I just submitted my final paper and I am now officially done with Technology and Culture of America (after this post....). It has been an interesting semester, learning things that I never thought I would learn in a college class, but it was a very nice surprise to experience such a class. I used to take technology for granted and never thought about the underlying meanings and potential consequences. Now, though, I know better.
As my last blog post, I wanted to talk about something that I found inspriring and interesting, which is the success people get through just the web. A lot of talent is hidden in the world and a lot of the times, it's discovered via the web! Singers like Sean Kingston and Soulja Boy were discovered on popular sites such as myspace and youtube. Others make their living through the internet, such as bloggers and online store owners. Case in point: http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/shop/local-online-brand-hanalie-latest-hong-kong-fashion-success-613688?page=0,0, and http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/shop/how-make-money-beauty-blogging-987709?hpt=C2.
It's pretty amazing that these people were just doing what they liked, not for any financial reasons. The financial gain that came later was just an added bonus for them. Interestingly, this would not have been able to happen if not for the infinite reach of the web. The one part about the first article that I thought was really interesting was when the second blogger said she refused to only give raving reviews about the companies that sponsered her. She basically told them from the start that she wouldn't lie to her followers, which is very admiring. The second article talked about how two students who weren't even experienced in the fashion industry ended up reaching success through their online shopping site that features pieces they wanted for themselves! This is seriously a strike of luck.
If people can get this kind of success from simply doing what they want online, they have no reason to pursue another path just for the money. I feel like the web has enabled people to carry on with their desires and freed them to be happier! Yes, critics can say this type of life is not guaranteed, it's risky, hard to manage, too time consuming, etc.etc.etc, but for these people, it was well worth the risk and we should applaud them.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
final essay, just about done!
So I'm at the wrapping up stage of my essay with about a page and a half to go, and felt that I needed to take a break. Although, this break will be used productively and not wastefully! The question for me now is how I should be concluding the essay.
Looking over my essay, I fear that I might have focused a bit too much on just the negatives of technology. One of my sources is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html?_r=1, which talks about how plagiarism is a growing problem in the generation jaded by the amount of information ready to it. As we even talked about in class, students plagiarize not only because it is easier, but also because they don't know what actually constitutes as plagiarizing and what doesn't. Maybe I'll write about positives of technology, like online courses and what Dean Markowitz talked about a while back. Case in point: http://www.tuftsdaily.com/online-courses-play-growing-role-in-higher-education-1.2423651. It looks like my 6 page paper will be extended (haha yay!).
.......................................
My whole paper just changed.
I think that technology has benefited higher education more than damaged it. Oh snap. Restructuring the essay is going to be painful but hopefully, it'll be worth it. Despite the negative pressures, technology has enabled society to advance, and the integration of it within higher education helps future generations prepare for the future. Even if there are some things lost on the way, it seems crucial that students learn as much about technology as possible.
Looking over my essay, I fear that I might have focused a bit too much on just the negatives of technology. One of my sources is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html?_r=1, which talks about how plagiarism is a growing problem in the generation jaded by the amount of information ready to it. As we even talked about in class, students plagiarize not only because it is easier, but also because they don't know what actually constitutes as plagiarizing and what doesn't. Maybe I'll write about positives of technology, like online courses and what Dean Markowitz talked about a while back. Case in point: http://www.tuftsdaily.com/online-courses-play-growing-role-in-higher-education-1.2423651. It looks like my 6 page paper will be extended (haha yay!).
.......................................
My whole paper just changed.
I think that technology has benefited higher education more than damaged it. Oh snap. Restructuring the essay is going to be painful but hopefully, it'll be worth it. Despite the negative pressures, technology has enabled society to advance, and the integration of it within higher education helps future generations prepare for the future. Even if there are some things lost on the way, it seems crucial that students learn as much about technology as possible.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Final Paper.....topic one...?
I left off my last blog regarding the final paper with the decision that I would pursue the second topic.....but I decided to change my mind, I think!
Just last Wednesday, I had a unique opportunity to have a decent conversation with Dean Markowitz. The specifics of how it got to that are unimportant, but I will just say that I was lucky and smart enough to chat with him despite having a cancelled Business Forum class. One of the many things we touched upon was how he was creating materials for an online course that students will be able to take in the summer. There were various tools that made possible for him to engage in the same kinds of activities that he would normally do in class, and students taking the course would be able to get just as much from it as anyone who physically took Dean Markowitz's class. This conversation immediately reminded me of how technology is changing higher education.
"Are modern-day college campuses technopolies?"
Technopoly - a self-justifying, self-perpetuating system wherein technology of every kind is cheerfully granted sovereignty over social institution and national life (according to Postman)
In other words, did technology take over our college campuses?
Well, in a way, yes. Actually, scratch that. Definitely yes.
But I think the real question is if technology has helped or worsened the conditions within Universities. The problem is, it has done both, depending on the situation. I don't quite know how to clearly state one way or another. Perhaps an overall exploration will suffice for me.
The only thing I'm worried about, though, is the fact that I have to use "ample citations and/or quotes" from the Postman book....seeing that it was the second reading we did, I don't quite remember every little detail. Hopefully I will have enough time to re-read the book and have a clear idea soon enough!
Just last Wednesday, I had a unique opportunity to have a decent conversation with Dean Markowitz. The specifics of how it got to that are unimportant, but I will just say that I was lucky and smart enough to chat with him despite having a cancelled Business Forum class. One of the many things we touched upon was how he was creating materials for an online course that students will be able to take in the summer. There were various tools that made possible for him to engage in the same kinds of activities that he would normally do in class, and students taking the course would be able to get just as much from it as anyone who physically took Dean Markowitz's class. This conversation immediately reminded me of how technology is changing higher education.
"Are modern-day college campuses technopolies?"
Technopoly - a self-justifying, self-perpetuating system wherein technology of every kind is cheerfully granted sovereignty over social institution and national life (according to Postman)
In other words, did technology take over our college campuses?
Well, in a way, yes. Actually, scratch that. Definitely yes.
But I think the real question is if technology has helped or worsened the conditions within Universities. The problem is, it has done both, depending on the situation. I don't quite know how to clearly state one way or another. Perhaps an overall exploration will suffice for me.
The only thing I'm worried about, though, is the fact that I have to use "ample citations and/or quotes" from the Postman book....seeing that it was the second reading we did, I don't quite remember every little detail. Hopefully I will have enough time to re-read the book and have a clear idea soon enough!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World PART III
After reading the final section of David Kirkpatrick's "The Facebook Effect:The inside Story of the Company That is Connecting the World," I realized how little I actually knew about the way facebook works, despite my earlier prconception that I would be among those who were on top of their "facebook knowledge."
Although the third part did include more of the background of the company and its finances, I was mostly engulfed by the way it can and has been helping people around the globe. Regular people can become activists and leaders in their communities with the start of an event on facebook, such as Oscar Morales, who was mentioned again in this part as a speaker to a conference of youth activist groups. Facebook was one of the 5 companies who helped to organize, fund, and carry out the conference, which discussed the importance of web 2.0 and how these groups can help each other in their journeys (p. 291). Facebook acts as a 'safe' nd 'guanranteed' medium for dissatisfied people to express their thoughts, and as illustrated on page 289-290, the majority of them do get the effect they wished to get in the first place. State scholarships, drug raids, and jail expansions were among those which prompted people to speak out.
Not only do individuals gain from facebook, big companies also have the opportunity to reach out to the people and reap in benefits. For example, Mazda was able to get its name out to millions of people by asking its fans on Facebook to help design a car for 2018. Similarly, Ben & Jerry's asked its fans as to what their next ice cream flavor should be. Every time their fans contributed, their friends would see that so-and-so participated in an event hosted by Mazda or Ben & Jerry's. In other words, this was a genius way to get the companies' names out to people for very cheap, if at all. Small companies can also benefit from facebook by purchasing ads and having the ability to present them to a very specific market, made possible by the real information facebook has of its members.
Another thing that really caught my interest was the first chapter of this section, which dealt with applications, especially the games. Although I had to stop, I was an avid user of facebook games, such as Restaurant City, Country Story, and even the infamous Farmville. It was really interesting to see how the whole community of applications progressed from a small group of fun albeit useless ones, such as Food Fight and Fluff Friends. Mark Zuckerberg was "disappointed at the silliness of many of these apps" (p. 228), but I feel that's the reason why so many of these applications were so successful. People were on facebook for enjoyment and entertainment, not to be "serious" all the time.
As a final note, I was just wondering how the new facebook profiles are to be impacting the users as well as the creators. I know that a lot of people dislike the new profiles, but I wonder if we will all just get used to and come to love it, as we did for almost everything else. Also, I wonder if the creators can see all the negative responses they are getting and are considering changes.....
Although the third part did include more of the background of the company and its finances, I was mostly engulfed by the way it can and has been helping people around the globe. Regular people can become activists and leaders in their communities with the start of an event on facebook, such as Oscar Morales, who was mentioned again in this part as a speaker to a conference of youth activist groups. Facebook was one of the 5 companies who helped to organize, fund, and carry out the conference, which discussed the importance of web 2.0 and how these groups can help each other in their journeys (p. 291). Facebook acts as a 'safe' nd 'guanranteed' medium for dissatisfied people to express their thoughts, and as illustrated on page 289-290, the majority of them do get the effect they wished to get in the first place. State scholarships, drug raids, and jail expansions were among those which prompted people to speak out.
Not only do individuals gain from facebook, big companies also have the opportunity to reach out to the people and reap in benefits. For example, Mazda was able to get its name out to millions of people by asking its fans on Facebook to help design a car for 2018. Similarly, Ben & Jerry's asked its fans as to what their next ice cream flavor should be. Every time their fans contributed, their friends would see that so-and-so participated in an event hosted by Mazda or Ben & Jerry's. In other words, this was a genius way to get the companies' names out to people for very cheap, if at all. Small companies can also benefit from facebook by purchasing ads and having the ability to present them to a very specific market, made possible by the real information facebook has of its members.
