Post #1: Hey, Guess What? I can see you...
Caitlin Chang, Section 1
Post #2: Ads of the Past - Did they really say that?
Angeli Marteja , Section 1
Post #3: Social Awareness Contradiction
Sarah Brown , Section 2
Post #4: The Changing Faces of Video games
Sarah Brown , Section 2
Post #5: Photo Manipulation on Hiatus
Taylor , Section 2
Post #6: Is taxing pop really a solution?
Eating healthy has now become the major issue in the world. The government, health departments, school boards, even fast food restaurants like McDonald's are trying to promote healthy eating. Companies are now trying to use a scare campaign in hopes to scare people from eating junk food and drinking pop. When I saw the video that the New York Health Department released in hopes to turn people away from drinking pop, I was really surprised and disgusted. I 
know that drinking pop is very unhealthy as half of the drink is ALL sugar, so that's why I never really drink pop. I would occasionally have pop, like once every three months. When I do drink pop, I don't even finish a regular can. I am only able to drink half of the can, so I can't say that the video helps me in becoming a healthier person, when I don't even drink pop regularly. Yes, I would say that 
the growing obesity in our nation is due to the large porportions of foods that is being offered nowadays. Most places (mostly fast food) are now offering foods and drinks in larger sizes (larger than the original "large.") In return, people are actually buying these larger proportions of foods and drinks. People continue eating these larger than large sizes of fast food and pop has caused people in the world to gain bigger in weight, therefore causing obesity. Obesity has now become more common in younger children. Younger children who are obese tend to have bad health problems later in life. It's important to maintain a healthy life when you're young, so that when you grow older, you'll have fewer complications, in terms of health.
If Canada does put a tax on pop, I don't think that I would continue to spend money on buying pop or chips. I'm a person that does not drink a lot of pop or eat a lot of chips. I would only eat them occasionally, so the tax on pop and chips wouldn't really affect me. Truthfully, I think that this is one tax that will be able to help people. Putting tax on pop and chips may actually affect people's choice in whether or not they will continue to purchase pop and chips. There are already a lot of taxes on all the items that we purchase everyday. People wouldn't want to pay more on top of the tax they have currently. If I did drink pop everyday and Canada decided to put a tax on pop, I wouldn't want to spend more money on something that isn't even healthy for you.
Fashion and magazine companies have been manipulated by Photoshop. Fashion and magazine companies have been taking pictures of models and/or celebrities and have been using Photoshop to make their appearance amazingly stunning. By doing that, fashion companies are
trying to lure people to think that by wearing those clothes you will be able to look that fit or thin, so people would go out and buy some. Manipulating photos in magazines would increase people's attention to their image and that would make people want to buy their magazine, in order to find out more about what the models or celebrities are promoting. Fashion and magazine companies have been doing this so often that no one will believe it anymore. Photoshop is so well known to people these days that they know that fashion and magazines companies use it a lot on their photos of models and celebrities that it no longer gets the attention like it used to.
Photoshop has gone wrong many times before. People have compared it with other pictures and noticed the difference. A recent example of a Photoshopped image going wrong would be Demi Moore. In the December 2009 issue of W Magazine, it is 
clearly visible that Demi Moore's hip has been slimmed down with the help of Photoshop. This controversy just shows that Photoshop is used very often and is very popular among variety of magazines.
I don't like the way fashion and magazine companies portray their models and celebrities using Photoshop. It doesn't make them look real. Everyone is beautiful in their own way, and they don't need the help of computers and Photoshop. When I see magazines on the stands or in the store and see how the models or celebrities are really really thin, I think to myself how that is very unlikely that those models or celebrities are actually THAT thin. It's just not normal or healthy for people to be that thin. Companies that use Photoshop to make pictures of their models and celebrities look thinner and more beautiful is wrong. These companies are overdoing it with Photoshop on their models and celebrities. People are starting to take notice of what they're doing it and started to complain. Companies are ALSO taking notice that the Photoshop they use on models and celebrities don't work anymore. They need a new method of advertising their products and making it appealing to others. Their new method of advertising their products would be through models who have no make-up on, whatsoever and have not been manipulated by Photoshop. Fashion and magazine companies are using "normal" people to help promote their products, instead of those models and celebrities who wear a lot of make-up and their photos have been touched by Photoshop. I think that this trend will stick around from a long time. I would think that people would like the idea of using people who are not models or models and celebrities with no make-up or Photoshop added to them. It gives them a more natural feeling that they are accepting their bodies the way it is. Now, when I see magazines with models and celebrities who don't have Photoshop or make-up added to their picture, it gives me a better feeling of looking at these magazines, instead of being bothered by the models and celebrities who are being Photoshopped. I will admit that even though it may feel strange in the beginning to see models and celebrities not having make-up on and being Photoshopped, but people will be able to adapt to it. They will find that this new method of models and celebrities not having make-up on and Photoshopped to be "normal" and refreshing.
