knightlylights

Blog Post #23

2005-11-25T13:29:00.000-08:00

What role should government play in helping to overcome the digital divide? What role should schools play? Can you think of any other institutions that are important in helping to overcome the digital divide?

The government could revise the 'discrimination at a work place' policies. Being hired to be a receptionist shouldnt depend on your gender or the stereotyoe that women can type well, neither should being a computer mechanic. Yes, we live in a technologically advanced era but this is also the era where women, just like men, have the ability to do the same type of duty, and technology cannot be a factor that any gender, race, or other cant do what they want(or are good at)

Schools should stick to the traditional way of teaching. Put pen to paper and hands on books. I can see why in college computers and distance learning is necessary but what in the world could a kids from K-8th grade need any of that for? Introducing kids to computers and such could only further the digital divide because thats the crucial learning stage in a kids life and seeing that boys are better at computer video games and girls are good at typing will instill the childrens minds that they ARE different. I remember in high school I took a photography class where the girls were allowed to have digital cameras but the boys were given point and shoots.

I also think in science institutions there is a major racial conflict and these institutions could help us overcome the digital divide. A friend of mine is polish but is excellent in science and mathmatics but she says that a lot of the people that study hern field are Asian and are hostile toward her especially in the computer lab where you need to figure out codes and such and many dont think that thats her field even though shes just as good, or even better.

Personally, I dont think there much we can do about the digital divide but we should take it into consideration and begin sorting out whats discrimination and what isnt.

Blog Post #22

2005-11-25T06:20:00.000-08:00

Have you ever encountered the 'digital divide' in your own lives? Give an example from your own experience (or one you have heard about).

Over the summer I was working at a library as a clerical assistant to my boss. Being that most of the positions were seasonal, I was in charge of hiring a new batch of people for the fall. My boss had explained the guidlines and criteria for every position we had available. For the most part I had to look at qualifications and formal dresswear, until we got the copy machine and clerical positions...For the copy machine she told me didnt want a female, because women could be of no use if the machine broke. "Its a mans job." For the clerical she specifically wanted a woman, because women were better with typing and telephones. "Thats a womans job."

The day of the interviews came. I followed her orders directly, until a woman came up to me with excellent qualifications for the copy machine. I tried to worm around the position by offering her clerical or bookstacker but she was set on having the position for the copy machine. I couldnt fine anything wrong with her resume or any reason to deny her the position so I signed her papers and gave her the position that she wanted. My boss wasnt very happy with my decision again citing that it wasnt a "womans" job and a few days later had moved the woman to the bookstacking position.

I rememebr I felt horrible that such a divide still existed, partially because of technology. It kind of makes me think that if years ago women were fighting for a right to vote and equality in a work place, now their struggles are even more complicated then they were because of constant advances in technology that promote men and demote women, thus prolonging the divide regardless of the freedoms given. I personaly see this technological division of gender as a cycle that will only expand with the coming years.

Blog Post #21

2005-11-17T11:40:00.000-08:00

#21
Pick one sentence or phrase in the Mcluhan interview that you find interesting or important. Say why you picked it

"TV is revolutionizing every political system in the Western world. For one thing, it's creating a totally new type of national leader, a man who is much more of a tribal chieftain than a politician. Castro is a good example of the new tribal chieftain who rules his country by a mass-participational TV dialog and feedback; he governs his country on camera..."

Reading through the Marshall McLuhan interview, I found this statement to be "scary but true." I mean it really made me think, are we as a society truly goverend by television? Without this technology, would we truly be able to hear the message our president was giving? How strange is it to think that your president is governing you through a TELEVISION? I thought back to the time around the 2004 election of the president, and how I had followed very closly whatever was going on, and even watched the debate between Kerry and Gore on TV, and I thought to myself, I never once picked up the paper, or turned on the radio, my decision on who I wanted to be my presidnet came directly from the flimflim shown on BBC and CNN. What Marshall McLuhan said was a powerful thing to say, partially because its true and because it makes you realize that everything you do or your country does comes from a little white man on television. It also made me realize that I dont know any actual rules or laws or about any events other then the ones I hear about On TV, may they come directly from politicians or news reporters.

Blog Post #20

2005-11-17T11:04:00.000-08:00

#20
Pick one media technology, and say how you think it has had an effect on our experience.

One media technology that I think had an effect on our experience is the digital camera. Last Christmas, my best friend upgraded me from the age of "point and shoots" to the digital camera. What a great invention...Until you have to print out the 2,000 something photos youve taken.

Ive always been quite passionate about photography, and have different sets of albums for different catogories. When I got my digital camera, I found much joy in previewing the picture Im about to take and getting a chance to retake it if the lighting or angle isnt right. I also found much pleasure in being able to play around with my photos, adjusting color, tone, etc. and print it out in the comfort of my home. No more film rolls with limited pictures, no more blurry photos, just crystal clear images as perserved memories of the good times youve had. Well guess what? A recent poll shows that nearly 60% of Americans dont print out their digital pictures, even though they own the printing equipment to do so. Why? It takes up too much time, and theres this knowledge that your photos wont "expire"(as they would with a regular film roll), they just exist in your memory card, some you go through, some you delete to make room for more, and out of the 500 that you've stored you only print out...3...

