Daycare kids annoying? Use the TV to distract them!

Is it bad that we have to use TV to preoccupy the kids when the parents are away taking care of business at work?

Article Link -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/28/daycare.children.tv/index.html

Most of us would say yes, but in truth, we don't really care that it's happening.

So what makes it so different then if we're dropping these kids at a daycare center versus leaving them at home to stair at the boob-tube?

Not a whole lot, really.

New research published in the December issue of the journal Pediatrics found that kids in child care settings could be watching as much as 2.4 hours of television on an average day.

What does that mean to the typical family? Not a good sign as far as personally interacting with children this generation.

"They really want to believe that they leave their children there, it's preparing them for school, it's a stimulating, enriching environment. And I don't know that they're aware that in fact, a lot of time is spent watching TV."

Meaning, kids aren't learning the basic values and responsibilities of society. We're letting television teach preschoolers what is right and wrong, good and bad, and even how to deal with the opposite sex!

And we wonder why kids even at the age of 12-16 are already have sex? It may very well be true.

Let's face it, television shows desensitize us from everything. Has anyone every noticed how Nickelodeon shows are now mostly about the teenage life? It used to show cartoons, things we laughed at, with no strings attached (comical kid humor)! Regardless that's not the issue at hand; the concern lies at how much time these toddlers/preschoolers/children are being exposed to television... Hours at a time.

In relation to the time spent, how much time is used in productive activities? Socializing with other kids or playing with educational games that would promote the use of logic and so forth.

"In terms of rapid brain development, TV is a relatively impoverished environment for stimulating optimal brain development," said Dr. Michael Rich, a pediatrician and director of Center on Media and Child Health at the Children's Hospital Boston, who is not associated with the latest study. "The kids are never forced to stimulate or use their own imaginations. They're used to pre-processed fictional worlds. They often don't develop the habit of imaginary play."

Especially at such a young age, we want kids to encourage the use of imaginary play, promoting creativity. By being predisposed to these 'fictional-worlds', kids are less likely to use a viable, practical approach to certain situations that would come up in every day life. Some people who work at day care centers even claimed to promote the use of televisions, thinking it would be a good tool for educational and entertaining purposes.

"We as a culture still believe that TV time is benign, that it's OK,"

When, we know it's NOT. All we're doing with these children is drowning their minds in impractical scenarios of a social situation. When was the last time we ever had a monkey companion that spoke Spanish that guides you through adventures?

While children could be watching educational programs like "Sesame Street," pediatricians say TV viewing takes time away from more critical and interactive abilities that are more conducive to development.

Conducive, such as a dad teaching his son how to apply logical thinking to something, or even teaching these children positive habits through reinforcements of rewards. Developmental stages are a key factor in how children will become in their later years... Do we want our children to be taught by a piece of electronic equipment about how harsh reality can be? Most likely, no.

We also have to worry about kids staying home, becoming fat from the lack of physical activity, and even the possibility of underdeveloped social skills.

Further reports also claimed that there's going to be an environmental difference between a home-based daycare and a central program-based daycare. With finance being an issue, the lack of staff members to take cares of these kids becomes a concern (specially in home-based day care centers), leading to the assumption that TV can keep them preoccupied while 'teaching' them certain aspects of culture, life, family, and so forth.

Simple solution(s) that we can further emphasize on:

• - Limit times specifically with television exposure.
• - Promote interaction with other kids rather than looking at the whole situation as an inconvenience.
• - Calculate expenditures of these daycares and redistribute the finances to where it needs to be, especially child development.
• - Notify parents about the lack of relationship development and parenting itself.

Even if I just skimmed the top of the issue, it most likely has been brought-up many times as a growing concern.

(Look at internet addiction, gaming addiction, family values, etc).

With that being said, children of the later generation are going to become mindless zombies if we keep this up. Authorities and specially parents need to focus as to what crap is being spoon-fed to your child in these daycare centers. For all we know, if could be pornography!

(Zombie-apocalypse coming to a neighborhood near you)? Picture relevant.

