My decision-making abilities have not always been the most admirable. Actually, as a child, they pretty much didn't exist. Any time I was faced with a choice, I was pretty good at pulling out "Eenie Meenie Miney Mo" or one of my personal favorites, "Bubble Gum, Bubble Gum in a Dish," which literally takes you like five hours to choose which movie to watch or which shirt to wear.
But eventually, you realize that some of life's decisions just can't be hinged on a silly, little rhyme. Sadly, it can't always work that way. Some choices are just bigger than that. Bigger than catching "a tiger by his toe" until he tells you which college to go to or which career to pick.
Well, I'm here to tell you that yes, I make my decisions a little differently now. I put a little more thought into things.
I've been wrestling with a rather big decision for some time now. In order to graduate next spring, I need to complete an internship this summer. I've went back and forth on where I should do it. I've weighed all of the positives and negatives, researched a zillion different possibilities, and spent a whole lot of time in prayer. Yet somehow, my decision didn't seem to be any easier.
You see, here's what I wanted: I wanted God to come in a giant bolt of lightning and write a flaming message in the sky telling me where to go and what to do with my life. I wanted Him to shout down from above in a deep, booming, dramatic voice "Megan, go to "such-and-such!" I wished it could be that easy. That clear. That definite.
But you know, God doesn't work in quite that way. He surely could if He wanted to, but I think He likes the fact that we kind of have to figure things out for ourselves. He gives us all the help we could ever need along the way, but it's in a more subtle and gentle way. It's His still, small voice.
So, I wrestled with my decision some more. I knew where I wanted to go. I wanted to go to Shepherds. That place holds such a special spot in my heart. And I knew that I would really love having the chance to do an internship there. But some things were holding me back. Would I be able to support myself without an income? Would I receive adequate experience for the required college course? Would this internship look good on my resume? Most importantly, does God want me to go somewhere else?
A few Sundays ago, a missionary spoke at our church. I didn't get to hear the message because I was working in the nursery, but my mom heard it. As soon as we got in the car, my mom said, "Megan, you have got to listen to that message." When she heard it, she immediately thought of me and the decision that I was trying to make. So, later that week, I listened to the message online. (For those who may be interested, click here.) It was really good. The missionary, Graham Foran, talked about faith, what it was and what it wasn't. He brought out many valid and thought-provoking points, but the part of his message that hit me the most was his story of how he was called to the mission field.
Mr. Foran said that he had felt like he was being called to be a missionary in Brazil, but he decided to bathe the idea in prayer. He prayed over and over again that if God wanted him to go to Brazil that He would make it very clear. He prayed this for days, but nothing seemed to be happening on God's end. At one point, Mr. Foran realized something. He realized that this desire to go to Brazil to be a missionary and proclaim the gospel was not a desire that the devil would give him. So, if the desire was not from the devil, it had to be from God. Makes sense, right?
So, instead of praying that God would make it very clear if He wanted him to go to Brazil, Mr. Foran prayed something different. He told God that he was going to go to Brazil, and if God didn't want him there, to stop him.
Mr. Foran knew God had placed that desire in his heart. After hearing his story, it made me realize that God had placed a desire in my heart, too. It makes me think of a verse.
"Delight yourself also in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart."
Psalm 37:4
A lot of people misuse this verse to seek their own advantage. They think that if they do what God wants them to do, then He will give them whatever they want. Not exactly. This verse just means that if we are aligned with what God deems as good and right, then our desires will be the same as His desires. We end up wanting the same things for ourselves that God wants for us. The desires coincide.
God gave me the desire to go to Shepherds because that's what God wants for me. Our thoughts are the same. Isn't that so cool? Once I realized that, it was very easy to make my decision. I am going to Shepherds this summer. And I am so excited! I know God has something great planned for me, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
I finally made the decision to step out in faith and follow my desire to go to Shepherds. And that decision was so much easier than any game of "Eenie Meenie Miney Moe" that I've ever played.