Pictures are memories, we have them to remind us of where we've been and refresh our memories of those we lost, but nowadays a photo album is a chip that fits in the palm of your hand(or is transferred to exist in your computer). Your memory card is literally your memory. This affects future generations, for we no longer have solid pictures to go back to. They just kind of exist and if anything happens to the little chip that fits in the palm of your hand, well then, youre screwed. I think we have taken pictures for granted, I for one have 3,000-something photos that Ive taken over the year none of which Id printed, and dont plan on printing anytime soon. Wheras before I could recieve all the pictures Ive taken for a mere $7.95, and place them neatly in my album, now all my memories exist in a chip or on my computer, both of which are so fragile they dont gaurantee to be the most trusted keepsake. Digital cameras are changing our experiences, in a a sense that we entrust our memories unto a chip or worse a computer, and although they make things easier, they tend to make us forget what taking pictures is about, and Im fairly sure that in a few decades when kids begin to ask what grandma looks like, we wont really be able to show them, for the black and white heirlooms that our parents treasured, dont exist in our world.

Blog Post #19

2005-11-11T07:09:00.000-08:00

#19
After reading the Machado case, what are your thoughts on our responsibilities as 'online citizens'

I find "online citizen" to be such a strange term, especially because Im well away of the "communities" existing online. It really does seem like the "world is at your fingertips." After reading the Machado case, I immedietly remembred an incident that I had in chatroom that caused me to not go into chatrooms anymore.

I remember the day 9/11 had happened, I went home and that night went online into a chatroom. What had happened in NY was in everyroom and I had mentioned that I was from NY. A lot of people were asking me about what Id seen and what was going on and this one guy flat out said, "I fucking hate Amercians, you deserved 9/11 and its fucking funny how you fucking pricks cry out for your mommies." Most of the people in the chatroom sort of told him off but he continued laughing about the situation and pretty soon people started calling him a "fucking Arab" etc. After a few hours in the chatroom, people had actaully divided themselves into patriots vs. non patriots. Bashings of every aspect of the Muslim religion to the christian religion, from Americans to Arabs filled the chatroom. The whole time the guy was laughing and before signing off he was like, "Im gonna kill you, fucking NY'er." I didnt take him seriously but he angered me enough from all chatrooma ctivity, because sometimes thats where you find smallminded people.I though about my responsibilty in that situation, and I think that it was to just keep quiet and not instigate. The guys responsibilty was to be polite for the sake of tragedy. But at the same time would censoring what people had to say break the rules of free speech? Even if its something you dont agree with?

I guess its our responsibilty as online citizens to apply "constructive criticism" in the online world. Just be smart about what we say. But at the same time online is the only place where you can say what you really think, even though most of the time its just to make others angry. I personally dont think theres much we can do unless specific rules are made and enforced, btu that argues censorship. Its a no win situation.

Blog post #18

2005-11-11T06:50:00.000-08:00

#18
Think of your own example of a 'conceptual muddle'. Explain your example.

I think a good example of a conceptual muddle would be cellphones and privacy. A few months ago, I had a rather unpleasant experience of somebody hacking into my cellphone, listening to all my messages, and erasing them, all the while using MY minutes. Because I hardly knew the person, but didnt feel like taking a chance, I decided to fill out a police report but ended up brushing it off because as the officer asked me questions, I felt stupid trying to explain technechalities I didnt even know. I mean, how do you define such a situation? Is it harrasment? Or is it identity theft? What do you say in such a case? My phone bill the follwing month was outrageous, but I decided it would be easier to change my number and just pay the whole thing off rather then bother pressing charges against something unidentifiable.This raises the question of privacy. My privacy was violated, but the only existing rule against cellphone usage is stalking, and certaintly I wasnt being stalked. My privacy was violated but there are no rules to prove that Im right. So how do you know what is a violation of privacy in regards to cellphones, when only one rule exists?

Blog Post #17

2005-11-01T13:00:00.000-08:00

#17
After reading Talbott and Holdrege's paper, how much of a danger do you think biotechnology represents to our environment, and our lives?

Do you know think differently about this subject than you did before you read the paper? Explain why.

After reading Talbott's and Holdrege's paper, I think that bio technology can literally destroy us if we choose it over nature. It's something that I've always known, but until recently I haven't really done anything like recycling or conserving energy. There's a part in Sowing Technology called the Mad Cow, where it states that we feed the cows remains of itself, or other animals. It brings up the point that we gone as far as "violating an organisms integrity" in addition to creating diseases. I actually learned about this when I first became a vegetarian. Some cows are forced to drink blood mixed with hormones and lipids in order for it to gain weight faster.

In term of danger, basically, we're only creating more harm then good by choosing to go ahead with things like nuclear power plants whose, "Chemical spills can be cleaned up but there is no recalling the replicating genes we have loosed upon the natural world." Or genetically engineered food, or anything that isn't natural because although it can be cleaned up the effects are still there, and most of these effects are irreversible making biotechnology all the more dangerous. I mean I was watching the Oprah show and she was saying how every little bit helps and that if we get a "recyclable, energy-conserving bulb" rather the regular one then we've made a world of a difference. She also said we could buy minivans instead of SUV's, and replace our linoleum floors with "minoleum" which is totally safe and recyclable. There's a million of things that could be done but here's the problem. The "energy conserving" bulb costs $10 as opposed to the regular being $1, no one in their right mind would buy a van and get rid of their SUV, and that minoleom costs triple of what the linoleum would cost. So when I say that the dangers of biotechnology are great and irreversible that because they are. They aren't impossible but I don't thing that anybody would be willing to spend double the money for the sake of the earth when the poisons out there are so much cheaper and easier to find.

Blog post #16

2005-11-01T12:23:00.000-08:00

#16
How important do you think it is to recover a harmony with nature? Do you agree with Talbott that today we have lost this sense of harmony?

Talbott writes in The Need for a Change of Mind, that "If today we merely draw a blank when we look at nature, it is because we cannot see what we cannot name..."

