I am completely opposed to Google Glass as a product. From a technology standpoint, it's incredible, but I really don't think it will add positively to anyone's lives as far as privacy or social interactions are concerned. We're getting closer and closer to the point where people have no privacy whatsoever, and are constantly being seen and recorded by everyone's Google Glass memory. Also, as Sam and Lauren pointed out, constantly having social networking in front of your eyes would not only destroy social ties, etc., but also put people in jeopardy during activities that require complete focus. I do not think Google Glass is, or ever will be, necessary to the development of the human race.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/google-introduces-new-search-tools-to-try-to-read-our-minds/?ref=technology

What do you think about the new tools Google has added to become even more involved in the way its users live? Is it invasive and dangerous, or is it the next of useful technology? Google Glass has already come under fire for being an invasion of privacy, so how do you think people will respond to this?

As many have pointed out, this was an excellently covered article, especially considering it was such a delicate subject. I thought it was great that they showed that rape doesn't always have to be aggressive and violent to still count as rape - rape is rape, no matter the circumstance. "Yes" while intoxicated does not mean yes, not saying anything does not mean yes, and so on. I think it would have added to the article if they got some quotes from students who may have been the ones doing the slut-shaming. So many people look at things like rape and bullying, and say "I would never do that." But when put into context like this article did, we see how easy it would be for any of us to tease someone who was raped under the belief that she is a "slut," or even for someone to rape another person at a party or other event without asking for consent.

I think that the media has been pretty decent in their coverage of events like the Boston Marathon - what encourages people to commit these kinds of atrocities is the fact that the media sensationalizes stories rather than just reporting them. They don't necessarily glorify the killers, but, as Nate pointed out, they put way too much focus on the event above others and publicize tragedies to the point where people will think that they could be famous, too. I believe that the media should focus less on the drama of the story and get at the real heart of these tragedies. How can we prevent them? How are they caused? Reporting on the story in a way that offers new insight as well as a simple relay of the facts is much more important than turning the story into a way to gain readers and viewers.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/is-gun-control-dead/

An interesting take on why gun control is having such a difficult time getting through Congress, even in its most watered down forms. Do you agree with the point made in this article? How good has the Times' coverage of the gun control debate been in general?

This is awful! I think it's really important that this issue is brought to light in the Bark, but the way they handled this story was really bad. It didn't glorify the issue, persay, but it definitely downplayed the severity of the hazing and made it seem like casual news, not a serious problem. Even though they got quotes from both sides, it made it seem like it was not an issue that really needed to be stopped. As Maile said, it was pointless. This is such an important issue that is so hurtful and disgusting, it cannot be written about in such a carefree manner. But, hey, it does make Tam look better by comparison!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/business/in-a-changing-china-new-matchmaking-markets.html?pagewanted=all

Modern day misogyny at its finest. Women in China are not considered suitable to be a wife if they outshine their husband in achievement or brilliance.

Why do you think China still keeps this state of mind about women's roles in marriage/the world? Do you think it will change in the future? How?

It's true, luck did have a big part in this particular situation. But for the most part, I think that the Tam News handled the situation very well. The job of a journalist is to inform, and the fact that we did research quickly and efficiently enough to get the article up fast deserves some credit. Since this is such a critical issue, there are a lot of rumors going around as it is, and by later editing the article and adding certain facts we may have left out, we made it clear that we knew what was happening with the story. Sometimes, luck is a factor, but for the most part, an article doesn't always have to be perfectly edited and refined when time is of the essence.

I agree with many of the above comments - the classroom is not a place for guns. As someone said earlier, fighting fire with fire is NOT the way to go with gun control. By making guns readily available to use in the classroom, suppose that if an intruder does break in, they may be able to take the gun from the teacher. The key to controlling school shootings and gun violence is to make guns LESS available, and starting the job in stores and places where they are sold. Intruders should have a lot of difficulty getting access to guns. By putting them in the classroom, it not only makes students feel unsafe, but it also puts everyone in more danger.