Article 10: The Financial Page

The Financial Page: Summary

This article is about whether or not employees being distracted by the Internet make them more productive.  In the past it has been estimated that March Madness has cost business a lot of money because of lost of productivity tied to how easy it is to get distracted by the Internet from work.  Businesses have tried many ways to reduce the Internet as a detractor by blocking Facebook and Twitter,  cutting off online shopping sites and YouTube, and having ‘acceptable use policy’ stating that the person is suppose to be working not watching a video. Now there is research stating that the policies prohibiting use of the Internet actually distracts employees focus and concentration more than with full access to the Internet. It has to do with will power, when a person uses self control in one area; it is harder from them to use self control in another area. When people use their will power to not use the Internet, they cannot use their will power to stay focused at work. The answer for businesses is not totally taking away access to the Internet because with the use of smartphones that policy would do no good. Copengagen experimenters suggest that companies should create ‘Internet breaks’ throughout the day.  This idea is not new it is similar to the 20^th century “coffee break” or the 1900’s creations of “short breaks” that enables employee’s some relief from their work load, for them to be able to be productive.  

Response:

I find this to be a very Interesting study. Although it is not new that people cannot constantly work all the time and stay focus. People need breaks for them to be on the ball.  Interesting fact that I found out a few months ago, that in long distance running it is actually beneficial to break a few times from running and walk for about 15-30sec and then start running again. A person’s time will be faster than if they ran the whole distance. The breaks make it so that they can run faster to make up for the time spent while walking and then some.

Another part I found interesting is the evolutions of breaks and their names, I think it says a lot about each century. In the 1900’s was the introduction of short break times during the day, then  into the 1950 it was completely adaptive into the work  norm. The 20^th century starting calling them “coffee breaks” which I think says a lot about the 19^th century. Coffee had influenced/infiltrated the culture so much that a break was named after it. It makes me wonder if caffeine addiction was becoming an issue of study at the time. Now the 20^th century has come around and the Internet has influenced/infiltrated our culture to a point to where we need ‘Internet breaks’. Now Internet addiction is an issue of debate by some whether or not it’s a psychological disorder or not.  Now we have two addictions to worry about because coffee has not backed down on its influence over us and with the Internet we are just beginning to understand how it is shaping our lives.

Artifact 9

This article reminded me of the struggle that museums have in getting people engaged is the same struggle that teachers have for their students. Making the art as real as possible is one way to do that. Bring in technology that is what is real in peoples live today. It seems more exciting to go online and check out a virtual museum, then maybe actually going to one because when in the museum it takes more engagement on me to go and read all the information boxes than it would be if I were to go online and a box would pop up or a virtual person would be programmed to point out the interesting facts of a particular piece of work. That is interactive both sides are interacting.

I think this is really challenging, to continuously update technology, predicting trends and not fad in what people are interested in. I guess it does help that they get a lot of their feedback from the user, but still, it takes a lot of time and money.

This kind of technology opens up a lot of doors for people to see art museums from all over the world. Soon there will almost be no place that a person will not be able to see through the Internet. I wonder if this will spark more travel? The Virtual world can only show so much of the physical world, will it engage people enough to take action? I would think that museums websites would want people to actually physically come and not just be a part of the community online.

Artifact 8

This was very interesting. I think places like WebMD are awesome places for reliable information. I think it would be interesting to see some statistics on Dr. office visits to see if less people are coming in for just minor illnesses because of websites like WebMD. I think it is so hard sometime to know whether you’re sick enough to make an appointment or not and WebMD can help inform. The interactive websites sound really cool to me because it’s taking on all angles, from the users’ side and expert side to make a product that will be/are helpful.  I’m not surprised about how many people use the Internet for heath information and advice about medical problems but I do worry about all the misinformation that is out on the web. The social networks use in health kind of scares me.  I believe people like to believe the best result when they have a worrying blood test or symptom. When people go online and ask a question, they might get false hope that a serious symptom is nothing and then they don’t make a Dr. appointment and they end up in serious trouble. I think that social networks are great for in terms of support and for finding people that have rare diseases, but in terms of advice not so much.  So the Internet can be a great resource, but is not the cure.   Like with all information obtained from the web, research should be done on any site to make sure the information is creditable.

I think that having the information online helps bring peace into people’s mind.  I remember one time I had this weird rash pop up and I had no idea what to do. I did not have health insurance, so I went online and I actually found my rash and there was no exact cause to it, and the site said that the rash last from 2-4 wks and sure enough my rash went away in about 3 1/2 weeks. I did not have to take any medication, the rash did not hurt or itch. I was glad that I found my rash because otherwise I would have been worrying the whole 3 ½ week until it went away.  

What really surprised me the most is the games they have for health. I think it is great that kids can mentally fight back whatever illness they have through the game. That is just amazing whoever thought of that.

The video talked a lot about the positives about online health.  Could it be causing more severe sicknesses? People wait longer to go see their doctors. What about computer use taking about physical activity? Causing possibly more obese people leading to more health complications. Yes there is health online, but what if getting online is causing the health problem.