Hard drives... These are ancient!!

... According to Google anyways, and their ability to step it up a notch for us hardcore computer enthusiast . Or geeks, whichever you prefer to call us!

(Remember, we fix your computers when it breaks)!

In the spirit of this technology/internet/computer theme I've seem to be on right now:

Article Link -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/20/google.os/index.html

Regardless of being a computer-wiz or not, we're all familiar with the boot sequence of Windows, Mac, Ubuntu, etc. It takes quite some time for the operating system to load up, and even worse if you have a low-end computer system. It's just how it is:

Good computer parts, good performance.

Crappier computer parts, crap performance.

But what if you can get away from the physicality of hardware? And focus on the... software/digital part of the computer.

With a strong focus on speed, the Chrome OS promises nearly instant boot times of about 7 seconds for users to login to their computers.

Versus my desktop computer, which boots at a typical 20 second cycle. Time is always of the essence! But it's not just the speed we're talking about here. Creators of Chrome OS focuses on the functionality, innovation, adaptive capabilities, and more.

Chrome OS netbooks will not have traditional hard disk drives -- they will rely on non-volatile flash memory and Internet-based storage for saving all of your data.

Non-volatile? Internet-based storage? What does this all mean for some of us average to below-average users? It means no more random crashes that would result in you losing your important files and documents~! Regardless of how far we've come to inventing a computer OS, we're still plagued by the countless errors, hardware breakdowns, and viruses. The push for a software-based oriented data-file storages. We don't have to really manage our own messy data-crap anymore.

All the applications will be web-based, meaning users won't have to install apps, manage updates or even backup their data. All data will be stored in the cloud, and users won't even have to bother with anti-virus software: Google claims it will monitor code to prevent malicious activity in Chrome OS web apps.

Huzzah! Viruses and Microsoft Windows seems to have this inevitable destiny to exist together... But somehow, the Mac OSX seems to do just fine being 100% virus-free! Chrome OS by Google will certainly push for probably one of the more innovative advances in technology at this turn of the century. What's interesting about the coding of Chrome OS is its based off Linux, one of the 'better-yet-complex' operating systems.

The OS's focus on design is consistent with the company's stance that the future is in the web. In July, Vic Gundotra, Google's engineering vice president and developer evangelist, spoke on a panel about app stores, in which he said native apps (such as those available for the iPhone) would be obsolete in the future, and that the Web will "become the platform that matters."

Focus on the internet, not on Blue Screens of death, or having to deal with your physical hard drive taking a dump and losing your precious tax return information or whatever. And making the iPhone obsolete?! Yes! I'm tired of all the hype that thing gets!

So anyways, in a sense, one of their potential achievements would be that our focus is at the task at hand and not the everyday worries of a piece of hardware not being so reliant. So maybe... the Web will become the primary focus of the future.

....

Even though I've been somewhat praising this. Let's wonder about the potential problems:

• - The encoding for the Chrome OS is going to be presented to the public to be looked at, and to help coders develop 3rd party apps. Wouldn't that allow some of the hackers to produce malacious coding that could attack the system? And more so the invisible 'hard drive' where all of a user's data is going to be stored?
• - With the issue of Law Vs. Web (As stated in my last blog), is there going to be an issue with the infringement of our privacy rights? Even though we get this sense of safety/security from the internet, we also have to deal with modern day 'phone-taps' and the possible chance of the government sneaking around in the back doors looking at our personal profiles, finances, contacts, and etc.
• - As we push and push for technological advancements, the simplicity of which the Chrome OS was built off will become complex, how will we adapt to the change in regards to maintenance, security, and mainly user-friendly capabilities?

Just a few thoughts I (and maybe other people), will have. Even though the Chrome OS is still at its early stages, it already has appealed to many people. So the only thing we can really do is anticipate it's global launch to the public to truly test run the tech.

Tech-based... Crime? and all its hoopla!

