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