Final Paper DONE

After finishing writing my final paper, I must say that I am surprised at my conclusion. I feel like until I actually began getting towards the end of my paper I only saw the dependence on technology among colleges and ignored the importance of the people who work/attend them. It might sound cheesy, but technology enables many things to be easier/more orgnanized but could NEVER take the place of a person or compare to their abilities (after all, we created these technologies). Although technopolies are dependent on technology (which campuses are without a doubt), this dependency does not render humans "useless" or "less" than the technology. I actually really enjoyed writing this paper more than I expected to. I feel like I'm so amped off of my conclusion that I don't even want to be on a computer any longer, ha.

Final paper progress 1

I started my paper a couple days ago but have been so busy with finals that I haven't had a chance to write about it until now. I decided to write on Postman's "Technopoly" because I believe that college campuses are just that. I have made a list of the pros and cons to technology on the college campus and although there seem to be a pretty even amount on both sides. I understand that there are two sides to everything and I feel that my argument is shaping more as I continue to write and examine this topic, but I think in the end technology is for the benefit of higher education. Reading through the book for quotes to support my arguments has been a bit painstaking as I did not enjoy reading it the first time too much, but I do enjoy the topic of the paper so it's well worth it. I must admit that I have been experiencing first hand one of the cons to technology on the college campus: checking facebook while attempting to write my paper(s). This is something I know everybody battles with, but being so connected to the world also has many benefits that I will be discussing.

Current Event

I did my current event on an article from Foxnews.com titled "Tech Breakthrough Could Mean Disposable E-Readers" (found here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/28/tech-breakthrough-mean-disposable-e-readers/). Basically the article discusses a new ink-like technology called "electrowetting" which would allow a flexible piece of organic/disposable paper to contain multiple pages. This is similar to E-readers such as the Kindle, except it is not as fragile or expensive. Dr. Steckl claims that this is the future of electronic paper and believes that in 3-5 there will be a prototype on the market. The technology of electrowetting is even said to be capable of containing video. With all this being said, this technology could completely change the way books/magazines/newspapers, etc. are sold and distributed throughout the world.

While talking with the class I wondered how people would feel disposing of a piece of paper with this kind of technology contained in it. Most people gave the same answer that I believed to be true myself: It seems pretty wild/strange now, but if the product is organic and mass produced I guess it would be easy to get used to.

Facebook (pt. 2)

In reading the second part of "The Facebook Effect" the chapters focus on the business aspect of owning a new company and provides a lot of insight into the process of getting investors. It was actually very enjoyable to see this perspective of how Facebook got started and I found it interesting how a 20 year old was handling being in serious conversations with people double his age and much more experienced then him. Also, there was a lot of information in these chapters that documented where Facebook came from and how it developed into the best social networking site in our lives today. Hearing Graham (of the Washington Post) talk about the similarities between what Facebook allows students to do in regards to leaving comments on pictures/posts and the ledgers that contained articles of the Harvard Crimson shows that many of the ideas that created Facebook weren't necessarily new, just tweaked and put on the internet for a much easier platform to gain many followers. The Washington Post's initial investment offers opened my eyes to the different approaches one could take while shopping a company around for investors. The fact that their plan focused more on the long-term development of the site and not the "sell fast" mentality seems to be what influenced Zuckerberg the most for planning Facebook's future. This approach is more risky because the company has to overcome many obstacles and establish a dominance, but the pay-off at the end is much bigger than the quicker approach. The fact that Viacom took an interest and wanted to merge Facebook with Mtv.com displays the endless possibilities and different roads the website could have went down. In the end, Zuckerberg goes with Accel and obviously the decision pays off for him. The rest of the chapters document the development of Facebook (which as a user I found awesome since I experienced these developments myself) and the development of Zuckerberg as a CEO. Interestingly enough, the struggle of trying to keep Facebook closed off to only students is something that I tend to forget ever existed. The eventual switch has made the website one of the main tools for family/friends keeping in touch no matter where they currently are in the world. Also, it was funny that pictures were not "unlimited" or even a big part of Facebook in the beginning since now that is why many people love the website so much.

