My Comments

1.  http://bbbbianca.blogspot.ca/2015/04/great-idea-or-meanest-thing-ever.html#comment-form
2.  http://aange1ica.blogspot.ca/2015/04/think-before-you-tweet.html?showComment=143330219272      
3. http://kellynpc.blogspot.ca/2015/05/stereotypes-or-stereo-gripes.html#comment-form 
4. http://suzymanukyan.blogspot.ca/2014/12/paparazzi-vs.html?showComment=1433302924716
5. http://heidiescobal.blogspot.ca/2015/05/artificial-intelligence-and-future-of.html?showComment=1433303662060
6. http://joycegmedia.blogspot.ca/2015/06/blog-post-6-protect-yourself-from.html?showComment=1433306429872

Selfie Stick Banishment...

According to a Samsung poll, selfies now account for a full 30% of the photos taken by people between the ages of 18 and 24.

Chris Baker and Jennifer Hinson, of Nashville, Tenn., use a selfie stick in front of the Louvre Pyramide in Paris on Jan. 6, 2015. 

Um, am I the only one still wondering what we called selfies before they were officially named as selfies?! Was "Hey, look at my selfie", before spoken as "Hey, look at this picture I just took of myself" or "Hey, look at my self portrait shot"? I’m still wondering. A selfie stick is a monopod used to take selfie photographs by positioning a smartphone or camera beyond the normal range of the arm. The metal sticks are typically extensible, with a handle on one end and an adjustable clamp on the other end to hold a phone in place. Some have remote or Bluetooth controls, letting the user decide when to take the picture, and models designed for cameras have a mirror behind the viewscreen so that the shot can be lined up. The selfie stick PSA video made me laugh at first. After, I  did some research on this whole selfie stick banishment and came across a few articles of selfie stick bans at global attractions and realized it is actually a pretty serious thing. In this Chicago article,"Selfie sticks" have now been banned at a growing list of global tourist attractions, including the Art Institute of Chicago, a French Palace and a British museum. I believe the banning of selfies sticks are acceptable in places which they are a potential threat- like to the artwork for example in art galleries and museums. In addition, the galleries and museums may also be crowded which could cause another hazard towards people who could be hit by the selfie stick. Even so, I don't think selfie sticks should be entirely banned since there are many places in which they would be acceptable to use. Selfie sticks are the new big thing, don't get rid of them now!

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Communication

The world of technology has been rapidly changing as the years have gone by.

Children as young as the ages of 6 to 13 have as well as know how to use iPads and iPods! I think it's mind-blowing how our children today are growing up with these technological advancements surrounding them in their childhood.  Growing up, I read books, played board games and went to the park. If you look at our children today, many are cooped up in their rooms playing video games or glued to their Smartphone. I am not too sure what this has in store for the future, however I do believe Artificial Intelligence will play a vital role in the new developments in technology. My mom always reminds me of how lucky I am to have the devices I own. When she was my age, the cell phones weren't able to fit in pockets and they had long antennas attached to them- they also didn't have Wi-Fi, which now, people cannot live 5 minutes without. The new advancements in technology today, like Google Glasses and self-driving cars, really spark my curiosity. These types of advancements make me think about how dependant society is becoming on technology. Self-driving cars? In my opinion, it actually frightens me a bit. On the roads, things may happen that drivers might not be prepared for. With self-driving cars, I feel you wouldn’t have as much control in the car compared to if you were to be driving.  As for Google Glasses, I don’t find them particularly necessary right now, but it must be what the future will look like. Google Glass displays information in a Smartphone-like hands-free format. Wearers communicate with the Internet via natural language voice commands. We already have smartphones (even watches!), that can do just as much as a computer can, and now digital glasses! I believe AI will be the future of communication even if it sounds unnecessary right now. 

Stereotypes or Stereo-Gripes...

Miller Lite "Man Up" | Purse or carry-all?

There are so many commercials now a days that question gender roles. I came across one of Miller Lite's advertisements where a customer's masculinity is called into question.  A common theme with beer commercials is telling beer drinkers they are not worthy of the beer being advertised.  From a female's perspective, this commercial would probably be quite funny.  Humorous or not, I actually found it quite offensive that the customer was not given a Miller Lite simply because he had a purse/carry-all.  His masculinity was degraded and he was given a no-name lite beer in replacement for a Miller Lite.  This commercial explains that you have to be a "real man" in order to drink a Miller Lite with the phrase, "Man Up".  Many people know of the stereotypes towards women and this commercial is a perfect example of a stereotype towards men.  I think it is actually disgusting that the man in the commercial was humiliated the way he was for having that bag.  Many men do have those type of carry-all bags, and I bet they would be quite offended to see a commercial like this, which they feel could be targeted towards them.  It is not only women that have things to carry around, let's be honest, do you really expect men to cram all the things they need for the day into their pockets?!  After all, bags are meant to carry things, so why degrade a man's masculinity if he carries around a bag like the one in seen in the commercial?  It is a very ridiculous commercial and I hope it makes all men realize that the messages in these advertisements shouldn't be ignored, and the products in them should be boycotted since these companies present such stereotypical views. 

Benjamin Button Special: Genius or Unnecessarily Mean?

