Final project

Ok so, I only need to write one small blog on the process of writing my final paper. I found it fairly easy since I read the book and have a clear opinion on the subject. As I have stated in my paper, through microcoordination, education, and social/global pressure, we will be able to reduce our consumer waste in the future, and improve our system of disposal. We will also demand products that are higher quality and environmentally safe. My only consern about the paper is that it is not very long. I'm not a page counter. I write to answer a question or support my opinion. Sometimes I go over the page requirements, sometimes (like this time) I'm slightly under :) I hope that doesn't affect the professor's opinion. Merry Christmas everyone!!!!!!

New technology means new house rules.....

This is my second blog about random technology in our lives. It is about the awesome and intrusive ooVoo :)
Yes, ooVoo is very cool. I really love it. However, when I'm having a personal discussion with my husband, and I think my children are the only other people in the house, and I surprisingly find that there are other 'invisible' people listening, I don't love it so much. This repeat offense has provoked me to create a new house rule; NO OOVOOING UNLESS YOU ASK ME FIRST! Again, it's technology diminishing our privacy. I really don't mean to bash webcam technology. It brings people together all over the world. But it needs to be controlled. Kids need to learn webcam ethics. Maybe that topic should be incorported into their technology classes in elementary school. The Rutgers student who recorded his roommate's relationship with another student should have known that what he was doing was wrong...and disgraceful, and disgusting, and harmful. Technology is moving too fast for parents to rewrite and reinstitute the rules of right and wrong. I don't believe there will ever be a technology that doesn't have a 'con' to go along with its 'pro'.

Here's a new technology that bites.....

Since we are allowed to blog about a random technology, I would like to discuss the new phenomenon of computerized applications for employment and online job searching.
First, the new procedure of gathering applications only through a computer kiosk is ridiculous. And far too many companies are utilizing this method. Instead of seeing the manager in person and making some sort of personal impression, one has to anonymously click his/her application into, no doubt, an endless file of thousands of other applications. Each person is left wondering if his/her little file will ever be opened and viewed (usually not). And this can't be an easy process for the human resources department. They have to choose people to interview without even an inkling of what they're like or whether they can even speak properly. This must waste an enormous amount of time. I realize the procedure of calling an applicant without meeting them first is normal when hiring for higher level jobs where the amount of applicants would normally not be that volumous. But for service-level positions at companies like Wegmans or Target, it just seems logical to have a more personal, face to face approach.
But this technology, used in the realm of online job searching, really bites. Companies rarely use newspapers or staffing firms anymore because all they have to do is put an ad in Careerbuilder or Indeed. And what they receive in return are thousands, if not millions, of resumes from many people who are not even seriously interested in the position, from all over the world. It is like winning the lottery if one's resume is actually chosen from the mass of files. It is a system that is so flawed that it is no wonder why so many qualified people are unemployed. My husband and I call it the "Black hole". Your resume goes in and disappears forever. How is it even possible to review so many resumes? The traditional way may not have been perfect, but it was far better than this mess of a system.

How facebook effects me.....

Now that I have written three analytical posts about Facebook, I would like to tell how it has become part of my (almost) everyday life.
Like many people in my demographic, I was hesitant to have a Facebook account. And that fact that I'm an extremely private person did not make the decision easier. I reluctantly participated, at first, because of my children. Once I broke down that wall, I refused to put a profile picture up until my daughter got so sick of looking at the 'shadow man' and insisted that I change it. This was very annoying to me because I absolutely hate taking pictures of myself, but she suceeded in getting one up there. Then, she found it "weird" that I would not accept everyone who requested me. I explained that it was not my mission to be 'popular' and have hundreds of friends like she does, and that I do not want to talk to everyone from high school or random people (I still only have about 83 friends). Very quickly I realized how Facebook made keeping in touch with my friends and family so easy. And since I am also fairly anti-social, it became my main source of communication. Truthfully, all of us are too busy to see each other as much as we would like to, so Facebook, in a way, has replaced getting together in person. It sounds like a form of seclusion, but in fact, it allows us to be more 'social' than life would ever give us the time to be. It brings closer all my family and friends from around the state and country. Now we can communicated with more than just a Christmas card once a year. So yes, it has become a "utility" in my life. Just as Zuckerberg had intended. :))

Is Facebook getting too big?