Wikipedia Audit Experience

I do not believe that Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source. The strengths of Wikipedia are that it is a quick and easy way to get a decent background on whatever topic you would like to research, but part of the many weaknesses is that this information should be taken with a grain of salt. Another weakness of Wikipedia is even if a piece of information is cited from a legit source, the information could still be misrepresented or non existent. From the source that I audited with my group (Jersey Shore) there was a statistic that was cited from Fox News but never appeared in the article sited...this is problematic because many people probably see Fox News and assume that this is a legit stat, but in reality it is completely fabricated. This example shows that technology is not a reliable source for quick information. If a person is willing to put the research in, i.e. follow the citations, evaluate the sources, etc. then it could be a legit reference, but most people who want to use Wikipedia are using it because they don't want to have to put the extra work in. I think the fact that people can deceive the public by citing a source that has nothing to do with what is being cited is also a problem. It shows that as technology keeps advancing as well as sites like Wikipedia that allow "everyone" to participate, the more you must question everything you read. I learned that Wikipedia is not reliable for anything but getting the "jist" of a topic most of the time. I will never believe anything I read on Wikipedia again without following the citations and really discovering where the information is coming from.

Facebook Effect pt 1

Reading Kirkpatrick's "The Facebook Effect" I immediately expected to read something similar to the premise of "The Social Network", not that there is anything wrong with this assumption (because Mark Zuckerberg is obviously important while discussing this topic), but I was glad to be somewhat wrong. The fact that Kirkpatrick begins the book with a story about a Colombian man who used Facebook to organize a group against FARC (terrorist group who were terrorizing his country) was honestly an amazing intro. Instead of focusing on the standard "college, girls, partying" that one would expect from Facebook, the reader is given a legit example of how powerful, useful, amazing a website like Facebook can actually be when used at it's full potential. The first chapter does eventually move into what is expected when talking about Facebook, and discusses how there are negative aspects to such a website existing (especially in a country like the US), "What does it mean that we are increasingly living our lives in public? Are we turning into a nation--and a world--of exhibitionists?" is the question that Kirkpatrick asks and I find myself wondering very often since Facebook has been a part of my life. The next 2 chapters in the book discuss the standard story that I was expecting it to begin with and I think because I was caught off guard with how interesting the first chapter was, it made me more interested to read these chapters. It was cool to hear about the white board and how Zuckerburg was being taken around New York City to meet big time investors while he was still a sophomore in college. It was also interesting to see how Friendster creator admitted his social network was not built on "new ideas" but rather just modified to enhance older ideas of social networking (which is essentially what Facebook does to dominate the market). The Chapter "Fall 2004" was the most interesting to me because it shows how powerful Facebook or "Thefacebook" was when it tells the story of Harvard's President Lawrence Summer's used the website to check out profiles of incoming freshman students. It goes on to say how it became a standard in many other prestigious schools (Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Dartmouth). In the first 105 pages of this book I believe that Kirkpatrick does a great job of first displaying the power that this website has on a worldwide scale which then gets the readers attention and allows him to begin explaining how the website has gotten to this point.

5 ways that the web is helpful

chegg.com - allows students to rent textbooks for a much cheaper cost

familydoctor.org - contains descriptions/hand-outs for common medical conditions, a great website for anyone with children who has to wait to get into a doctors office

Online Banking - Allows you to view/manage your bank account from home. Quick and simple, but very important to our everyday lives.

OneClickAtATime.org - Charity website with different categories to choose from (children, animal, medical, etc.) where you can donate online quick and easy.

Kik Messenger - Recently got this application for my iPhone. It is essentially bbm (blackberry messenger) that works across iphone, blackberry and droid networks. BBM was a hit but only able to be used by blackberry owners, this app allows for even more "instant" messaging between a larger group of people.