Article Link -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/17/law.technology/index.html

The article is part of a bigger series -- http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/living.technology/index.html

Yes, we know. We're just all dying to stick our heads in front of some kind of electronic device.

(Refer to last blog about 'Internet Addiction' as well).

With the internet being so abundant and commonplace in the 21st century, it's just not difficult AT ALL to join the bandwagon - with just a few steps... You too, can be part of a online social network.

Hell, I'm part of... 4 different social networks (does that seem too many)? However, it's really a fantastic ability to conversate with friends thousands of miles away who you haven't seen in days, weeks, months, or even years!

Also, we can pretty much type/search/blog/photobomb... Do whatever we freakin' want!!

• -- Upload a picture of a drunken friend... (Who we duct-taped to a tree).
• -- Troll /b/ of a certain image board... (Ahem).
• -- Even, tell everyone the whole damn world you're about to go the restroom to pee. (TMI).

Hey. It is, how it is.

Of course we have the traditional other things, like use it to e-mail friends, use it for businesses, etc.

But when is enough, enough? Or going too far? What is considered 'out-of-context' or 'offensive'? Because a LOT of things ARE considered offensive, yet we manage to avoid those, don't we?.. Do we need laws to govern that can stretch even to our digital lives?

Because let's realize, that it's starting to look that way... As an example of an excerpt from the article:

In a case that would have been impossible even five years ago, bad-girl rocker Courtney Love is being sued for libel by a fashion designer for allegedly slamming the woman on Twitter.

Wow Really? Never in my life have I ever heard libel to occur based on a tweet. At all. Which goes back to the issue of laws governing our actions on the internet. Because does this impede in our right of speech? To be sued for what we say on a Facebook/Myspace status, or what we blog about? I for one disagree (to an extent) - because I believe there's always a median as to how, we as a society, can resolve issues.

Fundamental schism: Is the Web a unique, separate space or is it really an extension of real space?

One of the main problems as to why the law can't seem to converge with the rapid evolution of technology (in this case, they talked about the world wide web). Andrea Matwyshyn, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, who does indepth studies of the relation between law and technology, stated that:

"Generally, it is at least five years behind technology as it is developing..."

I can see why... Seeing as our lawmakers and our congressmen tend to argue about what they had to breakfast and how it's better than the opposing parties' breakfast bagel. (Trust me, it probably happens). With that being said, we, the public and the authorities can't apply hypothetical situations of real life to something on the internet. Here's an example from the article:

... But think of it this way: When a person dies, a house, property or car owned by that person can be passed on, relatively easily, to a family member or an identified heir.

But what about online property like account profiles, passwords and digital content?

When you deal with something intangible and abstract... It's really going to be troublesome to find a resolution. For instance, how do you deal with multi-nation dilemmas? These issues need to be sorted out and dealt with in the near future before it comes up as a major problem.

...

If someone were to take an axe and get to the core of the problem, the problem lies within our conceptualization of how privacy should be attached to what ever is necessary, without infringing our rights of privacy and our self-sense of anonymity; personal information, files, finances, and so forth. But, technology and the World Wide Web specifically has a sense of paradoxical ideal that seems to be a recurring:

No matter how you look at it.

We, as individuals, relay information towards the public regardless... Without thinking.

Take a look at Myspace for example. With bulletins as one of their primary widgets that allows us to post events, minute-by-minute statuses, and so forth. You see all these teenagers filling out 'surveys' (which isn't a survey if it doesn't have any scientific or beneficial value to someone). These 'surveys' are full of personal questions that we probably wouldn't even consider answering if told to us in person... Yet, here are some people telling people what they had for breakfast and what color underwear they are wearing. Do we care what object is closest to me? Hell no.

If you're wondering, yes I would find the person making the Myspace surveys and stab them in the eye with a rusty spoon.

The technology is there, but we SURE ARE using it for the most stupid reasons.

On another note, If it's one thing of how the Internet changes us...

It would have to be our personal sense of self-respect and rationality.

