No More Middleman

          Convenience plays a huge role when attempting to plan a vacation. If someone is trying to plan a vacation or is just wanting to take off at the spur of the moment, it is imperative that they quickly get their arrangements in order. The Travel Channel has taken great strides in order to try and make vacation planning as convenient as possible for their consumers. In order to do so, the corporation has invested $7.5 million in a website called Oyster.com. This website gets rates for hotels and gets discounts for the consumers on the website. In doing so, the Travel Channel has greatly improved the convenience with consumers in trying to go on a vacation that they may see on their channel. The channel will also benefit from this because they have cut out the middleman and now has profits going directly to them rather than to the online corporation.

          It is very obvious that convenience is the main concern of the Travel Chanel; that and revenue. “If we’re going to inspire you, by all means you should be able to get it all done on our site. That’s on our horizon,” says Brian Stelter of New York Times reporting on a quote made by the channel’s president, Laureen Ong (Par 4). She clearly shows that the goal of the channel is to ensure that the consumers are able to do everything at one time in order to make their plans for a vacation.

          I feel that this is very smart of the company to do because not only do they gain tons of money by eliminating the middleman, but they also provide a more convenient and less time consuming way of booking flights and hotels to travel destinations. I am glad to see that this company cares about the needs of its consumers. If someone is going to book a trip, they do not care where the money goes, just as long as they get to their destination.

Works Cited

Stelter, Brian. "Travel Channel Invests $7.5 Million in Oyster.com." New York Times. New York Times, 24 Apr. 2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/business/media/25travel.html?_r=1&bl>.

Nicky, Elven. "My Three Month Vacation | Flickr - Photo Sharing!" Welcome to Flickr - Photo Sharing. 22 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Apr. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolala/4125650363/>.

Trade-off

                Most people in Arkansas relate hydrolic fracturing to strange earthquakes around the state when they also fail to realize that this strongly affects the water system not only in Arkansas but all around the country. According to a Congressional Democrat study, oil and gas companies have injected hazardous chemicals into wells in more than 13 states across the United States in four years, from 2005 to 2009 (Par 1). The study shows that these injections contain hazardous chemicals and even give off some carcinogens (Par 1).

                The entire country needs oil in order to be as efficient as possible, but I feel as if this should not have to resort to destroying the water systems in possibly several states. Some areas where people used to swim now posses signs that say “No Swimming.” To me, this is crazy that the oil and gas companies try to say that in no way are they harming the environment. If the chemicals that they are pumping into the wells cause swimming areas to be “unswimmable,” then how is there not a problem?

                Seeing that areas are dubbed to not be swimmable, this brings some concern to me thinking that there could also be water in these areas and around these areas that people will not be able to drink. I know that oil is very important today, but obviously water is much more important. To have a water shortage is much more of a crisis than to have an oil shortage because people have to have water to survive.

                These oil and gas companies are being incredibly stubborn and ignorant in saying that the hydrolic fracturing is not damaging any of the Earth. This is severely jeopardizing the Earth because not only does it take away recreational swimming, but it takes away fish in these areas, drinking water, and much more. These companies need to see that they are destroying the Earth’s resources while trying to extract a different resource.

Works Cited

Urbina, Ian. "Chemicals Were Injected into Wells, Report Says." New York Times. New York Times, 16 Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/science/earth/17gas.html?bl>.

Close

Matt. No Swimming. 2007. Photograph. Flickr.

The Replacements

                Contrary to popular belief of American’s being lazy and never doing anything about being fat, I feel as if some television companies such as ABC have taken  the proper measures to change lives. Recently ABC cancelled two of their well known soap operas ‘All my Children’ and ‘One Life to Live.’ According to New York Times’ Bill Carter, this leaves ABC with just one soap opera left (Par 2). Other companies have taken the same measures of cancelling most of their soap operas.

                Where ABC really takes a positive step in improving the lives of America is by replacing these shows with two new shows called “Chew” and “The Revolution.” Carter stated in New York Times, “One show, “Chew,” will be devoted to cooking and nutrition, featuring the chef Mario Batali, among other hosts. The other program, “The Revolution,” will focus on issues relating to health, weight loss and “lifestyle transformations” and will devote each week to the efforts of one woman to lose weight over a five-month period.” (Par 6). I feel that this is a very positive step in making sure that Americans either remain or tries to revert back to healthy. This is very important because not only has America recently been undergoing bad eating habits, but almost every American watches television and these shows, rather than soap operas, will perhaps encourage them to change their ways of eating.

