News Report #3

Mallory Phillips

September 30, 2009

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Virtual-Medical-Training-Comes/7277

 

 

Virtual Medical Training Comes to Second Life

By: Erica Hendry—The Chronicle of Higher Education

 

            Virtual medical training is nothing new; CD-ROMs and other interactive programs have been used for years. Now, some universities are beginning to use Second Life to help train nurses. Second Life allows students to use real life participants, allows access to professors, and even has people volunteer to be patients. Students can do many things such as, interact with doctors, patients, order tests, make diagnoses, and recommend treatment. One professor has made a Heart Murmur Sim that uses real cardiac sounds to train students how to listen to someone’s chest. Another program that has been created is the Nursing Education Simulation. Students wear headsets with displays monitor and use defibrillators, IV’s, and medication to treat computer patients with certain symptoms. This style of learning offers pretty good resources with lower costs than actual physical training.

            The reason I chose this article is because we were just talking about Second Life the other day in class. I think that this style of learning will be very effective. It offers a semi “hands on” experience without actually being in a hospital. I think that doing it this way is safer because if these students mess up, there is no negative effect on the patient. 

New Report 9/23

Mallory Phillips

September 23, 2009

New Report

 

Copyright Head Tells House She Opposes Google Books Settlemen

 

By: Gordon Flagg: American Libraries Online

 

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/september2009/petersopposesgooglebooks091609.cfm

 

            This article is basically about the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, opposing the settlement with Google’s Book Search project. She feels that this deal will undermine Congress’ right to govern copyrights, and could have serious problems internationally dealing with books that are published outside of the United States. The settlement would allow Google to scan copyrighted books, and display 20% of that book to users for no charge. If you wanted to see the whole book, you would have to pay for it. Thirty-seven percent of the revenue would go to Google, and the rest would go to the copyright holders. Peters feels that this is taking away from the copyright holders. Google Chief Legal Officer disagrees. He feels that this is “fully compliant with copyright law,” and it provides choice and competition to the rights holders. Some people believe that this provides the public with information that otherwise would not be so easily available to them, even though they would have to pay for it, and others still feel that it is not fair to the copyright holders. The final hearing on this issue will be held October 7 in New York.

            I can see why some people would oppose this issue, and I can also see why some would be perfectly fine with it. I think it is a good idea to have a variety of books available to the public, but I don’t understand why Google? They are just in it to make money from it. I don’t see why publishers don’t already have something like this available. If they just had their own setup like what Google is trying to offer, there would probably be no controversy. 

"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade"

Mallory Phillips

September 15, 2009

Reading #2

 

“Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade”

By: Brock Read

Chronicle of Higher Education 10/27/06

http://0-web.ebscohost.com.uncclc.coast.uncwil.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=106&sid=5e163795-3e76-4a10-90ee-7d162116cb6c%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=22984124

 

The main idea of this article is basically whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source or not. Many people believe that because anyone can add or edit articles that it is not a reliable source. Some argue that it is just as accurate as encyclopedia’s. One professor decided to test the accuracy of the site and put false information into a few articles. A few hours after he posted this false information, it was removed by Wikipedia editors who frequently check the site. They even told him not to post anymore false information. This goes to show that Wikipedia stays on top of their postings. However, some people find it frustrating that when they edit false information, within a few minutes it can be right back on there. This is what happens when you allow the public to post.

Personally, I believe that Wikipedia is a good source, and I tend to use it often. It is an easy and quick way to get information on a certain topic. As long as it is accurate, it should be fine to use as a source. In order to make it more accurate, they should have an expert to look over edits before they can be added to an article. Many teachers frown upon the use of Wikipedia as a source because it is not “scholarly,” but this article points out that compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s average error of 3, Wikipedia had an average error of 4. So in my opinion, Wikipedia is just fine. 

Reading #1--Web Hoaxes

Mallory Phillips

September 8, 2009

Reading #1

Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet

By: Paul S. Piper

            This article informs readers about whether websites are legitimate or not. There are different types of these websites, and some of them are: counterfeit, malicious, parody/spoofs, fictitious, hacks, and misinformation. A website that has mistakes is not included, simply because mistakes happen! Counterfeit sites try and trick people by making itself seem just like the original website. Malicious sites intentionally misguide information seekers, and there is really nothing that can be done about this because of the First Amendment right to free speech. Parody/spoof websites use humor to try and make fun of the original site. Fictitious sites represent a website that has been completely fabricated. Misinformation websites are based on opinions. This does not mean that they are necessarily wrong, just not 100% factual. Some websites pretend to be something that they are not, and this is known as a Trojan horse. One of the first counterfeit websites was www.makah.org. The Makah tribe has won the right to harvest a few gray whales to keep tribal tradition. Animal rights groups protested and made a website that was identical to the Makah website, but all links led to anti-whaling information. The purpose of this article is mainly to inform its readers that there is plenty of false information on the Internet, and that you need to determine the validity of a website before you use it as a source.

            One example that the author gives of a counterfeit website deals with a Martin Luther King Jr. site. This website gives questionable information on a supposed plagiarism accusation against King. They also accuse King of being part of the Communist party, and that the night before he was shot, he was partying with three white women, one of who he supposedly beat up. There are a few clues that give away that this website is counterfeit. At the top of the page there was an email link to the author, and the end of the address was @stormfront.org. Stormfront’s website is dedicated to white nationalists “fighting to preserve white western culture.” There are also some other pro-white links on the website. I just don’t see why people would take the time to make a false website. Instead of copying the original website, why don’t they just make their own website? Also, are there not any copyright laws on websites? If there were, people who do things like this would get punished, and it would probably deter people from making more of these websites. 

Assignment #1: News Reports

Mallory Phillips

September 1, 2009

News Report #1

“Florida Man to Plead Guilty to Credit-Card Data Theft”

Jason Kessler, CNN.com

8/28/09

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/28/US.hacker.plea.agreement/index.html?iref=newssearch&eref=rss_tech

Albert Gonzalez, of Miami, Florida, has been indicted in the largest case of identity theft in U.S. history. Not only was he stealing people’s identity, he has also been charged with 19 counts of credit card fraud. Gonzalez has agreed to serve 15-25 years for stealing data from more than 40 million credit cards. This sentence does not include the aforementioned identity theft charges. He must formally plead guilty by September 11 in order to the plea agreement to be good. The plea agreement states that he will serve 15-25 years (not including other charges), give up 1.65 million dollars in cash, three Rolex watches, and a Tiffany diamond ring. He is currently in a New York jail awaiting trial for the other hacking schemes that targeted the restaurant chain Dave & Busters.

I find it hard to believe that this man can get credit card information from 40 million people, and is just now being punished. It seems like they would have put a stop to it before it got that out of hand. People say its not safe to carry cash anymore these days because it can easily be stolen, but this shows you just how easy it is for someone to steal credit card information. I just had my bank call me yesterday to verify some purchase that I have made to ensure that my card information hadn’t been stolen. What a coincidence that I read this article a few days ago, and then I get that type of phone call. It just goes to show you that no matter what you do with your money, someone is always going to be able to get their hands on it.