Well, as we all know, Facebook has grown exponetially. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on one's view. We all know the positive impact it has at connecting people all over the world, and how it can effect social and political issues. We know that it makes an enormous amount of information available to us through our friends and the site groups, etc. But is our privacy at risk? Zuckerberg has always been protective over the information that his users provide to Facebook. He says that "You need to be good in order to get people's trust"(329). But will Facebook get so big that he will lose control over our privacy? What if the government gets involed? What if the system is compromised? Even though the information we provide is voluntary, it is still very personal and sensitive information. No, Facebook does not send vans around taking pictures of our streets as Google does for their map software, or use "crawling" to gather information (324), because Zuckerberg believes in empowering the individual. But as we continue to provide our personal data, Facebook is growing into a "global village" (333) that is unprecidented, and this may lure the involvement of not-so-trustworthy individuals all over the world. The author states, "At the same time, Facebook's global scale, combined with the quantity of personal information its users entrust to it, suggests a movement toward a form of universal connectivity that is truly new in human society." (332) This may sound inspiring and profound, but the question remains, can Zuckerberg continue to control the privacy of our information?

More on The Facebook Effect.....

First, I have to say that I think it's funny how Mark Zuckerberg shouts out quotes from movies (97). We do the same thing in our house!
So, the whole middle part of the book is about Facebook "scaling" and how the VCs and personal investors bombard them with offers. It was especially impressive how Zuckerberg did not back out of his verbal deal with Graham (Washington Post) without speaking to him first(109). It really shows an enormous amount of integrity for a twenty-year-old. I don't think he would have even chose Accel over Graham if it wasn't for the incredible $98 million dollar post-investment, which Facebook really needed to expand.
Another fact in the book that was histerical was that Steve Chen was an early employee, and that he was told it was going to be the biggest mistake of his life if he left (129). Of course, he went on to start YouTube. We all should follow our intuition and make our own decisions like him.
And just to show how far removed Zuckerman was from 'normal society', he thought 50 Cent was his new hire (138). I'm sure 50 Cent has his own facebook page by now so Zuckerman can read all about him.
Finally, it was most impressive when he was asked "what he thought might be the best way to "monetize" or make money from Thefacebook, as an exit strategy", he anwered, "I spend my time thinking how to build this and not how to exit"..."I think what we're doing is more interesting than what anyone else is doing and that this is just a cool thing to be doing. I don't spend my time thinking about that. Sorry."(139) The most important thing to Zuckerman has always been to retain control over what he was building, something more than just wealth.

Wiki Audit Blog

Auditing the Wikipedia article Global Warming Conspiracy Theory proved to be time consuming and enlightening. To be very honest, from the beginning I never knew that Wikipedia was written by ordinary people. I rarely used the site so I never investigated the sources prior to this assignment. As I discussed in our presentation, Wikipedia can be used as a scholarly resource only on the condition that the sources are verified. The site is not completely reliable because the articles are in continuous flux. There is an unlimited ability to alter facts and insert ficticious information. This technology may produce thousands of informative and accurate articles, but it cannot be compared to the consistancy of traditional encyclopedias. In fact, the ability to edit Wikipedia lends to the ability to alter history and cultural truths. The site satifies our desire for quick information, yet it should probably be avoided for use in serious research. The one main strength Wiki has is the availablity of many different opinions on subjects which opens doors to further research. Also, I do not want to minimize the enormous success of the project itself having created a free online encyclopedia through the contributions of volunteer writers, and its ability to educate millions of people for free. Personally, I will use Wikipedia for quick reviews of subjects and current events, and still use my library for research.

