Facebook

This was a funny little cartoon I ran across thats only a few minutes
http://www.swiss-miss.com/2009/09/what-facebook-is-for.html

Final thoughts...

As i just finished my exam online, I'm convinced technology is not so much an ethical issue. The use of technology is an ethical issue. I occasionally text, browse the internet, and avoid face to face communication by utilizing email and other electronic means. The existence of a thing doesn't lead to it being either ethical or unethical, the way people utilize it does. Cars can be used ethically or unethically. So can a stone. So can a computer or cell phone. The idea of absolutes does nothing but cloud an otherwise relatively simple conversation. About anything that is commonly used for an ethical purpose can be misused for unethical purposes. Anyone that's been hit by a mag lite or baseball bat can attest to that. I used a computer to take a test online so as to avoid contact with others while completing the task, the teacher is doing more productive things than watching a room full of test takers, and trees are being saved... In a minute I'll jump in my car and get about 30 miles to the gallon on my ride home. Then I'll sit in air conditioning until I deem it cool enough outside. And if I get too board with focal things I'll turn on the tube and veg into meaningless bliss while numbing my brain with meaningless movies and distractions. I love technology.

Speaking of Woolly Mammoths....

"Antifreeze Blood" Gave Woolly Mammoths a Survival Edge

Low Impact Woodland Home.

Okay, so after a lot of fuss during class, I feel like I should give a little more perspective on my opinion so I don't look like I hate the environment. I was just offering confrontation to politically driven opinion. Anyway, here is my dream home:

This is a small cottage in England, it is low impact and relative self sufficient. Heres the families website http://www.simondale.net/house/ I stumble uponed this 2 years ago and have been wanting a low impact home since then. I like the earth built materials the electrical independence and the integration of human advancement with a modern possiblity.

This particular design is a round house. The Dale's (the family that lives here) are part of an eco-community called the Lamas http://www.lammas.org.uk/ecovillage/index.htm. Now I wouldn't want to live in a low imact community, but it gives more examples of the excellent innovative spirit and archtitecture. Combine this style household with rainwater collection, greenhouses/gardening, and solar/water/wind electrical generations you can live pretty off the grid. and not sacrfice having a microwave.

Internet Aesthetics

The question of whether it is was possible to have an aesthetic Internet experience came up several weeks ago during a class discussion. After some deliberate thought, and dissection of several medias I've decided there is a unique aesthetic experience isolated to an experience with the Internet. I separate the experience into two categories. The Flash Game, and the Web page. Lets begin this discussion with the web page. There are literally tens-of-billions of web pages on the Internet, and all vary in quality. Because the web page has a observable quality, we share experience with the web page. That experience isn't solely dependent on the functionality of the page, but the layout, the interactivity, and the ease-of-use; as such, we can decide on a 'aesthetically pleasing' website. All components of the website, the layout, interactivity, and ease-of-use must be present in decent quality for the page to be successful. Take for example, a website of a major retail store, like Walmart, or Target, or whatever, if that page, was terrible to navigate, find products, or process a sale, but had a color scheme, wasn't to busy, and had decent GUI interactiveness, then you wouldn't say they had a good website. Interestingly suppose you had a website that was pretty, interactive, but required command prompts to operate, most people would say that the website wasn't well done. If for instance if the website was easy to use and navigate with a reasonable amount of interactiveness, that assisted in the navigation but was terrible color and atrocious geometrical layout, then again the website wouldn't be considered of any quality. When we interactive with a web page, we derive a feeling from the engagement of those three parameters, and the quality of experience is determined the sophistication and quality of those parameters, and as such we have an aesthetic experience with the website, like we do a painting. The next unique Internet experience is the flash game, which shouldn't be confused with the actual video game, yes it is a video game, but there is a difference. The video game general is more interactive, and expansive, following a story. The flash game is quick and centers around puzzle solving. Like the web page, the flash game has features that must combine together to achieve a quality flash game. The game, must be sufficiently stimulating with appropriate puzzle difficulty, a few number of inputs, and simple cartoonish graphics. Now, lets preface the discussion of the components with a brief description of the flash game player. A person who wants to play a flash game is interested in a short term, free online game, that can be played without significant software downloads. So if the difficulty is too high, but the other two conditions are met, then the game is too time consuming and is abandoned. If the number of inputs increases to a ridiculous degree, and becomes to convoluted to just sit down and play, the game, is likely to be abandoned. If the graphics become to powerful, the game loses a smoothness and quick attention getter, requiring long load times and a usually some subscription to fund the designers, and as such, would likely be abandoned by the flash game player. If the sum of all components are met sufficiently, then the gamer would derive a pleasant experience from the game, and like the web page, it could be said he shares in an aesthetic experience like a painting.

Going back to our discussion on recreating the mammoth or other animals/creatures that have already been extinct, I think it is ridiculous and dumb to try and do this. They died out for a reason, and we should keep it that way. They could not adapt to the nature so they ended up becoming extinct. Just because we have technological advances to do so doesn't mean that we should. All it would do it disrupt the culture in which we live, and it would not do anything except cost a huge amount of money.