Another thing that really caught my interest was the first chapter of this section, which dealt with applications, especially the games. Although I had to stop, I was an avid user of facebook games, such as Restaurant City, Country Story, and even the infamous Farmville. It was really interesting to see how the whole community of applications progressed from a small group of fun albeit useless ones, such as Food Fight and Fluff Friends. Mark Zuckerberg was "disappointed at the silliness of many of these apps" (p. 228), but I feel that's the reason why so many of these applications were so successful. People were on facebook for enjoyment and entertainment, not to be "serious" all the time.
As a final note, I was just wondering how the new facebook profiles are to be impacting the users as well as the creators. I know that a lot of people dislike the new profiles, but I wonder if we will all just get used to and come to love it, as we did for almost everything else. Also, I wonder if the creators can see all the negative responses they are getting and are considering changes.....
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Final Assignment: WHAT DO I DO???
So last night we were given the instructions for the final assignment for the Technology and Culture in America course. The topics are not that bad; actually, both are pretty doable, which is the problem. I don't know which one I should pick because both interest me but seem a bit difficult when I start to delve further into them. Another factor I'm worried about is the quality of outside sources I will consult for the assignment. Since both topics are arguable and can even be controversial, I'm afraid I'll be linked to wacky blog posts or really biased pages. Hopefully, I'll be able to find decent articles and not have to rely on Wikipedia or something like that (haha).
The first topic regarding universities as technopolies brings up an interesting question of whether or not higher education is negatively affected by the growing technology. Without much thought, most people would agree that technology has improved higher education, as it made information readily available and helped students and faculty alike become more efficient with innovations. However, the truth is that because of such accessible information and such convenient tools, people are becoming less competent and more dependent on outside factors. Inventions such as calculators are amazingly helpful; however, people tend to forget how to actually do the problems, rendering them useless without a calculator. Despite all this, I don't know how I could take the topic further to expand for 6-8 pages and present a well developed essay.
I think I slightly prefer the second topic because there seems to be way more that I can talk about. Among other things, America is known to host a wasteful and ungrateful bunch of human beings. The society described in Slade's Made to Break is of obsolescence. Despite the rise of the environmental movement in America, it seems like America is miles and miles away from the path of going green. Sure, there are commercials and programs advocating "going green" here and there, but in reality, the society as a whole has not made much changes. The fact is that going green is expensive and too out of the way for greedy and lazy Americans. The possibility that putting too much resources into going green can hinder further technological development may also play a factor in America's reluctance of going forth with the green movement......I'm pretty sure I can find decent articles regarding America's wastefulness and how often new products come out and etc., so I think I'll be looking into this topic!
The first topic regarding universities as technopolies brings up an interesting question of whether or not higher education is negatively affected by the growing technology. Without much thought, most people would agree that technology has improved higher education, as it made information readily available and helped students and faculty alike become more efficient with innovations. However, the truth is that because of such accessible information and such convenient tools, people are becoming less competent and more dependent on outside factors. Inventions such as calculators are amazingly helpful; however, people tend to forget how to actually do the problems, rendering them useless without a calculator. Despite all this, I don't know how I could take the topic further to expand for 6-8 pages and present a well developed essay.
I think I slightly prefer the second topic because there seems to be way more that I can talk about. Among other things, America is known to host a wasteful and ungrateful bunch of human beings. The society described in Slade's Made to Break is of obsolescence. Despite the rise of the environmental movement in America, it seems like America is miles and miles away from the path of going green. Sure, there are commercials and programs advocating "going green" here and there, but in reality, the society as a whole has not made much changes. The fact is that going green is expensive and too out of the way for greedy and lazy Americans. The possibility that putting too much resources into going green can hinder further technological development may also play a factor in America's reluctance of going forth with the green movement......I'm pretty sure I can find decent articles regarding America's wastefulness and how often new products come out and etc., so I think I'll be looking into this topic!
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World PART II
The second part of the Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick revolved around what was happening behind the scenes with Facebook, mostly regarding its financial status. The more I read, the more weirded out I am of Zuckerberg. He is certainly a character.
Despite the huge success Facebook had even back then, it was hard for them to be financially stable and independent. Because they had such an incredible growth rate that even they were not expecting, they had to spend more and more on storage space to make sure their database did not overflow and crash the entire site. Nevertheless, they were able to survive and stay on track with the help of VCs and smart negotiations from Parker and the likes. Not to mention, there were numerous CEOs of really BIG name companies such as MTV, Viacom, and even Yahoo who were willing, even desperate, to negotiate a deal to buy out Facebook.
It was really interesting to see how certain features of Facebook I use and take for granted were developed and received initially by users back then. When I first joined, the photo albums were developed but definitely not as widely used as they are used nowadays. Then, when the news feed option came to be, it drove people to participate in an endless chain of take pictures, upload onto computer, make facebook album, upload pictures to facebook, tag people, repeat! It became a competition of some sort to be tagged the most by others, to upload the most albums, and even to get the most comments on one's photos. As a side note, when the news feed feature first came to be, I saw all the negative feedback. In fact, I was one of those who just didn't understand the need for such a thing. However, I'm really glad Zuckerberg decided to keep the news feed because it really is a convenient way to see what my friends have been up to while I was out, in class, sleeping, or working. I never have to worry about what I'm missing anymore (haha).
In a short amount of time this social networking site grew from a small project at one college campus to a site with over 10 million members from early teens to adults in their 50's and older. This shows the immense power the web has in this new technology-centered world. How else could this small project have been turned into the crazy addicting site we all know and "love" today? Yet, this brings up the controversy over privacy. In a virtual world where we can be friends with even strangers, how can people be safe and secure? As explored in the last chapter of this second part, Facebook is not at fault. In actuality, it can help us to better control our privacy; we can control what we want to share and what we don't want to share. Ultimately, it's up to us to decide what should and should not be plastered all over our facebook pages.
Despite the huge success Facebook had even back then, it was hard for them to be financially stable and independent. Because they had such an incredible growth rate that even they were not expecting, they had to spend more and more on storage space to make sure their database did not overflow and crash the entire site. Nevertheless, they were able to survive and stay on track with the help of VCs and smart negotiations from Parker and the likes. Not to mention, there were numerous CEOs of really BIG name companies such as MTV, Viacom, and even Yahoo who were willing, even desperate, to negotiate a deal to buy out Facebook.
It was really interesting to see how certain features of Facebook I use and take for granted were developed and received initially by users back then. When I first joined, the photo albums were developed but definitely not as widely used as they are used nowadays. Then, when the news feed option came to be, it drove people to participate in an endless chain of take pictures, upload onto computer, make facebook album, upload pictures to facebook, tag people, repeat! It became a competition of some sort to be tagged the most by others, to upload the most albums, and even to get the most comments on one's photos. As a side note, when the news feed feature first came to be, I saw all the negative feedback. In fact, I was one of those who just didn't understand the need for such a thing. However, I'm really glad Zuckerberg decided to keep the news feed because it really is a convenient way to see what my friends have been up to while I was out, in class, sleeping, or working. I never have to worry about what I'm missing anymore (haha).
In a short amount of time this social networking site grew from a small project at one college campus to a site with over 10 million members from early teens to adults in their 50's and older. This shows the immense power the web has in this new technology-centered world. How else could this small project have been turned into the crazy addicting site we all know and "love" today? Yet, this brings up the controversy over privacy. In a virtual world where we can be friends with even strangers, how can people be safe and secure? As explored in the last chapter of this second part, Facebook is not at fault. In actuality, it can help us to better control our privacy; we can control what we want to share and what we don't want to share. Ultimately, it's up to us to decide what should and should not be plastered all over our facebook pages.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Wikipedia Auditing for Midterm Presentation - EDIT
My group and I decided to audit the Wikipedia page for Scientology. Yes, Scientology, the infamous 'new religion' that has gained national and international attention in the past years. The objective of the assignment was to evaluate the page itself and see if Wikipedia was indeed an "encyclopedia" that people can use as a scholarly source. Because maintaining objectivity would be hardest regarding a controversial topic and it would provide us more content to work with, we had to pick a topic that would be under the "controversial" category. After much agony and brainstorming, Sara (I think) blurted out "Scientology!" It was an epic moment.
After the whole process, I do believe that Wikipedia should not be used as a scholarly source. Sure, the articles do have their merits, but the overall reliability is not too great. In my personal opinion, I think it's a great site to get a slight overview of many topics. There are enough truths, albeit presented in a specific way, to give the reader a decent summary of various subjects. The brief overview is definitely there. However, its weakness lies in the fact that editors all have their own biases and no one site can be free of that. In some instances, different sections have conflicting views because the editors had conflicting views.
Yet, I don't know if I can even avoid the temptation of using Wikipedia for school, despite my findings. I know for a fact that students still use Wikipedia as their primary source, finding ways to go around the citation by using random citations at the bottom. While it may fly by for some teachers, as Wikipedia possesses legitimate information, the danger is that for other teachers, it may be obvious to them that their students are a lazy bunch of sneaks. Technology, as we discussed in class, is making us a lazier society.
From this project, I learned how even the sources presented in the bottom of the Wikipedia article are not as scholarly and reliable as they seem. I will be more careful the next time I look at Wikipedia as a reference. If I ever want to use information from a Wikipedia article, I will make sure to verify my facts from other sites before going through with it.
After the whole process, I do believe that Wikipedia should not be used as a scholarly source. Sure, the articles do have their merits, but the overall reliability is not too great. In my personal opinion, I think it's a great site to get a slight overview of many topics. There are enough truths, albeit presented in a specific way, to give the reader a decent summary of various subjects. The brief overview is definitely there. However, its weakness lies in the fact that editors all have their own biases and no one site can be free of that. In some instances, different sections have conflicting views because the editors had conflicting views.
Yet, I don't know if I can even avoid the temptation of using Wikipedia for school, despite my findings. I know for a fact that students still use Wikipedia as their primary source, finding ways to go around the citation by using random citations at the bottom. While it may fly by for some teachers, as Wikipedia possesses legitimate information, the danger is that for other teachers, it may be obvious to them that their students are a lazy bunch of sneaks. Technology, as we discussed in class, is making us a lazier society.
