I found this TED talk about a new advance in the field of 3D printing to be both extremely interesting and very well delivered. Joseph DeSimone talks about how he and his colleagues have discovered a way to 3D print objects 25 – 100 times faster than traditional 3D printers. This is achieved by using controlled amounts of light and oxygen in order to constantly solidify liquid in the shape of the desired object. This has huge implications for society as 3D printing before this would take large amounts of time to print even the simplest objects. The speaker also talks about the impact of this improvement stating that it can revolutionize the manufacturing world.
One of the aspects that made the talk very effective was the speakers great variation of his tone of voice and his hand motions for emphasis. He takes his time to pause every once and a while during his sentences in order to give the audience time to comprehend what he is saying. It also helps to show the audience what is really important about his talk by the pacing that he uses. He also adds to this with his use of hand movements which are not too over the top, but are subtle enough to benefit his talk.
Another aspect of the talk that was very effective was the speakers use of demonstrations and media in order to help his audience better understand his topic. He prints a complex object on stage while he is talking and in the short ten minutes the object materializes before the audiences eyes. This and his many photos and animations give a visual means to better understand the topic. It also helps to back up his claim that this innovation will revolutionize the world.
I highly recommend watching the talk as it is truly amazing to see the progression of technology and to get a sense of the good that will come from it. I am glad that I found this talk as I was not aware of this innovation beforehand. I hope to use this talk and others that utilize similar effective means of communication in my TED talk in order to better convey my talk to my audience.
Joseph DeSimone: What if 3D printing was 100x faster?:
While trudging through the long and complex entity that is Raymond William’s Hegemony and Structures of Feeling I could not help but try to best understand it by comparing his ideas to past examples of paradigm shifts throughout history. The two that emerged most often in my mind was the shift towards equality of all races and the recent legalization of gay marriage.
In the case of equal treatment of all races, in primarily the United States, the shift came from an already existing notion. The Constitution defined all men to be equal, yet the shift did not occur over context but rather the interpretation. A still very residual and important notion emerged out of an already existing concept. This shift did not occur in a quick fashion but rather came to be overtime by the extensive dynamics of activists such as Martin Luther King Jr who changed the minds of many opposing citizens.
The very recent events of the legalization of same sex marriage on the other hand, seemed to finalize almost overnight. Of course support for the issue has been building over time, but it seems as if the legalization of it happened while no one was expecting it. Personally, when I first heard about it on Twitter I didn’t believe it was true because I hadn’t heard anything about an attempt to legalize it nationally. I feel as if the paradigm shift isn’t completely over yet, but is reaching its end as we must still address the issue of discrimination facing gay marriage.
Williams attempts to make it very clear that the process of a paradigm shift is a very active and constant being. It does not simply occur in its entirety overnight, but rather in a series of almost unseen steps. Often times what seems like a recent shift of the residual may in many cases only be a step in a larger shift in the future. This fluid nature is almost unseen in day to day life, however it may have significant underlying impacts on the future emergent.
This week I on my way to class I encountered a source of rhetoric and civic from a rather well known but despised source on campus. I am talking about the famous Willard Preacher who spouts out his ideologies for all to hear in front of the the Willard building.
Having a class in Willard, I encounter the preacher often but until recently I haven’t began to think in depth about his messages. Like most people I talk to I find that his ideologies are somewhat ludicrous and occasionally offensive. However, underlying rhetoric and civic life can be found if examined deeply enough.
I would have to say that the preacher’s attempt at using rhetorical persuasion is not very efficient as he often comes off as somewhat crazy. He occasionally offends people during his messages by stereotyping college students which diminishes his persuasive impact. Although his rhetoric is lacking, it provides a means to examine what good rhetoric entails.
As students walk by as he proclaims his ideas, they view him as an example of how not to present a rhetorical argument. They get a sense of what is effective and what is not through negative examples. Some students who are daring enough can even attempt to test their rhetorical skills by having a conversation with the preacher. He functions as a practically unavoidable dose of rhetoric.
The Willard preacher also promotes civic engagement by giving students a means to bring up topics of conversation. It is sometimes awkward to begin talking about religious and societal views to other people. Beginning with a short conversation about the Willard preacher provides a segway into meaningful civic discussions with others.
Although the Willard preacher can sometimes be extreme in his attempts to engage in ideological discussions, he is a good means to analyze and promote rhetoric and civic life. So next time you pass the preacher giving his usual talk about pre-marital sex try not to ignore it but rather look at is as additional exposure to RCL outside of the classroom.
I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off of my shoulders after presenting my civic artifact speech. I am not someone who usually gets very nervous during public speaking however I found this assignment very stressful. This is most likely due to it being my first college presentation and I really did not know what to expect. To be completely honest, before the speech I feel like I didn’t have much of a grasp on what the civic really is, but after countless hours of analysis and practice for my speech I feel as if I have a more clear understanding of the civic.
I thought that the elevator pitches were very beneficial and they really helped me not only to get feedback about my artifact and my speaking skills, but also to get a better sense of the assignment as a whole by listening to my classmates. The peer feedback helped guide my speech into a more well tuned and precise argument. Posting an outline on our RCL blogs last week also added to this and ensured that I did not procrastinate too much as I often do.
For my presentation as a whole I feel like I could have worked on my pacing a bit more as I felt like I might have spoke a little faster than when practicing on my own. I think that for my next speech I will try to better utilize my resources and most likely practice in the classroom beforehand in order to better prepare myself for the actual presentation. Overall I felt like the assignment wasn’t only beneficial to my understanding of the civic, but also honed my public speaking skills.