A few years a go, my best friend, who's been a birder for years and studies phenology for a hobby, took me and a friend out to the mountains. As a birder, her and her husband sat on that mountain watching birds and calling out names that my friend and I have never even heard before. To me and my friend, this was a bird and as glorious as it seemed soaring out in the open sky, the fact that it was just a bird left us both unfazed after a few hours. In fact, I was bored out of my mind by the 7th hour on that mountain. On our way back down the trail, she began naming all the things she saw and stopped to study them. My friend and I were so eager to get back to the city that we had marched hand in hand right in front of her and waited in the car while she got all that "nature" out of her system. You see, I was bored out of my mind because I had no idea as to what was around me. Its kind of like putting a non mechanic into a parts shop. After a while, the non-mechanic is bound to have his eyes wander around with the ticking hands of the clock, awaiting freedom. Anyway, a few years later after I had opened up my eyes a bit, and crammed my brain with basic knowledge of birds and plants, my best friend and I had gone camping. We went hiking and I found myself to be content sitting by a marsh making a list of all the birds I saw the day before, and just trying to identify all the different sounds I was hearing, crickets, bullfrogs, etc. I must've sat by that marsh all morning, just observing. And even now in the city, my senses are thriving because I never let a plant of anything that resembles nature pass me by, so I agree with Talbott's quote and certainly that we need to reconnect with nature because when you do, you stop taking things for granted.

I also think that now, we've been forced to pay attention to nature due to all the natural disasters occurring in the world. I've also felt like we had neglected nature and I've always viewed these disasters as a way of mother nature telling us that we need to slow down and give her a break from all the CO2 and other technological nonsense. It seems as if we need to find peace with our surroundings and cherish them because forests, like oil are finite resources. Just as we cannot expect animals to adapt to our terms, or just ignore extinction. Essentially the importance of regaining our sense of "harmony" with nature is crucial to OUR survival.

Blog Post #15

2005-10-28T17:17:00.000-07:00

#15
Whom did you find to be most persuasive on the subject of cloning? Wachbroit or Kass? Explain your answer.

Although I am a firm believer and science and stem cell research, I must say the topic of cloning is a bit tricky. I found Robert Wachbroit's argument to be the most persuasive although I do lean toward the banning of cloning(Kass) a bit more, but not necessraily due to Kass. Kass argues that the banning of cloning would give us as people the right to steer our HUMAN nature into dignity, and that clones would only lead us into a future that isnt "human." From what Ive read, clones do look like the people they are cloned from but they do not carry the experiences and feeling as those people. Clones are mere genetically identical beings but in no way "artificial intelligience" types. Most arguments made by people who do not support cloning are really arguing general terms, such as "the child wont be loved" or "the child will expectations higher then the person he was clones from." Wachbroit argues a very good point which that most kids born now, have expectation that proceed them and there are plenty of kids out there right now whom arent getting love. Then there is the process of cloning. One of these processes ahs helped many couples suffering from infertility have children which is Vitro fertilization. Although not as successful in many people, it does help many others and the so called "test tube" babies live healthy normal lives and are perhaps loved more them many "normal babies." Then theres the medical reasons for cloning. If direct donor or blood match is needed in order to help a family member suffering from a terminal illness, then cloning is the perfect way to help, as in the case of bone marrow transplants. Also, as stem cell resreach, cloning could help pave the way to many cures from cancer and so on.

HOWEVER, although cloning promises great advancements, and although people for cloning argue great points and much more scientifically rather then generally as in the case of anti cloning groups, I have a few issues with cloning that I'd like to bring up. As much as I'd hate to argue the "what ifs" of something that has yet to happen, here it goes:

1)If cloning does become a reality, Im sure of the fact that it would be availble for a rich community first and foremost. I heard of a program where supermodels sell their eggs for $50,000 online. Do you not think if I wanted my baby girl to look like say Angelina Jolie, or Charlize Theron, that I would not pay ANYTHING to have a mere sample of their blood?
2)Take the example of the wealthy woman in Ohio who recently lost her cat. She had it cloned for $500,000, money that could pay for my college left and right was spent on cloning a cat because this woman cant understand the concept of death. Doesnt cloning defeat the whole concept of death? Yes, the person wont act like the person that you lost but they sure as hell look like them and isnt that what really matters?
3) And if clones would be for the sole purpose of donors and such, doesnt that make them really our lab rats? Thus we're treating what we argue to be "human" as if it werent. And what about all the first clones that come out with "glitches" AKA mutations, are they going to lead healthy, normal lives or just be poked and prodded in a labratory?

Basically, although cloning would be most likely responsible for many medical breakthroughs, wouldnt it also be available to only certain types of people and be taken advantage of?

See the movie Gattaca, it shows exactly where all this cloning and the choice to choose genes can lead to.

2005-10-22T17:30:00.000-07:00

#14

Take a look at the privacy websites in Course Documents, week 8.

Pick an issue that you think is interesting or important, and write about it. (NOTE: you must pick a different issue than the one you picked for #13!)

