Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Reading Response 3
Robert Ebert takes a little time out of his day to discuss why Star Wars was so popular with him and the general population. In his article “Star Wars”, he talks about some of the major reasons why it was so endearing, not just because it had all these new special effects of the time. Ebert explains “like The Birth of a Nation and Citizen Kane, Star Wars was a technical watershed that influenced many of the movies that came after.” Ebert explains many other movies have tried to mimic the big budget, big production type of movie Star Wars was. Some of these movies included Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, and The Matrix.
Ebert attributes the success of Star Wars to “combined a new generation of special effects with the high energy action picture; it linked space opera and soap opera, fairy tales and legend and packaged them as a wild visual ride.” Some of the things that were never done before was the panning of outer space. All previous movies just used a still shot. It also was able to use the jump into hyperspace by blurring the stars to make it seem as if you were yourself making the jump as well, like you were in the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon with them.
The question was posed that how does the mixing of the old and new, familiar and futuristic help make Star Wars so effective. I believe that this was so effective that it didn’t make it so far-fetched that no one could believe it. Only in a few scenes were in there where you were bombarded with onscreen visuals that were so “alien”. Most notably of course is the Mos Eisley cantina scene. I know this is a movie trilogy that I really loved, and even as I watched it as a little kid, I felt drawn to it. Even though there were other, more advanced movies out at the time, something about it. The storyline was compelling, it had characters that were flawed, down to Earth. They weren’t the perfect people I saw in the Disney movies, the hero always got the girl. It was my first “grown-up” movie, and to this day I still watch it. It wasn’t over the top, but it combined just enough magic, just enough to stretch the imagination of the mind, and fully immerse them in a story that was complex, and later on in the series, so many great twists and turns that it sucked you in and wouldn’t let go.
Ebert attributes the success of Star Wars to “combined a new generation of special effects with the high energy action picture; it linked space opera and soap opera, fairy tales and legend and packaged them as a wild visual ride.” Some of the things that were never done before was the panning of outer space. All previous movies just used a still shot. It also was able to use the jump into hyperspace by blurring the stars to make it seem as if you were yourself making the jump as well, like you were in the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon with them.
The question was posed that how does the mixing of the old and new, familiar and futuristic help make Star Wars so effective. I believe that this was so effective that it didn’t make it so far-fetched that no one could believe it. Only in a few scenes were in there where you were bombarded with onscreen visuals that were so “alien”. Most notably of course is the Mos Eisley cantina scene. I know this is a movie trilogy that I really loved, and even as I watched it as a little kid, I felt drawn to it. Even though there were other, more advanced movies out at the time, something about it. The storyline was compelling, it had characters that were flawed, down to Earth. They weren’t the perfect people I saw in the Disney movies, the hero always got the girl. It was my first “grown-up” movie, and to this day I still watch it. It wasn’t over the top, but it combined just enough magic, just enough to stretch the imagination of the mind, and fully immerse them in a story that was complex, and later on in the series, so many great twists and turns that it sucked you in and wouldn’t let go.
Reading Response 2
Will Wright, one of the video game world’s most respected game developers takes time to write the article “Dream Machines”. In the article he discusses how video games are viewed in society, and how he feels they are much greater tools for the human imagination, and even child development. Wright states that video games are “a rapid cycle of hypothesis, experiment, and analysis.” Wright looks at how children and teenagers now go about problem solving differently than any other previous generation. It stated that previous generations went ahead with problem solving, especially in games, in a linear fashion. This is different than the current generation, that when they get a new game to play, they skip over reading the instruction manual, and start an assault on the controller, mashing buttons, quickly figuring out what each button does or does not do. Wright continues to go on to say “This isn’t a random process; it’s the essence of the scientific method.”
Differently than movies, which do not provide the “what ifs” in a story life, video games allow for user interactivity, and as the games get more advanced, even more interactivity. For example, in a movie, there is only one plotline, only one way the characters are portrayed, and one ending (minus some that come out on DVD with an “alternate-never –before-seen-ending.”) In one of the newer games released for the Xbox 360, Fable II, you create the character you portray, editing even the smallest details about them . For true interactivity, the plotlines can completely change from a story of “good” to a story of “evil” based upon choices (moral and routine) throughout the game. If you decide to try and steal from a shopkeeper in the game, you slowly go down the evil path. If you decide to return the priceless ring to the lady who lost it, you go down the path of the holy. They even have some choices in the game that make you choose between the lesser of two evils.