Made to Break (2)

Reading the second part of Slade's "Made to Break" shed a lot of light on what seems to be the foundation for the philosophy of many aspects of American commerce. What I found to be most interesting was the story of the transistor radio and how it fits into the idea of "obsolescence". The trend with most companies in the world seems to be what I would like to call the "Wal-Mart" mentality, where cheap price is the most important element of the product. Sony was the first to start taking over the market because of their ability to contract workers at "inexpensive" prices in other countries, setting the tone for other companies to follow. Although this takes jobs away from the American people, the quality of the product has not been compromised in using this method of production. Motorola cannot compete with Sony so they develop an automated soldering system which cuts production costs greatly, but in turn the machine soldered radios cannot be fixed by hand. This renders the radio "disposable" and is an example of "death dating". Although Motorola was pushed into creating their version of the radio by other companies, they end up changing the whole market because they have the cheapest price which will influence the rest of the radio companies to follow suit. Once this change occurs, radios will not last long, thus ensuring customers will come back and buy more sooner than later.
It was also interesting how Slade made the idea of "obsolescence" even translate to real estate. The existence of "cape cod" homes was due to attempts to save "space, time and money" (133) by Frank Lloyd Wright. I do find more of a justified reason behind the existence of "cape cod" (no basement, no front porch) homes because there was a housing crisis in the country. I don't think it compares the same to something like radio obsolescence because a home lacking a front porch and basement does not lose quality in the sense that it will fall apart without these things. Also, many of these homes were being built in much more crowded areas than suburban neighborhoods (the edge of cities, etc.) so I don't really agree that basements and porches are "obsolete", but they are more of a luxury that does not have to be included with every single house that's built because of space. Although these homes might have changed the overall vision of what a "home" is or can be, it has not by any means eliminated basements and porches from the American people...so the effect is not as strong.
The third chapter deals with "planned obsolescence" and Brooks Stevens quote explains it very well "We make good products, we induce people to buy them, and then next year we deliberately introduce something that will make those products old fashioned, out of date, obsolete. We do that for the soundest reason: to make money". Although this is not the easiest concept to accept from a consumer standpoint, we know that this is the truth about many companies and products. I respect the fact that Stevens could admit this so bluntly, but also hate that somebody could openly say this and continue to do it.

Made to Break (part 1)

Chapters 1-3 of Slade's book "Made to Break" were very interesting to me. Chapter 1 discusses marketing strategies for a world that has yet to have any solid companies. The use of "unique" packaging and "trademark" promises were used to ensure people of the quality in the products they were buying. Today, many companies are already established and it seems that they have set the mold for other companies trying to compete. We see many of the same ideas being recycled or altered in a small way to make other companies look similar enough to the most well known brand that possibly they would be considered the same. I personally find this interesting because it seems in today's society people are making a shift towards the more local/small companies and moving away from the mass produced big company brands. At the same time, unique packaging is still a prime part of marketing for any company because all of the big name companies' packages/brands are so well known that they have become the norm for those products. I wonder if this shift away from big name companies is due to the fact that a "trademark guarantee" doesn't mean anything when people are so aware of ingredients and production information these days. The second chapter of the book really caught my attention because it talked about how Ford was against many of the marketing schemes that are used today by his company and basically any company with enough money to advertise. In this chapter, Slade quotes Calkin stating "...beauty, became a factor in the production and marketing goods" (49). I find it funny that Ford seemed to be against this type of marketing because it makes the product out to be dishonest or fantasized. Although I find this view to be true, the affect of advertisements on the human mind is so strong that people really are persuaded in some way whether they want to be or not. Seeing a constant image over and over again, especially when it looks perfect, will make a person consider that product when they are looking for something like it. Chapter 3's discussion of 'death dating' was the part of this book I was most looking forward to reading. Although it seems to be a shady practice, if a company does not give you a lifetime guarantee, they are not obligated to make the product to the 100% of their ability. It seems most companies only put about 80% of their ability into making their products in order to ensure that the business will continue to grow. This just proves that big companies never look at their customers as human beings, but as numbers. With this being said, I think our ability to recognize this and openly talk about it in a book is what is starting to drive people to more local/smaller companies who can only use quality of their products to battle the big mass produced products. If products aren't breaking physically, technology is constantly growing and evolving rendering products useless or incapable by the time 5 years go by. "People buy a new car, not because the old one is worn out, but because it is no longer modern" (49) explains this dilemma perfectly and speaks to the culture that we are living in today. The constant need to be "up to date" is what fuels many of these technological companies' success.

