The Future of AT&T

CNN.com http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/11/19/att-looks-beyond-the-iphone/

Looking past the iPhone, is it possible already? AT&T thinks so; they are currently tearing apart the telecommunications industry, beating up everyone on the way. They are able to do so with the help of exclusive rights to the amazing iPhone. Since AT&T is the only telephone company that has the iPhone, their control of the distribution of the phone has given them a complete monopoly over the product. Although, all good things must come to an end, and that means that the exclusive rights only allow for three more years. This is all arranged between AT&T and Apple Inc. After the contract is up then all phone service providers will have the iPhone available with their company. Hence, AT&T is already researching and developing new ways to improve the technology that is on the market so they can stay ahead of the curve.

The scientists and engineers are working on a way to flip videos from your phone right into your flat screen television in your home. The process would work just as if you were flipping through or sliding through pictures on your iPhone. The software is in the works and they are now working on bringing it all together on a much larger scale.

These types of technological gadgets are always exciting and always create a buzz that stretches. I have never been up to date on the current hot items, but it is interesting to watch how far we have come. The intense competition drives companies to try and get ahead of the most recent hot item. Looks like Christmas presents for next year might be from AT&T!

Web Hoaxes

Well, after reading the article, “Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and other Spurious Information on the Internet,” it was very surprising to see some of the major network television stations included in this discussion of accusations. The accusations being stated were the misconceptions, lies, and distortions of information. This information varies from major events broadcasted on major networks such as ESPN or CNN to simple harmless stories of a deer and a vest. Although, the information that is being presented is coming from websites on the Internet that are not only misleading but dishonest. The validity of the information that is given off from these sites is not credible and not scholarly. There needs to be careful and close consideration in the evaluation process of these Hoax sites. These sites are created every day with no peer reviews or annual subscription needed to view. It does not take much to create a website, but it does take a long reviewed process to be published in a scholarly journal. Obviously, for your serious information one should consult the information in an accredited journal. On the other hand it is very easy and convenient to consult the Internet when needing quick reliable information. So, when using the Internet there should be some research done on who created the website and who posts the information on the site. These creators and writers should be evaluated by their credentials to determine if they are reliable. If we can stop using these hoax websites then maybe there will be less of them to choose from.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an online dictionary that is free to all Internet users. Wikipedia has been around since 2001 and was founded by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. Wikipedia is not your typical dictionary / encyclopedia. There are options for any user of the site to edit any information that is presented on the site. Therefore, many professors, teachers, and scholars do not allow their students to use this site or do research for school on this site. The information is available for anyone to edit, which discredits the site. Alexander M.C. Halavais, an assistant professor of communications at Quinnipiac College, decided to do an experiment on the Wikipedia website. Halavais, a scholar who one would think would not be questioned, posted an article containing several errors. Some of the errors were obvious and some seemed to be scholarly written and would possibly make it past a normal person’s judgment. Although, to Mr. Halavais surprise the editors of Wikipedia quickly caught on to the errors and they were corrected. Despite Halavais’ experiment and his conclusions of the credibility of the website, there are still doubters out there.
I think that the doubt from the scholars and academics comes from just the available access that the site has to anyone and that everyone can edit the information. On the other hand, I love Wikipedia and I use it almost as much as I use Google, but I should be reserved on how much I use it. I think eventually Wikipedia will gain enough confidence from the academics to be credible.