We can offend and make fun of someone easily because we have no physical or emotional attachments on the internet. Until it happens to us, then we tend to go apeshit because someone spammed our instant messenger with a trillion smilies that spelled out to 'go f**k yourself'.

Or how people can look at pornography and realize that real men/women exist out there.

"There's an increasing breakdown of the traditional social boundaries between workplace and homelife, and personal and public information," Matwyshyn said. "It's a time of cultural shift and this is going to take a while to stabilize itself and shake out."

Oh and another excellent summary of the situation that describes a forthcoming social problem (I think):

Thanks to the Internet, it's now relatively easy to find the value of a person's home or the extent of their political contributions. Meanwhile, people use social media applications like Flickr or Twitter to share personal details with the world.

The result is a blurring of the lines between what ought to be considered private and public.

So what should we really aspire to? A world without anonymity? Moderate the internet through federal laws? Impede in our rights of privacy? Who knows. We use technology as a media outlet with loosely defined rules that would contravene our rights. It's going to be a difficult task for our laws to catch up to the evolution of technology, and even more so with how the 'higher-ups' handling the overall situation in regards with technological social/culture relations.

With that being said, The internet is srs bzns (serious business).

Picture relevant.

Intertubez Addiction!!!1!1!111

Article link -- http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/09/advisor-am-i-an-inte.html

When is enough, enough? And when is the overuse/excessive use of something considered an addiction?

One of the one many questions one would consider when we talk about the Internet.

Consider the accessibility of it.

Worldwide, it's easy to say that there's atleast 300,000,000 (million) internet users. 2009 Population is estimated to be at almost 7,000,000,000 (billion).

The article focuses on how 'internet addiction' has become one of the main concerns of the public. With people hiding in the comfort of their study rooms, bedrooms, beds, bathrooms, etc. Spending endless hours at a time - it's easily a worry for families if they have a child or other family member dwelling in the bowels of their computer room.

Let's relate it to gambling or sex addiction though...

Those two vs. the concepts of internet addiction differentiate through the use or trade of something that can be intangible. Or so I think.

The compulsion to be online all the time is slightly different than more conventional addictions like alcoholism and prescription drugs, says Dr. Kimberly Young, a clinical psychologist who runs the web site NetAddiction.com. "It's not quantitative," she says. "It's not like you can measure how much they're drinking."

Which is true, there's no money wasted here, or pleasure given (well, actually, maybe). But there definitely is sense of time lose and interruption of one's personal daily routines when 'abused'. Because personally, I spend hours at a time on the internet when I sit on front of the computer screen... Just a few things I jotted down of what I've done within the past 30 minutes:

• E-Mail
• Social Networking
• Read News Online [amazing right?]
• Design Projects
• Blog
• Download Music

We do, however, confront the argument of what can be considered productive and unproductive. I mean, when you compare those I just listed to, say... Cleaning your bedroom, or doing homework (which can be done on your computer, iknorite?!). The internet just makes things readily accessible to please our needs, it's very easy to get hooked on it. Convenience makes the internet an addicting piece of technology.

• Checking the weather
• Reading the news
• Calculating numbers
• Business management with programs (Excel, Word, etc).
• Planning trips
• Talk with friends

Newspapers, calculator, typewrite, telephone, ALL done without one piece of box. I reiterate, convenience.

One of the key differences from people to people is moderation and tolerance. As the article states, it becomes a problem when it interferes with your personal and social life. When one lacks the moderation, this can lead to more serious problems, like chaining into another addiction. With the bombardment of information within the click on one button (whether that information is good, bad, useful, or useless, we're always intrigue as to what we find on internet).

the accessibility of the Internet has also spawned a new population of addicts. "A lot of patients describe situations like this: 'I never thought about porn but then I found it online, and the more I found the more I wanted it,'..."

Which is probably going to be worse if it's a children who's never had any experiences with this sort of content. There's no regulation as to what we see on our monitors and even then, certain filters to avoid mature and hardcore content is easily done with a few clicks here and there.

We DO have 3rd party software that helps regulate computer usage in general, which limits as to what you set as priorities on your computer time and overall, what you do on the internet. (Amazing, I know, these things exist).

