“Some investors refer to Baidu as the Google of China.
But if Baidu keeps delivering quarterly performances like its most recent one, investors may have to start calling Google the Baidu of the United States.”
According to the source, it is said that Baidu is in the process of globalizing the mass media through its competency in terms of their superior technologies as well as investment in research and development. Such has enabled them to get hold of market shares internationally hence making large sums of profits. It is because of their superior technologies, they are able to skillfully control information flow into the public as efficiently as possible. When such occurs, they are able to hold onto its search lead, which would attract media advertisers and companies to invest in their products though the Baidu platform.
This is not all. It was also mentioned that Baidu is continuing to invest aggressively in research and development so as to try to be a cut above its competitors such as Google. For example, they are creating programs “such as online video, mobile search and Baidu’s so-called “box computing” initiative, which is Baidu’s take on the apps craze” so as to increase their revenue and profits. Therefore, it is not surprising how it is undeniably known as “a leader in one of the hottest segments of one of the world’s hottest markets.”
Yet, we read comments about how Baidu is going about achieving it through “playing dirty”. They disregard issues “about copyrights and therefore, all music and videos you can find can be downloaded for free”, which explains why Baidu consistently outranks all the other search engines combined. Additionally, whatever they are “creating” or offering are merely imitations of Google’s. That, if was true, should be curbed because it only shows how incompetent Baidu is in terms of creativity and innovation. However, if we were to look at it in yet another perspective, we see Baidu as a powerful search engine for chinese-related stuffs therefore in that aspect, Baidu takes the front seat instead of Google. Perhaps, this is why Baidu is becoming the leader for the world’s hottest markets- its advantage in terms of providing excessive, useful information related to chinese.
Whats your take on this issue? Is Baidu really just a copy-cat or a capable leader for its media globalization?
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/technology/thebuzz/index.htm
Stick-thin models were, and are always being used on the runway since forever. They are on billboards, magazine covers, commercials and many more. This is the most prominent practice in the Western cultures. According to the article, the Britains Fashion Council not to call for a ban on models to be too thin because it might affect these models’ future job opportunities as well as the fashion products. On the other hand, others are arguing that they are putting “profits ahead of women’s health”.
What is your take on this?
This stereotype- of what is hot and good-looking in the eyes of the public has already been accepted(unknowingly or not) since a long time ago, and I personally think it is here to stay unless this generalized belief is entirely changed in the minds of the youths and the public. And honestly, beliefs are difficult to change because of the fact that it already plays a part in your lifestyle and behaviors. I think stick-thin models are hot, they look good in anything; heels, lingerie wear, tops, skirts, practically everything! They affected my sense of self, and makes me conscious about my image as well. Even if I were to change my beliefs of what looks good, I have to be conscious about others’ beliefs of what looks good; because my beliefs might have changed, but that does not mean others have.
Therefore, I think we should just accept how things are the way it is now, but twitch it a little- like what the article said, “healthy models above the age of sixteen should be used”. So long as they are healthy, eating right and not suffering from problems like Anorexia or Bulimia, I find this culture acceptable. What do you think? 😀
Source: http://www.eyebeautytips.com/celebrities-and-models/stick-thin-models/
Reem al Numeri, 14; a child bride at 11
“In Yemen, a deeply tribal society, the issue of child marriages is a complicated one. More than 100 leading religious clerics called the attempt to restrict the age of marriage “un-Islamic”.”
Do you think it is ethical for child marriage to be carried out in a society? What if you object to it, but your society; including your family, does not? In Yemen, there is nothing much you can do about this issue; child marriage is considered a norm by the Islam community there. In Yemen, there is the heavy presence of Collectivism. There is the need to conform to the beliefs of the general public; the need to exercise self-sacrifice for in-group members which is in this case, the Muslim majority. External control on the individual is inescapable. The next paragraph, which will talk about a young girl who suffered under extensive Collectivism, shall prove my point.
Reem Al Numeri was forced by her parents to marry her cousin, age 32, and when she refused, her father threatened to “cut [her] in half”. After she has managed to get a divorce, she “lives the life of an outcast” and “without a husband or father to support her, she cannot attend school.” Reem’s absence of readiness to cooperate with the in-group has resulted in her becoming an outcast. We, including Reem, might see child marriage as unethical but on the other hand, the Islamic community views it as a norm; and trying to strike this practice out of the Yemen culture will take more than talks and certain measures by the government.
I could see the power of influence and control the Yemen majority has on the people. The issue or problem of child marriage is not something that could be dealt with lightly; or easily controlled by the government. It is a culture we are talking about here; it is the one of “the templates of living” we are dealing with. A culture that is deeply rooted within the Yemen people, when the “Sharia, or Islamic law, which does not stipulate a minimum age of marriage” was created. Therefore, demolishing it is definitely not going to be as easy as it seems.
