Friday, September 30, 2011

Digital vs. Print

  New technology has allowed us to see various forms of entertainment, including music, videos pictures, etc. But very recently, we have created technology which will allow us to hold various formats, including books, into a device called a tablet. This opens various options for the people who can buy tablets, because not only is it greener than buying a multitude of papers, it also allows you to save weight and also to carry various books in a featherweight tablet.
  Arguments have started with the introduction of this technology as people look for better ways to save trees, even Crossroad was thinking of replacing paper books with tablets as another way to prevent deforestation, which is a serious manner in the world at this moment. There are many reasons as to why should we or why should we replace books with digital copies.
  Hannah provides plenty of sentiment into her pamphlet by reminding us that books aren't solely ink on paper, but also memories, signatures, and other feelings which digital copies cannot give us. But many of her other reasons are false, because the the experience does not depend completely on the book or digital copy itself, but mainly on the reader. That is because the reader does he/she pleases, a book will not force someone to concentrate, the reader chooses whether or not to.
  Therefore, I agree with Dustin's argument that digital copies are the way to go, because they aren't only green, but allow a similar experience to the reader. It does all of that while making reading more efficient. Books will not be changed, because people will always have the need to imagine their own world in the book, so books will never include music, videos, and/or pictures, or else it wouldn't be called a book. Nobody will allow the basic format of a book. And all of the books are copyrightedd and protected by the company which launched it, so no hacker or evildoer will change letters in the book, even so, who in the world would ever change the content in a book just for the evil of it?
  Although digital copies do not get wrinkled or can't be signed and can't get messed up, they are the future way reading because it is more efficient. Various companies have already gone ahead and solved many problems which Hannah mentions. And only the reader can choose the way he/she reads the book. So someone who doesn't concentrate while reading will never concentrate reading anything because that's the way they were born. Books are read, they don't read.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Reponse to Ben's Remarks on the Indians

   I fully comprehend Ben's analysis/story on the African Americans and i am very surprised of what he says about the Indians. In the traditional History class, we learn about the Indians but not a lot about their customs and ways of being. And Ben's testimonial clarifies that Indians are not really savages. they are closer to being the perfect utopia. we do not think of a utopia being so simple and primal. but Indians had really good customs and were very respectful unlike the world we live in today. if the world were to follow the ways of the Indians, we would know peace and community as a whole. Europeans entering the Americas did not understand that the Indians were a simple community that would have had peace throughout many year if it weren't for the colonial intervention which destroyed their customs and ideas.
   Europeans idea of a peaceful world was organization and such. But the Indians had a near perfect way of life, because only simple things can be organized successfully. The Indians lived a life a pure happiness which didn't include any of the evils the world holds today. Even though the 'Americans' viewed the Indians as savages, they were merely different and held better, happier and healthier lives than the Europeans. For any human trying to create a utopia, I believe that the Indian society was a perfect example.