"It's not fair!" - Working with 3, 4, and 5-year-olds every week and living with a 6-year-old pretty much guarantees that I hear this phrase on a regular basis. When they don't get to finish a puzzle, when it's not their turn to be the line leader, when someone else is treated differently from them - "It's not fair!" It amazes me how early on this sense of injustice is bred into these little human beings. Often, their application of this perceived injustice is a little off, but they do understand it to some extent. They are seeking out a sense of equality.
When thinking about this topic, I marveled at the number of times that I hear these dear, little ones proclaim that "it's not fair!" But then, it hit me how often I utter something very similar. When someone else in my family uses all of the ink in the printer right before I need to turn in a paper, when a fellow student rips my coat and doesn't apologize, when I get two flat tires at once - "This is so not fair!" I am so incredibly guilty of overusing this phrase. And the sad thing is that most of the time, I'm using it to describe something that's miniscule, petty, or just not worth the drama.
There are many people who probably feel like they have legitimate reasons to claim that life's not fair. When they lose a job, when a friend betrays them, when a loved one passes away - "It's not fair!" These circumstances are heartbreaking and much more worthy of this statement than an unfinished puzzle or a ripped coat. I'm not trying to minimize these difficult trials in any way. But I'm going to be honest: Life's not fair. This is the truth. But I believe we should be thankful for this injustice.
Think about it. The world's justice system and God's justice system. Totally different. In the world's justice system, we are constantly trying to balance things. Equal rights. Equal opportunity. Equal, equal, equal. Now, I'm not trying to say these movements are right or wrong. That's not my point. My point is that we work so hard to make everything the same for everyone.
Think of it like a see-saw. The world's justice system "see-saw" is perfectly balanced. Everyone is positioned carefully on the see-saw, in a line covering all the way from one end to the other end. Each person's position on the see-saw is based on their number of good deeds compared to their number of bad deeds. Depending on the numbers, some people will end up closer to the good side, some people will end up closer to the bad side, and some people will end up somewhere in the middle. The weights on each side counteract each other, and the result is a steady, straight see-saw. Balanced. Uniform. Even.
Now, consider God's justice system. There are two places to sit on God's justice system "see-saw." There's the perfect seat and the imperfect seat. That's it. There's no sitting in the middle on God's see-saw. I can't be in between perfect and imperfect; I'm either one or the other. Period. With this being the case, God's see-saw is grossly unbalanced. Only one Person, Jesus Christ, can sit in the perfect seat, and the rest of the world is crammed into the imperfect seat. The imperfect seat holds so much weight that it rests at rock-bottom while the perfect seat and it's Inhabitant rise sky-high. Terribly disproportionate. Yet, in God's justice system, this is just. Fair. Right.
It is hard for us to grasp this. We want everything to fit our definition of "fair." If a murderer and a candy-store thief stood trial at the same time, we would want the murderer to receive a much harsher punishment, but to God, the sin is the same. It's still sin. On a similar note, a faithful servant of Christ who has been a Christian for 60 years would receive the same acceptance into Heaven as an avid atheist who then professed Christ's name within the last week of his life. Do we frown at this? Do we purse our lips and shake our heads? Why? Maybe because our engrained definition of fairness fed to us by the world dictates that this is not fair. Just. Right.
Here's where it gets good! Think about God's justice system "see-saw" again. Remember how unbalanced it was? Remember how many people were squished together on the imperfect seat? Remember the sole Occupant of the perfect seat? Well, if Christ is the only One who is perfect, and Heaven is reserved for only those who are sinless, how is it that there are people in Heaven today?
God looked at that see-saw. He saw how unbalanced, how disproportionate it was, and He said that it was just. Fair. Right. Jesus Christ, the only perfect Being, sat on the perfect seat, and everyone else sat where they belonged, the imperfect seat. This was right. But God did something. He decided to be "unfair." Mind you, this statement is made using the world's definition of fairness. God has always acted in line with His definition of fairness. He is always just. But if we look at it from the world's perspective, what happened next seems "unfair."
God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, away from that perfect seat down to earth where all the imperfect people lived. Christ lived among us and still remained without sin. But one day, Christ did something for us. He took all the imperfect people's sins, from past, present, and future, and laid them all upon Himself. He sat on that imperfect seat for us, so we might have the chance to accept Him as our Savior and spend eternal life in Heaven, that place of sinless perfection.
