In class we've watched a debate about if facebook is good or bad and we spoke about the church of google. Now google has created its very own social network to compete against facebook. My question is which one is socially better.
Facebook connects everyone with no real restrictions, if they are your friends, they can see your post. When posting on facebook, you are then posting a status for everyone to see, which in a sense is just a general status update, not directed towards anyone, building, in my mind, no connection to anyone. But the benefit of facebook is that it keeps you in touch with everyone.
Google plus however, created the concept of circles or groups. When adding a friend on google plus, you have the option of adding them to certain circles, giving you the capability to segregate the people you know into different groups of your choosing. The significance of these groups is that when you post on google plus, you must choose which circles can view that post. I believe that these circles will in the long run cause close friends to become closer and far friends to become further. Google plus is very new to the social network, but is this concept better? Or does Facebook still take the trophy of the better social network?
Monday, October 31, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Jobs in America: A Paradox?
The job crisis in America is becoming worse and worse. It started with outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, but technology has been replacing jobs in every sector of the United States for many years also. This means that America can be making more products but Americans aren't the ones doing it, machines are. Technology also promotes longevity in life and a growing population. So if more people are living in the United States, and technology is replacing human labor, doesn't it seem obvious why no one can find work (this is of course along with other factors we see on the news everyday)? As big business tries to maintain profits and cut costs, human labor is slowly becoming obsolete while inflation and cost of living continues to rise. This means that technology has the potential to replace every aspect of our lives (even to possibly make a presidential decision based on algorithms and probability). If this happens, and it appears that it could, how are humans suppose to make a living if no one is working?
Faceless
I understand that FaceBook provides an often extraneous amount of connections to people who may or may not be your 'friends.' On a side note, I think the label 'friend' should be changed to, say, 'acquaintance.' Only true friends should be labeled as such. Anyway, I would like to think myself as not being on FaceBook. However, I am in lieu of having no 'face.' If one were to look at my profile, all they would see is my basic personal information. There's no updated wall, there's no profile picture, and I don't maintain it or my connections.
I want to take this chance to discuss the implications of FaceBook. As for me, I only created my account to prevent the possibility of my small-time identification theft. Many employers and school admissions offices are looking at applicant profiles. What kind of people are you associated with? What are willing to post? Is there a picture of you, say, breaking the law? As such, I originally forwent all of FaceBook. But another idea came to me--what of the possibility of identification theft? Now I'm referring to the stealing of important numbers, but rather my reputation. In other words, I was afraid of someone creating an account in my name out of malice to damage my name. When searching for my FaceBook profile, employers and schools would see this and not who I really am. I am an extremely introverted person who does not actually like to have hundreds of friends. On FaceBook, I have at most 10 friends, of which all but one are family, whom I don't check up on nor do I send updates to. My existence hasn't even been confirmed by FaceBook, as that would require a text message. Guess who doesn't have texting? Yeah, I'd have to pay for such a confirmation.
Concerning the introverted and non-social, it would appear that these 'lonely' aspects have been made even more 'extreme' as socialites reach new levels. I myself have very few friends, if any at all. This though my depend on my definition of a 'friend,' which doesn't include people I would typically say 'hi' to. I suppose as an introvert, I seek close friendships (intimate, if you will) and not the shallow acquaintances. Contrast this to the extroverts, and I would appear to possibly insane. However, the introverts have remained the same--one can have less than no friends. The extroverts, on the other hand, are becoming more extreme with more friends than ever, especially between those who never met and never will. A certain piece of technology is responsible for this. And FaceBook is getting more competition with the new Google+. It is a bit similar to dating websites which split up possible couples (one only on site A and another only one Site B will never meet online); I just hope you don't believe in soul mates. However, at least one or both are free, but now one will have even more connections and distractions to look at. Having the same friend on both FaceBook and Google+ means you'll have to check both in the case the friend posts only on one of the two.
As my final stream of consciousness, I am actually uncomfortable posting this as I am with this whole blog in general. However, my grades depend on these posts. I also realize humans are social creatures, but I have a particular range of these social interactions. With the change in society to have even more connections, I become to appear ever more as a hermit in lieu of staying home (I do leave the house). I am also suprised to see myself as being addicted to the Internet. I too am stressed when I am unplugged, although obviously it isn't the lack of connect to FaceBook or any social outlet.
I want to take this chance to discuss the implications of FaceBook. As for me, I only created my account to prevent the possibility of my small-time identification theft. Many employers and school admissions offices are looking at applicant profiles. What kind of people are you associated with? What are willing to post? Is there a picture of you, say, breaking the law? As such, I originally forwent all of FaceBook. But another idea came to me--what of the possibility of identification theft? Now I'm referring to the stealing of important numbers, but rather my reputation. In other words, I was afraid of someone creating an account in my name out of malice to damage my name. When searching for my FaceBook profile, employers and schools would see this and not who I really am. I am an extremely introverted person who does not actually like to have hundreds of friends. On FaceBook, I have at most 10 friends, of which all but one are family, whom I don't check up on nor do I send updates to. My existence hasn't even been confirmed by FaceBook, as that would require a text message. Guess who doesn't have texting? Yeah, I'd have to pay for such a confirmation.
Concerning the introverted and non-social, it would appear that these 'lonely' aspects have been made even more 'extreme' as socialites reach new levels. I myself have very few friends, if any at all. This though my depend on my definition of a 'friend,' which doesn't include people I would typically say 'hi' to. I suppose as an introvert, I seek close friendships (intimate, if you will) and not the shallow acquaintances. Contrast this to the extroverts, and I would appear to possibly insane. However, the introverts have remained the same--one can have less than no friends. The extroverts, on the other hand, are becoming more extreme with more friends than ever, especially between those who never met and never will. A certain piece of technology is responsible for this. And FaceBook is getting more competition with the new Google+. It is a bit similar to dating websites which split up possible couples (one only on site A and another only one Site B will never meet online); I just hope you don't believe in soul mates. However, at least one or both are free, but now one will have even more connections and distractions to look at. Having the same friend on both FaceBook and Google+ means you'll have to check both in the case the friend posts only on one of the two.