Wikipedia Part 2

In the second half of Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia" begins with the chapter discussing why Americans love the online user-generated encyclopedia. One example that gets brought up in the book and is a perfect representation of what sets Wikipedia apart from a normal Encyclopedia is the "Freedom Fries" article. As Dalby explains, there are many different factors that go into reading an article on such a term as "freedom fries". Yes, the term was a "euphemism used for French Fries" as the Wikipedia page explains immediately, but there are many other factors that go into this phrase. It was the result of Americans reacting to a decline in French support in our country's decisions. Also, there was a movement in America to legally change the name of "french fries" permanently. The reasoning behind the name change is much more significant and serious than the article on "freedom fries", and a person can easily click the blue links throughout the page that refer in more detail to the "2003 Invasion of Iraq". I believe this is the point that Darby is trying to prove, the CONVENIENCE of Wikipedia is something that no encyclopedia can compete with. The idea of information being a "click" or "search" away makes Wikipedia appealing and easier to use than opening a book and having to search for yourself. With the internet being able to work so quickly, a person can click away for hours and read about 20 completely different topics that all connect in some way (like a 6 degrees of separation for information). Dalby does not ignore the problems with Wikipedia either. Although a lot of the information a person can get off Wikipedia can be helpful, people also need to worry about bias when reading any article. He begins Chapter 6 with a quote "Internet cruelty is easy. We do not have to look at the people we hurt" by David Shankbone (148). I found this to be a very strong point about the problem with the anonymity of the internet. Before Wikipedia, if a person wanted to share their opinion with the world they would either create a blog (which is personal) or write a book (where they would need to present their case to be credible and identify who they are). A person has to be careful reading Wikipedia because it's set up and overall idea create the illusion of a credible source, but there is no consequence for lying or being biased...just future editing. Dalby states "We love Wikipedia because we love talking about ourselves" (148), which seems to be a fitting explanation for a country obsessed with 'reality television' and the idea of becoming an 'overnight star' that has been fueled by the media and the possibilities of the internet. Wikipedia is the people's ecyclopedia, constantly growing and constantly changing.

Wikipedia

I found it very interesting when the book talked about the certain (and rarely) topics that they actually ban from being created. I'm still not sure how I feel about Wikipedia's censoring of "Criticisms of Barack Obama" because the site is a user-generated site and I don't necessarily think it is a bad topic. The book brings up that there are criticisms of past rulers (Nero, Augustus, etc.) or even of George W. Bush, so I don't see why Barack Obama should be any different. Honestly, I understand that there is a high possibility of false or over-exaggerated information being put on the page, but that is why the site is user-generated and not claiming for the information to be 100% concrete facts. If a person wants to run for office and put themselves out into the nation/world as a leader, they should expect to be criticized. Not only does criticism come with the territory, but potentially if Obama wanted to, he could use the page as a way to see what people are complaining about (although he would take most of it with a grain of salt). I also was intrigued to learn about how people who regularly edit pages are regulated...I have never personally added anything to Wikipedia, but now I would like to try and get involved with something (probably music/bands).
Later, in Chapter 4 of the book when Dalby is talking about why/why not to use Wikipedia, he quotes Paul Boutin discussing the negative aspect of Wikipedia stating: "Even if a reference tool is 98 percent right, it's not useful if you don't know which 2 percent is wrong" (90). I agree with this statement 50% of the time...I believe that if you are looking on Wikipedia for serious/education related information then it is a horrible source. Nobody should be trying to learn or quote from Wikipedia about topics such as World War II, biographies of famous world leaders, etc. At the same time if somebody wants to look up less serious topics such as rules of sports games, or members in a band, etc. then I feel that Wikipedia can be an extremely convenient and useful tool.