Secret Code in Color Printers Lets Government Track People
Yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco consumer privacy group, said it had cracked the code used in a widely used line of Xerox printers, an invisible bar code of sorts that contains the serial number of the printer as well as the date and time a document was printed. The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged yesterday that the markings, which are not visible to the human eye, are there.
(Source: Privacy.org)

When I read this article I had found that to be a mind boggling issue because almost everyone has a color printer! Whos to say that is its in the xerox brand that its not in hewlitt packard? Marking not visable to the human eye isnt the only thing that worried me when I read this article but what do these people need to track their customers for? What the agenda behind this? To me, serial numbers and other bar codes that are used to scan pruducts shouldnt be in existence because the consumers whom are around them all the time arent even sure as to what these things are being scanned for. I mean theres what we're told and what there actaully is, the fine print so to speak. I guess barcodes and such we've become accstomed to because theres no second thought as to what being scanned but maybe things should be conducted in a manner that people can understand rather then lines and numbers. Maybe a system of just scanning the price but not through the barcodes, but the tag with the list itself would be better. Just something that people can understand. That company ought to be sued, stealing and possible storing information like that, whos to say they arent like a secret gang or robbers?

Blog post #13

2005-10-22T16:39:00.000-07:00

What do you think is the most worrisome threat to privacy in our technological age? (Focus on a specific example)

Oh my, where do I begin? A few days ago my friend was able to hack into a camera stationed on 42nd. You could see everything and everyone, I found that to be very disturbing and it made me realize that alothough the internet poses as great threat I view the hidden camera as a much bigger threat frankly because on the internet you may find numbers and contacts related to me but with a camera you could see what I do, where I am, and basically know my identity, which I consider to be my face, not my social security number.

In the past decade, hidden camera's have gotten smaller, better disquised, and available to anyone. I did some research and found a site who's starting line is, "Sure, it would be nice to think that you can trust your employees, your nanny, your spouse or your children, but that's not always the case."(http://www.cornerstonesecurityservices.com/) I find it to be very, very,scary that my boss or fellow employee, or neighbor can set up equipment to keep on eye on me and what I do, especially knowing full well that in this day and age it could be done for the wrong reasons. Recently, controversial issues such as whether camera's should be allowed in dressing rooms has come up and the shocking factor is that THERE WERE camera's there for a long time without our knowledge and only now is the issue being bought up in courts. Surveilance camera;s at the entrances of major hotels and business buildings is understandable, but street cameras? Store camera's on every corner when u already have them at entrances plus metal detactors? Isnt that a bit extreme? "Nanny cams?" Im a babysitter and if a parent isnt comfortable with the sitter then why not just look for another one? Why in the world you need a machine to confirm your gut feeling is beyond me. I for one am NOT comfortable with cameras and am disturbed that they are available to anyone. Whos to say your dentist isnt an obsessed freak who takes home taped of you on his chair and rewinds them over and over? And what if your corner shoe salesmen has a foot fetish and stalks you after viewing tapes of you trying on different shoes? Theres strange people out there and I dont trust the power of surveilance/hidden cameras in just anybodys hands. And the most threatning thing is that its not considered that big of an issue. It like a hidden camera is secret weapon that no one really considers thus giving more power because its overlooked.

Blog Post #12

2005-10-07T04:52:00.000-07:00

#12
Try to explain ONE of the concepts below (from Heidegger's essay) to your younger brother or sister.
Remember, they are only young, so do not use any big or complicated words! Examples will help also.
1) Revealing (or aletheiea)
2) Bringing-Forth (or poiesis)
3) Enframing
4) Standing Reserve
(Remember, you only have to explain ONE, not all of them!)

Little Virginia comes up to me and asks me, “Tonia, my teacher mentioned revealing today, also known as aletheiea, what does that mean?”

“Well little Virginia, from my understanding, aletheiea is Greek word that means revealing, or truth. Revealing in our words means to uncover, come out, or tell the truth of, as in you “uncover” the secret of Spongebob Sqaurepants square shape, it is a truth that you revealed. Anyway, a long, long time ago there lived a man named Martin Heidegger, whom studied the Greeks and applied what they knew to our time. Greeks revealed a lot of things but sometimes certain things reveal themselves to us. Do you remember a time when you saw your first rainbow?”

“Yes.” Answers little Virginia.

“Well think of what that rainbow showed you that nobody else did.”

“Colors, it showed colors.”

“Well these colors, revealed themselves to you. Thus the rainbow showed you a truth of what it looks like, meaning that sometimes we don’t have to look for the truth, the truth can come and find us. If Spongebob spills a cup of milk and his mother doesn’t know, his milk mustache will “reveal” to her that he was the last to drink that cup of milk without Spongebob telling her. So sometimes you don’t have to “reveal” a secret, because that secret will “reveal” itself.”

Blog Post #11

2005-10-06T14:37:00.000-07:00

#11
State one thing you learned from the website on Heidegger. Why did this particular learning experience stand out to you (i.e what did it 'say' to you)?

Ok. I hate to be the one to argue, but one thing in philosophy that has always frustrated me is the conviction that this one human being has found a way of thinking or approaching questions that NO ONE else in the world has thought of. Reading Heidegger’s idea that his, “Method of "questioning" strives to expose the unexamined assumptions that shape our understanding of the world we live in. He tries to find the "blind spots" in our thinking that keep us from a more profound--and, we might say now, more "empowering"--way of conceiving the world and our place in it.” This idea that his way of asking questions or taking on the responsibility to rationalize and conclude peoples own thoughts and ideas is mind boggling to me, especially being that his conclusion is that we all generally think that Technology is Means to an End, and a Human Activity. Yes, generalizing the idea that technology is a human activity is a broad and simple idea but how does one say that everybody thinks that it is a means to an end? Does that mean that technology, which is made by humans, equal a humans own destruction of themselves? How are all the advancements explained? How is generation defined were it not for technology? Just the whole idea of somebody finding this “blind spot” is bizarre because how is that this one person can see our blind spots when we ourselves cannot, and how can he come up with a conclusion that is so simple that cannot possibly be a blind spot, nor is is something that is of truth(in my opinion anyway).