From this project, I learned how even the sources presented in the bottom of the Wikipedia article are not as scholarly and reliable as they seem. I will be more careful the next time I look at Wikipedia as a reference. If I ever want to use information from a Wikipedia article, I will make sure to verify my facts from other sites before going through with it.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World PART I
Facebook is arguably one of the most important websites to the average high school/college student (even middle school and elementary school kids these days!) Case in point: I just checked my facebook (unintentionally) in the middle of writing my first sentence. Honestly, I wasn't too thrilled about READING how facebook evolved from its limited Harvard community to the global enterprise it is currently. But, the first part was an easy read, with an easy transition from one point to the next; I barely realized how far I have gotten in the reading.
With the superficial relationships and usage of facebook these days, I was a bit shocked to read the prologue with the story of Oscar Morales and Mark Zuckerberg's description of his goals of facebook in the beginning.
Oscar Morales was an ordinary citizen in Colombia, where the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) instilled fear and anger in the average Colombian. His story was inspiring, and set an almost unrealistic view of facebook, as if anything was possible with facebook! With a simple creation of a group, Morales was able to organize a world wide march again the FARC (p. 4). He became a celebrity and a hero; thanks to facebook, he was able to pioneer an influential group who stood up for the Colombian people.
Mark Zuckerberg had an interesting way of describing facebook: a platform for people to improve already existing relationships. It's ironic how people nowadays argue how social networks such as facebook negatively affect personal relationships, as if the internet-based relationships are replacing face-to-face connections.
I especially loved all the little bits of Mark Zuckerberg the readers can put together throughout the reading. He is one interesting character. Undoubtedly, he is a smart guy with a slight tendency to get in trouble in one way or another. He dabbled in various programs during his first year at Harvard, some of which led to massive usage as well as conflicts. The descriptions of Course Match (p. 20), Facemash (p. 23), and Synapse (p. 25), which is eerily similar to Pandora, make me wish someone like Zuckerberg existed here at Rutgers. Yet, he had his batch of problems. He sounds like a creeper, first of all, staring at people and keeping quiet, seemed to have an elitist mentality, and obviously had trouble keeping good interpersonal relationships with people, judging from all the various problems he had over the course of the years. Of course, to give him the benefit of the doubt, it had to have something to do with how "...whenever [Zuckerberg] did something successful, every capitalist out there wants a piece of the action" (p.83).
Despite everything, facebook is what it is today. Through the progression and transition of one social network to another, facebook seems to be the clear winner right now. From the development of "the wall" (p. 93) to the establishment of new branches, facebook has encountered countless transformations. We got through the very beginning of the site in the first part. It should be very interesting to see how it opened up to the general public instead of just to college students and how the business aspects influenced much of the decisions.
With the superficial relationships and usage of facebook these days, I was a bit shocked to read the prologue with the story of Oscar Morales and Mark Zuckerberg's description of his goals of facebook in the beginning.
Oscar Morales was an ordinary citizen in Colombia, where the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) instilled fear and anger in the average Colombian. His story was inspiring, and set an almost unrealistic view of facebook, as if anything was possible with facebook! With a simple creation of a group, Morales was able to organize a world wide march again the FARC (p. 4). He became a celebrity and a hero; thanks to facebook, he was able to pioneer an influential group who stood up for the Colombian people.
Mark Zuckerberg had an interesting way of describing facebook: a platform for people to improve already existing relationships. It's ironic how people nowadays argue how social networks such as facebook negatively affect personal relationships, as if the internet-based relationships are replacing face-to-face connections.
I especially loved all the little bits of Mark Zuckerberg the readers can put together throughout the reading. He is one interesting character. Undoubtedly, he is a smart guy with a slight tendency to get in trouble in one way or another. He dabbled in various programs during his first year at Harvard, some of which led to massive usage as well as conflicts. The descriptions of Course Match (p. 20), Facemash (p. 23), and Synapse (p. 25), which is eerily similar to Pandora, make me wish someone like Zuckerberg existed here at Rutgers. Yet, he had his batch of problems. He sounds like a creeper, first of all, staring at people and keeping quiet, seemed to have an elitist mentality, and obviously had trouble keeping good interpersonal relationships with people, judging from all the various problems he had over the course of the years. Of course, to give him the benefit of the doubt, it had to have something to do with how "...whenever [Zuckerberg] did something successful, every capitalist out there wants a piece of the action" (p.83).
Despite everything, facebook is what it is today. Through the progression and transition of one social network to another, facebook seems to be the clear winner right now. From the development of "the wall" (p. 93) to the establishment of new branches, facebook has encountered countless transformations. We got through the very beginning of the site in the first part. It should be very interesting to see how it opened up to the general public instead of just to college students and how the business aspects influenced much of the decisions.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America PART III
The final part to Slade's "Made to Break" was the so-called "eye-opener" that was mentioned in the brief synopsis of the book (written on the back cover). Chapters 7 and 8 continued to talk about the progression of technology and how that attributed to America's obsolescence, from chips to video games to even weapons. The final chapter, however, brought all of the factors together and presented a question that I realize we should all think hard about.
It was interesting to see how the development and improvements of chips led to a whole series of drama between different companies and products. My favorite one, though, was of video games (p. 216). It started out with one simple game that was developed on the side by an engineer (p. 217). In just a short amount of time, the video game industry expanded so much that consumers went on a 'strike,' refusing to buy anything because there were too much to choose from (p. 221). At first, I thought this was hilarious. Who would have thought Americans would complain about having too much? Yet, when I saw the devastating effects of the strike on the majority of the video game companies, it wasn't so funny anymore.
I didn't really get how obsolescence related to weaponizing and the Cold War besides the one little mention of how faulty weapons were sold to the Soviets but it was kind of cool to see all the different aspects of the Cold War play out. The espionages for technology, the drama between Reagan, the French, the Soviets, and Gun Weiss (who realized early on that Soviets were keeping up with spies) was intense!
Finally comes Slade's overall point: obsolescence in America (and the world) is getting dangerous. Cell phones and other electronical devices are being thrown away earlier than when they are supposed to function until (p. 261). Advertising by firms as well as new marketing strategies encourage dissatisfaction, meaning people will be more inclined to buy new products to change their dissatisfaction into satisfaction. This conditioning also seemed to have led to the development of "neophilia," the love of new things, as coined by Campbell (p. 266).
So what can we do?
As a society, anything to reverse our mentality. Slade gives several suggestions as possible solutions to the problems of obsolescence and overflow of dangerous waste. Programs for taking back, reusing, and recyling products can prevents consumers from wasting. Spreading awareness among consumers can also achieve that goal, as a more informed consumer will be less likely to waste than an ignorant one. These are just few possibilities. What we have to think about amongst ourselves is how else can we change the way we are? I wish there was a way to stop the advertising that advocates obsolescence but especially as a business major, I know that it's not possible (unless the government intervenes, which would cause even more problems in itself). Hopefully, we will be able to welcome the new industrial challenge, as Slade calls it, with open arms.
It was interesting to see how the development and improvements of chips led to a whole series of drama between different companies and products. My favorite one, though, was of video games (p. 216). It started out with one simple game that was developed on the side by an engineer (p. 217). In just a short amount of time, the video game industry expanded so much that consumers went on a 'strike,' refusing to buy anything because there were too much to choose from (p. 221). At first, I thought this was hilarious. Who would have thought Americans would complain about having too much? Yet, when I saw the devastating effects of the strike on the majority of the video game companies, it wasn't so funny anymore.
I didn't really get how obsolescence related to weaponizing and the Cold War besides the one little mention of how faulty weapons were sold to the Soviets but it was kind of cool to see all the different aspects of the Cold War play out. The espionages for technology, the drama between Reagan, the French, the Soviets, and Gun Weiss (who realized early on that Soviets were keeping up with spies) was intense!
Finally comes Slade's overall point: obsolescence in America (and the world) is getting dangerous. Cell phones and other electronical devices are being thrown away earlier than when they are supposed to function until (p. 261). Advertising by firms as well as new marketing strategies encourage dissatisfaction, meaning people will be more inclined to buy new products to change their dissatisfaction into satisfaction. This conditioning also seemed to have led to the development of "neophilia," the love of new things, as coined by Campbell (p. 266).
So what can we do?
As a society, anything to reverse our mentality. Slade gives several suggestions as possible solutions to the problems of obsolescence and overflow of dangerous waste. Programs for taking back, reusing, and recyling products can prevents consumers from wasting. Spreading awareness among consumers can also achieve that goal, as a more informed consumer will be less likely to waste than an ignorant one. These are just few possibilities. What we have to think about amongst ourselves is how else can we change the way we are? I wish there was a way to stop the advertising that advocates obsolescence but especially as a business major, I know that it's not possible (unless the government intervenes, which would cause even more problems in itself). Hopefully, we will be able to welcome the new industrial challenge, as Slade calls it, with open arms.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Websites That Help Us
Nowadays, all we seem to hear about the internet and the growing technology is that they are somehow negatively affecting our lives. Too much information, too little privacy, too much nonsense, too much dependency, too little validity....you get the picture. Yet, there are so many positives that the world wide web has brought us.
For instance, etsy.com is a site which draws on people's entreprenuerial spirits. It's a place people can buy and sell handmade and/or vintage products. Obviously, it doesn't deal with people who want to wholesale masses of products. In actuality, it deals with the individuals who only desire to make a few bucks from their hobbies of making jewelry, clothes, accessories, and etc. It brings together people from all over the United States, as well as the globe and it's pretty cool to just browse through the kind of things other people can make without crazy expertise. This site is a similar one to Ebay.com, except etsy deals with direct sales whereas ebay deals with optimizing profits through auctions.
