Guidelines for writing a master thesis, how to write a master thesis?
Process:
You cannot just work: Have a clear goal and Make a plan of your process (not the plan of your Thesis!).
First, have a clear idea about what problem you want to solve (before you begin). You probably don’t know precisely what goal you will pursue or how.

The plan of your process:
1. Literature survey:
Read up on previous solutions to your problem. Decide what is your precise goal.
2. Design:
Think about how you will reach your goal. Make a design for an implementation that should make you reach that goal. Your design should be based on previous work.
3. Implement the design:
The output is a testable implementation.
4. Test the implementation:
The output is a set of test results.
5. Analyze the results from your test:
Based on the results you can now argue that the goal is reached.
6. Write report:
Based on your statement on motivation and goals, literature survey, design notes, implementation notes, and analysis of tests results you can now write the thesis.
7. Revisit all phases:
Set aside some time to make changes to the design and implementation, new tests and changes to the report. Improve were needed.
When you divide your work into these phases you should consider how much time to set aside for each phase.

Structure:
1. Motivations (why):
You have a goal, There are problems you are trying to solve. Explain them. What people in the real world are affected by the problem that concerns you? Your grandmother must understand this section.
2. Goal (hypothesis):
Explain in detail what the goal is. If your project contains an element of research (which is good) your goal is to (verify the hypothesis) investigate some particular method to verify its usefulness for some particular purpose
3. RelatedWork:
Describe what has been done before, discuss the theory that your work is based upon. Also explain why these theories are needed.
4. Method:
Describe your own work (how you reached your goal), motivate your choices (tell us why).
5. Results:
Document that you have reached this goal (or verified your hypothesis).
6. Conclusion/Discussion/Future work:
You can conclude that you have reached your goal or discuss why not (if that is the case). Also discuss hindsight: What were better or worse than expected regarding the methods. How could your project be improved by further work.

Source:
http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/~jab/MastersThesisAdvice.pdf

Guidelines of a typical science thesis, how to write a typical science thesis?
• A PhD thesis shall be
Substantial,
An original contribution to scholarship, (discovery of knowledge, the formulation of theories or the innovative re-interpretation of known data and established ideas)
• Will be judge for
The quality of research,
The significance of the contributions
The style of presentation (writing and layout)
• A bachelor thesis will be judge for
The originality,
The independence,
The mastery

• Structure
1. Title page:
Gives the title of the thesis in full, the candidate’s names and degrees, a statement of presentation in the form ‘This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of XXXXX’, the department and year of submission.
1.5. Letter:
The format of the undergraduate thesis is similar, except here take place a letter from the candidate addressed to the Executive Dean of the Faculty saying ‘This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (with Honours)’ and certifying that it represents the candidate’s own work.
2. Summary or Abstract:
Approximately 300 words. (not over 700) It should summarize headings, aims, scope and conclusion of the thesis.
3. Table of Contents
4. Acknowledgements:
Should include sources of financial support and all those whose help you have sought and got, and all those whose work you have directly built upon
5. Main Text:
….(a) Chapter 1: Introduction
….(b) Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
….(c) Chapter 3: Materials and Methods
….(d) Chapters 4 to n: Experimental Chapters
……..i. A brief introduction (Aim What did you do and why?)
……..ii. Experimental procedure (methods and materials) (How did you do it?)
……..iii. Results (What did you find?)
……..iv. Discussion (What do your results mean to you and why?)
….(e) Chapter (n + 1):
General Discussion or Conclusions (What new knowledge have you extracted from your experiment?)
6. Bibliography or References
7. Appendices

Source: http://ciips.ee.uwa.edu.au/pub/HowToWriteAThesis.pdf

More about literature review:
http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Literature_review – http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review
More about style writing in english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style
More about methodology, process and motivation: http://www.tadafinallyfinished.com/how-to-write-a-masters-thesis.html
More about thesis proposal: http://www.fdewb.unimaas.nl/aim/downloads/pdf/How%20to%20write%20a%20thesis%20proposal.pdf

Reactions to an interview with a technophobe (Hot and cold media); authentically human behavior

Statement:
We focus on “public status” which is the specific thing that brought Facebook (a little bit like Twitter).
Main reasons of disliking Facebook comes from its comparison with physical live communication. Live communication is assumed to be hot and Facebook to be cold.
That could be already a mistake if it would not be specified: Facebook should not be compared to physical live communication 1-to-1, but 1-to-many or some kind of lecture or open group conversation (shouting?).
Hot and cold will have to be define later. They are too broad but for now they are useful as they are evocative and understandable.