The words “blind spot” and the assumption that every person but one has the ability to see its meaning on that particular subject aggravates me. What if I were to say that grass is green and set out on a journey to prove myself convinced that everyone doesn’t even think of grass as green and “generalized “ peoples opinion on grass as a means of color or texture. Does that mean that no one else in this world has ever though about grass and that I was the only one to discover it and peoples “blind spot” toward it?

Blog Post #10

2005-09-30T06:19:00.000-07:00

#10
Jonas argues that we need a 'new ethics of long-range responsibility'. Do you think we would need to change the way we think to live up to this idea?

No. We don’t need to change the way we think to live up to his idea of “new ethics of long range responsibility” because if I understand correctly one of his ideas concerning this is that “ignorance of the ultimate implications becomes itself a reason for responsible restraint” which I disagree with entirely. Restraints come after a series of chaotic events, these restraints we can either put on ourselves or they are imposed on us but either way these restraints don’t exercise responsibility but more of our own constant want for freewill. Basically if we step up to a new level of responsibility then we are restraining our human morals and putting limitations on science and ourselves.

I mean, its kind of like saying that with every improvement in science, we need to step up to responsibility but to me it would make more sense to step up the responsibility on science and technology because we ARE its creators and it is only our responsibility to instill limitations in our science, not ourselves.

Blog Post #9

2005-09-30T06:16:00.000-07:00

#9
Pick a passage in Hans Jonas's paper that you find interesting. Write down the first sentence and the page number, and then say why you picked it.

P.130 IX (2nd edition I believe)
“Thou shalt not kill” was enunciated because man has the power to kill and often the occasion and inclination for it-in short, because killing is actually done.

I found the entire reading to be a bit redundant, until I got to the end. I found this passage to be the strongest and most related to what I’ve always felt toward rules and such.

Hans Jonas states in this passage that rules are written not to prevent an act but to set a consequence. Killing for instance, he says that that it is instinct, nature, that an action take place before it is ruled as wrong or given the right to linger in existence. The ethics of technology however gives people power to reverse that theory in a sense that before the action takes place rules are set and the nature of instinct is minimized thus making science the true foundation of the current society.

I agree that the action has to take place before it is barred from or lives. There is really no way to prevent anything because is instinct doesn’t occur then I’m sure curiosity will get the best of most. Rules that are set ins tone so o speak where set a handful of people for millions to follow, but they don’t prevent anything, they only set a punishment rate, but technology isn’t included in that aspect of our lives and really tells us mechanically that crashing a car is bad, or drying off your cat in a microwave is idiotic, thus our instincts are really just routine senses that prevent us from “true” instinct I suppose.

Blog Post #8

2005-09-23T04:35:00.000-07:00

#8
Feenberg argues that democracy can transform technology. How would you like to see technology transformed in the future? (or if you think technology is best left alone, explain why!)

What I would like to see happen most in technology is the production of NECESSARY advancements. Technology always changes to meet the lifestyles and demands of people, but sometimes too much is just too much. Sometimes its just sheer competition, a marketing technique we all know and loathe.

Ill bring up an Ipod as an example. The Ipod is a favorite for everyone and anyone who hates making trips to the music store, or much less spending money to help the wealthy become wealthier. The Ipod stores hundreds of your selected songs, shows the name of the song, and makes it easy to find your song. Its the ultimate in digital entertainment. But how far is too far? When the Color Ipods came out, I wasnt surprised, afterall even I wouldnt mind owning one in my favorite color, then the slim Ipod came out, alright I thought to myself, it reduces the theft of Ipods and increases your saftey(although I must admit it is of higher demand then the original) but then, Mini Ipods came out, Ipods that broadcast radio stations, Ipods that download pictures, Ipods that are slimmer then three sheets of paper, Ipods Silver, Ipod gold, Ipod furry(exaggeration, but Im sure Im not too far from the truth) And all this time Im thinking to myself, one is more expnsive then the other, all require upgrades but essentially they PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION! Why in the world do you need all this variety? Meanwhile, those motor wheelchairs, stay the same, they still are huge, run out of batteries really fast, and prevent you from going into smaller places because backing up is a beastly routine. I mean shouldnt we focus on more important things?

Basically technology needs to slow down and not go overboard. Theres need and then theres an obsession, and I think companies are using technology to turn peoples needs and turning them into an obsession.

Blog post #7

2005-09-22T15:07:00.000-07:00

#7
Do you agree with Feenberg that technologies can be seen as incorporating or 'embodying' values and commands? Use examples to explain your thinking on this subject!

My understanding of Andrew Feenbergs. Democratic Rationalization article is that he believes that technology is sort of like mathematics and science, the difference is that unlike mathematics and science it has social advantages. He presents an example of the bicycle which evolves through customer demand into a “safety” bicycle through combinations of customer needs and demands, he later states that, “Technologies are selected by the dominant interests from among many possible configurations” (p.106)
He also says that the whole “selection” process goes by social codes made by cultural and political struggles that ultimately shape the oncoming technologies.

I agree with Feenberg, I guess mostly because everything that most people can think of to improve what they already have has been made. One example that I can think of is constant changes in Gameboy. It stared of as a gray contraption capable of only black and white classics such as “Block Dude” and now I’ve seen it transform into all the different ideas that customers put together, such as GameboyColor, which has different color casings and tons of games, with much needed improvement in graphics and the latest which is Gameboy Advance which put together color graphics and sound and made it clearer, which the control placed much more conveniently at the sides, also becoming smaller, with a far more protective casing so as that your screen doesn’t get damaged. I mean, its constantly evolving into something better to better serve your needs. I mean now it’s a fad to have everything smaller, so Gameboy is coming it with a smaller flatter screen to meet demands thus “embodying” commands.