I cannot go through the pros of the internet without mentioning SPARKNOTES!!!! A prime example of information sharing, it is possibly the best thing ever since sliced bread. I love how it was first developed by students at Harvard as a small project and became this gigantic enterprise, helping middle/high school and even college students everywhere. Can you imagine having to read all the books we were supposed to have read during the past several years? (hahahaha)
Besides facebook, myspace, twitter, and tumblr that are international, there are social networking sites for individual countries. For example, cyworld.co.kr is a social networking site specifically for South Koreans. Although some may say that it is too limited, it is actually great that it is limited to just one ethnicity, since it makes it easier for people to connect as a small tight-knit community. It also has a mechanism that makes it more private than the social networking sites that we readily use, which helps to make it even more personal.
The most interesting way internet has provided good to the public is the website where we can see the nearby sex offenders (if there are any). This acts as a deterrant in some ways, since people will know that being labeled a sex offender will stay with them forever on this site, and that the information will be available to anyone. Parents can find out possible threats by logging on to the site and can inform their kids about the dangers, if they wanted to. Some may argue that having the information about sex offenders public may be unfair to minor offenders or those who were 'wrongly' convicted, but for the greater good, I think that this is a great idea.
The three properties of internet that I learned in my Comp Apps class says a lot of about the advantages of it: universal language, open technology, and separation of layers. These indicate that people from around the globe can come together and operate with the same language without any hindrance. With the internet, it has become possible to interact freely (for the most part) with those we wouldn't have had the chance to deal with before.
For instance, etsy.com is a site which draws on people's entreprenuerial spirits. It's a place people can buy and sell handmade and/or vintage products. Obviously, it doesn't deal with people who want to wholesale masses of products. In actuality, it deals with the individuals who only desire to make a few bucks from their hobbies of making jewelry, clothes, accessories, and etc. It brings together people from all over the United States, as well as the globe and it's pretty cool to just browse through the kind of things other people can make without crazy expertise. This site is a similar one to Ebay.com, except etsy deals with direct sales whereas ebay deals with optimizing profits through auctions.
I cannot go through the pros of the internet without mentioning SPARKNOTES!!!! A prime example of information sharing, it is possibly the best thing ever since sliced bread. I love how it was first developed by students at Harvard as a small project and became this gigantic enterprise, helping middle/high school and even college students everywhere. Can you imagine having to read all the books we were supposed to have read during the past several years? (hahahaha)
Besides facebook, myspace, twitter, and tumblr that are international, there are social networking sites for individual countries. For example, cyworld.co.kr is a social networking site specifically for South Koreans. Although some may say that it is too limited, it is actually great that it is limited to just one ethnicity, since it makes it easier for people to connect as a small tight-knit community. It also has a mechanism that makes it more private than the social networking sites that we readily use, which helps to make it even more personal.
The most interesting way internet has provided good to the public is the website where we can see the nearby sex offenders (if there are any). This acts as a deterrant in some ways, since people will know that being labeled a sex offender will stay with them forever on this site, and that the information will be available to anyone. Parents can find out possible threats by logging on to the site and can inform their kids about the dangers, if they wanted to. Some may argue that having the information about sex offenders public may be unfair to minor offenders or those who were 'wrongly' convicted, but for the greater good, I think that this is a great idea.
The three properties of internet that I learned in my Comp Apps class says a lot of about the advantages of it: universal language, open technology, and separation of layers. These indicate that people from around the globe can come together and operate with the same language without any hindrance. With the internet, it has become possible to interact freely (for the most part) with those we wouldn't have had the chance to deal with before.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America PART II
The second part of the Slade's "Made to Break" was a bit confusing for me. I understood the mention of radio in chapter 4 and the happenings of the 50's and 60's in chapter 6 but was completely lost in chapter 5 when he talked about the war, stockings, and houses.
Slade's main point is of planned obsolescence, which was talked about in my previous post. By the 60's, "death dating" was a new definition of planned obsolescence, and it would become the primary meaing of the phrase (p. 113). It was interesting to see the progression of radio (AM and FM), and how really the business (entrepreneurial) aspect of it spawned the whole process. David Sarnoff and Edwin Howard Armstrong had a really peculiar relationship. It felt like they were friends yet enemies, judging by how they affected each other's private lives (p. 85 with Armstrong marrying Sarnoff's secretary), but still had problems (p. 87 with legal battle). The intense fight over FM that included the move of the FM transmission bands which left 500,000 FM radios manufactured in American before the war inoperable (p. 103). Due to this factor as well as few others, Armstrong eventually broke in both the spirit and the physical, leading to his suicide in 1954 (p. 104). It was really sad to see the whole transition from a brilliant and determined genius to a desperate and pitiful man. Although it is hard to blame RCA and other businesses involved since they were looking out for their own good (which is that businesses do), it is also difficult to not blame them for leading Armstrong to his position at his end.
I understood what Slade was talking about in chapter 5, but did not quite get how they fit in with his idea of planned obsolescence. In chapter 4, he concluded the chapter by mentioning how (radio) product life spans were created by plan; it was not by coincidence that radios would need to be repaired or replaced, but rather, planned by the companies to generate more demand and revenue. Yet, in chapter 5, all Slade really talks about is how the war and the tensions between Japan (and its allies) and the United States led to the development of technological innovations. The nylon stockings were invented largely due to the fact that we wanted to damage Japan's economic state, hoping it would be for the better. I don't even have to mention why the atomic bombs were inveted and perfected. He seemed to make mention of how this could have led to mankind being obsolete on page 149, but was it really that bad? It seemed like a overkill.
Brooks Stevens was the most captivating guy mentioned in this part, in my opinion. He summarized and explained planned obsolescence in such a clear and concise way, I could not help but nod to myself. Although he was definitely not the first one to coin the term as he claimed, he was its "most vocal champion" (p. 152). He sums up the whole theory quite nicely on page 153, saying that planned obsolescence was the product of our desire to make money. The introduction of new products that will render the older ones obsolete is always done on purpose. People will want to own something "a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary," (p. 153) which basically illustrates why and how businesses can successfully penetrate their markets every time they introduce new products. I completely agreed with his view and was really curious to see how Slade would integrate this into his numerous examples within chapter 6.
Advertising was a huge part of the business models in the 60's and it helped to generate demand with every new product. It should be interesting to see if this method (which still exists today) was carried on from then on or another method caught on.
Slade's main point is of planned obsolescence, which was talked about in my previous post. By the 60's, "death dating" was a new definition of planned obsolescence, and it would become the primary meaing of the phrase (p. 113). It was interesting to see the progression of radio (AM and FM), and how really the business (entrepreneurial) aspect of it spawned the whole process. David Sarnoff and Edwin Howard Armstrong had a really peculiar relationship. It felt like they were friends yet enemies, judging by how they affected each other's private lives (p. 85 with Armstrong marrying Sarnoff's secretary), but still had problems (p. 87 with legal battle). The intense fight over FM that included the move of the FM transmission bands which left 500,000 FM radios manufactured in American before the war inoperable (p. 103). Due to this factor as well as few others, Armstrong eventually broke in both the spirit and the physical, leading to his suicide in 1954 (p. 104). It was really sad to see the whole transition from a brilliant and determined genius to a desperate and pitiful man. Although it is hard to blame RCA and other businesses involved since they were looking out for their own good (which is that businesses do), it is also difficult to not blame them for leading Armstrong to his position at his end.
I understood what Slade was talking about in chapter 5, but did not quite get how they fit in with his idea of planned obsolescence. In chapter 4, he concluded the chapter by mentioning how (radio) product life spans were created by plan; it was not by coincidence that radios would need to be repaired or replaced, but rather, planned by the companies to generate more demand and revenue. Yet, in chapter 5, all Slade really talks about is how the war and the tensions between Japan (and its allies) and the United States led to the development of technological innovations. The nylon stockings were invented largely due to the fact that we wanted to damage Japan's economic state, hoping it would be for the better. I don't even have to mention why the atomic bombs were inveted and perfected. He seemed to make mention of how this could have led to mankind being obsolete on page 149, but was it really that bad? It seemed like a overkill.
Brooks Stevens was the most captivating guy mentioned in this part, in my opinion. He summarized and explained planned obsolescence in such a clear and concise way, I could not help but nod to myself. Although he was definitely not the first one to coin the term as he claimed, he was its "most vocal champion" (p. 152). He sums up the whole theory quite nicely on page 153, saying that planned obsolescence was the product of our desire to make money. The introduction of new products that will render the older ones obsolete is always done on purpose. People will want to own something "a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary," (p. 153) which basically illustrates why and how businesses can successfully penetrate their markets every time they introduce new products. I completely agreed with his view and was really curious to see how Slade would integrate this into his numerous examples within chapter 6.
Advertising was a huge part of the business models in the 60's and it helped to generate demand with every new product. It should be interesting to see if this method (which still exists today) was carried on from then on or another method caught on.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America PART I
The introduction + the first three chapters of Gile Slade's "Made to Break" were really interesting to read for me, since I am interested in most parts of "business." The ingenious advertising that we know of today as well as the retail style of several industries can be explained by looking at the past that Slade mentions in his book.
The introduction raised several issues that had me pondering throughout the reading. We have become a society that does not fear waste. In fact, we actually advocate and fully participate in the heinous act. Instead of recycling our old PCs, laptops, ipods, and cell phones, we usually throw them out in masses and replace them with new ones that won't be so new in a short amount of time. As humans, it is in our nature to want more and more, meaning that once our 'new' products are considered outdated, we will try our best to get the newest versions. That means that every time we take part in this replacement, we're adding on more junk to the already gigantic pile of electronic waste that "we do not have enough time, money, or space in the continental Unites States to create enough landfills" (3) for. The worst part is, in my opinion, a lot of this so-called waste were usuable.