Technopoly (part 2)

Chapter 6 of Postman's "Technopoly" discusses the ambiguity of every day life.  It claims "Individual judgments, after all, are notoriously unreliable, filled with ambiguity and plagued by doubt" (93) and arrives at the conclusion that "Machines eliminate complexity, doubt and ambiguity" (93).  While these statements are somewhat true, the reason humans are separate from other animals and machines is because of our ability to REASON.  Of course life would be less complicated without having to worry about opposing views or if the decision being made is the correct one, but that is a very important part of life.  Reading this chapter and taking in the message being spread throughout it got me wondering if all people want technology for is to make their lives as easy as possible, even if that means sacrificing having an opinion or a voice? This chapter deals mostly with technology in medicine/hospitals and the fact that our country or any country would even consider putting those important decisions in the hands of a "cut and dry" computer scares me.  Again, life is ambiguous for every single living person on the planet and this fact cannot be ignored because a decision is coming from a computer that does not contain ability to understand this concept.  "Machines cannot feel and, just as important, cannot understand" (112) represents the problem with relying solely on computers perfectly.  Computers are still PROGRAMMED by somebody to perform the same task the same way every time the details are the same on paper. Postman also claims that "Technopoly wishes to solve, once and for all, the dilemma of subjectivity" (158).  My problem with this statement is since when has subjectivity been a problem that needs to be solved?  Throughout history there are plenty of instances where great ideas/inventions, etc. would have never been possible without subjectivity of society.  How is the world supposed to grow/evolve without subjectivity? Science "cannot tell us when authority is 'legitimate' and when not, or how we must decide, or when it may be right or wrong to obey" (162) sums up the problem with technology and becoming too dependent on it.  A perfect example would be the "twitter for dogs" we heard about in class.  If you are a tech-savy person this invention could be enjoyable, but this in no way shape or form should be used as a "babysitter" or legitimate form of "keeping an eye" on a pet.  Although that is not what the invention is made to do right now, I could see developers aiming to make it more reliable and gear it towards this type of use.  I am scared for the future of the world because machines should not become superior to human reason and it seems that most of the world is too passive to care. 

"Technopoly" by Neil Postman

I found this book to be extremely enjoyable.  The beginning chapter "The Judgment of Thamus" raised some very good points based on Socrates' story.  Since writing is the basis of our culture, I never considered how it might have been viewed when it was first introduced into the world and I found this perspective to be very interesting.  In the same sense, I began to look at technology in a different way than I have in the past.  Postman best explains this when he talks of Thamus' one error being his "believing that writing will be a burden to society and nothing but a burden." (pg. 4) and not considering the benefits.  Although there are many benefits to technology, I don't know how I am going to feel as it begins to change our society more and more as time goes on.  Postman asks: "...in what ways [computers are] altering our conception of learning, and how, in conjunction with television, it undermines the old idea of school" (19) which in my opinion is a very important question.  Although there are many benefits to technology, one also needs to consider what is being lost/given up in return.  The chapter on Technocracy was also very intriguing to me, the way that Postman explains society as being run by an "unseen hand".  This idea seems to hold true the more dependent on technology the world becomes because everything (records, money, notes, etc.) exists in documents and digitally...the world is losing substance.  I understand that in many ways this use of technology is more efficient and effective, but there is something about relying on computers so heavily that does not sit well in my stomach.  The scariest part about reading the chapter "From Technocracy to Technopoly" was one of the last points Postman makes.  "To every Old World belief, habit, or tradition, there was and still is a technological alternative" (54).  He goes on to explain alternatives for sin, medicine, church, reading, restraint, etc.  Based on the first chapter of the book, I understand that maybe I'm too attached to an older way of life and there is a huge possibility that I can't see the benefits because I am biased against change.

