Evolution of the Typewriter: Write Your Heart Out

The typewriter pictured above was developed in the 1980's, but remains a popular model today. It can be purchased for $190 on Amazon.

The typewriter began its journey in 1868 when Christopher L. Sholes patented the first prototype on the 23rd of June. This was the most basic form of the machine we recognize today, and it would go through several makeovers before coming into its own. 

The next notable jump in the typewriter’s evolution was the development of the electric typewriter by Edison. In addition to increasing the effectiveness of the machine, he rearranged the keys, straightening the rows and making them easier to use and a little bit more difficult to jam. The electric typewriter officially made its debut in 1872. Then in 1874, the original patent was sold and brought to E. Remington and Sons, a gun manufacturer, in the hopes of mass producing the original design. Only around 5,000 units were ever sold from this first run, but an introduction of this scale put the typewriter on the minds of everyone looking for more efficient methods of writing quickly. 

For the next several decades development stagnated, as several different models debuted and fell out of favor due to one flaw or another. The next event of note was the development of the Fox Portable in 1917, which boasted a collapsible carriage and became the first machine with a design that made it feasible to transport. The company was sued for design theft, but the idea of making the device portable stuck around. In 1933 the Electromatic typewriter was released, eliminating the problem of uneven pressure and difficult to press keys by introducing keys that require less pressure, leading to more uniform typing. 

In 1964 the magnetic tape typewriter was introduced, the first reusable storage device that allowed for correction without starting the entire document over. This device was crucial to the conception of word processing software as we think of it today.

Today typewriters are still used, though computers are vastly more popular and efficient. They are also quite expensive, serving more as a novelty to people seeking a certain aesthetic than a feasible writing tool.

Sources:https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/119673

Evolution of Netflix: The Rise of Streaming Services

Netflix began in 1997, when Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph had the idea for a mail order rental and purchase service for movies, and experimentally mailed themselves a DVD to see if it could pass through the hands of the United States Postal service unharmed. The DVD arrived intact, and they began working on pulling their idea together. 

It took a year, but in 1998 the Netflix website launched, and people are able to log onto the site to request DVDs by mail. AT this point members are still paying on a movie by movie basis, until the subscription option is introduced in 1999. Now members can pay a monthly fee and have access to an unlimited number of DVD requests. 

The next feature added to the website is the recommendation system, an algorithm that takes users past requests and their ratings of those requests and uses the data to compile suggestions for the future, a version of which is still used by the company today to make the product as personal as possible for each individual customer. From there Netflix takes off, and two years later it goes public for the first time on May 23, 2002 at $1 a share, much lower than today’s rate, hovering around $490 a share. 

It’s at this point that the fast growing company passes the 1 million member milestone, and in 2003 they received a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, officially claiming ownership of the rental by mail model. This trend of innovation continues for the next few years, and 2005 marks the first appearance of “Profiles” on the Netflix website, a feature that let subscribers create playlists specifically tailored to family members, moods and tastes. This feature was very successful, and was very likely a contributing factor to the company’s achievement of growing to 5 million subscribers in 2006. 

In 2007 Netflix became the first service to offer streaming, so that members didn’t have to wait for their movies to arrive and could instead watch them right away directly on their computer. Streaming, of course, opened entirely new doors to the company, and in 2008 they made deals with the producers of console products like the Xbox and Wii, putting streaming directly on the device rather than needing to be run to it from a laptop. In 2009, as streaming services became available on WiFi enabled smart TVs, membership passed 10 million.

In 2010 Netflix was made available in Canada and revolutionized the market once again by putting streaming on mobile devices. By 2012 their subscriber count has more than doubled, and 25 million people have instant access to all of Netflix’s many programs. 2013 marks another experiment for the company: producing their own original content. Their gamble pays off when ‘House of Cards’ wins three Emmy awards, the first ever to go to a streaming service’s studio. In 2014, membership passed 50 million, spreading to more than 130 countries only two years later.