Website Credit:
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/
Compared to the past video game's consoles, we know that video game consoles have been growing for the past 20 years. From Nintendo Gameboy in 1989 to Nintendo Wii in 2006. In the
past 20 years, we have known for video games to be bad for you. Parents have been complaining about their kids playing too much video games, how it's bad for them and
it distracts them from concentrating on school. It is not just video game consoles that are evolving, the video games that are put into the consoles are also evolving. First video game created was Pong, then Mario and Luigi took over. As years continue to pass, games continue to advance and attracting more and more people to buy and play them; Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Guitar Hero, Rock Band etc... Unfortunately, as they continue to advance, they become more violent, with shooting and killing and that sets the wrong example to children. Though there are some video games that appear to be "beneficial" such as Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports, are they really good for you like they say or are they really too good to be true?
If you're asking for my opinion on whether or not the "beneficial" video games are actually 
"beneficial" for you, I would say that they have some advantages and disadvantage
s to it. Video games like Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Wii Sports, Wii Fit are games where you are not just sitting down on your sofa and you keep playing and playing. They are games where you're physically active and you're not just sitting down and playing for hours non-stop. Brain Age is a video game where there are a series of activities that requires your brain to work out math equation
s, count syllables in words, etc... Cooking Mama is a video game that has different recipes, where you are cooking in order to make the dish. Wii Sports and Wii Fit, is where you're doing a variety of exercises, as well as earning points. Video games like Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports say that it's good for you, as it requires you to use your brain and become physically active, but in general, it's still a video game and that would mean that people will get addicted to it. I have seen my cousins, friends, and other people play video games such as Brain Age, Cooking Mama and Wii Sports, there may be some good in them, but when I watch them play, you can tell from their faces and their facial expressions that they are still very concentrated and aggressive towards it, and by then it's just another video game, whether or not it's good or bad for you. In general, whether or not a video game is good for you or not, it's still a vi
deo game and it's meant for it to be addicting, therefore making the video game doing harm to you rather than helping you.
In my opinion, Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is an organization that has a really good meaning behind it. Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty started in 2004 and it continues to expand and reach many more viewers from all around the world today. The mission of Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty is to make women more beautiful by widening stereotypical views of beauty. Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty was to make women realize that those who are beautiful are not those who are thin, young and blonde. Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty wants to tell women out there that you don't have to be thin and/or young in order to be beautiful. I think that this campaign is a really good idea. It allows women from all around the world to get the idea that all women are 
beautiful in their own way. The way the media portrays beautiful women is thin, young, beautiful skin, beautiful hair, and/or famous. The way the media portrays women is not right. All women are beautiful in their own way. Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty allows women to discuss the way women are portrayed in the media. Women need to improve their OWN definition of beauty. They can't listen to what the media says about beauty because they have it all wrong. The media only cares about making money, they don't care about what you think about yourself, they only care about capturing your attention about their idea of "beauty" and try to sell you their products/service. Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty is a good way for women to realize that they are all beautiful in their own way and they shouldn't listen to what the media says.
I think that the Axe Effect Campaign in a way is looking down on women. The Axe Effect Campaign is telling the public that when men spray on Axe Body Spray, they will have women coming at your from different directions. This isn't true at all! The Axe Effect Campaign is too exaggerated. When you show a commercial with a man spraying axe body spray and a whole group of women running up to him, it makes it really hard to believe that something like that will actually happen. The Axe Effect Campaign just makes me feel like that company's today will do anything (no matter how exaggerated it is) just to promote their product to the public and make people buy more of their product, so they could earn as much money as they could.
