Ah, Google. Master of our hearts. Like Wikipedia, Google is becoming (or has become) our go-to for any sort of fact-finding mission. Unfortunately I think that Google has started to take advantage of the fact that their company name has become a common verb. "You can Ask Jeeves it" simply doesn't have the same ring to it. I like the autoGoogle feature, wherein the search guy living in the computer tries to guess what you're going to say. However, I like it more for the entertainment value than for the saving of my poor, overworked fingers. Although, in the age of smartphones, the autocomplete is useful. Google uses its position as the goto search engine to its own advantage. Because of the personalized advertising feature, Google can make a living off of selling our search histories. It can also promote companies that support it, rather than simply allowing the search results to show what is most relevant. Monopolies are always dangerous, even when ere only talking about search engines. Who is going to regulate Google's practices if there is no other search engine to turn to that can produce the same type of efficiency?

The article on the creation and the creator of Wikipedia was fairly enlightening. I have long considered Wikipedia's information sources to be of the bored teenager variety, and therefore give little credence to the information I find there. I do admit using Wales' "Google Test". What's scary is how much faith that users put in the information found on Wikipedia. Even though there is some sort of policing of information going on, I don't think its enough to consider Wikipedia a credible source. The admins seem to be there mostly to remove profanity and nonsense, not to edit for factual information. I think its Stephen Colbert who actually encourages his fans to make up ridiculous information about him and post it on his Wikipedia page. Also, its concerning that when you review a page or article, you are asked to assess your own level of expertise. I just think there's way too much leeway when it comes to facts and Wikipedia.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Pygmalion, but there is something that has been bothering me throughout the play. Neither Higgins nor Pickering, though Higgins more obviously, view Eliza as a person. Higgins constantly refers to her as random inanimate objects. Both have conversations about her while she is next to them while making no effort acknowledge, let alone include her. Pickering sees slightly beyond her role as a student, as he calls her "Miss Doolittle" and notices that her gifts of mimicry extend beyond dialect to the piano. Higgins, however, sees her only in relation to what she can prove about his linguistic prowess, and what she can offer him (his slippers, remembering his appointments).

That's why I love it when Eliza finally has enough, and asserts herself, even if it is in a fit of fury. Sometimes, though, nothing can say "I'm not gonna take it anymore" like a slipper to the face. The conflict further shows Higgins' utter obliviousness to Eliza's existence as an actual person. He has no clue what she's upset about, and doesn't even seem to track that she was right beside him and Pickering when they were discussing "their" victory. Eliza has spent months allowing herself to be shaped, and it's only when she breaks out of the mold that Higgins has created that he shows an actual interest in her as a person.