Now Netflix has over 100 million subscribers worldwide, several dozen awards under their belt, and no plans to slow down as they continue to turn out well loved classics like ‘The Office’ as well as original content at a staggering rate.

Sources: https://about.netflix.com/en

Eight Values of Free Expression and Why Arguing is Good for You

When reviewing the Eight Values of Free Expression the one I connected with the most was the final

one on the list: Protection of Dissent. The Value serves as a reminder that we live in a supposedly civil

society, and that we are not governed by the rules of the mob or the masses. The views of the

individual are protected, even if they contradict popular opinion and almost especially if they contradict

the government. 

We, as the people of the United States, have the right and duty to disagree with and criticize the

government, especially when the actions of the government violate the rights of the people it is meant

to protect. This theory, however, also applies to minority opinions that may be seen as offensive,

including offensive language, flag burning and other forms of hate speech. For that reason I think that

this theory can be very closely tied to the Promote Tolerance theory, as they both serve to protect

opinions, ideas, outlooks and views that may otherwise be smothered by the masses. These two

theories also link very closely with the Marketplace of Ideas, because once the less popular views are

protected and allowed into the marketplace, the people as a whole hold the responsibility of allowing

them to prosper or refusing to allow them traction. It is the job of the public, and not the government,

to allow, refuse, spread or extinguish these ideas once they have been introduced, and the governments

only role in this matter is to ensure that those introducing the ideas all have equal protection under

the law.

One of the more obvious ways that this value appears in media today is in the political discourse

surrounding the current President as well as potential candidates. The public are allowed to freely

speak against, criticize and even insult political figures without fear of retribution from the government.

The popularity of these debates on social media is part of what creates debate among the people, and

this discourse allows for the evolution of ideas, the changing of minds, and the overall growth of the

people as a whole.

The Media and War OR: Selling What's Popular

 After investigating the provided sites and seeing just how adamant the voices involved were on their antiwar stance, I did find it very curious that I had never heard of these sites before. It seems that the media only runs stories about war in-progress or war about to be, and these topics seem like they should be against the views of the general public. 

I think the reason for this discrepancy is that topics like war are incendiary when debated and discussed, whether online, in the news or in person. News sites, especially popular ones, use these controversial topics to drum up viewer and reader numbers and to spark arguments among their audience. Controversy sells, and these news sites know it so they utilize the outrage sparked by their content to keep people's eyes on them and not straying to less well known sites that actively campaign against war and violence. 

This is a phenomena that can be seen in other topics as well, such as the news choosing to focus only on the violent protests taking place under BLM symbols, and failing to showcase the entirely peaceful ones that are also taking place. It's easy to get views by making people mad, and these news sites have it down to an art.

While some sources, like local news stations or specifically focused news sites like the antiwar ones focus on sharing both sides of the argument, you rarely ever see it in the mainstream for that simple reason: It doesn’t sell as well.

The Six Freedoms (and Their Limits)

For this post analyzing the freedoms of the First Amendment and its applicability to an article involving the Black Lives Matter movement I chose an article about a BLM flag that was torn down on tape in Parkville, MO. 

The video, captured by the family’s doorbell camera, features a man approaching the house from the street, crossing the driveway and climbing the stairs onto the porch in order to reach the hanging BLM flag.  He then tore down both the flag and the pole it was hanging from and ran off, abandoning the flag and attached pole in the driveway. There have also been reports of other incidents of politically motivated vandalism in the area, including the defacing of other BLM symbols as well as MAGA signs. Local law enforcement are looking into the matter but no arrests have been made yet.  

I chose this article because I think it is a great example of the place where the FA stops protecting speech. This man was free to speak his opinions, and to post things endorsing his own views on his own property, but when he stepped onto someone else's property and then defaced it he lost the protection of the FA by incurring lawless action, including trespassing, vandalism and destruction of property. It should also be noted that some of the family was home at the time, including a 14 year old boy and his father.

Since its original posting, the video has gained traction on sites like Reddit, angering many and triggering cries of a “double standard” among the prosecution of acts of vandalism aimed at political signage. 

Link to Article