Compared to Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty and the Axe Effect Campaign, they both have opposite opinions about what they want to say to the public. The thing with Dove and Axe having two opposite opinions of what they have to say is that they are owned by the same company; 
Unilever. Personally, I don't think that there's a problem with Dove and Axe having two different opinions, but owned by the same company. As long as Dove and Axe remain separate companies with each separate company keeping up their own beliefs. Dove should keep up their campaign for real beauty by releasing different phases of advertising real beauty, continue to improve women's definition of real beauty, and to improve the way women are portrayed in media today. Axe should not have anything to do with what Dove is doing, both of the companies have different opinions, that should not be mixed together. The way The Axe Effect Campaign is portraying women is the way that needs to be changed. Axe is portraying women like they need men in their life. Women being portrayed in the Axe Effect Campaign commercials and advertisements needs to be changed, as that is the wrong way to portray women and that is what Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty is trying to do. Each of the individual companies; Dove and Axe have their own, but different beliefs and values towards what they are trying to accomplish in their campaign. They should have their own opinions on how they want to do things and never let each others beliefs and values affect their company.
Looking at these ads really surprised me. Those ads are even more exaggerated then the ones that are shown in our society today! People would actually do ANYTHING just to get consumers to buy and use their product. The first ad that says: Eat! Eat! Eat! & Always Stay Thin! 
It's advertising that you should eat all you want and you'll stay thin by eating tapeworm. The ad shows people the wrong message. Tapeworm is harmful to our bodies. It is parasites that remain in our intestines for a period of time. Tapeworms in our intestine will absorb all our nutrients and start to multiply and spread to other parts of our bodies; lungs and will require urgent medical care. Tapeworm in our bodies results in our health deteriorating, numbness in our face, a blurry vision, seizures, allergic reactions, bacterial infection, and high fever. Eating tapeworm just to stay thin is not a good thing to do. The first ad gives out a wrong impression to those who read it. Staying thin isn't most important thing in this world.
According to the ad, men who smoke will always have women following them. It encourages men to smoke, so they will be popular amoung the women. Smoking is not healthy for you body and it doesn't make women follow you around. Smoking for a long period of time will cause damage to your lungs, mouth and fingers and may also result in death. The ad also gives us the wrong impression; smoking will not have women follow you around.
d. These days, lard is sometimes used for baking, but it is known that it's more unhealthy than butter. Just eating lard is not a healthy thing to do.
the society in the past was very lenient. They didn't care about what they were showing to the public. As long as they could earn money, that was all that mattered. That is somewhat like today's society. Even though, some of them may be as exaggerated and show people a bad example, there are still some restrictions. In the modern society, people already know that ads are mostly exaggerate about their products, so they would know not to believe much of the ad.
I went onto Google Street View and checked out Google's newest gadget. I searched up my address and I could see the front of my house. I looked around my neighbourhood and I could see properly all the roads, streets, houses, buildings, etc... There are certain advantages and disadvantages to Google's new gadget. Advantages would be convenient. People who are searching up an address or location using Google Street View, they are able to view a visual image of the surrounding area, so they will have an image of the location they are looking for and make that location easier to find. People may be able to find their location faster because they are already aware of what are the surroundings of their location. Other than that, there isn't much of an advantages to the Google Street View gadget. Disadvantages of Google Street View would be that there would be no privacy. People's faces, homes, and cars would be shown through the Web. Even though, faces and license plates would be blurred out, I think it's still wrong to reveal images like that on the Web, whether it's blurred out or not!
It's just not right for Google to post and reveal these personal images on the Web where anyone is able to have access to it. How people look, their homes, and license plate numbers of cars is considered as personal information, as you would have to register and get access to them through some kind of government. According to the "Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)", it is addressed to the collection and storage of personal information. It allows individuals the right to see and/or correct any information about them. Under the privacy law guidelines, personal information can only be collected if (1) you have the person's consent in order to have their personal information, (2) collected for a reasonable reason, (3) used only for the reason it was gathered, (4) accurate and up to date, (5) it's allowed to be opened by the person and be inspected by them, (5) and make sure the information is safe and secure. Google taking pictures of people's personal information; looks, houses, cars, license plate numbers is against the privacy law and they shouldn't have the right to post images of it onto the Web without their consent. Blurring an image doesn't make that image unrecognizable; people may still see some resemblance.
Personally, I don't think that Google Street View is a good idea. I will agree that it will make it easier and faster for people to find their location if they know the surrounding area, but it isn't an effective way to have your own privacy. Everyone should have their own privacy. They have a choice of whether or not to reveal personal information to the public. Google did not receive permission to post personal information onto the Web and by doing that it is against Canada's Privacy Law. Google Street View reveals personal information about people and it's not the right thing to do. I for one would not want my personal information to be revealed on the Web, as anyone who uses the gadget will be able to view it and use it for unknown purposes that may potentially end up harming you.