In essence, this opens up the world of imagination that Wright describes, when making such open ended games such as SimCity and The Sims. Games are no longer like Pong was originally, but are around to truly to explore the realms of possibility, especially in children. As the human mind evolves from child to teenager, the more games are available to play. Higher thinking, exploring, and imagining are opened up to us from that point. As Wright closes his article, he says “games are evolving to entertain, educate, and engage us individually.” How true this is. If you don’t believe Wright, pick up a copy of The Sims or Fable II, and see how engaged you become in it.
Differently than movies, which do not provide the “what ifs” in a story life, video games allow for user interactivity, and as the games get more advanced, even more interactivity. For example, in a movie, there is only one plotline, only one way the characters are portrayed, and one ending (minus some that come out on DVD with an “alternate-never –before-seen-ending.”) In one of the newer games released for the Xbox 360, Fable II, you create the character you portray, editing even the smallest details about them . For true interactivity, the plotlines can completely change from a story of “good” to a story of “evil” based upon choices (moral and routine) throughout the game. If you decide to try and steal from a shopkeeper in the game, you slowly go down the evil path. If you decide to return the priceless ring to the lady who lost it, you go down the path of the holy. They even have some choices in the game that make you choose between the lesser of two evils.
In essence, this opens up the world of imagination that Wright describes, when making such open ended games such as SimCity and The Sims. Games are no longer like Pong was originally, but are around to truly to explore the realms of possibility, especially in children. As the human mind evolves from child to teenager, the more games are available to play. Higher thinking, exploring, and imagining are opened up to us from that point. As Wright closes his article, he says “games are evolving to entertain, educate, and engage us individually.” How true this is. If you don’t believe Wright, pick up a copy of The Sims or Fable II, and see how engaged you become in it.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Academic Articles Summary
With having a major in finance, I looked at three big journals in the finance sector. The Financial Review, Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, and The Journal of Finance. Even though all three had to do with the finance sector, the articles had to deal with mainly different topics, with a few similarities running through them. In the Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis (JFQA), had to deal a little more on the math portion behind finance, the big equations to finding out different gains, the impact outside forces had upon the market and so forth. This in itself was slightly different then the other two journals mainly because it’s focus wasn’t just on text, but also showed the different equations used to solve and prove different theories. The Financial Review though was different in the other two based upon how it was written. The articles in the review were a bit more wordy, as you could tell that it was meant to be read by other peers in the academia section of finance, and quite possibly major fund managers, and those who are heavily involved in the market. The Journal of Finance was the largest journal published of the three with many different articles spanning different horizons of finance, from the stock market to separate sectors to even a little psychoanalytical insights on your typical investor. All three were excellent reads, and have now even subscribed to the Journal of Finance myself.
In the Journal of Finance article “Who gambles in the stock market?” by Kumar, I picked up on a few keywords. Some of these keywords included: underperformance, sectors, gambling and investments, and preference. In the article, it was talked about why most of your typical investors tend to gravitate towards the stocks and bonds that are considered by analysts as a “lottery-type stock.” It combines on how deeply rooted gambling is to many people in their personalities, and just the human way of life in itself. Gambling has been around for many years, everyone searching for the thrill of winning it big. That’s why our normal lottery does so well, and has not faded out. An example of this that we can relate to in the state of Michigan is the Big Game, where over the past few months the jackpots have been over the $100 million range, and once breaking the $300 million mark. I myself went out to buy a few tickets, in search of by chance winning the jackpot, or even a portion of it. Your typical investor views the market as the same way, especially after the tech boom in the early 2000’s. Because of this, we see a lot of investment in stocks that may show a small amount of promise, or those who are making unsubstantiated gains without having a strong balance sheet of the company to prove that the rise in value is actually worth it. Everyone wants to have that eBay stock, that goes for $17 a share to over $120 a share in only a few short weeks. People often tend to chase gains as well based upon the same principle, when in all actuality a more conservative approaches in blue chip companies can yield a higher profit for the investor.
The JFQA article was actually also written by Alok Kumar, who is a professor at the University of Texas. His second article used a bit of the same psychoanalytical approach, but also included sectors in this article a lot. Titled “Dynamic Style Preferences of Individual Investors and Stock Returns”, he again writes more of a simpler piece, not incredibly heavy in jargon, but easily readable for those that are interested. A more do it yourself investor with an interest in the topic could read the article and take much away from it, as opposed to just being confused as in many other articles in this journal. Kumar takes a look at how the investment strategy of individual investors changes based upon a certain sector has performed in the short term, and some of the investment strategies (or follies) investors take around them. With the emergence of the oil crisis a few years back, people were buying up oil stocks like they were going out of style. As opposed to sticking to their game plan, they moved money over to the sector in hopes that the reliance upon oil in the long term, and the ever raising prices for gas were going up so sharply in the short term would help fuel their portfolios with quickly increasing oil price stocks. It was shown though that the price increase was not due to an increased demand on oil, but a increase demand to own a share of the stock. He also looked at why this happened, which was tied in a bit to his article on gambling and chasing stock gains, and that analytically he said this has happened many times historically in the past.