I personally find it absolutely amazing that every time I come up with an idea, it’s already out on the market or is in the process of being made, kind of feels like my mind is being read.

Blog post #6

2005-09-17T14:19:00.000-07:00

#6
Do you agree with Langdon Winner that we can understand technology as a 'form of life'? Make sure you fully explain your answer, using examples!

Yes, I agree with Langdon Winner that we can understand technology as a form of life because I think we certainly treat it as such. I mean at one point in the reading he says that technology is the foundation of modern life and as a person who has never know the world without phones, or email, the world at my fingertips so to speak I believe that its changed our way of living dramatically, sort of like progressing the process of evolution except we’re evolving by becoming intertwined with technology instead of appearance-wise.

One example that I can come up with is a bass player. A bass player would be nothing without his amp, and his amp is nothing without an outlet, take all of this away from the bass player and he isn’t a bass player, he can longer play at a show, he has been robbed of his form of life. A bass is nothing but technology, it isn’t your average guitar and its not compromised in case technology disappears, there is no other use for it, thus this bass player is nothing, as opposed to a pianist whom plays a electronic keyboard, if this keyboard no longer functions he is still a pianist because he can play the non modern form of piano.

Blog post #5

2005-09-15T18:31:00.000-07:00

Think of your own example to illustrate what Sclove calls the 'polypotency' of technology (p. 91). How, if at all, does your example help us to understand technology as a form of 'social structure'?

When Richard Sclove refers to “polypotency” he means it to be something that is, “potent in many ways.” Potent to my knowledge means powerful, and in Richard Scolves example of a hammer that one uses but knows has many meanings behind it means that there are inventions that are powerful enough to have consequences on thought and the way human beings perceive things. Sort of causing a chain reaction between objects and thoughts. Richard Sclove uses a voting machine as an example of technological tool that gives people purpose, and substantial power.

An example that I would use to show the “polypotency” of technology would be a paintbrush. When one uses the paint brush one can feel the wood between the fingers, watch the bristles move slowly back and forth, one can think if Da Vinci or Goya, or maybe even religion due to arts major role in the church, either way it becomes something that can cause the mind to trace back to the origins. I guess my example helps understand technology as a form of ‘social structure’ (police technologies, computer databases, etc.) by introducing a universal object, one that has history and certainly beauty behind it, something that is quite obvious but not thought to be. I dont know but to me social structure especially defined by technology just seems to be mind control, which it essentially is.

Blog post #4

2005-09-09T19:24:00.000-07:00

Do you think that, on the whole, technology helps or hinders the goal of gender equality? Or does it perhaps not make any difference? Explain your answer.

I personally dont think that it would make any difference because I think that the gender issues out there today are more of on the social level then anything. I think to females their experience of make inferiority is felt more in personal issues like relationships or at a workplace and the same applies to males. The growth of employment in the field of computer science does indicate a higher percentage of male workers then female but THERE ARE female workers in this field. Maybe women are more interested in liberal work then computers, it just doesnt seem unequal to me, especially with all the gender rights laws here in America, a woman can be as corporate as a man, I just think she doesnt choose to be.

Blog Post #3

2005-09-09T19:07:00.000-07:00

Do you agree with Gorlan Lee Bush's criticism of the 'tech-fix'? Can there ever be technological solutions to social problems, or is it always wrong to think that technology will eventually give us the answer. Make sure you use examples to support what you say!

I disagree with Gorlan Lee Bush's critisicms of the tech fix. If technology created, creates more problems then certaintly those problems can be fixed. I think that the point the article was trying to bring out was that technology makes things easier for us but at the same time its only a quick fix because soon enough it'll dvelop a problem. The whole point of a new invention is to advance our knowledge and I believe that by making room for error we're only advancing ourselves to the next step, and in the society that we're living in thats just the case and so far we've done well.

Blog Post #2

2005-09-09T04:13:00.000-07:00

Technology is playing an increasing role in education today (let's face it: we wouldn't be having this class otherwise!). State what you take to be advantage and one disadvantage to using more technology like computers in education.

Well, first of all one major advantage of using technology like computers in education is it makes research A LOT easier. As students when the workload nearly triples, you dont really have the time to run to and fro the library, and while your professors ask you type up your reports and site your sources, youve got everything you need right under your fingertips. Or using this class as an expample, Im a full time student, I dont have the time to be running around from class to class because I have a lot of work on my plte as it it, this way I can take the course Im inetersted in and pace myself in the comfort of my own home thus being able to do all my work and more. Another advantage is certaintly the skills that you obtain. In a world such as such basic internet and tyoing skills are required(so much that on every resume you must state your experience) so this way youre learning skills you'll be able to use anywhere.

The disadvantages would be, contracdicting my first advantage, is that you no longer educate yourself with books, many have no idea how to even find a book in a library anymore(I was a libarian over the summer believe me I know!) Another disadvange is lack of writing skills I guess, I mean you dont really have to learn how to spell things anymore because youve got spellcheck on you Word, and you begin to lack the social advantages, although not completley, it still feels like youre being cheated out of something. I guess the disadvantges in general are really eduactional, things become easier and in this fast paced society you just tend to ignore what once was.

Blog post #1

2005-09-09T03:54:00.000-07:00

What do you think was the main point Langdon Winner was trying to get across with his video satire, 'The Automatic Professor Machine'?