Computers (2nd Reading)

While reading the second part of this book, I felt immediately more interested since this section is getting closer to the present day "personal home computer".  I was very surprised to learn that the Altair computer would not come already assembled or with a keyboard or mouse, etc.  This information proved to me how different the idea of "home computers" must have been in the beginning stages as opposed to now.  We live in a world today where most schools, offices, businesses, etc. all contain computers and rely on them for hundreds of different reasons, whether it be for communication, a program to organize transactions or for educational purposes.  The fact that now computers have basically made the telephone an obsolete appliance, one can only imagine how many are manufactured and sold these days throughout the world.  The combination of IBM and Microsoft was the first step forward in allowing computers to become what they have in the world today and this was recognized by Time Magazine in 1982, when they selected the computer as their "man of the year".  Personally, I have an Apple computer and since buying mine when I started college, I don't think I could ever own a PC by choice again.  I enjoyed reading about Steve Jobs' experience with creating his operating system.  Knowing that Engelbart invented the mouse and gave the technology demonstration known as the "mother of all demos", it was interesting to see how his team left him even though he had these brilliant ideas to start PARC.  Since I am a biased computer owner, I find it funny that Steve Jobs was the only person who wanted to keep Engelbart's ideas alive...and it paid off.

Computers pg 1-87 Analysis

Out of all the books that we have to read this semester, "Computers: The Life Story of a Technology" is probably the only one I was not excited or remotely interested to read.  That being said, I found my assumption to be correct as the book is basically fact after invention after fact after materials used to make technological advances that I can't understand after fact.  Although it wasn't the smoothest read, I did find much of the information to be interesting and helpful in having a better understanding of how far technology has come since it's beginnings.  For one thing, I never knew that computers were originally created specifically to solve math problems (even though the name makes obvious sense of this).  Honestly, computers were so far along by the time I was born, I always just assumed that the result was the initial intention.  Once I learned how many different machines and attempts were made to basically make a HUGE graphing calculator, it blew my mind.  To know that we can now videochat with complete strangers anywhere in the world that have the internet, actually see what they are doing and have a real audible conversation with them made me wonder if these programmers ever thought that their hard work would eventually evolve into something so much more than what they were doing.  The chapter on the Cold War was interesting, learning about how big of a role computers actually played/still do play in many countries' protection/armed forces/aviation.

First Post!

Creating this blog was a good experience for me especially since it's the first time I ever made one.  Being that I'm an English major at Rutgers and enjoy writing I don't know why it took me so long to actually do it, but I think I'm going to enjoy having one.  I'm not a complete stranger to blogging though, I am also in a band that is basically my life outside of school and I try to update our blog (via myspace or facebook) to keep people informed on what we've got going on as often as possible.  I never mind updating the band's blog because it's more informative than opinionated.  Personally, I don't know how I would feel about people I don't know reading my blog because it will obviously be heavily drenched with my opinions.  I could honestly care less what people think about me, but I feel that taking the time to post my opinions to the world can leave a lot of room for people to misinterpret or judge me based on single instances and situations that can be taken many different ways out of context (and why shouldn't they if I'm the one putting them out there?).  As far as my friends reading my blog, I do not think that I would not mind this at all since mostly everything I will be talking about on here are things that would come up in our normal conversations.  After looking at my technology log from Thursday until today I can see that I use the internet at least every 2 hours in my day to day life, either through my iPhone or computer.  Facebook is unfortunately, a big part of my life because I use it to promote shows for my band (and we had 3 this weekend: thurs, fri, sat).  It is honestly the easiest way to let people know what time, what venue and any other details about our shows that people would need to know.  Even though I'm not a fan of what facebook is doing to the world we live in, I definitely reap the benefits and realize that I'm no better and have no right to talk, I guess I'm just aware of the problem.  I am also in two fantasy football leagues which entails me going online to check my team, stats, etc.  Between my band e-mail and school e-mail, I feel that I am constantly checking my mailboxes throughout my day.  Last, I love music and follow several music blogs (www.thenjunderground.com is a cool one for local music if you're into that) throughout my daily routine.  In the end, it is kind of sad how connected our country and most of the world is to this fast paced, instant gratification type of lifestyle, but I depend on it just as much as anyone else.  Looking forward to being a blogger and wondering if I'll continue once this class is done.

- del