Benjamin Button Special

This is a form of punishment I have never seen before.  In my opinion, the Benjamin Button Special is an interesting and controversial approach in how parents choose to punish their children.  So many questions seem to pop up in my head when I look at these photos of this boy after getting his "old man haircut".  What could he have possibly done to deserve something like this?  Who are his parents and do they always hold such unusual consequences?  Just why?  I do believe that the Benjamin Button Special does have the power to make kids learn their lesson, however, I am not sure that it is worth the ridicule and bullying these children could possibly receive at school and also in public.  This is more a form of humiliation then punishment seeing as parents can talk to their children without having to take such drastic measures like this.  It almost seems like the parents must get entertainment out of the fact that they can do something so embarrassing to their children and see results of better behaviour.  Well of course you are going to see better results!  You have just publicly shamed your child; there is no way they would want to act out again if the punishment were to be this haircut!  Not only have you shamed your child, but also posting a photo online after you do something that embarrasses them makes it worse!  Even though the child has learned his lesson, it definitely does not make this punishment acceptable.  Also, does this punishment apply to girls?  Seeing as majority of girls have longer hair then boys their age, would this form of punishment apply to them if they were to act out the same way the boys who have gotten the Benjamin Button Special acted?  I do not see this haircut punishment as acceptable, and I frown upon it.  There are definitely other ways to discipline your children in an effective and proper way.    

Twitter: There's a difference between hate and humour!

Twitter is an online social networking service that enables users to send and read short 140-character messages called "tweets". 

So often, people take to twitter to bash celebrities as well as people they actually know, for the reward of retweets and favourites on hateful words they see as hilarious. Humour me-pun intended-but when did being rude and insensitive towards others become funny?  Sure you can make jokes online, but to say offensive things that may be targeted towards people is awful if you find it “funny”.  I see a huge issue in how people are capable of doing such heinous things. Then again, people are much more macho online, and use social media to say things they would probably never say in person. I don't believe this issue can go away on its own, but I believe that everyone can make this issue, less of an issue.  The people that tweet out the hateful comments look for support from others.  Without people favouriting, replying, and retweeting the mean tweets, those people wouldn't be recognized and therefore less able to spread their hate.  Laws about cyber bullying on twitter should be introduced that prohibits users to tweet words with any sort of negative nature.  Along with the 140-character limit, I think there should be some sort of detector that doesn't allow particular words to be used when typing tweets.  It's ridiculous to attack others online since those people wouldn't say it face to face.  Once you post something online, regardless if you delete it or not, it is there forever.  People need to think of the consequences they may face before posting online, as well as the people they may hurt or offend with their mean tweets.  If you have nothing nice to say, then don’t say it! Simple as that. :)

Paparazzi: On the hunt for celebrities

Paparazzi: On the hunt for celebrities

Paparazzi are constantly on the hunt for celebrities. The Iggy Azalea and paparazzi encounter was very intricate as both Iggy and the paparazzi pointed out very exceptional points. The idea of taking photographs of celebrities without their consent is very wrong and an invasion of privacy. Personally, I believe around the clock stalking celebrities as they try to live their lives is absurd. The video of Iggy Azalea begins with constant back and forth yelling between Iggy Azalea's friend and the paparazzi. Her friend uses vulgar language and continuously screams about how she "doesn't want to be followed." Iggy then pushes her shopping cart into the paparazzi and her friend spits on him. Both Iggy and the paparazzi have done wrong in this situation. Iggy states that she's only trying to pick up some groceries in peace and would like it if she weren’t bothered. However, the paparazzo brings up the fact that he was just assaulted by both Iggy herself, and her friend. He also points out that Iggy should know that this kind of stuff will happen in Los Angeles- where she lives, and all over the world, because she is a celebrity and this is the life she lives. Of course there are options for Iggy, one being to live in a secluded area where she wouldn't be as bothered as she is in Los Angeles. She could also quit being a musical artist altogether, but I'm sure that is not an ideal option for her at the moment.
Paparazzi give people what they want to see and their photographs are all over the media worldwide. It is a very large franchise, and it will not be disappearing anytime soon as technology continues to evolve and gain attention from people all over the world. Paparazzi pursue celebrities to get photographs of them for money. Being a "paparazzo" is in fact a job, and these people do need to make a living, however, I still push my opinion as to say that it is an invasion of privacy and a very thin line is being crossed.
Another example of a paparazzi encounter is one with teen pop sensation, Justin Bieber. Bieber, surrounded by his bodyguards, was leaving a Central London hotel and in the mad scramble to his SUV, he made contact with a waiting paparazzi. In the footage, Justin is seen pushing a member of the press out of the way as he climbs into a waiting car. The paparazzo was clearly upset by the physical contact and immediately claimed he was assaulted. He then began to cuss out Bieber, who was already inside the waiting SUV. But Bieber clearly heard the photographer's insults, which cause the singer to open his SUV door and spring out of the car trying to attack the paparazzi. Justin tried to swing at the paparazzi but his bouncers kept him from landing the punch and eventually pushed him back inside the SUV. The car left the scene without further incident. Justin later tweeted about the incident ... saying, "Ahhhhh! Rough morning. Trying to feel better for this show tonight but let the paps get the best of me." Justin and the paparazzi were both at fault for what occurred, however, the words exchanged from the paparazzi to Justin is what caused Bieber to lash out. The difference between Iggy's encounter and Justin's is very different yet somewhat similar. Both paparazzis invaded the celebrity's privacy. Who's right and who's wrong definitely depends on the situation at hand. In Iggy's case, the paparazzi did not intend to anger the celebrity in such a way as the English photographer tried to anger Justin after being pushed. As Justin attempted to make his mad dash towards the SUV, the pap invaded Justin's personal space, so Bieber quickly reacted by nudging him off. The paparazzi reacted by using very vulgar language towards Justin, which eventually caused him to fight back. After the paparazzo in Iggy’s situation was assaulted, he retaliated by stating very good points. This was very different to the way the paparazzi in Justin's case reacted to his "assault". A "line" does exist, and can simply be crossed when in the wrong sense and though process. To me, everything depends on the situation at hand.