The main point that Langdon Winner was trying to get across with his video satire, "The Automatic Professor machine was that technology is being used to create an easier life for people but at the same time taking over a persons role in society. The video stated that many of todays technologies are taking over peoples jobs, thus creating a faster way of service but at the price of a lesser need for human contact. He was making fun of how if his invention, which is an automated professor, would be sold on tghe market then it would make learning an easy experience for todays students, by making tutition cheaper, and being that its technological it wouldnt really be a problem, really stating that youre making things easier for yourself by not having to put up with people.

Personally I realize that we live in the world of the internet, credit cards, and microwaves, and I agree wholeheartidly that we're making more room for technology then we are for people in the employment world but if theres one thing that I dont think can ever be taken over is the teachers position, mainly because a computer cant give personal feedback.

Cosmological argument.

2004-12-10T10:36:00.000-08:00

OK. To a religious person God's always existed, to a non religious person we came from cells. Two cells are better then one, and when a third one joins you already have more dont you? There are reasons the iron in our blood is identical to the stars above, there are reasons we as humans continue to witness evolution in the smaller species before us, tell me now, who has more logic, the person who believes that there is a spirit out there that always existed and made everything in 7 days or the person that has an actual chain of events. If the cosmological argument is that there is no effect if there isnt a cause then tell me where the hell God came from. A scientific point of view doesnt only make more sense, but it also proves a whole lot more then a Bible ever will.

Computer

2004-12-02T07:22:00.000-08:00

Well being that the computer is programmed with somebody else's emotions and can lie I dont really think theres any question I can ask that will put it in an awkward position, but I'll try...

1)Christmas time has always been my favorite time of the year because my grandmother and I always bake Gingerbread cookies for the neighbors, have you ever made Gingerbread cookies with YOUR mother, computer?

A computer cannot make cookies and although it knows the recipe it doesnt have a mother or hands to make them with.

2)I was walking through Central Park the other day, and I came across a homeless man of about 50, I felt great pity for him knowing all too well that the NY city winds will be picking up and snow is headed our way so I bought him a ham sandwich with a cup of hot tea, it feel great to give, have you ever done that computer? Given out of the goodness of your heart?

The computer can lie but we all know that although it can programmed to love it cannot carry out physical actions and actually give.

3)My favorite fragrance has a lways been vanilla. It's a sweet scent that can be compared to a teaspoon of honey or the look of a read rose. Describe your favorite fragrance computer.

Computers cannot smell, or describe the simple pleasure in life so this ought to confuse it.

I guess the whole point is to put your own emotions into the question to stump the computer because it doesnt really have memories so it might answer in a technical manner which isnt something that's of human nature.

CheErs

Hinrich and Fromm

2004-11-20T14:56:00.000-08:00

#14

I absolutley agree with Hinrichs statement that, 'we need to get over the idea that humans - and, in particular, the human mind - are somehow mysteriously outside of nature'because I believe that we are all the same, animals, humans, whatever. The only thing they say that seperates us from humans is the fact that humans can talk, but I wonder can animals not tlak in their own way? Can not every being on this Erarth communicate? To say that one way of communication is any less then the others, such as words vs. bird calls is absolutley absurd. I think that all humans on this Earth do indeed have to realize that we arent superior, and we have to connections to anything that we BELIEVE is out there.

#13

One point of view that I find interesting comes from Erich Fromm and its about the idea of freedom. From my understanding he believed that freedom is an essencial part of our living bt that its always limited due to social chnages or govenment and I agree with that.

Martin Luther

2004-11-14T16:41:00.000-08:00

I do agree that its possible to engage in cilvil disobedience and still show respect for the law, but I also think that nothing is going to get done for the cause you are "civially" promoting. If you think about it, is there really a point to rallying peacefully? I mean if youre not in the govenments way, or not breaking any laws then youre not going to looked at seriously, or be paid attention to. I mean to a bunch or rich city officials, youre not huting anyone but youreslf rallying "peacefully" outside their gate but yourself. So whats the point? You can gets as many people on your side as you want but the people you should really try and get are law officials and I believe that it has to be done in a manner that will show you mean business.

Crito

2004-11-11T16:18:00.000-08:00

I agree with Socrates' arguments on why we should obey the laws primerily because his reason is that it keeps order and theres a certain respect that we have or should have for athority because its really our second parent. Before I read any of Sovartes views I was always againt laws because to me it didnt make sense to follow something that someone just like me created but Socrates makes sense in his argument and therefore changed my mind.

Khadduri

2004-11-09T16:07:00.000-08:00

State one thing you learned from reading Khadduri's essay on Islamic Justice. Make sure you refer to the text in your answer!

One thing that I learned from Khadduri's essay is that he apperantly thinks that justice is better served in the hands of a "superhuman" charcater such as a sage rather than a human being because that way the laws wont chnage from generation to generation and stay the same and be respected because a higher power always is. My understanding is that the muslim culture has always followed God's word because he is the only one who knows the true destiny of man.

Communist Manifesto

2004-11-09T15:52:00.000-08:00

P.147

I agree with the statement that says that being in a communist society isnt isnt getting rid of any properties but rather properties that belong to the burgiouse because it owning propetyies really is an exploitation of the poor.

Mill

2004-11-08T15:02:00.000-08:00

Why is this person brining up an animal like its of lesser value? His whole passage dealt with how our values are more important and that anybody else doesnt matter. A pigs satissafction is of no lesser value than Socrates and Im tired of animals being placed second in socitey wehn all of our behaviors are the same. We are in no way superior and it doesnt matter to me wehether this guy is satisfied or not because he will always be momentarily hungry for inquires of no importance.