Above all else, the economic incentives seemed to have influenced the American society's frugal and conserving mindset to a wasteful and obsolete one. A lot of the disposable products we still use such as razors, condoms, and sanitary pads were invented as a way to satisfy the American public's growing needs for easier and more accessible necessities (13,17, 18). Companies even advocated for anti-thrift to convince people to keep spending their money (26). Once the automobile industry set in, the top companies Ford and General Motors started to make annual changes and editions of their cars to take advantage of the altered mindset of the American population. One of the adjustments they made were to the style of the cars, in order to meet the demands of women, who made up a great percentage of shoppers (37). I thought it was smart of them to make the appropriate alterations to their products to attract more customers but just as I think about the annual versions of cars today, it is so unnecessary to keep changing the models every year! It seems like such as waste to buy a car if it's going to be outdated in a year or less.
Out of everything, though, I was a bit disappointed in the way businesses took part in the practice called "adulteration", which is when a product in the simplest of processes is diluted (77). In order to profit during the hard times of the Great Depression, firms decided to adulterated their products to decrease cost of production. Although that lead to lower pricing of the product which led to increased sales and profit, it also meant that the consumers were presented with less than superb quality, which deals with ethics in business.
During this reading, I had several questions in my head. Can I really blame the American public for wanting the newest and the most convenient products? Can I really blame the businesses for wanting to maximize profits by constantly upgrading their products? Can I really blame the same people for adulterating their products to stay in business during the Great Depression? Honestly, I do not think I can. It is logical for businesses to want to maximize profits just as it is logical for people to fall into obsolescence. The problem is the implications presented by these. I cannot wait to read more of Slade's to see if he addresses any implications.
The introduction raised several issues that had me pondering throughout the reading. We have become a society that does not fear waste. In fact, we actually advocate and fully participate in the heinous act. Instead of recycling our old PCs, laptops, ipods, and cell phones, we usually throw them out in masses and replace them with new ones that won't be so new in a short amount of time. As humans, it is in our nature to want more and more, meaning that once our 'new' products are considered outdated, we will try our best to get the newest versions. That means that every time we take part in this replacement, we're adding on more junk to the already gigantic pile of electronic waste that "we do not have enough time, money, or space in the continental Unites States to create enough landfills" (3) for. The worst part is, in my opinion, a lot of this so-called waste were usuable.
Above all else, the economic incentives seemed to have influenced the American society's frugal and conserving mindset to a wasteful and obsolete one. A lot of the disposable products we still use such as razors, condoms, and sanitary pads were invented as a way to satisfy the American public's growing needs for easier and more accessible necessities (13,17, 18). Companies even advocated for anti-thrift to convince people to keep spending their money (26). Once the automobile industry set in, the top companies Ford and General Motors started to make annual changes and editions of their cars to take advantage of the altered mindset of the American population. One of the adjustments they made were to the style of the cars, in order to meet the demands of women, who made up a great percentage of shoppers (37). I thought it was smart of them to make the appropriate alterations to their products to attract more customers but just as I think about the annual versions of cars today, it is so unnecessary to keep changing the models every year! It seems like such as waste to buy a car if it's going to be outdated in a year or less.
Out of everything, though, I was a bit disappointed in the way businesses took part in the practice called "adulteration", which is when a product in the simplest of processes is diluted (77). In order to profit during the hard times of the Great Depression, firms decided to adulterated their products to decrease cost of production. Although that lead to lower pricing of the product which led to increased sales and profit, it also meant that the consumers were presented with less than superb quality, which deals with ethics in business.
During this reading, I had several questions in my head. Can I really blame the American public for wanting the newest and the most convenient products? Can I really blame the businesses for wanting to maximize profits by constantly upgrading their products? Can I really blame the same people for adulterating their products to stay in business during the Great Depression? Honestly, I do not think I can. It is logical for businesses to want to maximize profits just as it is logical for people to fall into obsolescence. The problem is the implications presented by these. I cannot wait to read more of Slade's to see if he addresses any implications.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality PART II
The first part of the book ended with a strong statement: Like it or not, in the future you will be using Wikipedia (pg. 113). The second half of the book didn't fail to expand on that and even managed to capture my 21st century ADD-impaired mind for the whole time.
We love Wikipedia. Those who are part of the Wikipedia love it because it is a virtual world in which these individuals can come together to write, discuss, critique, and contribute (pg. 120). Some even adore the very immature possibilities, such as vandalism that can lead to fame (in a negative sense, of course). Others love it for the vast amount of information that at most times is unique to Wikipedia alone. Of course, it would be unfair to say that EVERYONE loves Wikipedia. After all, every great invention in the world had oppositions.
The most interesting part for me was the pages and pages of discussion for each article as well as the media coverage of anything Wikipedia-related. Both indicate how Wikipedia-centralised we have become in the past few years.
Editing wars frequently occured over controversial articles (which are the one where neutrality is hardest to be reached), breaking news (that no secondary source has confirmed), and blatant and stubborn vandalism. Besides the text that Wikipedia users can see upfront, the background to it is the more interesting part. Various editors come together to argue one point another, justify additions/removals, come up with a consensus on what should be said, and generally have a (relatively) intelligent conversation to provide the internet community with the best article possible. Rather than blindly reading what's presented to us, I think it would be interesting to explore a certain article to see the progression from the very beginning. Misconceptions, misunderstandings, mistakes, and any confusions that we may have might have come up in the discussion and reading that may help us understand a subject better.
Although people agree that Wikipedia is unreliable in certain cases because anyone is allowed to edit an article (unless they are blocked or banned), it was clearly demonstrated how dependent people were on it. Everyone from students to journalists have used Wikipedia and in some cases, have used incorrect information because they failed to validate it using other sources, which should have been done, especially in mass media! For example, in the article AC Omonia, the insertion about "The Zany Ones" was completely false, but that didn't stop Daily Mirror from using that information (pg. 178). Ironically, that same article was used to reinsert the false information later on (pg. 179). That really stumped me. How do you know some information didn't originate from some mischievious person writing on Wikipedia like this situation?
Above all, the very final part of the book showed how important Wikipedia has become. After David Rohde was kidnapped, his page was carefully policed by his collegue, Jimmy Wales, and various admins of the site, just in case the kidnappers or those affiliated with them happened to stumble upon Rohde's page (pg. 223). Even the thought that this was possible shows how monstrous Wikipedia has become and it shows no signs of declining.
From the exploration of Wikipedia through this book, I realized that it is actually more reliable than I thought it to be. There are avid editors who will do anything and everything to make sure their pages stay accurate and up to date. Vandalism and mistakes are usually reverted/corrected within a few minutes (most of the time). The people contributing to the cause are not dumb; in fact, they are far from it. Wikipedia may not consist of only professionals with Ph.Ds but it is definitely good enough to "rule the world of knowledge."
We love Wikipedia. Those who are part of the Wikipedia love it because it is a virtual world in which these individuals can come together to write, discuss, critique, and contribute (pg. 120). Some even adore the very immature possibilities, such as vandalism that can lead to fame (in a negative sense, of course). Others love it for the vast amount of information that at most times is unique to Wikipedia alone. Of course, it would be unfair to say that EVERYONE loves Wikipedia. After all, every great invention in the world had oppositions.
The most interesting part for me was the pages and pages of discussion for each article as well as the media coverage of anything Wikipedia-related. Both indicate how Wikipedia-centralised we have become in the past few years.
Editing wars frequently occured over controversial articles (which are the one where neutrality is hardest to be reached), breaking news (that no secondary source has confirmed), and blatant and stubborn vandalism. Besides the text that Wikipedia users can see upfront, the background to it is the more interesting part. Various editors come together to argue one point another, justify additions/removals, come up with a consensus on what should be said, and generally have a (relatively) intelligent conversation to provide the internet community with the best article possible. Rather than blindly reading what's presented to us, I think it would be interesting to explore a certain article to see the progression from the very beginning. Misconceptions, misunderstandings, mistakes, and any confusions that we may have might have come up in the discussion and reading that may help us understand a subject better.
Although people agree that Wikipedia is unreliable in certain cases because anyone is allowed to edit an article (unless they are blocked or banned), it was clearly demonstrated how dependent people were on it. Everyone from students to journalists have used Wikipedia and in some cases, have used incorrect information because they failed to validate it using other sources, which should have been done, especially in mass media! For example, in the article AC Omonia, the insertion about "The Zany Ones" was completely false, but that didn't stop Daily Mirror from using that information (pg. 178). Ironically, that same article was used to reinsert the false information later on (pg. 179). That really stumped me. How do you know some information didn't originate from some mischievious person writing on Wikipedia like this situation?
Above all, the very final part of the book showed how important Wikipedia has become. After David Rohde was kidnapped, his page was carefully policed by his collegue, Jimmy Wales, and various admins of the site, just in case the kidnappers or those affiliated with them happened to stumble upon Rohde's page (pg. 223). Even the thought that this was possible shows how monstrous Wikipedia has become and it shows no signs of declining.
From the exploration of Wikipedia through this book, I realized that it is actually more reliable than I thought it to be. There are avid editors who will do anything and everything to make sure their pages stay accurate and up to date. Vandalism and mistakes are usually reverted/corrected within a few minutes (most of the time). The people contributing to the cause are not dumb; in fact, they are far from it. Wikipedia may not consist of only professionals with Ph.Ds but it is definitely good enough to "rule the world of knowledge."
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality PART I
Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality" is, by far, my favorite book so far. At first I was worried about how I would be able to get through this relatively big book, but as I was reading through it, I realized how easy and enjoyable it would be. The history of Wikipedia certainly could have been less intriguing and captivating. Perhaps Dalby's experience writing articles in Wikipedia helped, but the fact is, he is a great writer who has the ability to thoroughly tell his story while keeping the reader's sole attention.
The book goes through the transition from Nupedia (a 'scholarly' encyclopedia) to Wikipedia, the rise of Wikipedia with the help of various sites (especially Google!), the pros anc cons of Wikipedia, as well as all the problems, confusion, drama, and miscommunication along the way.
From where the web is at today, I would not have guessed that Wikipedia has only been around for less than a decade. It is a massive accumulation of knowledge that varies from the very scholarly that people can have trouble understanding to the very childish/immature that exist solely for entertainment. There are thousands and thousands of people who visit the site, referencing it, writing it, editing it, critiquing it, and enjoying it.