Facebook is said to ruin the quality of the message.
What is the quality of a message?
• Implication in composing the message: time spent, words chosen, personalised (targeted to at least a recipient)
• Interest of the message: entertaining content, informative content

Critics of main arguments
Undefined recipient – we are not necessarily the recipient of the message, we do not necessarily have a recipient to our message
Sending message: In this specific case, communicating sometimes becomes a game, a show. The aim is to compete for the more interesting message to collect reactions (“like” or “RT”). Implication and quality are present in these messages.
Receiving message: interview an addict, there might be a pleasure to be able to know everything through a live feed about your friends (comparing to the time spent on Facebook)

Instantaneity – amount and rate (speed) of message rise. We are distracted, multi-parallel-communication
There is a real pleasure to converse instantaneously, easily, it is closed to vocal live communication.
The “public” and the “multiple-parallel” conversation that make possible Facebook is a trade-off. It maybe make messages less powerful but the high quantity is maybe part of what makes it hot. Quantity is maybe a source of communicative satisfaction equivalent to quality.

Easy – technology makes things easier. Less effort needed, less effort spent
The notion of effort evolved it maybe became the fact of keeping alive a relation in the time.
Even if there is less effort, taking the time to select a receiver, write something and send it is maybe already an effort.
e.g. Wishing a happy birthday by Facebook is already taking the time to do it, to appear publicly on a wall, (some people might think it is estimating that we are not too intrusive by doing this and showing we are close enough).

Emotional expression limited by the medium – the interface limits ourselves. We need to find ways to express our feeling without writing a long paragraph of text
The quality doesn’t depends on the medium, but on the users, some users do take the time (because it is a matter of time) to bring what we call quality to their message.
There are possibilities to bring implication in communication from the users. e.g. “No wishes on my Facebook wall without gift” 
And that’s where comes the hacking (sms language, smiley, ASCII…)

Remember that non behavior is absolute and relying on the mass is not always the more interesting.

The medium goes toward some usages but doesn’t impose them. e.g. We can have really as much fine texts on the web than in books, it’s a matter of time and implication.
It depends if people turn the medium into their own tool, then it can defrost.
Some users succeed in communicating some kind of warmness in the message
I have to search for what usage of these media make them human “authentic”
e.g. Annoying someone during a quiet course by making ring his phone many times: no verbal understandable message but meaningful intention of communication.
e.g. Birthday on Facebook
e.g. Communicating by sending the link to a song which the title is significant

TDL
• Examples are very interesting, try to isolate them. Try to list a bunch of them (birthday, SMS breakup…)
• I have to search for what usage of these media make them human “authentic”
• Observe users, imagine strategies to observe them. e.g. ask what is your most remembered SMS in the past week (that I can copy)

Oral interview, Réanne C, 24 y.o., interior architect student: Not technophobe but close, at least, far from being technophile 

This is a synthesis of the interview.
This person likes computers as a working tool, but smart phones or computer as tool of communication doesn’t interest her.
For instance she doesn’t have and don’t want a Facebook account, she profoundly dislike it because there is a loss of quality (investment and interest) in the messages.

Reasons of low quality of Facebook messages
• Undefined recipient – we are not necessarily the recipient of the message, we do not necessarily have a recipient to our message
+ Instantaneity – amount and rate (speed) of message rise. We are distracted, multi-parallel-communication
+ Easy – technology makes things easier. Less effort needed, less effort spent
+ Emotional expression limited – the interface limits ourselves. We need to find ways to express our feeling without writing a long paragraph of text
= Less quality of the message

What is the quality of a message?
• Implication in composing the message: time spent, words chosen, personalised (targeted to at least a recipient)
• Interest of the message: entertaining content, informative content

Examples of consequences
Waiting for an answer (undefined recipient) + high rate of message (Instantaneity) = addicted to news feed, Like a drug
Message short and quick (easy) + forget smileys (emotional expression) = Interpretation possibly wrong

—-
Detail of the arguments

Let’s forget about embedded chat, private mails and groups of diffusion (lists of friends) for the moment. 
Public status is the specific thing that brought Facebook (a little bit like Twitter).
Main reasons of disliking Facebook comes from its comparison with physical live communication.
Live communication can be exclusive, privileged / at a defined moment of social interaction. Sequential, consecutive, intuitive.
Facebook is semi-public, no precise receiver of the message, too much interlocutors / is instantaneous but not synchronized, multi-parallel-conversation, is too much distractions and speed, not enough investment, effort in quality of message.
Information is quickly displayed, ready for consuming, free for any members: it’s the “fast food” of communication.