                The television companies have really surprised me in taking positive steps to making America healthy. I used to think that the media was just bad for Americans’ health because it caused them to just sit at home and watch television, but now I see that it can be used for good and not evil like ABC has done here. I am very proud of this television company for cancelling the useless soap opera and replacing it with a more important and influential line up.

Works Cited

Close

Most popular

« Automatically search and cite any of the 22 designated sources! »

Carter, Bill. "ABC Cancels 'All My Children' and 'One Life to Live' - NYTimes.com." A Guide to the Media Industry - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com. New York Times, 14 Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/abc-cancels-all-my-children-and-one-life-to-live/?src=me>.

Cleaver, Alan. Lose Weight Now. 2009. Photograph. Flickr.

Cell Phone Fury

 We use them every day. They help us communicate to anyone in the world. Oh, and one more thing, they could possibly give off harmful radiation to damage your brain. Can you guess what it is? If you guessed a cell phone, then you are correct. Recent studies have shown that all cell phones could possibly be giving off harmful radiation. According to Kate Murphy of the New York Times, cell phone radiation can be caused while holding the phone up to your ear during a phone call, and even direct contact such as placing the phone in your pocket (Par 5). Murphy also says that some studies have shown that “there is a link between cell phone use and cancer, bone density loss, and infertility in men.” (Par 6). According to Dr. Valcow, a scientist in the study of these phones, the flip phone that she used in her experiment gave off radiation. She also discovered that since the technology in these phones have gotten so much more advanced; more radiation is likely in the recent smart phones (Par 7).

There have been some great discoveries in how to decrease the amount of radiation exposure. One option to limit the amount of radiation one receives with their cell phone is to carry it in a purse or a belt clip in order to avoid direct contact with the phone. Another option to limit the amount of radiation exposure is to hold the phone away from you when on a call and putting the phone on speaker. Another alternative similar to this is to use a wired headset to talk on the phone. If none of these options are available, one alternative that still puts off a smaller amount of radiation is using a wireless Bluetooth device. Even though this puts off some radiation, it still is less than the cell phone.

I am aware that people could not live or communicate near as efficiently as having a cell phone. Even I would probably freak out if I did not own a cell phone. I recommend that everyone that frequently uses a cell phone for any purpose to find a different means of carrying this device than a pocket and to use a different mode of talking on the phone than pressing your ear up to the phone. I am just trying to inform every one of the dangers of these cell phones and wish to offer these positive alternatives to use in order to limit radiation exposure.

Photograph: Cell Phone originally uploaded by BFS Man

Works Cited



Murphy, Kate. "Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let’s Talk." New York Times. New York Times, 30 Mar. 2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let’s Talk.>.

Fisher, Mike. Cell Phone. 2010. Photograph. Flickr, Houston, TX.

Unexpectedly Unhealthy?

                Nobody goes to McDonald’s with the intentions of eating healthy and saving themselves a few calories for lunch. People go to McDonald’s fully aware of the unhealthy ingredients that they add to their food. The public just cannot help to satisfy the unhealthy craving of sweet and fattening foods. This is a challenge that every American faces.

                While McDonald’s has tried to add “a selection of balanced choices,” according to New York Times’ Mark Bittman (Par 5), they have completely failed in their attempt to incorporate oatmeal into their breakfast menu. Bittman says that rather than just keeping oatmeal as it comes, McDonald’s compliments the normally healthy meal with sugar, sweetened dried fruits, cream, and brown sugar (Par 6). This just goes to show that McDonald’s cannot stay true to their word of creating a more nutritional option to their breakfast menu. Not only is the new food option that people can now choose unhealthily filled with artificial sweeteners and sugars, but according to Mark Bittman, in New York the meal costs $2.38 per serving in New York (Par 5)! This is more than the double cheeseburger that McDonald’s sells on the dollar menu! This is ridiculously outrageous compared to the healthy oatmeal that one can find at a local Wal-Mart for around 75 cents to a dollar!

                The insanely modified oatmeal is shown to be unhealthy according to Bittman. He claims that the oatmeal has “more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than a McDonald’s cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin.” He goes on to say that this is even without the brown sugar added! (Par 10).

                I cannot believe that McDonald’s would make such false claims to try to appeal to customers. A healthy choice is definitely not what they have created for people. They have only created another item for people to feed their addiction with and possible even obtain obesity. I believe that if McDonald’s truly wanted to create a healthy option for a meal, they would not add any artificial preservatives; rather they would just leave it alone and allow the meal to speak for itself. McDonald’s either needs to tell  the public the truth in their advertising or begin to add items that are truly healthy to their menu.