I was surprised at the amount of dedication editors had to various topics; people would come back to the very site they started/edited to make sure nothing was off. That very thought of policing an online article at all times is a little odd to me. For one, how do they make the time for it? How can they even tell that something is off? Where do they manage to find all the sources?
The most intriguing part of the first half was the obvious hypocrisy of the "scholarly" media, such as journals and news. The anti-Wikipedia movement basically stemmed from reporters and journalists stating that Wikipedia is unreliable, amateur, and a horrible source for any work. Yet, these very people were the ones who replicated the information that was present in Wikipedia, sometimes without even verifing the validity of the information, as they should have. For example, the false quote added in under Maurice Jarre, a famous French composer, was used in major newspapers (including Sydney Morning Herald), even after it was flagged for not having a citation in mere two minutes (pg. 92).
What a lot of people are worried about now is the possibility (that is actually happening these days) that students as well as any other groups of people will rely too much on Wikipedia alone rather than going on to further validate some of the information presented in a Wikipedia article. Yet, as it was mentioned several times in the book, Wikipedia articles have been carefully molded by dedicated editors, a lot of whom are professionals in the subject(s) they are writing about. Mistakes are often caught in minutes, and most points are backed by sources that can verify the information. More and more professors and scholars are contributing to this once-thought amateur encyclopedia that has been gaining notoriety and respect over other encyclopedias, such as Britannia. If people do not have the ability to properly use Wikipedia, it is their own fault, not of Wikipedia's.
Personally, I love Wikipedia. It has helped me in so many assignment throughout my high school career that it was my #1 most frequented site. I never had problems of using inaccurate information because I did extra research, usually browsing through the cited sources. For those of you who have not used Wikipedia or is just not a fan of it, re-read the last sentence of page 113. :)
The book goes through the transition from Nupedia (a 'scholarly' encyclopedia) to Wikipedia, the rise of Wikipedia with the help of various sites (especially Google!), the pros anc cons of Wikipedia, as well as all the problems, confusion, drama, and miscommunication along the way.
From where the web is at today, I would not have guessed that Wikipedia has only been around for less than a decade. It is a massive accumulation of knowledge that varies from the very scholarly that people can have trouble understanding to the very childish/immature that exist solely for entertainment. There are thousands and thousands of people who visit the site, referencing it, writing it, editing it, critiquing it, and enjoying it.
I was surprised at the amount of dedication editors had to various topics; people would come back to the very site they started/edited to make sure nothing was off. That very thought of policing an online article at all times is a little odd to me. For one, how do they make the time for it? How can they even tell that something is off? Where do they manage to find all the sources?
The most intriguing part of the first half was the obvious hypocrisy of the "scholarly" media, such as journals and news. The anti-Wikipedia movement basically stemmed from reporters and journalists stating that Wikipedia is unreliable, amateur, and a horrible source for any work. Yet, these very people were the ones who replicated the information that was present in Wikipedia, sometimes without even verifing the validity of the information, as they should have. For example, the false quote added in under Maurice Jarre, a famous French composer, was used in major newspapers (including Sydney Morning Herald), even after it was flagged for not having a citation in mere two minutes (pg. 92).
What a lot of people are worried about now is the possibility (that is actually happening these days) that students as well as any other groups of people will rely too much on Wikipedia alone rather than going on to further validate some of the information presented in a Wikipedia article. Yet, as it was mentioned several times in the book, Wikipedia articles have been carefully molded by dedicated editors, a lot of whom are professionals in the subject(s) they are writing about. Mistakes are often caught in minutes, and most points are backed by sources that can verify the information. More and more professors and scholars are contributing to this once-thought amateur encyclopedia that has been gaining notoriety and respect over other encyclopedias, such as Britannia. If people do not have the ability to properly use Wikipedia, it is their own fault, not of Wikipedia's.
Personally, I love Wikipedia. It has helped me in so many assignment throughout my high school career that it was my #1 most frequented site. I never had problems of using inaccurate information because I did extra research, usually browsing through the cited sources. For those of you who have not used Wikipedia or is just not a fan of it, re-read the last sentence of page 113. :)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Solo Current Event: "Hey Parents, Are You Raising a Generation of Nincompoops?"
Before I get into a discussion on my own current event topic, I really wanted to talk about another presentation that went before me because it was really interesting! (I kind of felt really intimidated by the time I had to get up in front of the class to present. haha) I would love to talk about the others but since I should keep this short....... I can only put in a little bit extra >.<
The most interesting one I thought was the one about the discovery of a planet that seems very similar to this Earth that we live in. It raises so many different possibilities, conflicts, and just curiosity! Are there other living species besides the ones we know on the Earth today on that planet? Would we ever be able to communicate with them, if they do exist? Can we ever come up with the technology to travel 20 light years away to visit the planet ourselves? Would we be able to take refuge on it if/when the Earth fails us (even if it won't be until many many generations after us)? If life exists on this planet, what can be said about the principles of some religion, such as Christianity? Above all, are there other planets that are like this one out of the countless number of planets in our galaxy alone? The possibilities seem endless.
As for my own article, "Hey Parents! Are You Raising a Generation of Nincompoops?" I found it while I was looking through the news on http://www.msnbc.com/ I read through several articles under the Technology section to find a curent even article and to me, the one I picked seemed the most interesting and relevant. The article basically talked about how children of the new generation are lacking some 'basic' skills that used to be elementary and necessary to people. In most cases, they were like second nature! Children learn to tie their shoelaces later, if at all, and teenagers are baffled by can openers, ice cube trays, and clothes hangers! The articles goes into an analysis of whether this lack of basic skills in children is of their parents' faults or not.
The questions I asked were "Should parents be teaching everything that kids used to be taught or is it unnecessary?" and "Are we really 'nincompoops' or did the whole set of required knowledge just change?" The respones I got were pretty interesting and it was even better to see how the opinions differed among people who were part of different generations. The general idea, though, is that children are not stupid by any means. It is true that they are lacking some skills that were thought to be basic but times changed with the advancement of technology. Parents and schools have stopped teaching as many skills for a reason: they're not necessary! New machineries and skills that are needed to operate them have overtaken the set of skills we previously needed. In place of them, however, we have a whole diffeent set of skills that are needed to function successfully in a technology-driven society.
So to answer the question of my article, no, we are not a generation of nincompoops nor are the next generations. In fact, we are actually the ones who are most fit to live in the current state of society.
The most interesting one I thought was the one about the discovery of a planet that seems very similar to this Earth that we live in. It raises so many different possibilities, conflicts, and just curiosity! Are there other living species besides the ones we know on the Earth today on that planet? Would we ever be able to communicate with them, if they do exist? Can we ever come up with the technology to travel 20 light years away to visit the planet ourselves? Would we be able to take refuge on it if/when the Earth fails us (even if it won't be until many many generations after us)? If life exists on this planet, what can be said about the principles of some religion, such as Christianity? Above all, are there other planets that are like this one out of the countless number of planets in our galaxy alone? The possibilities seem endless.
As for my own article, "Hey Parents! Are You Raising a Generation of Nincompoops?" I found it while I was looking through the news on http://www.msnbc.com/ I read through several articles under the Technology section to find a curent even article and to me, the one I picked seemed the most interesting and relevant. The article basically talked about how children of the new generation are lacking some 'basic' skills that used to be elementary and necessary to people. In most cases, they were like second nature! Children learn to tie their shoelaces later, if at all, and teenagers are baffled by can openers, ice cube trays, and clothes hangers! The articles goes into an analysis of whether this lack of basic skills in children is of their parents' faults or not.
The questions I asked were "Should parents be teaching everything that kids used to be taught or is it unnecessary?" and "Are we really 'nincompoops' or did the whole set of required knowledge just change?" The respones I got were pretty interesting and it was even better to see how the opinions differed among people who were part of different generations. The general idea, though, is that children are not stupid by any means. It is true that they are lacking some skills that were thought to be basic but times changed with the advancement of technology. Parents and schools have stopped teaching as many skills for a reason: they're not necessary! New machineries and skills that are needed to operate them have overtaken the set of skills we previously needed. In place of them, however, we have a whole diffeent set of skills that are needed to function successfully in a technology-driven society.
So to answer the question of my article, no, we are not a generation of nincompoops nor are the next generations. In fact, we are actually the ones who are most fit to live in the current state of society.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology PART II
The last half of Postman's book was certainly an entertaining read. I'm not so sure how well of an argument Postman made in regards to the final point he made in the first half of the book. In the latter half, he focuses on specific examples of how technology relates to society and the faults of that integration.
I can't say that I agree or disagree completely with Postman. I caught myself doubting him as well as myself a couple of times during the reading. For example, technology became an instrument between the doctors and patients (pg. 99). That is a fact, and we all know it. Postman argues in his book that doctors become less competent as technology advances because they learn to rely less on themselves and much more on the machines they use. At first, I thought, "Oh my god, this is so true! Doctors have to learn how to use machines nowadays before they learn proper techniques, right?" Then, I took a step back and thought about it again. There is now way doctors are less competent. If anything, they have to be better than ever before! Doctors are NOT used by technologies. They take the time to train with machines to be able to correctly use and manipulate them to do their work. There are more requirements than ever before as well as competition to become a doctor. Postman is ignoring huge factors when he makes his so-called judgement calls and only focusing on the mere implications technology MAY have on people.
One thing that I really thought hard about was when Postman mentioned that "people believe that technological innovation is synonymous with human progress" (pg. 117). I mean, I do think that it's true, but can it be any other way? Advancements in technology enabled us to advance as humans with (for the most part) healthier, longer, and overall better lives. Postman argues that technological problems deal with inadequate information while real problems deal with moral issues, which is why technological innovation cannot be synonymous with human progress (119). Yet, is that really a factor in this? So what if the problems are different? We are not saying that technology fixes all these problems in society, but rather, they can just help us advance in certain ways. Unless Postman is saying that human advancement is possible if and only if societal problems are eliminated, this is irrelevant.