Undefined recipient – we are not necessarily the recipient of the message, we do not necessarily have a recipient to our message
When sending a message with no precise recipient we are waiting for an answer (or a reaction)
No reaction = no reader = frustration of being alone = like throwing something that nobody catches = depressed to talk alone 

Instantaneity – amount and rate (speed) of message rise. We are distracted, multi-parallel-communication
The ancestor of the blog is the book or the personal (open) journal. The scale of time is really bigger between writing, publication and feedback.
Even in a letter, ancestor of the e-mail, there is more patience, the pleasure of waiting.
We live in the society of instantaneous, we have got to work faster and faster and this trend applies to communication.
Emotions didn’t change, it’s the way to communicate them that is corrupted.
Less time spent, less implication, more message processed, less quality.

Easy – technology makes things easier. Less effort needed, less effort spent
Technology is made to assist us and it assists us also for communication – We delegate a part of our social interaction process to computers.
Delegating communication to a machine is considering that it is enough time consuming to simplify it and save time by leaving that to computer-assisting technologies.
The notion of effort in the communication gets lost because of the facilitation of communication by digital devices: Less quality of the message.

Emotional expression limited – the interface limits ourselves. We need to find ways to express our feeling without writing a long paragraph of text
We don’t have the tools to express human feelings using a machine, the interface is limited, or limiting. 
We need to recompile the message (when short) because not always well encodes (with smileys, or longer text), it leaves a wide room for interpretation.

Second question, why do you hate computer technologies or especially robots.
What if robots could help grandmas to cross the road? It’s a behaviour of humanity, it usually asks an effort. delegating this to a machine is considering that compassion is enough time consuming to avoid it and is worth saving time by leaving that to computer-assisting technologies.
Computer is made on wires and electricity, it is dead and cold and it is getting too close to life (imitating it, assisting it)
A living species like Human is characterized by 5 senses + intelligence. Computer and robots is trying to fake human being with sensors + artificial intelligence.
It’s frightening when this not alive thing have alive kind of behaviour that are comparable to instinct or intelligence (ex. robot dog).
Trying to Imitate life is wrong.
It’s the same with media. Talking face to face is rich because of all what surrounds the message. For instance you can look wherever you want (hands, eyes, etc.), you feel the smell of the other, the physical distance between the bodies, you can’t with a webcam.
Trying to reach that richness of communication doesn’t seems interesting.

—
Ideas
Interview more extreme users.
Technophobes – The lack of professional vocabulary forces to imagine metaphors, instinctive and simple way to talk about technology (good source of inspiration).
Technophiles or addicts – maybe extrapolates the good aspects of the trad-off of digital communication
– What do you like about it computers?
– What do you like about communicating with the computer?
– What do you appreciate by seeing your friends digitally instead of IRL?
– Do you prefer friends on facebook or in real?
– How did you brake with your last girl friend (depending the age of the user)

Interview people who spend time with the TV turned on without watching it. Is it to have a presence?

Are values changing? Is it a question of generation?
e.g. Wishing a happy birthday
50 y.o. people would see each other, send a post card
25 y.o people would SMS, telephone
15 y.o. people would mail, facebook only ?
It might not happen soon because the first social contact that human has is with his mother and except if babies are not anymore born naturally and raised by humans.
These behavior maybe already exist for extreme users as WOW players. An example of extreme user is a World of warcraft player that died because of too much playing.
Ref: “the machine stopes”

Play with communication interruption parameters
Waiting for an answer (undefined recipient) + high rate of message (Instantaneity) = addicted to news feed, Like a drug
Message short and quick (easy) + forget smileys (emotional expression) = Interpretation possibly wrong