Microsoft has already had this function set on their operating systems to control the content as to what can be done and be accessed on the computer. Microsoft Windows 7 improved in their parental control feature by adding time slots as to when the computer will be inactive and inactive. At the end of the scheduled time shifts, the computer is forced to shut down and lock anyone out if they decide to restart the computer and try to access via password. (Pretty nifty I think).

And most internet browsers are set to have similar functions... This includes the presented time limiter.

Simply put - you regulate the source, you regulate everything else pertaining to the source.

Of course, we have them fancy 3rd party softwares that offer quirks Microsoft doesn't cover... But why do parents or people not take the time to use these programs to inhibit the excessive use of the web (and computer)? We go back to the problem of convenience. We as humans, like to strive for balance and harmony, but we do it in a very half-assed way. It's just how we are.

Internet Addiction Test -- http://www.netaddiction.com/index.php?option=com_bfquiz&view=onepage&catid=46&Itemid=106

Determine if you're an addict or not! Though it's hard to determine one's self as an 'internet addict'.

And Remember:

Are you getting in trouble at work? Is your partner leaving you? Are you forgetting to shower, eat, and pee? If so, you might want to consider getting help.

Honestly, if you forget these biological instincts - you're just... Yeah. That's just bad.

H1N1 and all of its hoopla? Vaccine shortage? Oh noes!

So the problem with the H1N1 flu strain has been running rampart for quite some time, and most would assume that the proper authorities are taking the most efficient and productive method to control and quarantine this virus...

But are we really to the point where we can truly feel safe? Or is there a reason for concern... Such as, a shortage of flu vaccines? Yeah, we should be.

Article Link -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/23/h1n1.vaccines/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

We Texans already know what actions are already been taken to handle this flu nonsense in order to maintain the integrity of the general public's health. For instance, survey's are used on the official TCCD website to determine where the source of the swine flu outbreak is taking place (well whichever campus)...

Some of us remembered reading The Collegian (uh some of us, not all of us) advising us to look for elsewhere for vaccinations...

Surely a sign to explain that we probably on a verge of a shortage of vaccine for this wintry season. I'd like to think I'm doing pretty well off not having taken the shot yet, but let's say for those who aren't in a satisfactory health condition, this is something they really need...

But it sure does seem difficult for a Los Angeles family of 4.

"I feel that the government and health officials, they knew this was big when it first started, they know the size of our population before it started, and they didn't make leaps and bounds to make sure it was available to everyone when they would need it,"

I would say that's a sound argument. The government / health bureaus could definitely do a more efficient job of catering the public for their needs.

It's easy to remember that the government is suppose to protect the public's well-being. We voted all those officials to represent our nation and to maintain it, so we deserve at least things such as an ample amount of vaccination for a virus... Cater to the base, and help those in need.

"It shouldn't be a supply-and-demand thing."

Exactly! We should know for a fact that situations like this can't be labeled as simple as 'supply-and-demand' - people with power should do whatever they can to help the needy.

That's like saying the Hurricane Katrina aftermath shouldn't be a pause for concern until this X amount of damage caused to the city of New Orleans. It shouldn't be like that, The welfare of our nation's people shouldn't be a business or a system of economics, but based on the morality of man.

Help because we can help, not because it can make us millions of dollars because 'WE HAVE THE CURE!'.

The Centers for Disease Control and Preventionannounced last week that production of the vaccine is slower than expected. While the CDC had hoped for 40 million doses by the end of October, the real numbers will be about 30 million doses because of manufacturing delays, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, CDC's director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

I thought we have the ability and the technology to overcome problems such as this? Maybe I just have this natural distaste for bureaucracy.

Now that isn't to say that we should completely put the entire blame on our health departments and officials, maybe it really is just a natural occurrence that when we have an 'epidemic' such as this, supplies tend to run short in a matter of months as everyone becomes very self-aware of the situation regarding the flu and its dangerous effects on our health if untreated.