Above all, though, Postman's proposal caught my interest and had the wheels spinning inside my head. He make a good point that one cannot learn without the history, but he admits that this type of teaching will lead to set backs in the technological world. I wonder, if we had listened to him in 1992, would we be where we are today? Even better, what does Postman think about the technology-infested world we live in today? That would certainly be an interesting topic to talk about.
P.S. Algorithms that we talked about in class on Monday? As I said, the Amazon.com incident made me think of how useful yet creepy it is that I was able to find all my book by finding one course book and being recommended all others. Nowadays, I try not to pay attention to the ads on my facebook because I KNOW they are pertaining to something I was already tempted to buy/join/read/etc.!
I can't say that I agree or disagree completely with Postman. I caught myself doubting him as well as myself a couple of times during the reading. For example, technology became an instrument between the doctors and patients (pg. 99). That is a fact, and we all know it. Postman argues in his book that doctors become less competent as technology advances because they learn to rely less on themselves and much more on the machines they use. At first, I thought, "Oh my god, this is so true! Doctors have to learn how to use machines nowadays before they learn proper techniques, right?" Then, I took a step back and thought about it again. There is now way doctors are less competent. If anything, they have to be better than ever before! Doctors are NOT used by technologies. They take the time to train with machines to be able to correctly use and manipulate them to do their work. There are more requirements than ever before as well as competition to become a doctor. Postman is ignoring huge factors when he makes his so-called judgement calls and only focusing on the mere implications technology MAY have on people.
One thing that I really thought hard about was when Postman mentioned that "people believe that technological innovation is synonymous with human progress" (pg. 117). I mean, I do think that it's true, but can it be any other way? Advancements in technology enabled us to advance as humans with (for the most part) healthier, longer, and overall better lives. Postman argues that technological problems deal with inadequate information while real problems deal with moral issues, which is why technological innovation cannot be synonymous with human progress (119). Yet, is that really a factor in this? So what if the problems are different? We are not saying that technology fixes all these problems in society, but rather, they can just help us advance in certain ways. Unless Postman is saying that human advancement is possible if and only if societal problems are eliminated, this is irrelevant.
Above all, though, Postman's proposal caught my interest and had the wheels spinning inside my head. He make a good point that one cannot learn without the history, but he admits that this type of teaching will lead to set backs in the technological world. I wonder, if we had listened to him in 1992, would we be where we are today? Even better, what does Postman think about the technology-infested world we live in today? That would certainly be an interesting topic to talk about.
P.S. Algorithms that we talked about in class on Monday? As I said, the Amazon.com incident made me think of how useful yet creepy it is that I was able to find all my book by finding one course book and being recommended all others. Nowadays, I try not to pay attention to the ads on my facebook because I KNOW they are pertaining to something I was already tempted to buy/join/read/etc.!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology PART I
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture of Technology by Neil Postman is definitely a book I would have never thought of reading but once I started it, I was surprised at how interesting it was from the very beginning. Postman's clever usage of Thamus and Freud had be looking forward to what he would say next. Until, of course, I read his actual point: technology was ruining our lives, even if there are winners and losers in all cases.
I really could not get myself to agree with him. Sure, large organizations may have gotten better with technology but the masses of people he mentions on page 10 are not losers, either. Everyone has benefited from the development of technology. We have much better systems and machinery to help us accomplish more in an efficient way. Steelworkers have better equipment and protection, vegetable-store owners have better storing method for their products, teachers have access to even more information online, and so on! They are definitely not losers of technology.
It felt like Postman was mostly scared of the change that would come about with the growing technology. Just as our minds have become accustomed to dealing with and judging people by numbers and grades (pg. 13), our minds will alter themselves to fit in whatever has been changed by technology. Additionally, he fears that the new developments will be unlike the previous tools we have dealt with that have been integrated well into our culture (pg. 25) and become a true technopoly, which is a totalitarian technocracy (pg. 48). Even though he called himself an open-minded individual, it is clear that he is against all the changes brought on by technology and the possible changes that are to come.
At the end of the first half of the book, I found it a bit funny to see how serious Postman seemed in regards to how technology will ruin our society. Not only will Technopoly experts fail to relate to any matter unrelated to his/her expertise, they are like beauracracies (pg 87), which Postman states create problems (pg. 86). There is also no such thing as sin and evil in a Technopoly because in essence, they are parts of a moral universe that cannot be cared for in the technological world (pg. 90). I'm sorry, but what in the world? I have no idea where he got all this from and could not help laughing out of confusion and disbelief.
I can't wait to read the second half of the book to see how Technopoly cannot work and how the consequences are stupid and painful!
I really could not get myself to agree with him. Sure, large organizations may have gotten better with technology but the masses of people he mentions on page 10 are not losers, either. Everyone has benefited from the development of technology. We have much better systems and machinery to help us accomplish more in an efficient way. Steelworkers have better equipment and protection, vegetable-store owners have better storing method for their products, teachers have access to even more information online, and so on! They are definitely not losers of technology.
It felt like Postman was mostly scared of the change that would come about with the growing technology. Just as our minds have become accustomed to dealing with and judging people by numbers and grades (pg. 13), our minds will alter themselves to fit in whatever has been changed by technology. Additionally, he fears that the new developments will be unlike the previous tools we have dealt with that have been integrated well into our culture (pg. 25) and become a true technopoly, which is a totalitarian technocracy (pg. 48). Even though he called himself an open-minded individual, it is clear that he is against all the changes brought on by technology and the possible changes that are to come.
At the end of the first half of the book, I found it a bit funny to see how serious Postman seemed in regards to how technology will ruin our society. Not only will Technopoly experts fail to relate to any matter unrelated to his/her expertise, they are like beauracracies (pg 87), which Postman states create problems (pg. 86). There is also no such thing as sin and evil in a Technopoly because in essence, they are parts of a moral universe that cannot be cared for in the technological world (pg. 90). I'm sorry, but what in the world? I have no idea where he got all this from and could not help laughing out of confusion and disbelief.
I can't wait to read the second half of the book to see how Technopoly cannot work and how the consequences are stupid and painful!
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Computers: The Life Story of a Technology, PART II
Just as a side note before I get into the actual post, is it bad that I forgot how to put up a new post already? haha. :P
The second half of the reading Computers: The Life Story of a Technology was a pleasant surprise. I remembered how I thought that the first half was a bore and was expecting to just read words again. However, I was very engaged in the reading and found it interestined to learn the background stories of how companies I know pretty well (I think I do at least) these days as well as the modern PCs, like the ones I use today, came to be. Some were dare I say it, cute stories, such as how the Altair 8800 microcomputer got its name (86) and others were just downright amazing, like the story of Microsoft (88~on).
It was mind boggling to me to think that people wanted the Altair 8800 microcomputer so much that they waited months and dealt with all the problems, even when the microcomputer had no peripherals. I could't help but wonder, what the hell did they use it for!??! Perhaps it's because I'm so used to having a computer that I basically use for everything, from writing essays to playing games, that I cannot imagine how I would be able to use a computer without many of those capabilities.
I don't know if I should say it's funny or weird to know how young these entrepreneurs were when they first started. Paul Allen and Bill Gates were programmers since middle/high school, and worked for fun as programmers (which is just absurd! working for free just because it's fun????). Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs were also in high school and went on to work throughout college at verious companies.Just as a side note here, I thought it was hilarious how Apple first started on April Fool's Day with its machine costing a friendly $666.66 (91).
Because of people like Allen, Gates, Jobs, and Wozniak, the PCs are where they are today. With better computers, more software programs developed as well as something I cannot imagine being without, games! Better computers helped, also, to improve how the world is connected through LAN, WWW, and wireless networking. Of course, this led to the second to last chapter of the book, "Computers Everywhere," which is so true for us, but not for the whole world.
The digital divide is actually pretty dangerous, in my opinion. Because technology enables us to do so much, those who are lacking it are lacking so much more and falling behind rapidly, as technology is rapidly evolving. While the gap exists globally, certain factors such as race, income, and education seem to matter a lot (133).
The final thoughts made me think a lot, especially the last paragraph on page 149. If I thought that computers 50 years ago were primitive and basically useless, it is very possible that the computers we use today will be considered primitive and useless when we look back 50 years from now, despite it being really hard to perceive right now. I just hope I can keep up with the rapidly growing technology so that in 50 years from now, I can be the one to say, "Wow, those computers in 2010 really were nothing!"
The second half of the reading Computers: The Life Story of a Technology was a pleasant surprise. I remembered how I thought that the first half was a bore and was expecting to just read words again. However, I was very engaged in the reading and found it interestined to learn the background stories of how companies I know pretty well (I think I do at least) these days as well as the modern PCs, like the ones I use today, came to be. Some were dare I say it, cute stories, such as how the Altair 8800 microcomputer got its name (86) and others were just downright amazing, like the story of Microsoft (88~on).
It was mind boggling to me to think that people wanted the Altair 8800 microcomputer so much that they waited months and dealt with all the problems, even when the microcomputer had no peripherals. I could't help but wonder, what the hell did they use it for!??! Perhaps it's because I'm so used to having a computer that I basically use for everything, from writing essays to playing games, that I cannot imagine how I would be able to use a computer without many of those capabilities.
I don't know if I should say it's funny or weird to know how young these entrepreneurs were when they first started. Paul Allen and Bill Gates were programmers since middle/high school, and worked for fun as programmers (which is just absurd! working for free just because it's fun????). Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs were also in high school and went on to work throughout college at verious companies.Just as a side note here, I thought it was hilarious how Apple first started on April Fool's Day with its machine costing a friendly $666.66 (91).
Because of people like Allen, Gates, Jobs, and Wozniak, the PCs are where they are today. With better computers, more software programs developed as well as something I cannot imagine being without, games! Better computers helped, also, to improve how the world is connected through LAN, WWW, and wireless networking. Of course, this led to the second to last chapter of the book, "Computers Everywhere," which is so true for us, but not for the whole world.
