This article was really interesting and fun to read.  I had never thought about cell phone etiquette before.  Is this so called ‘etiquette’ really that important.  I guess some of the rules are appropriate, but are all of them?  Should we keep these things in mind when using our phone or just ignore them? 

In my opinon, cell phone etiquette is semi important.  There are a few things that are important to keep in mind such as lowering your voice in public ect.  Yet, for some reason it seems that the awarness level of things listed on the list are degrading.  Some of the things that jumped out at me the most were the things having to do with Facebook and picture tagging.  Lots of opinons of people are based on their Facebook pages and things that they post.

In the past I have heard a lot about cell phones having high radiation levels and causing brain cancer.  I’m not sure whether I believe that the radiation levels affect us or not..I have heard so many different things.  Unfortunately, I am leaning toward the truth side of all this research.  Even though we cannot be sure on what is really true, wouldn’t it be better to stick on the safe side of things?  My phone is #2 on the low radiation list, although its not the best phone and is semi irritating, it’s not horrible.  So, should we give the low radiation phones and try them to benefit our safety or take a chance and wait to see what happens?

Wow, this is an article that makes one think alot.  It’s somewhat sad to think that the next generation has converted to this.  It’s sad that kids no longer understand what a book is or what people did before there was technology.  It’s also sad to think that people barely ever talk on the phone or face to fact.  Technology has taken over.  First, this article seems to have mixed emotions.  On the first hand it’s saying that “…them the potential to be more creative than older generations..”.  Yet, other sayings and ideas in the article contradict that.  It’s hard to know what to believe.  In my opinon, the main point of the article is the fact that the younger generations react totally different to technology and life in general based on all the new products. This shows us how much change has taken place over the years. Overall, its an article that opens my eyes and show us in black and white what we can look foward to for years to come.  It may be dissapointing but it reality.  We have to execpt it.

I cannot imagine living without the internet.  A vast majority of my knowledge has come from the internet.  I use it all the time to find answers to questions, look at pictures, listen to music, do research, educate and read up on current events, read how to’s, and use social networking sites.  The internet helps me learn more about the world around me and it helps me understand certain concepts better.  Often times it is good for homework help.  I couldn’t imagine life without it.  I guess most people like me take it for granted and don’t seem to realize or care that other people who can’t afford it or don’t have service really don’t have any source of internet connection.  It seems amazing that someone like Kelli Fields doesn’t have high speed internet.  I mean her job consists of managing a website for a university.  How could people like her not have high speed internet?  It’s a very ironic thought to think something like that would ever be possible, but I guess it is.  I can only feel sorry for her kids who never have access to high speed internet for homework or to connect with their friends.  It must be pretty hard for them. Before reading this article I never really thought of the fact that not everyone had high speed internet.  This article has opened my eyes to a whole new world.

#4  I knew I was missing out on so mush, but I could not get over this fear.  How did Florence Pearson overcome her fear?

The way to overcome you fears is to confront them and get to understand them.  That’s exactly what Florence did.  She took computer classes in order to get comfortable with using computers.  These classes also helped her to understand how to work and use a computer effeciently.  After these classes, Florence realized that computers aren’t so bad after all.  It showed her that computers contain a vast amount of information and pretty much have the answer to everything.

#5  “The idea is to teach kids why they need the internet.”  Do kids need help with this?

In my opinion, kids don’t need help when trying to understand technology.  Kids have a better sense of understanding and learn quicklier than adults.  Most of the reason that younger kids have a better understanding of technology is because they grew up with it.  They automatically understand what is to be done.  Parents and older people don’t have the same understanding for technology but they have a comprehension for other things.  I think that kids are smarter than we give them credit for.  When you really listen to what they have to say they can be pretty smart.  I think that if you give kids a chance they will learn and adapt to anything because they learn much faster than older people.

Personally I thought that this article was poorly written and lacked flow between the paragraphs.  Ideas seemed to jump around from paragraph to paragraph.  I do not have a clear understanding of what the article is even about.  All I noticed were some recurring words like, tenth amendment center, firearms freedom, states rights,  and article six.  Even after looking at some of these words and reading the article I still can’t understand this article.  It really had no main point and talked about a variety of different things.  The sentence/paragraph that confused me the most was: Other scholars say the state efforts, if pursued in the courts, would face formidable roadblocks.  Article 6 of the Constitution says federal authority outranks state authority, and on that bedrock of federalist principle rests centuries of back and forth that states have mostly lost, notably the desegregation of schools in the 1950′s and 60′s. To me this whole paragraph  means nothing, it just appears as a jumble of words put together.  This article is just a bunch of mixed words compiled together to create a meaningless article.