The Facebook Effect: Part One

After reading the first section of The Facebook Effect, it was not easy for me to conceive that Facebook began as a social networking site for the ivy leagues excusively. It seems so casual and commonplace,composed of mostly family, lifelong friends and neighbors. Maybe this is so because my facebook represents my lifestyle. Mark Zuckerberg had always intended it to be a site generated by its users, voluntarily. "Thefacebook had no content of its own. It was merely a piece of software-a platform for content created by its users."(p31) I am glad Zuckerberg insisted on keeping the site simple and minimalistic in design. It is what makes Facebook easy to use and appealing to all ages, unlike MySpace with its "distincitive Times Square look"(p75). It's not about dating, or meeting strange people, it's about making socializing easier. Also, Zuckerberg's resistance to Saverin's idea of banner advertising certainly kept the site looking more 'personal' and not like a commercial billboard, which is probably an added reason for its success. It is understandable how allegations of stolen ideas arose very quickly after Facebook's success. With sites like sixdegrees, houseSYSTEM, Friendster, and MySpace already in existance, Zuckerberg was obviously not the only person contemplating a social networking site. He was simply able to execute his refined ideas with the help of his co-founders. What is truly astounding is the actual "effect" of Facebook. The examples given of the FARC group and protests that followed, and of the elections in Iran are overwhelmingly inspirational. I never realized the serious impact Facebook could have on the world. I'm looking forward to finishing this book. :)

Made to Break: Part Three

There was so much information in part three of Made to Break (some of it similar information from the first book we read, Computers). I will focus in this blog on one specific topic.
In Weaponizing Planned Obsolescence, I was amazed by the depth of technological espionage that occurred between the U.S.S.R and the U.S. in the 1980's while I was busy smoking in the high school bathroom. The true accounts given here could be script material for a spy movie. The life stories of Gus Weiss and the KGB mole Vladimir Vetrov were fascinating. Weiss's creation of the American Tradecraft Society (p230)was a crucial element in the protection of national security. Weiss keenly watched the Soviets develop technology that they obviously could not afford to research and develop. He and the A.T.S. spent many years protecting American technology, covertly. And with the information gathered through Vetrov, Wiess and the U.S. government were able to sabotage the Soviet pipeline project and satellite equiptment through 'planned obsolescence'(p254). The events that followed, the privatization of the Soviet oil supply, Putin's effort to regain control of it, and the U.S. entering into a war with oil rich countries, are certainly in a curious sequence. Could it be that the threat of economic growth for the Soviets and the countries they supply oil to, North Korea, China and Japan, caused the U.S. to ensure its own supply of oil through a senseless war?

Made to Break: Part Two

What I liked about the Radio, Radio section of Made to Break was how it reminded me of when I was young, and how I used to watch my father haul a large tool box of 'tubes' in the back of his van when he drove to repair a customer's television. He owned a television repair business for twenty five years. During that time we saw many trasformations due to obsolescence. That box eventually disappeared as technology changed to transistors and so on. What Radio, Radio also explained was how friendship only goes so far in business. Sarnoff and Armstrong were the perfect example of this. One key point made was how technology became so specific that manufacturers were able to control the product's durability life span. "By the 1950's, product life spans were no longer left to chance but were created by plan, and it is at this moment that the phrase planned obsolescence acquired the additional meaning of "death dating.""(p113)
The War section of the book also revealed some fascinating history. The scientific push for the development of nylon (by DuPont)was a result of the political climate and the Japanese silk industry (P117). It is amazing how the economies of countries were played like a game of chess; and how political decisions were made as a result of economic stresses. For example,this case with Japan joining the Axis alliance (p122)due to their crumbling silk industry and need for external resources, among other reasons. Because of the political climate it was our economic and political duty to create a synthetic silk and develope an indigenous supply. Who knew so much was involved in the creation of nylon pantyhose! Apparently,some negatives do turn out to be positives.

Your Phone is Locked. Just Drive.

