without paying for postage or the headache of individual addresses.

Searching for Search Engines

For my experiment with search engines, I tried the same search term on Yahoo, Mooter, and Exalead. I'd never heard of two of them before, I had very little idea of what to expect. Just to be contrary, I picked a rather esoteric term (Zivio Ethnic Arts Ensemble- the name of my dance group) and let each chew on it.

I was impressed with Yahoo's results, because the very first item was my group's homepage. The other top 5 results were variations on that theme, such as performance calendars and other options from our website's menu. Mooter and Exalead (who came up with these names, anyway?) didn't quite make that standard. The first item on each list was the same, and while it was the performance calendar for my group- which is pretty close- I didn't see the main page anywhere. Nor were the rest of the top 5 in each site quite as closely related as the Yahoo results (there were also several instances of repeats).

I was alittle surprised not to see Google on the list. Although I suppose it's too well known to be a tool for encouraging people to explore.

Well, I'm too tired to write more now. I'll finish this later in the event that I get up the energy. Apologies if this post didn't make sense.

Online Application Tools...

This could theoretically be the answer to every college student's frantic prayer (which is ironically often interspersed with creative swearing), the one where a paper is due in 2 minutes and the jump drive with the paper on it won't read on a school computer. (And since you're probably wondering, yes, this has happened to me.) As much as I love being able to access my information, though, I'm not entirely sure how this method is superior to email. Perhaps I have just not done enough research yet, but it seems that it would take about the same amount of time to open an attachment, and it will all be in the same format anyway.

However, I can also envision many other scenarios in which I would benefit from various online application tools. One is the feature on creating documents that allows several people to work on a document at once. If anyone reading this has not had the dubious pleasure of coordinating 5 schedules to find a time for working on a group project (and of course with all 5 people being full time students with outside jobs)... this might make group research and writing much easier as a process, and therefore might save my sanity.

Granted, most of the applications I find useful are due to my status as a student. I rather doubt they would be such a distinguished asset in all the other fields out there. I can think of several scenarios in which people physically located far apart must collaborate on a project, but many more others in which the pertinent people are all located in the same work building or where the project, being of a sensitive or complicated nature, requires face-to-face communication.

Ah well. It was fun, anyway.

Library 2.0

I thought of coming up with a witty, sarcastic title for this post, but my brain seems to have failed me. Oh well... I'll get one next time.

Anyway, I've just been learning about Library 2.0, which is apparently rather like Web 2.0. Whatever that means. It rather surprised me, though, that this term is more like a philosophy than anything else. If I understand it correctly, it encapsulates the idea that it is not enough for libraries to excel at their traditional roles, but instead must constantly strive to adapt their services and styles to the ever-changing public.

Why, you ask? Self preservation. According to some authors on the subject, the traditional role of libraries is already heading out the door, and if we fail to change with the times we risk extinction (not to be melodramatic or anything). One writer was bold enough to claim that even keeping hardcopies of books will soon become a pointless, expensive exercise, and that we should begin cutting back to prepare for this change.

I agree that times change, and that in many respects the needs which libraries fill are altering. But it seems too simplistic to say that we must begin building the libraries of the future by anticipating cultural shifts today. There are too many variables to consider, and if nothing else there are too many individuals who enjoy the old-fashioned feeling of a real book in their hands or talking to a real reference librarian face-to-face. I like that Library 2.0 seems to advocate flexibility, but I'm not convinced that we should aspire to the degree of fluidity some authors favor.

Generating Blogs

I have discovered two things: first, that it's incredibly easy to create customized pictures with text. I have millions of options online to write my own words over pictures, mine or someone else's, and create sentimental or funny mementos.

The second thing I discovered is that I don't know what to write for these things. I have dreams of coming up with something so witty and clever people will see it and think, "Wow, I wish I could do that." But really what happens is that I look at other people's ideas and think, "Wow, I wish I could do that." However, I think at any rate I will have a lot of fun messing around on these sites, regardless of my dubious talent to use them.

To salve my wounded pride, I also took the opportunity to look at some map generators which show all the places I've been in the world. Considering that I'm still pretty young, it was satisfying to see so many places highlighted in red. (For those who are curious, I've included these images below.)

All the programs I tested seem like fun ways to jazz up my cyberspace interactions. They could be a cute way to let someone know I care, a personalized invitation or card, or just a funny moment to file away in memory. And at least for that, if nothing else, they are made worthwhile.

My Visited Countries>

Get your own Visited Countries Map from Travel Blog

My Visited US States

Get your own Visited US States Map from Travel Blog

Now What?

Well, I have completed the next step in my training-- namely, to research RSS feeds and create one of my own. This, I feel, I did with moderate thoroughness and a surprising amount of success (meaning moderate success). It was actually fun to go around clicking "Subscribe" to everything, knowing that I'm not going to get a huge bill a month from now. Anyway, I got my minimum number of feeds and I can check that off the list.

But now what?

Well, I guess now I have to go to my Google Reader account to get the compilation of feeds. That's awesome, except I'm not in the habit of doing so, and therefore I haven't yet remembered to make use of it. Of course, it's been more difficult than usual to remember the last two weeks... because for that time my home internet has been down and my only contact with cyberspace has been in miniature frenzied sessions on whatever computer I can find, therefore making my short forays the equivalent of runs for medical supplies: essentials only.
But I digress.

Anyway, this does seem to be a good tool. I can pick and choose which sources I like for my information, and this program will automatically combine new updates from those places on one neat site for my convenience. If I do get in the habit of using it, I think it would be very efficient (more so if I used it for work). The only downside I actually saw was that the site's navigation wasn't intuitively obvious. The only function-related problem I can imagine, not having yet had extensive experience, is that RSS feeds might only prove useful if I'm looking for brand new stories, rather than archived ones. Other than that, thumbs up!