God allowed life to be "unfair." It wasn't an accident. It wasn't a back-up plan. It was life, and it was not fair, in a magnificent way. Because life is unfair, Christ died for me. Because life is unfair, the punishment for my sin has been erased. Because life is unfair, I get to go to Heaven, and that is the most beautiful gift anyone could have given me: sweet injustice.
Well, if you haven't already noticed, up to this point in time all of my posts have been purely scholastic. Dull, boring, mind-numbing, and worthy of nothing more than a homework grade. So, don't you dare go back and read them. Unless, of course, you get some sort of strange kick out of reading analyses of the Internet. Then, be my guest. But for the rest of you, don't do it. Believe me. You do not want to go down that road of boredom.
But today, my friends, this blog will change.
Disclaimer: I make no promises. What I write may bore you. When I write may be entirely sporadic. Why I write is questionable. How I write can easily change upon a whim.
I will write about what challenges me, encourages me, confuses me, saddens me, changes me, bothers me, excites me, disappoints me, surprises me, and inspires me.
I will write when I feel so led. Or I will write when I don't feel so led, but I make myself do it just for the practice.
Why I write what I write is inexplicable. Some things just can't be pinned down. There are a million different reasons why I am writing this now, and it would be impossible for me to try to figure them all out for you or even admit most of them to myself. But a short, easy answer is to say that I write just for the fun of it.
How I write has a lot to do with my emotions. Am I feeling happy? Sad? Goofy? Sleep-deprived? Energetic? Angry? Motivated? Unmotivated? Nervous? Giddy? Disconnected? Passionate? Inspired? A different mood evokes a different style of writing, and I write whatever comes to me naturally.
This is me. And this is my writing. That's all I have to give. Take it or leave it.
The birth of the World Wide Web was characterized as Web 1.0. It was new to nearly everyone. Very few people had ever experienced anything like it. It made many things, like information, more easily accessible. Web 1.0 changed the world, but it wasn’t long before something new came along.
Web 2.0 became the Web of the future, providing features that Web 1.0 had never dreamed possible. Now, people could not only find information, but they could share it, as well. Even while the world stands in awe of Web 2.0 technology, the Web is constantly changing and transforming. It won’t be long before something else will come forward, something that will lead our world into the future.
Web 1.0 was the world’s introduction to the World Wide Web. It was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 (Evans). Berners-Lee classifies Web 1.0 as the “read-only web” (Getting). A Web 1.0 website consisted mainly of information. Companies would design their sites as a cyber presence for their business. There was no feature offering feedback or a section allowing the users to share their information. It was all about the site owners providing the information and the users accepting the information.
Brian Getting states that this one-way give and take of information was “exactly what most website owners wanted: their goal for a website was to establish an online presence and make their information available to anyone at any time.” In fact, many sites today are still built with more Web 1.0 features in mind than the elements of Web 2.0 (Getting).
Web 1.0 websites are not very conducive to our current society. Many of the features are awkward and slow (Evans). The information is not in a state of continual change as it is in Web 2.0 sites. Web 1.0 websites mainly allow reading only with little opportunities for user contributions (Evans). These types of sites fail to draw significant user interest.
Web 2.0 is a completely different story. In 1998, Tim Berners-Lee shared his vision for the World Wide Web (Evans). “The dream behind the Web is of a common information space in which we communicate by sharing information,” (Evans). Web 1.0 had accomplished the desire for “a common information space,” but the element of information-sharing had yet to be completed.
Web 2.0 websites are all about interactivity. Web 2.0 wants the user to be involved. Actually, these sites need the reader to be involved in order to function successfully. Dr. Mike Evans notes that Web 1.0 sites “saw the Web as publishing, not participation.” Web 2.0 noticed this mistake and set the goal to change it.
Web 2.0 was coined as the “read-write web” (Getting). Users are literally asked to join in and contribute to the content being provided on the site. Web 2.0 was a whole new world of participation and interactivity, and users loved it.