Your phone is locked.  Just Drive. 
This is a statement that I need to keep repeating to myself EVERYTIME I drive, as do many other people.  We know the dangers of texting and answering calls in the car (23 times more likely to have an accident), but we can't seem to ignore that buzz or ringtone.  Teenagers have even more of a problem with this issue.  But leave it to technology to develop a program to control technology.  According to the New York Times article by David Pogue, Your Phone is Locked.  Just Drive., there are now applications, that can be downloaded to GPS equipt phones, that will block incoming text messages and calls.  They are named, iZup, tXtBlocker, CellSafety, and ZoomSafer, and they all have different features.  Some apps will shut down the phone completely, while others will simply send an automatic reply of "I'm driving right now; I'll get back to you".  One makes a sound when a text or call comes in that can be replaced with a personal message like, "Stay alive, mommy" or "Come home soon, Daddy".  One thing they all do is allow you to call 911 or certain programmed numbers. This may seem like the perfect solution but there are some glitches.
First, they drain the phone battery, and some take time for the app to turn on and off.  And since the apps engage at a speed of 10 miles an hour, one's phone will shut off when riding a bike, or a train, or even if it belongs to a passenger in the car.  The companies have some solutions to these issues, like having to request permission from a parent to bypass the block via text.  However, I don't believe they have solve these issues completely. 
Personally, I am happy to know that I have the option of obtaining some control over my child's texting while she's driving.  And if I don't change my own habits, I'm going to need a reminder message to, "Leave that phone on the seat and watch the road!" 

Made to Break: Part one

The first part of Made to Break was an excellent summary of how we became what we are today, a consumer driven economy, with emphasis on the word "consume".  Actually, we really should be know as a "consume and dispose" economy.  It is unfortunate that Henry Ford's honorable conviction of building a car, "so strong amd so well-made that no one ought ever to have to buy a second one." (46)  could not prevail in the automobile industry at the time.  But the 'design and comfort' elements of an automobile were inevitable competition with the emergence of women as consumers and the growing wealth of society.  I believe the battle between Ford and GM were necessary in order to bring us to what we have today, a balance of decent quality and design. 
It is fascinating how well the advertisers of that time predicted what would sustain our economy, "product addiction", buying for status and pride (51), and "progressive obsolescence" which means, "buying for up-to-dateness, efficiency, and style..." (66).  These marketing strategies relate directly to current products such as cell phones, automolibles, clothing and much more.  However, I don't believe that we have a total lack of concern for quality.  In fact, it has been proven in the current automobile industry that the companies known for quality will be the ones to survive (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc).  I also believe that this will remain true for manufacturers of most products because when people have little or no money to spend, they look for value and quality in what they do buy.  They are not as quick to replace products, nor are they happy when they must.  So the idea of progressive obsolescence is always balanced with the desire for quality.

Wiki part two...

So, now we know why Wikipedians love Wikipedia, the "social networking" (p 120), the ability to talk things over and over (p125), the ability to revert, and revert again (p128), they can write "what they want" (130), and finally, they love testing the limits (133).  I'm not trying to insult the author when I say that the second half of the book is less than interesting.  I simply could not read anymore about the bias, debates, and rewriting of articles.  I would like to know one thing.  Where do all these people find the time to write and edit as a hobby?  It seems more like a full-time career.

Wikipedia: The Great Contradiction

How can any collection of information be considered legitimate if it's not reliable and consistent?  After reading the first half of The World of Wikipedia, I am annoyed that I ever used this site for information; and that I was lazily swayed by the "Google effect". (p83)  I realize that Wikipedia is an awesome reference project, similar to a "communal garden" (p 51), but how can it be compared to a legitimate encyclopedia?  Poor Encyclopedia Britannica, a respected reference for so many years, now unable to remain cost-effective and keep up with this Wiki-trend.  I would be happy take the extra few minutes to insert a disk into the computer if it meant that I would not be wasting my time with unreliable research.  I'm not totally bashing Wikipedia.  I just have an appreciation for the time and effort it takes to develop an encyclopedia that has verified sources, remains consistent, and is (for the most part) unbiased.  The latter being another problem with WP. (p 77)  Who could trust an article if it was unknowingly written by a left-winger or right-winger or an extremist of any kind?  I'll save that type of information for the chat pages.  I'm sure most of the articles on serious subjects are reliable, but it is simply a chance that shouldn't be taken while writing papers, or anywhere in the education system.  Still, credit must be given to how fast it grew throughout the world and the 256 languages it represents. (p 44)  Socially, it shows that people truly can, and desire to work together.  As for my personal research, I'll stick to the real encyclopedias.