Breaking the rules

2004-11-07T13:00:00.000-08:00

There are may occurances that justify the breaking of a rule. I dont mean to sound cliched but arent rules made to be broken? Rules are rules because we make them, therefore it is our self right to break them, is it not?

For instance, you can lie to save someones life. You can break your promise if unforseen circumstances come about, such as you promise to go to your sons basketball game but your best friend was in a accident and you have to go visit her. Promise broken, but well justified. And you can kill in self defense, for if someone tried to take your life, it is your right to not give it away.

Kant and Lying

2004-10-29T10:18:00.000-07:00

In defense to Kants opinion that it can never be morally right to lie, Ill say that its true, and a very hard to follow concept but at the samae time, I feel that its only human to lie and to lie to save someone elses life to me would be the right thing to do no matter what because at that point it doesnt really matter to me what anyone thinks of me or my worth because soneones life is in my hands and that will always be my number one priority being that Im the kind of person who will take a bullet for anyone, even a stranger. I guess I just think that theres always an exception, and sometimes its ok to lie to save your behind or someone elses...I mean take a long heard look at the world we are living in, wouldnt you say I was right?
Unforseen circumstances will always have unforeseen results, thats just the way the world works and just because it isnt right doesnt mean that its not on option, in the end, we answer to no one.

CheErs

Kant

2004-10-14T11:01:00.000-07:00

First of all Im not even clear on what Kants opinion is on what is the "right thing" or the "right reason" is. I mean, it seems to me that he realized that there is a motive behind everything that we do, and that our motive is wrong, but what does he suppose we do? I dont think he has had a clear understanding of his theory, or of exactly what it was that he was asking us. If one day you decide not to do something because you dont feel like it then you have every right not to force yourself, and if you are going to force yourself then whatever it that youre doing to help mankind is for the wrong reason because your heart isnt in it. Yes there is the "right" reason but who's to tell us whats right? I think we as individuals are the judge of that based soley on our experinces in this world. You cant tell me that because Ive negelcted my duty for a single day makes me of less moral worth, in fact, it makes people who need me to be there, regardless of what Im feeling, self centered and interested in only what THEY get.

None of this works out.

CheErs

Gadfly

2004-10-12T15:33:00.000-07:00

One person that I would consider to be a gadfly would probably be President Bush.
It seems to me that even though he is incredibly hated and left our country extremely dissatisafied, people still want him in office. It appears to me as though people are much more comfortable with having a mistake they know rather than a new mistake, causing his possible re-election. It seems as though we dont want him, but need him out of fear of utter chaos breaking loose with his departure. I would compare him to a nuiscance that is needed to keep the eco-system going.

Benevolence

2004-09-28T17:31:00.000-07:00

What is benevolence? Benevolence is a state in which you are kind and charitable and according to Confucius it is the most important moral quality you can have. I agree with this to some extent but I will also say that in the world that we are living in today, benevolent people are constantly being taken advantage of, and they too turn into spiteful people. Basically I just don’t think that its possible to stay kind and charitable and not have that spark of reality ignite a fire. But anyway, if Confucius didn’t want people to think of him s a Sage then why should we listen to what he has to say? If he’s not confident in his philosophy why should we be?

Nice concept though.

Buddhisim

2004-09-11T11:36:00.000-07:00

I don't really understand how sitting under a tree gives you the answer to suffering. There are two different types of suffering. Self induced and something you have no control over, Buddha chose his suffering therefore, his answer could never help anyone who's suffering wasn’t a choice.
That’s one, two, how is that you spend your life roaming the country side attempting to find an answer to suffering and nothing comes out of that, but when you sit under a tree, alas! Low and behold, you’ve got the answer? I don’t buy it.

I don’t think that in the world that were living in "ought to" and "should" really has meaning. What we ought t have is happiness. What gives us happiness? Something that we shouldn’t have. But who’s to say what we should and shouldn’t have? If were to live according to Buddha’s teachings then the whole world would have to start from scratch. We'd have to completely eliminate all the impurities and indulgences that run our world, is that really possible? No, Unless we go back to being cavemen and forget all that we know, it wont happen. And anyway, who's to say that we cant find peace with all that we have? If you have nothing, you'll spend your life wanting everything, its human nature. If you have everything then you'll spend your life attempting to find where to place it, that’s where Buddha’s teachings come in. Perhaps instead of sitting on our behinds and attempting to find the answer, we should really be out there helping, being productive, with ourselves and our money.

CheErs

Plato's Allegory

2004-09-08T16:41:00.000-07:00

I strongly disagree with the Plato's allegory of the cave. His finding that the world is an illusion is a very interesting one but how is it possible that we as a society are oblivious to this and he isn't? In his allegory he compares us to prisoners chained and unable to move hence the reason that we do nothing but "assume." I feel that he conradicts himself because he's assuming we live under false pretenses and is accusing us of ignorance. No one out there is actually chained, we are given the freedom to move, feel, see, smell, and hear and we do so. The problem wih our society is that we have become accustomed to routines and walk around like mindless drones completley uniterested in absorbing our surroundings. If one was asked to describe the scent of a rose, one probably wouldn't be able to go into full detail which means that we see things but we don't presume that we know what they are. I think the problem in our society is that people lack communicative skills and maybe a writing class or two are in order to help us describe the images we intake on a daily basis. Basically we see things as they truly are(and if we didnt then Don Quixote wouldnt be much of a classic), we're just unable to describe them.

CheERs

Blog

2004-09-03T13:16:00.000-07:00

Testing, testing 1,2,3....First post on this blog thingie. Woo.