Thoughts and Stuff...

IText

In this article, I was struck by the commentary on meaning assignment. In studying rhetoric, we spend a lot of time discussing how the way we present a piece of writing can influence whether or not the work is successful. In the article, it was said that, "the new forms and functions of ITexts present new challenges to meaning-making." I had never before considered the idea that technology would alter the way in which we, as writers, assign meaning to our texts. 

Essentially, the entire concept of rhetoric has to be altered to apply to the newer, faster mediums in which writing is now being done. With little to no demographic control, writing has to become broader and more accessible in order to be more technologically friendly. How will this change the way that we write? I almost feel that something will be lost if the meaning of writing has to be altered to appeal to the greater reaches of audiences. 

Pencils to Pixels

It is so strange to consider a pencil as technology. When someone says technology my first thought is of iPads, laptops, and cell-phones. A pencil? A pencil is just something that I keep in the bottom of my backpack just in case my computer runs out of battery power. To think that something so simple could cause such an uproar is remarkable. It makes one really consider how every small advancement in our society was at one point revolutionary. 

It is interesting to consider the technology that we use on a daily basis, and think back to a time when it was revolutionary. Our class alone utilizes so many incredible advancements. Heck, I probably wouldn't have been able to spell the word "advancements" without the spell-check feature of this blog (that's a hypothetical example. Of course I can spel) 

This article made me wonder: What will the next revolutionary idea be? What will knock us off our feet the way the pencil once did?

History Now

I just recently had an friendly argument with my father regarding Wikipedia. He, like many of his generation as I have noticed, voiced a hesitation. He claimed that Wikipedia is unreliable, and cited a few examples where errors have not been corrected properly. I agreed with the point that errors are not fixed immediately, but made the point that the 

ability to connect people and utilize vast areas of knowledge is an incredible concept. 

We have talked a lot about the ability of technology to connect people. Wikis are a fantastic example of the possibilities. We can all connect and share our experiences and knowledge with others. There are some douche bags that give sites like Wikipedia a bad reputation, but, as a whole, I would say that the benefits outweigh the potential lunacy. 

There is simply a necessity to verify facts that are found on sites like these. But, then again, these days you should probably verify everything you read on the internet. For instance, I can tell you on this blog that the man that invented chloroform used it to kill himself in prison after after throwing sulfuric acid on prostitutes. Or, that Jagermeister was intended to be a cough syrup originally. You probably should verify that before you take my word for it. (Except I got those facts from Reddit and we all know that Reddit is always full of truth).