Is Postman a technophobe?

Ok.  For my classmates who thought that Postman is a technophobe, I must agree that the second have of Technopoly led me to that possible conclusion.  Beginning with his explanation of the development of technology in medicine, there was a sense of hostility in his tone.  Stating the pros and cons of a medical devices and technological advances is acceptable; but he pushes the concept too far by saying, "There are no longer methods of treating illness; there is only one method--the technological one." (102)  On the contrary, there still many different approaches to medicine.  Even doctors who use the most advanced technology sometimes incorporate holistic approaches to healing.  I also must add that BECAUSE of the computer, more people are aware of alternative methods such as Chinese medicine, acupuncture, herbal remedies and such. 
Another example of his extremism is on page 111, where he writes, "It (the computer) subordinates the claims of our nature, our biology, our emotions, our spirituality.  The computer claims sovereignty over the whole range of human experience, and supports its claim by showing that it "thinks" better than we can."  I understand that the computer is now weaved throughout almost every aspect of human life, but I still believe we are in control, we are still doing the actual "thinking", and we use the technology to our benefit.
As for his comment about his student and the thermometer, I seriously doubt that when Postman told his student that the thermometer read ninety-eight degrees, and the student replied, "No wonder it's so hot!", that the student meant that it was hot because the thermometer said so.  It is clear that the student was simply surprised that it was 98 degrees hot.  So nature was not "off the hook." (p114)
Most importantly, I must debate his opinion on page 119 where he states, "But the "message" of computer argues, to put it baldly, that the most serious problems confronting us at both personal and public levels require technical solutions through fast access to information otherwise unavailable.  I would argue that this is , on the face of it, nonsense.  Our most serious problems are not technical, nor do they arise from inadequate information."  Actually, our most serious problems, like hunger, can be helped with technology, as we have seen on Ted Talks.  And maybe future nuclear catastrophe can be avoided if people from 'enemy' countries can openly converse on the Internet without their governments censoring and altering information.  An endless amount of helpful information can be found on the computer and used to help in education, family issues and even religion.  The problems themselves may not be technical as Postman says, but they can be helped with technology.  : P

Technopoly

After reading the first five chapters of Technopoly by Neil Postman, my initial reaction was, "This is entirely too much information to discuss in one blog."  He is amazingly successful at summarizing almost our entire history of human interaction with tecnology in ninetyone pages.  I have never before considered the negative aspects of such mainstays as writing, grading, and the mechanical clock.  I only considered their benefits. As a parent, there are two main technologies that have always been a sort of 'enemy' to my children, the television and the computer, and how they conflict with learning. (p.16)  I have always controlled the use of them in my home because they certainly effect a child's ability to develop reading skills, memory and concentration.  But even with that effort, it is impossible to seclude children, and people in general, from them.  In order for any of us to function in our society and in the future, we are forced to accept them as part of our culture.  As stated, "new technologies compete with old ones-for attention, for money, for prestige, but mostly for dominance of their world-view."(p.16)  We must conform or fall out of our own world and be left behind, with some of our traditions as mere memories.  For example, during my first writing class back in 2000, the professor asked us to write an essay.  As the whole class got up and sat at the computers, I picked up my pen and started writing.  The professor quickly informed me that I must use the computer (which I had never used to write before).  So, even if I had an appreciation for the tradition of hand-written papers, I had no choice but to conform, in order to keep up with the 'speed' of technology.  This is a minor example of how the 'meaning' of education has changed, as it it is discussed by Postman.  Just as some professors may question whether an online degree is actually the same as a traditional degree earned by attending actual classes.  The unfortunate truth is that because we live in this form of "technopoly", the definition of education is changing and professors have little or no control in sustaining tradition, that is if they want to remain a part of the institution of higher learning.  But I would like to fast-forward through our progress from a tool-using culture, to a technocracy, to the current technopoly as Postman states that we have entirely become. (p.48) I do agree that our society has lost control over the information that is spewed as us at a continuous and overwhelming rate.  However, I don't believe that people have let this situation entirely annihilate our traditional views.  There are still those who are battling for tradition.  Postman writes, "When the supply of information is no longer controllable, a general breakdown in psychic tranquillity and social purpose occurs."  It is that breakdown of tranquillity that people are now noticing.  Even the marketing companies see that people are longing for simplicity and still appreciate the skill of the tool and technocracy age.  Just recently there was a automobile commercial praising that this country was known for making things, for pride in our craftsmanship, and that is what their new truck is made from.  The ad agencies are appealing to our sense of tradition and old-time skill because they know that is what we value. Another company is sponsering a "project dinner-time", to promote families eating together and slowing down from our computer-paced lives.  This may seem slightly off-topic, but in a small way it shows that we have not yet succumbed to the "totalitarian technopoly". (p.51)