Priority groups for the vaccine include pregnant women, caregivers and household contacts of children younger than 6 months, people between the ages of 6 months and 24 years, and anyone ages 25 to 64 with existing health problems. Health care and emergency medical services personnel in contact with high-risk patients, or patients with flu-like illness, are also on the list.

That's actually a pretty well-made decision as to taking steps in providing a cure for those who should be given priority. Yes, I know everyone else would be frustrated with how the system is being handled, but that's probably just a sense of selfishness that we all have inside of us.

Some of other greater concern that seem to have stemmed from this is the occurrence of a dreadful 1-in-a-millionth side effect called 'Dystonia'.

Cheerleader developing Dystonia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGT0r-udstQ

Other reference:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2009/06/10/dystonia.tyler.staab.cnn?iref=videosearch

Dystonia is a rare occurrence - but when it happens, it's cause by a severe reaction of the body to the flu vaccine that causes neurological damage (more or less noticeable through uncontrollable muscle spams).

(Watch the videos, it's truly saddening to see this happen to people who wanted to take a simple vaccination for their health).

However, this shouldn't really keep us from taking the actual vaccine (as stated, it's a very very rare chance for the side effects to happen to someone).

Baby on board? Or under?

Article link -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/16/australia.baby.train.escape/index.html#cnnSTCText

Okay, first off - I have no hate for Australia or the Aussies, it JUST so happens that the past few articles I find intriguing or surprising to be there.

We love your kangaroos and koalas. No lie.

Quick Summary --

- Normal mom with baby strolling around train/tram station

- Mom becomes inattentive for couple of seconds while mingling with friends.

- Stroller inches towards tracks.

- Stroller falls into tracks.

- Subway comes in to make the stop.

- Baby dragged 30-33 feet... And fortunately, SURVIVES! [Yeah you sickos, no dead baby for you].

They actually have surveillance footage of the whole incident within attached linked at the top. At first, I was pretty shocked as to what had I just witnessed, but it was amazing enough the baby survived the whole incident and came off with just a minor cut to the forehead.

Of course the mom was distraught, I would be to witnessing such a terrible event.

Channel 7 said the incident came just a day after the launch of a public awareness campaign warning of the dangers of strollers on platforms.

I think the problem with community awareness these days is pretty simple - we, as normal people, are drowned with everyday hassles of real life and whatnot - that honestly, some of us don't even have time to be aware of news, current events, movements, programs, etc.

Certain situations just tend to affect our lifestyles and routines. So it wouldn't be surprising that the mother would had catch something such as the awareness campaign warning of dangers of strollers on platforms. Sure, she definitely is part of the target audience, but mothers are really out-of-tune with such things based on the fact that:

1. Worried about everything else in relation to the baby, toddler, child.
2. Assume that the situation will never happen to them.

Maybe, even a contributing factor on the mother's lack of knowledge or awareness of a potential situation could stem from the heavily saturation and disorganization of mass media. Bombardment of commercials and unwanted ads that have no relation to us WOULD put anyone off from watching television.

And news nowadays seem to have this weird tendency to focus on things that... Just doesn't seem as important. This article isn't even 1 full page long, and personally such incidents shouldn't be taken lightly and should be a public concern! But then of course, we're all worried about Kanye West barging in into our house while taking a shower interrupting our relaxation by proclaiming Beyonce had the best shower of all time...

Or something to that matter.

In other words, we're worried about everything else irrelevant to our safety, it's kinda affecting our livelyhood and family morals/values.

[Modernistic muckracking via technology?! Oh noes!]

So anyways!

The article and the news footage did report that the mother wasn't at fault here, and I do agree with that.

But seeing as such awareness campaign does exist, it's safe to assume that this is becoming a problematic situations in regards to all public transportation that rely on trains...

Hopefully, in the future, innovative solutions are made in order to provide a safer environment for any family in general, because for all we know, this exact situation can happen to the elderly, or disabled.

So... Please, think about the children.

And kittens. Everyone loves kittens.