 Photograph: Oatmeal originally uploaded by theimpulsivebuy

Works Cited

Bittman, Mark. "How to Make Oatmeal . . . Wrong - NYTimes.com." Opinion - Opinionator - NYTimes.com. New York Times, 22 Feb. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2011. <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/how-to-make-oatmeal-wrong/?src=me&ref=general>.

McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal Closeup. 2010. Photograph. Flikr.

Good vs. Evil

                Some may think that the empowering statuses of corporations are only used for “evil,” but Pepsi has begun something that has also influenced many other corporations to follow. While Pepsi is still keeping its edge on business, they have also begun to show care for the poverty stricken small communities and farmers. While farmers in Mexico used to have to endure a difficult journey north from the Jalisco Mountains into the United States to look for money to cover debts, Pepsi has now eliminated that dangerous trek. Pepsi now directly buys the crops from these poor farmers to increase the nutritional value of its products such as snack foods. In the past, farmers would sell the crops to middlemen who then turned and sold it to Pepsi (Par 4). Pepsi has eliminated these middlemen, thus making it much more convenient to the farmers.

                Not only does this operation greatly help the farmers in Mexico, but it is also a great asset to Pepsi. According to Stephanie Strom of the New York Times, the operation saves Pepsi transportation costs because the farms are very close to two of its factories (Par 7). The advantages that it gives to the farmers are much less transportation and more income because Pepsi pays for the crops up front. Even the communities around the area are benefited by the gracious acts of Pepsi. Strom says it has a great impact on illegal immigration and even possibly marijuana production (Par 8).

                Because of the intelligent operation of Pepsi to help improve poor communities in Mexico while also maintaining a strong business status, other corporations should see that it has a great impact to everyone. It shows that corporations are not all just bullies that push the public and communities around, but that some use their power and wealth to improve the conditions of some citizens. Pepsi has clearly shown to use their “powers” for good and not evil.

Photograph: Pepsi originally uploaded by Lel4nd

Works Cited



Strom, Stephanie. "For Pepsi, A Business Decision With Social Benefit." New York Times. New York Times, 21 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/business/global/22pepsi.html>

Fransisco, Leland. O Pepsi. 2010. Photograph. Flikr.

Technology Terror

                The computer? What is that? It’ll never catch on!!! Comments that may have been made by society seemingly ages ago now seem foolish. In a recent challenge on the hit television show “Jeopardy!”,  I.B.M. showed off their new artificial intelligence technology that took over ten years to perfect. John Markoff of the New York Times reports that this computer called “Watson” is strictly an “question answering machine.” Markoff also goes on to compare this computer to one similar to it used in the television show Star Trek (Par 5).

                While on the game show, “Watson” competed against two former Jeopardy contestants that were very successful. One of these was Ken Jennings who won seventy four games of Jeopardy in a row, and the other was Brad Rutter who was a successful ace at the show. The computer was in a tie with Rutter after the first of three days. After the second day, the computer had taken a very large lead. The lead ended up being insurmountable for either of the human players leaving the I.B.M. owned computer to take the victory. I.B.M. strongly used this opportunity as publicity and won a $1 million award for winning. Although Watson did win in a large margin of victory, it is still not 100% accurate. There were some instances in which the machine wrongly answered some question. Even though there are still some minor errors, it is still very impressive to see a machine created by humans be so knowledgeable and responsive.

                I.B.M. has proved to the public that they have developed an extremely intelligent machine that can easily respond to humans. This could be a very scary realization for many people throughout the world. People may begin to realize that if technology does continue to advance further, then they could be out of jobs. The world is always looking for more work during this age, but these machines may begin to take these jobs away from people and leave many unemployed. While the efficiency percentage may be much higher for the work, these machines could quite possibly destroy the economy. I believe that the machines should have certain uses, but that corporations should not have the right to replace humans with these intellectual machines. Leaving millions of people unemployed throughout the world would be extremely tragic to society and the economy.

Go to http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/06/16/magazine/watson-trivia-game.html?ref=science to play a fun interactive game with I.B.M.’s “Watson” machine, but remember, this does not take buzzing in into consideration.

Picture: Technology originally uploaded by techadmiin05

Works Cited



Markoff, John. "Computer Wins on 'Jeopardy!': Trivial, It's Not." New York Times. New York Times, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17jeopardy-watson.html?scp=3&sq=I.B.M.%20John%20Markoff&st=cse.

Techadmin05. Technology Has Exceeded Our Humanity. 2008. Photograph.