I'm actually a fan of Drake myself, as much as I resisted when I first heard him. I was introduced to his album Thank Me Later by friends ; I never took it upon myself to have myself listen to it. I'm aware of the stereotypical rapper who talks about women, money, and fame, but as the article in the Rolling Stones said - something makes me listen. His beats are appealing but he also puts his feelings into his music as well. I just recently heard his new album Take Care before it dropped because it leaked and I was impressed for the most part - it's more heart-felt though. The article explains how he still maintains the cocky rapper attitude, which is true, but it's also nice to hear that there's trouble in paradise. He almost makes it seem fair between us; but then again, I can't throw even one $100 bill without chasing back after it.
To be honest I read the article on Dicaprio's new film and I did not take much out of it. I have minimal prior knowledge on Hoover or his story so this sort of critique is all Greek. However, I saw previews for that movie and Dicaprio looks 76, successfully. As of late he seems to be the star of some of my favorite films; Shutter Island and Inception are movies I could watch multiple times. So, I think it's clear - the only reason I, personally, would see J.Edgar is the fact that Leonardo is in it. How shallow of me.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
RW 388-404/Patterns 547-562, 573
RW:
I am absolutely a child of this generation; I know everything there is to know about the internet, computers, anything modern and technological like that. I noticed, however, that it's entirely self-taught and I've gained my skills through things such as AIM, Myspace, Facebook, etc. AIM was sincerely my introduction to typing and the reason why I can type so easily now. Myspace, for its decoration opportunities, changed me into a Myspace HTML expert and I knew how to modify practically anything. The beginning of this reading almost made me yawn because it seemed to be telling me about things I already knew; but surprisingly enough, there's information here that I never knew about. The dynamics of search engines and all reference technology is actually pretty foreign to me. All I know is to type in words in a bar and hit enter, but there's way more complexity to it. I didn't know about half the advantages that are available. In high school, my teachers made a big deal about the quality of the references we use; however, we were never taught in depth about it: all I remember is, "DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA." This little article really spells it out.
PATTERNS:
547-562
I have truly never seen such depth in the concept of argumentation. As well as this section instructs the perfect approach to an argument, it's also almost a sociology lesson. I've not been introduced to sociology so it's a foreign field to me; this article struck me further than how argue. The dynamics and philosophy behind formal arguments given in this reading shows a thorough analysis with suggested execution; it's almost uncomfortably in-depth. The terms also given to the aspects of argumentation make sense of the act.
573
Turning to this page was a surprise. In reference to the approach to arguments, this article is assertive and very one-sided. Some news articles do try not to be bias, the journalist behind this article seems to have one thought and is stuck to it.
I am absolutely a child of this generation; I know everything there is to know about the internet, computers, anything modern and technological like that. I noticed, however, that it's entirely self-taught and I've gained my skills through things such as AIM, Myspace, Facebook, etc. AIM was sincerely my introduction to typing and the reason why I can type so easily now. Myspace, for its decoration opportunities, changed me into a Myspace HTML expert and I knew how to modify practically anything. The beginning of this reading almost made me yawn because it seemed to be telling me about things I already knew; but surprisingly enough, there's information here that I never knew about. The dynamics of search engines and all reference technology is actually pretty foreign to me. All I know is to type in words in a bar and hit enter, but there's way more complexity to it. I didn't know about half the advantages that are available. In high school, my teachers made a big deal about the quality of the references we use; however, we were never taught in depth about it: all I remember is, "DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA." This little article really spells it out.
PATTERNS:
547-562
I have truly never seen such depth in the concept of argumentation. As well as this section instructs the perfect approach to an argument, it's also almost a sociology lesson. I've not been introduced to sociology so it's a foreign field to me; this article struck me further than how argue. The dynamics and philosophy behind formal arguments given in this reading shows a thorough analysis with suggested execution; it's almost uncomfortably in-depth. The terms also given to the aspects of argumentation make sense of the act.
573
Turning to this page was a surprise. In reference to the approach to arguments, this article is assertive and very one-sided. Some news articles do try not to be bias, the journalist behind this article seems to have one thought and is stuck to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)