The third article, “The Halloween Effect in US Sectors” by Jacobsen and Visaltanachoti, focused on why between the months of September to May, certain sectors seen an increase in their price. This was called the Halloween Effect, mainly because it marks the start of consumers increasing their spending in certain sectors of the market. If we take a look at the store Target for example, they cater to every holiday that falls in those months, where gift giving is a bit more prevalent. At Halloween, the food sector starts to increase by selling more candy in that period than it normally does, and continues as turkeys and hams are in more of an demand with Christmas and Thanksgiving coming quickly. Target also sells costumes and toys, all of which go up as well coming closer and closer to Christmas. Consumer spending on goods and services increases exponentially in this period. After the new year, there still is Valentine’s day, when restaraunts see a major increase in revenue, and even Easter is always able to sell a few more items. Of course, the alcohol sector always does better then as well, due to the many number of parties that are going on in this period, and that St Patrick’s day also falls in this time period. The article though in my opinion was written very scholarly, and at times hard to read. The intended readers were definitely finance professors and fund managers. Though the main takeaway I got from the article was buy in September, and sell in May.
In the Journal of Finance article “Who gambles in the stock market?” by Kumar, I picked up on a few keywords. Some of these keywords included: underperformance, sectors, gambling and investments, and preference. In the article, it was talked about why most of your typical investors tend to gravitate towards the stocks and bonds that are considered by analysts as a “lottery-type stock.” It combines on how deeply rooted gambling is to many people in their personalities, and just the human way of life in itself. Gambling has been around for many years, everyone searching for the thrill of winning it big. That’s why our normal lottery does so well, and has not faded out. An example of this that we can relate to in the state of Michigan is the Big Game, where over the past few months the jackpots have been over the $100 million range, and once breaking the $300 million mark. I myself went out to buy a few tickets, in search of by chance winning the jackpot, or even a portion of it. Your typical investor views the market as the same way, especially after the tech boom in the early 2000’s. Because of this, we see a lot of investment in stocks that may show a small amount of promise, or those who are making unsubstantiated gains without having a strong balance sheet of the company to prove that the rise in value is actually worth it. Everyone wants to have that eBay stock, that goes for $17 a share to over $120 a share in only a few short weeks. People often tend to chase gains as well based upon the same principle, when in all actuality a more conservative approaches in blue chip companies can yield a higher profit for the investor.
The JFQA article was actually also written by Alok Kumar, who is a professor at the University of Texas. His second article used a bit of the same psychoanalytical approach, but also included sectors in this article a lot. Titled “Dynamic Style Preferences of Individual Investors and Stock Returns”, he again writes more of a simpler piece, not incredibly heavy in jargon, but easily readable for those that are interested. A more do it yourself investor with an interest in the topic could read the article and take much away from it, as opposed to just being confused as in many other articles in this journal. Kumar takes a look at how the investment strategy of individual investors changes based upon a certain sector has performed in the short term, and some of the investment strategies (or follies) investors take around them. With the emergence of the oil crisis a few years back, people were buying up oil stocks like they were going out of style. As opposed to sticking to their game plan, they moved money over to the sector in hopes that the reliance upon oil in the long term, and the ever raising prices for gas were going up so sharply in the short term would help fuel their portfolios with quickly increasing oil price stocks. It was shown though that the price increase was not due to an increased demand on oil, but a increase demand to own a share of the stock. He also looked at why this happened, which was tied in a bit to his article on gambling and chasing stock gains, and that analytically he said this has happened many times historically in the past.
The third article, “The Halloween Effect in US Sectors” by Jacobsen and Visaltanachoti, focused on why between the months of September to May, certain sectors seen an increase in their price. This was called the Halloween Effect, mainly because it marks the start of consumers increasing their spending in certain sectors of the market. If we take a look at the store Target for example, they cater to every holiday that falls in those months, where gift giving is a bit more prevalent. At Halloween, the food sector starts to increase by selling more candy in that period than it normally does, and continues as turkeys and hams are in more of an demand with Christmas and Thanksgiving coming quickly. Target also sells costumes and toys, all of which go up as well coming closer and closer to Christmas. Consumer spending on goods and services increases exponentially in this period. After the new year, there still is Valentine’s day, when restaraunts see a major increase in revenue, and even Easter is always able to sell a few more items. Of course, the alcohol sector always does better then as well, due to the many number of parties that are going on in this period, and that St Patrick’s day also falls in this time period. The article though in my opinion was written very scholarly, and at times hard to read. The intended readers were definitely finance professors and fund managers. Though the main takeaway I got from the article was buy in September, and sell in May.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Reading Response 1
In James B. Twitchell's essay, How To Advertise A Dangerous Product, he takes a look at the revolution of woman's hair coloring. At first, it was such a taboo because only prostitutes changed their hair color to look younger and more fertile. Marketing became an issue, because of the problems that happened. At first, people didn't want the product, then after a few giant leaps forward in ingenuity, the product was something accessible to every woman.
