Just to get it out there.. this is a blog on copyrights. Are copyrights fair? Yes and no. Honestly, I believe that the copyright is a product of greed brought upon by capitalism, but that's just speaking in black and white. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need copyrights.. but then, in a perfect world we wouldn't need a lot of things.
Copyrights exist for the noble cause of protecting the copyrighted material's creator from idea theft. In this fashion, it makes perfect sense, but it must be seen that their only importance is in the financial world. That I believe is their flaw. Normally, the artist's purpose in creating a work is to share it. Why then this protection against sharing if not money?
Now artists deserve money just like anyone else, and no one should be able to take advantage of that. Where I see the failure in copyright is in uses that do not include money. I believe that as an artist, as soon as you create a physical work of art, you have decided to share it with the world.
So.. who knows? Do we need copyrights? Don't we? We probably do. It's right along the lines of don't steal cars and don't mug people.
Also... the time limit on a copyright makes no sense...
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
CLASS: Website Evaluation
So, in hunting the wide universe of the web in search of useful educational websites, one is sure to find a LOT of unuseable garbage. However, depending upon your individual strength in the art of search-fu, it is surprising to learn that the odds of landing an actually useful site are not that bad. I'd actually give it about even odds.
Something I learned pretty quickly is that is is much much easier to find useful and engaging sites for younger kids than it is once they become teenagers and beyond. In my humble opinion, it seems like half the sites forget about the idea of trying to actually be engaging at all, and are instead simply a list of facts and writing, and the other half forgo their usefulness to focus on being engaging.
I wanted to stay somewhere near my preferred age group in the site eval assignment (which is secondary ed), and was very discouraged by the bland sites that I found.
On the other hand, it was hard not to run into great sites for younger kids (Elementry and such).
I ended up with evals of JSTOR (which is great, but bland as stale toast), and Wikipedia (which is not so great, and a little less bland.. maybe like low sodium baked potato chips...).
About the eval form: I was actually discouraged to learn there was a character limit for the little comment window @ the bottom of the form. Thibbbt....
Something I learned pretty quickly is that is is much much easier to find useful and engaging sites for younger kids than it is once they become teenagers and beyond. In my humble opinion, it seems like half the sites forget about the idea of trying to actually be engaging at all, and are instead simply a list of facts and writing, and the other half forgo their usefulness to focus on being engaging.
I wanted to stay somewhere near my preferred age group in the site eval assignment (which is secondary ed), and was very discouraged by the bland sites that I found.
On the other hand, it was hard not to run into great sites for younger kids (Elementry and such).
I ended up with evals of JSTOR (which is great, but bland as stale toast), and Wikipedia (which is not so great, and a little less bland.. maybe like low sodium baked potato chips...).
About the eval form: I was actually discouraged to learn there was a character limit for the little comment window @ the bottom of the form. Thibbbt....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
