To be honest, I am just as confused about what we can and can’t use for this video assignment as I was before we started talking about the copyright stuff. It seems to me that as long as this video is not used to promote a certain cause that would raise money or promote certain people, then we can use anything. If this is simply a video made in an educational setting and that is not intended to be used for any other purpose, then how could we get in trouble for using anything that isn’t ours? I feel like as long as we cite everything we use that isn’t ours, then we should have no problem. I think we can use songs and videos that are not ours to achieve our educational goal for this class, as long as that is our only purpose (which it is). So I don’t really see how we have to balance fair use laws with author rights because for this project, we are covered under the laws. At least it seems it to me. I could be very wrong in which case I may end up going to jail. Think they’ll let me at least take online classes?
As we talked in class, many people were discussing how the power of words to evoke one’s imagination is far superior to the power of an image. I simply disagree, and I think John hits on some key points in his blog post about this. Sure, if we are talking about the description of a certain character in a novel vs. the image of this character in a movie, it is clear that the movie leaves less room for interpretation at the surface. What I find the key to this argument to be is the distinction between interpretation and imagination. While books require the reader to form their own images of what a character or setting looks like, movies don’t allow the reader to form their own interpretation about that specific character or setting. This does not mean, however, it restricts the imagination of the reader/viewer. It simply changes the frame of imagination in the audience. By this I mean that while books require their readers to use imagination to form images, movies require viewers to use their imagination to form context of an image. Take the picture of the orc vs. a written description of the orc. The text obviously allows you to form a visual picture in your mind of what the orc looks like and acts like, which requires imagination. The picture of the orc makes people associate that image with other images in their life (as John described the image of the Devil) which in turns sparks the imagination of the viewer to make assumptions about the image. These assumptions can be about the character itself, yes, but images allow for a deeper imaginative quality. Images allow the viewer to use their own personal experience to form a backstory about the image, about its past and what happened before the image, and about its future and what happens after the image. Essentially the point I’m trying to make is that textual description is a bottom-up imaginative process. Many words are used to help a reader form images about the subject. While images are a top-down imaginative process in which a viewer takes an image and uses imagination to form the context and story behind the image. Both text and images require imagination to interpret, but one is not more powerful than the other.
I talked a good amount about my TED talk video in last week’s work in progress blog, but I’ll touch on it in a bit more detail. It was very strange watching my video after my presentation. Between the quality of the camera, the lighting in the room, and my nerd glasses, the whole thing reminded me of like an 80s public service statement that one would watch in elementary school when the teacher was out.
Regardless, I was pretty happy with my TED talk and my overall presentation. I was able to practice it a good amount before hand and was pretty comfortable up there talking. That said, the whole atmosphere of the talk and that room definitely added to my anxiety. When I had practiced, I figured that I would be able to walk around like George said, but that was not the case. It threw me off a bit and the whole time I was swaying back and forth wishing I could walk around. That would really be my main critique of myself. Right at the end of my talk, I thought I maybe had spoken too fast but after watching the video it seems I talked just fine. Overall I was happy with this assignment and hope to get a decent grade on it.
There is no real non-partisan way to go about deeming this news story a hero or hack, so I’ll let you decide. This is a story that has to do with an article we read in class about unmanned drones used in the military.
Just days before the election here in the United States, and unmanned air drone was shot at by Iranian military jets. The Pentagon is not releasing much about it, but here are several “known facts”:
- The drone was flying in International airspace when shot at by Iran. It was NOT flying in Iranian air space
- The drone allegedly was only surveying the area, and was not used for force.
- The drone was shot at, but was never hit and returned to the nearest military base
- United States officials have confirmed the incident, but Iran has yet to come out with a statement.
So the United States was flying a drone in neutral air space for “surveillance” (which I hope everyone questions) and was shot at and missed by two Iranian jets. Not it is not known if they missed on purpose or if they just have bad aim, but needless to say, the Pentagon is pissed. I am curious to see people’s opinion on this. I think its possible that the Iranians missed on purpose and shot at it to make a point that they don’t like the unmanned drones and see them as a great threat. I also think its possible that using the drones the survey neutral territory is a BS story and the Iran was a target only defending itself from being surveyed.
Is it right for us to have these drones? Will they cause more violence and lives than they would save? Obviously less Americans lives are being lost, but is it moral to put that at the expense of other countries? So many different prospectives to take on this one that I cannot say one country is in the right while the other is in the wrong. I did feel like this is a story you should all know about and see how it follows through in the weeks to come.
Source: Cnn.com & Associated Press
I was the first in the class to present the TED talk, and I was definitely nervous. I had practiced my talk several times over the weekend, but was out of town for family matters so I couldn’t go to the room and scope it out before like I had hoped. If I had, I would have realized that we were confined to a small box to stand in rather than being able to walk around freely. I had practiced walking around and doing the triangle method, only to find out I had to stand in a box. That being said, I think it went pretty well. Once I started, the nerves went away and I just rolled with it. I didn’t have to stop and start over or find my place. There was once where I lost my point, but I just kept talking and BSing until I got back to my original point (hope you all didn’t notice).
Going back and watching my video was mad awkward, though very helpful. I noticed that I started by talking really fast because i was nervous, but ended up slowing down as I went. I also noticed that while in that box, I kept swaying back and forth the whole time. I guess I wasn’t used to being confined to standing as I would’ve rather been able to walk around. Overall though, I think I did alright and hope I get a decent grade
Whether you support the losing candidate or not, its always sad to hear a concession speech. Even if you don’t agree with anything a losing presidential candidate stands for, the candidate is still a person that has devoted years of time and energy fighting for what he believes in. Romney truly believed that he could move America in the right direction and has spent the last year or so under all the stress and pressure that comes with the political spotlight. It is not easy being followed all times of every day, having every word recorded and knowing that the smallest misspoken phrase could potentially end or harm his career. It was a year of constant moving from place to place, endless speeches and no time for leisure. A year of hell like this would all be worth it to him in the end if he had won. But he didn’t. He lost and it seems like there may have been no point to all his hard work and dedication to his cause, whether you support it or not.
His concession speech was spoken by a man who was trying not to feel hopeless. The opening of his speech was, from what I could tell, not scripted at all. He started off by congratulating Obama and his family. Then he thanked his own family, and Paul Ryan, and all those who helped on his campaign. The second half of his speech was short, and scripted (I think). He spoke about the direction of the country, and how the American people didn’t choose his direction so now he, along with his supporters, have to support the president in his direction and pray it doesn’t go bad. Overall, it was a pretty blah speech with everything you’d expect and nothing spectacular. It just must be terrible to put so much effort and money into one thing and come up empty handed.