#2 I think that people are challenging laws at the state level because they feel that there is a larger chance of getting the desired outcome.  Most people or groups fear that they may get trampled on by the federal government if they try to bring their case to them.  Therefore, they take it to the state level because it is not as intimidating.  The level of government that would most likely favor the local opinon would be the state government.  First, it is a smaller system which allows people to feel more confident in their case.  The federal government may n0t take a small citizen seriously.

#7 The federal government exists to manage things on a federal level. For instance, there are three branches of government in which the governing power of our country is dispersed.  Each branch specializes in a certain area.  There is the judicial, legislative, and executive branch.  Like I said earlier, these branches were created to disperse the power equally throughout the federal government.  Activities that take place on the federal level include supreme court cases, bills and laws, law enforcement, presidential decisions.  It is imperative that these jobs are executed correctly or there may be a problem.

As I think about this whole topic more it seems like raising ticket prices was a stupid thing for the movie theaters to do.  Even though there is high demand it seems like it not really worth it to see a movie in 3-D for about 3 or 4 dollars more. Sometimes 3-D is cool, but not all the time.  As I stated in my answers below, I said it is a good idea for charging more at theaters for tickets because the equipment and time cost a lot.  I still agree with that fact, but if the movie makes 1 or 2 billion then shouldn’t the costs be paid for?  At the moment I am confused on this topic, I could go both ways and think of both sides.

#1 Why are movie prices about to increase?  Would you pay the higher price to see a 3-D movie?

Movie prices are increasing because of the need for 3-D.  According to the article, “…consumers are “hungry” for 3-D content and are willing to pay more for an enhanced movie-going experience.”  I’m guessing that this new technology costs a lot more than it used to.  Although I am no movie expert I can make a hypothesis that the price of technology and equipment increase when 3-D movies are released.  The part that puzzles me is the cost of regular 2-D movies.  Of course, like in every industry prices occasionly rise in order to keep up with the demand and to deal with competition.  Yet, I don’t understand why the price increase for 2-D movies has will go up about 4%.

It is somewhat difficult to determine if I would pay a higher price for a 3-D movie.  I am not big on paying about $4 more to see a movie in 3-D that I could see in 2-D, but there are always rare occasions.  Now, it is a different story if the movie only comes in 3-D and I have been dying to see it, of course I would pay the extra money.  So to some it up, I would have to answer “yes” to the second part of the question. Yes I would pay extra to see a movie in 3-D.

#2 Are the price increases reasonable due to the popular demand of 3-D movies?  Why or why-not?

I would like to say no, but then I would have to think about the workers in the movie industry and those who work to produce and edit the movie. So my answer is kind of in the middle.  As the buyer it is unreasonable because as a general public all we think about is…”why do the movies cost soo much?”  we don’t always look at the other side of the story.  As for the “other side” of the story, I can see how it would be totally reasonable to change the price for a 3-D movie.  There are a ton  of costs that factor in to making a movie, especially in 3-D.  As I read more of the question I see that it asks about popular demand.  I’m don’t quite understand everything about the economy but from what I know, when the demand goes up  so does the price. So therefore, the movie tickets should act the same way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/us/09plane.html?hp

Wow, this article blew me away.  Ever since I was about 3 months old I have been flying on ariplanes all around the US and Europe.  By about this point in my life I have pretty much memorized the recording of the airplane procedures.  “…Smoking is prohibited in the labatories…” why would someone even think of breaking a rule as serious as this one?  Is it not obvious that you will be caught and everyone will freak out.  Is it really worth it?  On top of all that Mr. Mohammed just had to mouth off to the attendants.  To me Mohammed Al-Madadi made a really stupid mistake, for the longest time people have been concerned about terrorists and all the attempts they have made to blow up airplanes.  Al-Madadi has just put himself in a very ackward spot, he is probaly being accused of being a terrorist and he had to go through series of questioning.   Aside from smoking in the bathroom, Al-Madadi made sarcastic remarks toward the marshalls that were on the plane.  Although he was probaly very upset with them he shouldn’t have made such a remark, he just dug himself a deeper hole.  Like I said before, this article blew me away, it funny to think that someone would do something so stupid and expect not to get caught or think that they could just get away with it.  Is the pre-flight warning not enough to get the message across?

From what I have read idealism is based on opinon and thoughts of one’s own.  Whereas realism is based on the “facts”.   Sometimes the use of idealism may be a bad thing.  People may get to opinonated or narrow minded.  Idealism may also limit opinons that could be brought to the table.  Realism is probaly more effective when trying to collaborate helpful ideas for a project or planning.  Realism states the facts and what needs to be done, it gives a clear picture of what it needed.  Facts are an important factor.  Think of a rubric; rubrics tell what is needed in order to do a complete job.  These two ideas are used in everyday life, no matter what the job is.  Although we cannot always determine how those around us will act in response to these two topics, it is important to be familiar with them.