Many people take pictures, but people's use of pictures varies. Some put there pictures in photo albums for future generations and others put there's in magazines and newspapers for profit. Occasionally, someone will doctor a photo by cropping someone out, resizing, adding an object, or some other type of manipulation. Doctoring a photo is not problematic for anyone who does not intend to present the photo as a media or historical document.
After looking at many pictures that had been doctored, I chose one that was first edited in 1910. Click on the link to see: <http://news.cnet.com/2300-1026_3-6033210-20.html?tag=mncol>
This photo is an instance in which an extra addition is not harmful to anyone looking at the picture. The fish has obviously been enhanced to make it bigger and the man was clearly added to the photo. The photo first showed up in Ottawa, Kansas. The changes made to the photo are not harmful because the picture is of a postcard. Because it is a postcard, no benefit will come to the photo other than an interesting story. However, if the photo had been submitted to a newspaper and printed for showing the largest fish ever caught, then it would have been found as fraud and undergo disciplinary actions.
In this way, the manipulation of this photo is not harmful because it provides comical value and does not expect to be taken as absolute truth.
I chose this picture because of its aesthetic appeal and because my father once showed me a similar picture when I was a child and did not tell me that the situation didn't actually happen until I was 10 years old.
Well, that's it for now!
John Runge
jrunge@trinity.edu
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Using Search Engines for Research
Yesterday I learned some valuable information from Chris Nolan during his presentation to my Computer Skills class. Most notably, I learned the difference between the different kinds of web sites that exist (i.e. ".org", ".gov", ".edu", and ".co"). A ".org" website is a non-profit organization, a ".gov" website is run by the Federal Government, a ".edu" site is one that is sponsored by a school, typically higher education, and a ".co" website is a "commercial" website and can be connected to a foreign country (for example, ".co.uk" is a commercial website from the United Kingdom). A search can be limited to a certain type of website in Advanced Search options.
Something that surprised me from his presentation is that results from a Google Scholar search are in a general Google search, but have been selected because of their scholarly qualities. I wrongly assumed that the results from Google Scholar search were made available only through Google Scholar. Also, I was excited to hear that by typing in "define:" before a word in a search, Google will define the term for you.
Chris Nolan's presentation was both informative and interesting. I left class knowing much more about search engines than I would otherwise have the opportunity to learn.
Until next time,
John Runge
jrunge@trinity.edu
Something that surprised me from his presentation is that results from a Google Scholar search are in a general Google search, but have been selected because of their scholarly qualities. I wrongly assumed that the results from Google Scholar search were made available only through Google Scholar. Also, I was excited to hear that by typing in "define:" before a word in a search, Google will define the term for you.
Chris Nolan's presentation was both informative and interesting. I left class knowing much more about search engines than I would otherwise have the opportunity to learn.
Until next time,
John Runge
jrunge@trinity.edu
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Copyright
I'm back, and I'm fresh full of new information. When Jason Hardin came to talk to our class about the rules and regulations regarding copyrighting, I learned a lot. One thing he brought up that I find particularly interesting is the handling of "Orphan Works." These publications have no author, publisher, or copyright holder that can be located. Issues that arise include "Is it in Public Domain?" and "Who do I pay royalties to?" along with "What can I do about it?" Well, the publication in question may not be in Public Domain, but you do not have information supporting either side of the argument so one must assume that it is NOT a part of Public Domain. Furthermore, there really isn't anyone to pay royalties to since a copyright holder cannot be located. Therefore, the best way to handle the situation is to document your attempts at finding the copyright holder so that if there's a conflict, you can simply prove your steps through the process and would have contacted to correct copyright holder had the information been available.
One issue regarding copyrighting that is in serious debate is in movie clips and film pirating. Recently, the balance between a clip from a movie for a presentation versus mainstreaming a pirated form of a film has been changing. Friends send clips out via email and things constantly and no less use them in school presentations. But how often do they cite them? Is this lapse in proper citation and violation of copyright law as bad as pirating an entire movie? Well, no. And yes. No because the clip does not make money nore is it substantial (and also it might actually advertise the entire film). Yes, though, because the bigger issue is that any type of fraud is illegal and should be frowned upon. But where do you draw the line? When does a clip become too long to be considered dangerous? I think that regardless of length of clip, both forms of video use is a form of pirating. I do not support the abuse of bootlegging movies or collecting clips. Clips can turn into substantial parts of movies. To me, the line seems unclear, so don't go near it. Everyone has a different opinion, but I'll stick to mine.
Thanks again, keep in touch,
John Runge
jrunge@trinity.edu
One issue regarding copyrighting that is in serious debate is in movie clips and film pirating. Recently, the balance between a clip from a movie for a presentation versus mainstreaming a pirated form of a film has been changing. Friends send clips out via email and things constantly and no less use them in school presentations. But how often do they cite them? Is this lapse in proper citation and violation of copyright law as bad as pirating an entire movie? Well, no. And yes. No because the clip does not make money nore is it substantial (and also it might actually advertise the entire film). Yes, though, because the bigger issue is that any type of fraud is illegal and should be frowned upon. But where do you draw the line? When does a clip become too long to be considered dangerous? I think that regardless of length of clip, both forms of video use is a form of pirating. I do not support the abuse of bootlegging movies or collecting clips. Clips can turn into substantial parts of movies. To me, the line seems unclear, so don't go near it. Everyone has a different opinion, but I'll stick to mine.
Thanks again, keep in touch,
John Runge
jrunge@trinity.edu
Sunday, February 1, 2009
As the article "Facebook: A campus fad becomes a campus fact" from The Christian Science Monitor suggests, Facebook is everywhere. I use it. My suite mates use it. I've met people who have sworn never to sign up for it create one. The point is that it has become an important part of interactions between students and organizations. The article says that anyone not just Google or Yahoo would benefit from the purchase of Facebook because of the advertising possibilities. Not like it lacks ads now, but political parties of major advertising companies would benefit immensely from its use.
Facebook is a great way to casually interact with your peers, but it can be overbearing sometimes. It's a great procrastination tool and you could argue that it's addictive. I check mine daily but I have friends who check it every hour or use their phone to send the latest updates. It's crazy!
It has been great for organizing University events too. I learned about Concert for the Cure via Facebook and people create groups dedicated to going to sports activities. It should be regulated some, but you can already control your own security levels and can accept or deny a friend request from anyone you want.
There it is. I like Facebook, but don't want it to take over the world.
Link to the article:
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1213/p13s01-legn.html>
John Runge
jrunge@trinity.edu
Facebook is a great way to casually interact with your peers, but it can be overbearing sometimes. It's a great procrastination tool and you could argue that it's addictive. I check mine daily but I have friends who check it every hour or use their phone to send the latest updates. It's crazy!
It has been great for organizing University events too. I learned about Concert for the Cure via Facebook and people create groups dedicated to going to sports activities. It should be regulated some, but you can already control your own security levels and can accept or deny a friend request from anyone you want.
There it is. I like Facebook, but don't want it to take over the world.
Link to the article:
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1213/p13s01-legn.html>
John Runge
jrunge@trinity.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)