“The newly-introduced ability to contribute content and interact with other web users has dramatically changed the landscape of the web in a short time. It has even more potential that we have yet to see,” Getting states.
Users love sharing their opinions, having pages on sites that are all their own, communicating with other users over the web, and seeing their own content displayed online. Web 2.0 sites feel more personal to users than Web 1.0 sites ever could. Social media sites are one of the most popular results of Web 2.0 sites. Users have embraced the social media craze, making these sites some of the most visited in the world.
As far as news gathering and distribution goes, Web 2.0 sites are much more conducive for a successful online news website than Web 1.0 sites ever were. Web 2.0 sites provide the unprecedented opportunity for continuous, ever-changing news. The deadline is always now. Stories can be posted on the site and then, updated 20 minutes later when new developments occur. The timeliness of Web 2.0 sites is amazing.
Web 2.0 also allows user participation. Users can find the stories they want more easily. They can share their opinions by “liking” a story, commenting on the story, or “sharing” it on their preferred social media site. Many online news sites also allow users to upload their own “news.” The technologies of today allow the common man to become the next reporter. Video, audio, and photos can be taken with mobile devices and uploaded to news websites with a few simple clicks. The users not only consume the news; they help provide it.
Although Web 2.0 has opened the door to numerous possibilities, it is true that Web 2.0 has also brought new concerns to the table. With Web 2.0 comes user-provided content, and with user-provided content comes varying views of discretion. Every person has a different code of moral ethics that they live their life by, but when thousands of users share the same space for displaying these differing ethics, tension arises.
Since Web 2.0, the world has been faced with the introduction of cyber crimes. Many of the crimes have involved the display of user-generated content that has offended or harmed other users. These issues involve each person individually, and since the amount of user-generated content is vast and innumerable, it would be impossible for a site to even attempt to monitor everything that their users are sharing or creating. Each person must abide by their own set of rules and ethics, but it is important to keep others in mind and make your online presence honorable and inoffensive.
The future of the World Wide Web is difficult to imagine. It already seems so innovative and technologically up-to-date. In the future, I imagine using the Web will become even easier. Search engines will be much more efficient, and user-generated content will continue to soar. I think online news websites will utilize the common man as the reporter even more than they do now, allowing the mere citizens to report from the scene as the story happens, which in turn alerts the reporters as to where the story is at.
Technology is definitely going to change. It always is changing, even now as I write. My brain is not futuristic enough that I can predict these changes, but I’m certain the changes will result in something incredible. As for now, Web 2.0 provides an exceptional platform to the World Wide Web, showing us how far we have come and how far we can continue to go.
Works Cited
Evans, Mike. “The Evolution of the Web – From Web 1.0 to Web 4.0.” Centre for Security, Communications and Network Research. Plymouth University. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.
Getting, Brian. “Basic Definitions: Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0.” Practical Ecommerce, 18 Apr. 2007. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.
I looked at the Telecommunications Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The Telecommunications Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a protection for providers of websites that offer social media aspects to their users. This act provides a safeguard for the providers against the potential content that their users may create.
Section 230 of the act is the major proponent of this protection. If a user generates content that is found to be false, defamatory, or offensive to a certain person, the offended person cannot sue the website provider. This was put in place because providers cannot always monitor everything that their users are creating. The law states that providers cannot be held responsible in these cases. However, this law provides no protection for the users who actually create the content. They are still held responsible for their actions.
The telecommunications part of the act allows any business to operate within the market and compete against each other.
Both parts of the act are important, but the provider protection element appears to be the most interesting. It is a very important protection for all website providers that offer social media aspects to their users.
The articles used active voice and utilized the inverted pyramid style. There were several sidebars containing information about most popular stories or top news stories. There were also ads located in sidebars. There are absolute links to similar stories, but they are not necessarily connected to the article. They are located in a bar at the bottom. The headlines for the stories are different. The online one is longer and more descriptive. I think they do this in order to capture the users attention and get them to click on the article.
This post is a continuation of the previous one. Sorry. I didn't get your e-mail. I thought we were just writing down our thoughts. :)