how did they get here?

Rather than write a blog about the details of the final half of the book, Computers, I would just like to reflect on something that I just realized.  My first knowledge of computers was probably in 1975 when Pong was released, and I have no idea how they became what they are today.  I mean I understand the technological advancement that is described in the book, I just don't remember it all happening.  It was like a blur of different keyboards to the one I'm using right now.  My most vivid memory, after Pong, is being in high school and learning computer programming.  It was something like, "If x is this, then let y be that", vaguely of course.  It wasn't until over ten years later that I bought my first desktop, and Dell was the leader at the time.  And if it wasn't for my daughter, we probably wouldn't have purchased the laptop currently on my lap. 
As I read through the developments of the last few decades, Atari, Apple, Microsoft, etc., I can't help but think that I should have been more aware of all the amazing new hardware and software that was being created before my eyes.  How busy could I have been?  I didn't even remember the famous Apple Macintosh commercial released during the 1984 superbowl.  Thankfully, I caught up with it on YouTube.  It's a good thing that everything we need to know about computers, is easily found on one.  Having their complete history at our fingertips is a blessing for all of us who were there, but somehow missed the show. :)

Computers History Reading

After completing the reading assignment, the first thing I thought of was "Got Acronyms?"  ENIAC, EDVAC, EDSAC, UNIVAC, IBM, RAM, EPROM, ROM.....
I don't think I've ever seen so many in one reading.  They can be seen as a symbol of the industry itself, always trying to fit an enormous amount of information in a small space.
While being directed through the history of ingenious technological inventions, I found myself frustrated that I could not even imagine what most of the mechanisms looked like.  Google images, one of the great offspring of computer technology, helped with vintage photos of Napier's Bones, the slide rule, a pascaline, and analytical engine, etc. 
It was intriguing to read about the transformation from mechanical calculating to electronic and digital and from vacuum tubes to transistors to microchips.  Facts, such as the Qwerty keyboard being developed to slow the typist down in order to allow the computer to process, and that Atanasoff originally coined the term "jogging", what is now "refresh", successfully connected the past and present in my mind.
Another piece of history that stands out is how decoding during WWII, the Cold War, and NASA's space program, had propelled the computer industry to such an extent that it has completely changed how we function in our culture today.  Would the industry have developed at such a rapid pace with only the drive of consumerism and profit?  And what is the main reason for development today?  Is it the military, the consumers, or both?

Thoughts on creating a blog

I don't smoke, but I need a cigarette.  I'm not a very social person, so I'm going to have to get used to blogging.  Even having a Facebook profile was a big step for me.  The process was not difficult but I am not enjoying it at all.  Hopefully that will change. 
On the other hand, I began the reading assignment and the book is fascinating so far.  The information is almost overwhelming.  Having been born in the sixties, I've witnessed many shifts in technology over the years.  And in my lifetime, the change was extremely rapid, and becoming more so.  What is amazing about the early years of technology is how much TIME people spent THINKING.  We are all moving at such a high speed now, I think most people think in 'tweets' rather than depth.  Scary.