Yet, the evidence of young girls mustering their courage to attempt breaking away from this part of their culture is commendable; because, they are risking losing their comfort zones (ironic i know) within the in-groups to seek contentment within themselves; even if it meant being outcasted. I look up to them, and hope that they will continue working towards individualism; to obtain their real Selfs, and to offer themselves a new route worth living for.
source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/01/yemen.child.brides/index.html
Virtual Relationships are rising in demand and popularity recently. They are easily accessed and obtainable everywhere; simply show yourself for a visit to the virtual worlds. They can be from Habbo, Secondlife or even Avatars United. Such sites are rampant now, you will not have difficulties finding one but instead, have difficulties deciding which to visit. But for this post, I have made my decision to talk about Secondlife.
The site offers you the chance for role-playing, for courtships and love. Yet, whether or not they can be maintained or last for eternity is questionable. What is your take on Virtual Relationships?
Personally, I do not, and will never pin any of my hopes on Secondlife for love. Indeed, there are cases of virtual couples who turned out becoming real couples in the real world to reveal the possibility of successful relationships in the virtual world. However, the idea of being engaged to a virtual relationship by first meeting a total ‘virtual’ stranger BEHIND a total ‘real’ stranger with the hope of love blossoming, is ridiculous. Firstly, it is not realistic. Secondly, the base of the knowledge you have on the other person at the other end of the world is close to zero. There is not much self-disclosure to be offered as well. This will hinder the processes of relational maintenance which will, more or less minimize the possibility of maintaining the relationship in the long-run. That aside, I still do understand why; if people were to get love-struck by virtual personas online.
By approaching this concern theoretically, we can realize that it could be possible for virtual relationships to last. Firstly, the similarities between two persons in terms of interests and perhaps, perspectives on love. I suppose the people who engage themselves in Virtual Relationships value love similarly hence it can enable the relational formation and development to proceed. Secondly, the proximity between a virtual couple can be close if they were to visit the Secondlife site daily to converse and communicate with the other party. Such opportunities for interactions can enable the virtual relationship between two parties to develop further; increase the chance of the formation of a real relationship out of a virtual platform. Lastly, due to the fact that there are minimal self-disclosure between a virtual couple since they are living themselves out of their customized personas online, there is also the result of minimal relational needs, thus the result of minimal potential conflicts. Such is because most causes of potential conflicts are prevented by how they are standardized and typically applied via online. Take for example the idea of intimacy vs distance. Due to the fact that virtual couples can only connect through the internet, intimacy and distance are both kept to a limited extent. Therefore, it decreases the result of potential conflicts arising hence, revealing the stability (yet also, maybe the stagnancy) of virtual relationships.
All in all, whether or not virtual relationships can be the pathway to eternity depends solely on the two parties who are involved in the relationship they are engaging in at Secondlife. I believe that the higher the commitment level they offer towards living in their virtual life, the higher the possibility of progress and development they can obtain from their relationships virtually. After all, mutual feelings, be it in the virtual or real life context, come from mutual understanding between two persons, isn’t it?
Source: secondlife.com
“The man at the centre of Australia’s biggest sexual harassment case says he only tried to kiss a David Jones publicist after she made sexual comments to him.”
The above was a form of verbal communication, but if we read the entire article, we would be able to realize that other than this form of communication, there was also the nonverbal form between the former-CEO of David Jones and one of their publicist.
“David Jones says Ms Fraser-Kirk was seen engaging with Mr McInnes “in a flirtatious manner” during the May lunch and walked away “smiling” after he hugged her.”
I have absolutely no idea what was on both of their minds. Why would Ms Fraser-Kirk sue Mr McInnes for sexual harassment when, in the first place, she was seen “flirting” with him? What was the impression or perception that Mr McInnes had gotten when she did that? Was it a misunderstanding? Or did Ms Fraser-Kirk intentionally flirting just so that she could gain herself a huge compensation? We, the public will never be able to determine or find out the exact answer or reason to both their actions. Nonverbal communication in this case, is certainly misleading and subjective. Perhaps, Mr McInnes regarded Ms Fraser-Kirk’s act of politeness or friendliness as an act of flirting, or maybe, Ms Fraser-Kirk regarded Mr McInnes’ act of a kiss of friendliness as an act of sexual harassment. Yes, this sounds really confusing, because we have absolutely no idea what both of them were thinking at that point of time; how they perceived the situation through their culture, beliefs, principles. This is because of the fact that they are dependent on the context of these two persons.
“He admitted giving her a goodbye hug, but denied it was an unwelcome sexual advance, adding he hugged other attendees in the same way at the end of the function.”
After reading the three quotes given above, whats your say? Who is at fault?