The question was asked if the phrase "you can be very naughty if you are first percieved as being nice" still has any relevance today. The answer is clearly, yes you can. In today's advertising campaigns, there are some very strong sexual overtones in what they are trying to promote. The first that comes to mind is the Axe and Tag bodyspray commercials, which depict some average guy spraying the stuff on him and becoming flocked by attractive females. We all know that doesn't happen in real life, but they can portray that because it appeals to the male mind. The naughty is evident, but the nice comes from the girls just trying to smell him, as opposed to the overtone of the more sexual nature.
Another example we can use is those Viagra or Cialis commercials. The commercials, especially Cialis puts out is very ambiguous, with their trademark two people laying in side by side bath tubs. But Cialis is for erectile dysfunction, of course something of the naughty nature again. They don't make it apparent, but this is one of the biggest examples I can see of selling sex.
The last example I can clearly think of is an old trojan commercial. It showed through a window a farmer's crops, with a female voice in the backround gasping, then saying "oh my, what a big cucumber you have." All those but the little children were able to pick up on the euphanism, but again, clearly selling sex by putting vegetables on the screen and playing off of slang terms, used in their original, intended context.
Our answer, is clearly yes. You can be very naughty while first coming off as "nice". In our society, sex sells, no doubts about it. Some companies mask it a little better than others, but if you look closely enough, the naughty side can be found in a lot of things, things you may not even expect it from either.
The question was asked if the phrase "you can be very naughty if you are first percieved as being nice" still has any relevance today. The answer is clearly, yes you can. In today's advertising campaigns, there are some very strong sexual overtones in what they are trying to promote. The first that comes to mind is the Axe and Tag bodyspray commercials, which depict some average guy spraying the stuff on him and becoming flocked by attractive females. We all know that doesn't happen in real life, but they can portray that because it appeals to the male mind. The naughty is evident, but the nice comes from the girls just trying to smell him, as opposed to the overtone of the more sexual nature.
Another example we can use is those Viagra or Cialis commercials. The commercials, especially Cialis puts out is very ambiguous, with their trademark two people laying in side by side bath tubs. But Cialis is for erectile dysfunction, of course something of the naughty nature again. They don't make it apparent, but this is one of the biggest examples I can see of selling sex.
The last example I can clearly think of is an old trojan commercial. It showed through a window a farmer's crops, with a female voice in the backround gasping, then saying "oh my, what a big cucumber you have." All those but the little children were able to pick up on the euphanism, but again, clearly selling sex by putting vegetables on the screen and playing off of slang terms, used in their original, intended context.
Our answer, is clearly yes. You can be very naughty while first coming off as "nice". In our society, sex sells, no doubts about it. Some companies mask it a little better than others, but if you look closely enough, the naughty side can be found in a lot of things, things you may not even expect it from either.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Desktop Screenshot
When I first took a look at my screenshot as a photograph, I begin to understand why it takes me so long to concentrate and compose a paper of any sort. I generally always have multiple programs running in the background that tend to distract me. In this, there are about 7 tabs open in Firefox, but only the top one is shown, which is an online game. With my background utilizing a black at the top, eyes are drawn towards the quotes near the top of the picture, also detracting and causing a lack of focus.
Composing in digital space does a few things to the creative process. It allows information quickly at our fingertips, the ability to physically write the paper faster, or at least more legible. It does detract though, as there are so many things one can quickly become distracted with, like myself. We can then lose focus, and all of a sudden, time flies and backs are against a wall for a deadline. This digital space does have it’s advantages, but it certainly shows one major disadvantage as well. So for those people that could have an attention disorder or just a general lack of concentration, this could be a terrible thing.
By having a digital workspace, I do believe that it does allow us to have a more creative writing approach. We can quickly go back and edit previous work, and tweak it until we have exactly what we wanted. We can only better understand this through viewing and seeing how people utilize the digital space as a composing area, instead of a computing or gaming area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)