The digital divide is actually pretty dangerous, in my opinion. Because technology enables us to do so much, those who are lacking it are lacking so much more and falling behind rapidly, as technology is rapidly evolving. While the gap exists globally, certain factors such as race, income, and education seem to matter a lot (133).
The final thoughts made me think a lot, especially the last paragraph on page 149. If I thought that computers 50 years ago were primitive and basically useless, it is very possible that the computers we use today will be considered primitive and useless when we look back 50 years from now, despite it being really hard to perceive right now. I just hope I can keep up with the rapidly growing technology so that in 50 years from now, I can be the one to say, "Wow, those computers in 2010 really were nothing!"
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Computers: The Life Story of a Technology, PART I
The first assignment given to us for the class was to read the first half of Computers: The Life Story of a Technology by Eric G. Swedin and David L. Ferro. I have to admit, it was a bit of a bore for a while, since it had a lot of straight up history and not so much of the effects of technology. However, it still managed to capture my mind as I saw the clear transitions society had from earlier pre-computer days to when the usage of computers became valuable to businesses an society as a whole.
Before I even got into the reading, I noticed the timeline in the front, which outlined the various ways humans developed through math and technology from 35,000 BCE to 2003. It was really interesting to see how the advancements became much more frequent as time went on, especially after the end of World War I in 1918. By the 1980's, the changes became rapid and the growth more staggering. From the timeline alone, I could see how technology was being integrated into our society.
The first half of the book was split into four chapters: Before Computers, The First Electronic Computers, The Second Generation, and the Third Generation. Each chapter outlined the history of technology and how small parts of the world was being affected by the development of technology.
It was really interesting to see how the invention of computers stems from early 'machines,' such as the first calculating device. In the first chapter, we saw how various inventions and findings regarding mathematics and computing devices were the ones in high demand. I never knew that the term 'computer' was used before the inventions of the computers we use today. Even more surprising, the term referred to people who used devices like the abacus, slide rule, and later on electromechanical devices like adding machines (19). Additionally, it was amazing to see how significant and helpful the invention of a mechanical tabulating machine was, even if it seems so ancient and inefficient nowadays when we have much better systems to deal with the census and businesses.
Then the first electronic computers came to be, especially due to the importance science and technology came to be in the Second World War. Technology changed the way war was fought, with new weapons and codebreaking techniques. Calculations could now be done faster and without too much work from humans. On page 44, it also showed how the development of technology even affected events that were far removed from that industry, such as the presidential elections; the outcome of votes were effectively and efficiently predicted by the new UNIVAC program.
The second generation of computers replaced vacuum tubes with transistors, making it possible for smaller computers to be developed. As was the case with the first generation, the second generation of computers were greatly influenced by a war, this time the Cold War. Thanks to the huge focus on science and technology, businesses sprung up in the industry to develop more and more hardware and software inventions, which became vital in every day businesses. Businesses came into the technology industry to make money and in order for businesses to make money, they needed that technology.
Finally, the third generation of computers used integrated circuits and started the usage of microprocessors, which made the personal computers we have now possible. I was surprised to see how the first line of software programs were made to give away to customers for free as incentives to buy certain hardware programs, since nowadays, the software program industry is a great big one. The birth of this industry came to be only because a small company, ADR, didn't want IBM, a super company at the time, to copy their superior program and attract away their customers, not solely because they wanted the revenue, although I'm sure that played a part.
The last paragraph of the reading still makes me wonder how this world we live in came to be. Computers were so expensive that only certain businesses and research facilities had the capabilities to purchase and utilize them. It seemed as though only the elite had the access to these technological 'miracles,' when nowadays, it's weird if you don't own a computer for yourself. In just 40 years, the number of computers in the world increased from just 130,000 machines to about 100,000 times that much. The microprocessor, as previously mentioned was said to be the key in making it all possible so I'm looking forward to seeing that transition in the second half of the book.
Before I even got into the reading, I noticed the timeline in the front, which outlined the various ways humans developed through math and technology from 35,000 BCE to 2003. It was really interesting to see how the advancements became much more frequent as time went on, especially after the end of World War I in 1918. By the 1980's, the changes became rapid and the growth more staggering. From the timeline alone, I could see how technology was being integrated into our society.
The first half of the book was split into four chapters: Before Computers, The First Electronic Computers, The Second Generation, and the Third Generation. Each chapter outlined the history of technology and how small parts of the world was being affected by the development of technology.
It was really interesting to see how the invention of computers stems from early 'machines,' such as the first calculating device. In the first chapter, we saw how various inventions and findings regarding mathematics and computing devices were the ones in high demand. I never knew that the term 'computer' was used before the inventions of the computers we use today. Even more surprising, the term referred to people who used devices like the abacus, slide rule, and later on electromechanical devices like adding machines (19). Additionally, it was amazing to see how significant and helpful the invention of a mechanical tabulating machine was, even if it seems so ancient and inefficient nowadays when we have much better systems to deal with the census and businesses.
Then the first electronic computers came to be, especially due to the importance science and technology came to be in the Second World War. Technology changed the way war was fought, with new weapons and codebreaking techniques. Calculations could now be done faster and without too much work from humans. On page 44, it also showed how the development of technology even affected events that were far removed from that industry, such as the presidential elections; the outcome of votes were effectively and efficiently predicted by the new UNIVAC program.
The second generation of computers replaced vacuum tubes with transistors, making it possible for smaller computers to be developed. As was the case with the first generation, the second generation of computers were greatly influenced by a war, this time the Cold War. Thanks to the huge focus on science and technology, businesses sprung up in the industry to develop more and more hardware and software inventions, which became vital in every day businesses. Businesses came into the technology industry to make money and in order for businesses to make money, they needed that technology.
Finally, the third generation of computers used integrated circuits and started the usage of microprocessors, which made the personal computers we have now possible. I was surprised to see how the first line of software programs were made to give away to customers for free as incentives to buy certain hardware programs, since nowadays, the software program industry is a great big one. The birth of this industry came to be only because a small company, ADR, didn't want IBM, a super company at the time, to copy their superior program and attract away their customers, not solely because they wanted the revenue, although I'm sure that played a part.
The last paragraph of the reading still makes me wonder how this world we live in came to be. Computers were so expensive that only certain businesses and research facilities had the capabilities to purchase and utilize them. It seemed as though only the elite had the access to these technological 'miracles,' when nowadays, it's weird if you don't own a computer for yourself. In just 40 years, the number of computers in the world increased from just 130,000 machines to about 100,000 times that much. The microprocessor, as previously mentioned was said to be the key in making it all possible so I'm looking forward to seeing that transition in the second half of the book.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
OD internet + conflicting blog
After reading tons and tons of blogs on fashion, journalism, celebrity, and anything under the sun, it seems so weird to even think about starting my own blog. Yet, here I am. I wonder if it's weird that I feel burdened by this.What if I'm not writing "well" enough? Who's going to be reading the miscellaneous things I'll be writing about? I just hope I don't get bashed here haha.
Making this blog was a lot easier than I thought it would be. Getting a pretty/interesting background with just a click of my mouse was pretty nice. I was worried I'd have to try to make my own background with weird programs or even worse, be stuck with a plain white background. I really should've written this post as soon as I made the blog because it took me so long to find the "New Post" link up at the top right. I guess I just have to get used to where everything is for now. I am a bit hesitant to tell my friends about this blog for several reasons. 1. I am definitely not one to write (a blog) for fun (or as a hobby). I usually don't like to write, period. 2. I'm going to writing for a class (!!!!) If my friends read what I say they could help, I guess, but for the most part, I feel like they would think it's so weird/lame. (hahahahahaha) 3. A lot of them think, "Who writes blogs these days besides famous people or people who want to be famous?" Since I am neither, it'd be weird for them
Nevertheless, I should tell them so they can give me some kind of feedback :)
As for the first assignment, my log of how much I interact with technology and for what reasons didn't really surprise me. I know I get online whenever I have the chance, even if I have nothing to do on it. Usually, I'd sit in front of my computer and refresh my Facebook page, Gmail page, Rutgers page, and repeat. However, I do use AIM to talk with highschool friends that I really miss for the majority of the time I'm on the computer. Technology has really made it easy to keep in touch with people.
What did surprise me was how much I crave/think about the internet. I came to NYC for the weekend and I wanted to get online to check my Facebook, Gmail, and Rutgers e-mail so badly, multiple times! In this case, it seems like the internet isn't just something I relieve my boredom with, but rather, something I became almost addicted to.
I'm sure blogging won't help with me addiction. :P
Making this blog was a lot easier than I thought it would be. Getting a pretty/interesting background with just a click of my mouse was pretty nice. I was worried I'd have to try to make my own background with weird programs or even worse, be stuck with a plain white background. I really should've written this post as soon as I made the blog because it took me so long to find the "New Post" link up at the top right. I guess I just have to get used to where everything is for now. I am a bit hesitant to tell my friends about this blog for several reasons. 1. I am definitely not one to write (a blog) for fun (or as a hobby). I usually don't like to write, period. 2. I'm going to writing for a class (!!!!) If my friends read what I say they could help, I guess, but for the most part, I feel like they would think it's so weird/lame. (hahahahahaha) 3. A lot of them think, "Who writes blogs these days besides famous people or people who want to be famous?" Since I am neither, it'd be weird for them
Nevertheless, I should tell them so they can give me some kind of feedback :)
As for the first assignment, my log of how much I interact with technology and for what reasons didn't really surprise me. I know I get online whenever I have the chance, even if I have nothing to do on it. Usually, I'd sit in front of my computer and refresh my Facebook page, Gmail page, Rutgers page, and repeat. However, I do use AIM to talk with highschool friends that I really miss for the majority of the time I'm on the computer. Technology has really made it easy to keep in touch with people.
What did surprise me was how much I crave/think about the internet. I came to NYC for the weekend and I wanted to get online to check my Facebook, Gmail, and Rutgers e-mail so badly, multiple times! In this case, it seems like the internet isn't just something I relieve my boredom with, but rather, something I became almost addicted to.
I'm sure blogging won't help with me addiction. :P
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)