Well to me, I think both of them is at fault. Ms Fraser-Kirk should not have suppressed her feelings of being sexually harassed and displayed signs of interests towards Mr McInnes by flirting with him and using vulgar words when conversing with him. It just portrays her negatively as being “easy” and perhaps, “cheap”. This is because using vulgar to describe even the simplest stuff like food just degrades you and causes people to have a certain impression of you. Mr McInnes should not have easily and readily flirted with Ms Fraser-Kirk because he should know his status in David Jones. He should have portrayed a better image for himself and the company. Even if it was alright to be “touchy” as a form of friendliness, it should not go beyond the act of hugging and kissing. This is unethical in the eyes of the public.
Such incidents or appointments at court could have been prevented if both parties used direct and specific language alongside with their actions to get across the true intentions and not have all of it misinterpreted. All it took was for the both of them to speak up so as to complement their nonverbal cues to their actual intentions.
Source: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8024462/mcinnes-says-litigant-made-sexy-remarks
Sometimes, I really disagree with media censorship, especially when it prevents you from voicing out your opinions for the good of the society or having access to more information about certain issues which concerns you. One good example, would be the article above. What really, is the point of the government “want[ing] to clamp down on any views that differ from theirs and issues that may cause people to support the opposition” when at the end of the day, your people would only turn out to be unhappy about it and perhaps, eventually doubting your capabilities in handling the country? I think that it is really silly that they are resorting to such methods to “secure their votes and support from people” instead of competing with opposition parties openly to be victorious, openly. By resorting to such methods, they are showing their incompetency in governing the country which, sadly, only proves their limitations as a party.
In this article I could understand the idea of selection influences and in particular, the influences by the mass media. By applying media censorship in Malaysia, the government is attempting to control the citizens’ perception of their leadership and capabilities in the country. This step is a very effective step because by shutting the doors to keep oppositions out of their matters through the media, opposition leaders are banned from voicing out their views and complains about what could be improved on in the government. Such can result in perceptual error arising due to the citizens’ unintended omission and distortion of the opposition parties’ concerns about Malaysia.
The idea of selective media censorship and in this case, the “clamp[ing] down of any views” from the opposition is simply a step back from improvements in Malaysia. This is because by limiting opinions and arguments, there is a lack of awareness as to what are the areas that the country can improve on or develop further in. The current government would also show complacency since replacements of the government is out of the question. It will only result in the country becoming stagnant and progress bring out of reach.
I think that the government should be less stringent with their media censorship on opposition leaders. When they open up for discussions with other parties, they will be able to discover and make improvements with the current situations of the country hence, proving their competency as a government to ultimately gain more support and trust from the people. What they are currently doing is personally to me, cowardly and will only serve to stir up doubts and discussions among the public population about the capabilities of the current Malaysian government. They will never know if such a move backfires them by tomorrow.
Source: http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC100909-0000120/Msian-station-sacks-CEO-and-DJ-over-race-issue
Some may regard this matter as merely an act of “protest[ing] the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by al Qaeda”, yet others regard it as a grave issue that will stir up commotions and anger among the large Islamic community. Despite the pastor’s attempt to set his perspectives straight without any ill-intentions of offending the current Islamic community, it is inevitable that such an act of burning Qurans would spell danger to both the Christian and the Islam communities.
Such disputes and unhappiness between the Christians and Muslims are mainly due to how they are approaching their issues in a psychological perspective meaning, they are only taking into consideration their own beliefs, attitudes and emotions, without sparing a thought about the other party. In fact, they are actually going head-to-head with each other. Such is evident from the article where Jones mentioned that the Islam “teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, therefore taking away the saving power of Jesus Christ and leading people straight to Hell.” This is an example of how when two different communities are on different frequencies, they are bound to be conflicting issues and unhappiness among the people.
I personally feel that this situation is not the lack of communication between the two communities because in the very first place, they are not even offering the other any room for discussion or to clear the air between themselves. Perhaps, the grudge has already been deeply rooted for a long time and there are no chances of clearing the misunderstandings given that their religious beliefs are (historically, or not) already going against the other. Such can only shun away the possibility of them applying a pragmatic perspective as an attempt to dissolve all disputes and conflicts. This is because such a perspective would mean dismissing their respective religious intentions of strengthening their own communities’ religious beliefs and values.
Yet, there is still a need to try dissolving all unhappiness and grudges between the two religions because in America where religious practices are heavy and many different religions are in existence in a large-scale American society, constantly being at loggerheads would do no good to the country. In fact, it would only serve “to distract, divide and enrage the public.”. Therefore, Obama is skillfully attempting to settle it by trying to battle “against negative stereotypes of Islam” and made reference to interfaith efforts “to counter this kind of ignorance and misinformation.”
Rachel's COM101 Blog 