As my final stream of consciousness, I am actually uncomfortable posting this as I am with this whole blog in general. However, my grades depend on these posts. I also realize humans are social creatures, but I have a particular range of these social interactions. With the change in society to have even more connections, I become to appear ever more as a hermit in lieu of staying home (I do leave the house). I am also suprised to see myself as being addicted to the Internet. I too am stressed when I am unplugged, although obviously it isn't the lack of connect to FaceBook or any social outlet.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Is Facebook Making Friendships More Distant?
In class, we talk about facebook fairly often. Even though I personally love facebook and wouldn't hesitate to say that I somewhat have an addiction to it, I feel it really doesn't strengthen friendships. However, I wouldn't say it exactly hurts or destroyes them though either. Facebook is a great way for me to keep in touch with friends from high school who went to colleges farther away and who I don't get to see on a regular basis anymore. With that said, I don't exactly talk to them on facebook much either. I am still on good terms with them but I don't really talk to them much on the website necessarily. Having a facebook seems to not hurt my friendships but have them become more distant in a way. Some of my closest friends in high school who I talked to and spent time with on a daily basis I hardly speak to...even on facebook. However, whenever they come back into town I always try and make lunch or dinner plans to catch up. When we do get together it is like nothing has changed. It is a hard thing to explain. I still have good relationships with my friends but it is just different. I believe the physical distance between my friends and I along with busy lives and schedules is more to blame really then facebook. At least facebook alows me to not lose touch with friends entirely. What does everyone else think?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Ideas and data have come up suggesting that people are reading less books and more material on computers. I do not think that there has been a major switch yet though. I do believe more people look to the internet to read small news articles rather than buying newspapers or magazines. The internet is more convenient than going out and purchasing something and you can pay a monthly fee and have access to endless amounts of articles. But when it comes to reading novels, I think books are just as popular. I know myself and the people around me all choose to purchase a physical copy of a book rather than getting an internet version. I like the fact that I can hold the book, mark side notes, and highlight. With the Kindle this was not possible when I had to purchase a book. Something else that really distracted me was that there was no page numbers. I like to know how far I'm getting in a book, especially when I am not that into it.
Usage of Social Networks
Earlier this week in class, we viewed the video that covered the debate on whether social networks are good or bad. Each panelist offered his own distinct view and I am going to offer my own. The usage of social networks varies from either side of the argument depending on who is using the site. On Facebook, for example, some use it to stay in touch with those who are no longer living in the same area while others may have a completely different use for the site. When you look at some of the games that have rose from inside of Facebook, you can see the negative aspect of the social networks. Through Farmville, you see people disconnect from reality to continue a fake farm. I believe that social networks are good when used properly, it is in the case where someone moves beyond the original intent to a level of obsession that social networks change and turn into a bad tool.
Pros and Cons of E Books in School
We talked today in class about how E Books are becoming more popular and how they might take over for regular books in the near future. This would require everyone to have access to the internet and/or have a kindle, i pad, or other reading devices. I think we will eventually get to the point where everyone has one of those devices. Some of the pros of these new E Books are that they cost significantly less than regular text books. This is big for college students and is very important to them. Also, you have access to them all the time like you would a normal text book, but without having to carry them around. Some of the cons of having the new E books is having to purchase a reading device or access to the internet everywhere you want to read to do something with the book. Although during todays technological era, thats becoming less and less of a problem, but still needs to be mentioned for these purposes. I think that the pros definitely outweigh the cons and these E books are great and will be helpful in the future.
Facebook for me/ Facebook vs. reading
In watching the debate over social networking, specifically Facebook this was my response. I agree and disagree with both men. I find that Facebook has given birth to many friends and has killed just as many. For example if it were not for Facebook then I would not be able to keep in touch as well with some long distance friends. Some would argue I could just call or text but this does not always work. It can be to hard to find times for people to carry on a long conversation over the phone and texing just does not cut it. Facebook gives me the chance for us to follow up on our own time. The nice thing about Facebook for me is at times I can just check in on them to see how they are doing without even talking to them which email cant do. On the down side Facebook has killed many friendships for me too. Some of my past friends have no interest in "hanging out" because whats the point when we can just catch up on Facebook.
Facebook is a win loose and i think there is no way around that. It is and will always be a constant struggle between give and take. To gain you must give. This in and of it self is not bad, its part of human nature. The problem is that there is not filter, no limit to the amount. I do feel as though Facebook is going out of control and needs to be filtered. This is what I have attempted to do this week. I made it a personal goal to balance my time on Facebook. For every hour I was on Facebook I spent an hour reading. What was funny about this is that I found that as I read more further strengthened my already strong reading habits, which made me want to read even more. As I set out to attain a balance in reading and Facebook I found that I read way more than I spent on Facebook. So i shall take it a step further this week. Every hour that i spend in front of a screen I shall attempt to read for an hour. Also this week I will actually record hours spent doing each. I will not be counting answering text because that will be hard to record seconds at a time.
Facebook is a win loose and i think there is no way around that. It is and will always be a constant struggle between give and take. To gain you must give. This in and of it self is not bad, its part of human nature. The problem is that there is not filter, no limit to the amount. I do feel as though Facebook is going out of control and needs to be filtered. This is what I have attempted to do this week. I made it a personal goal to balance my time on Facebook. For every hour I was on Facebook I spent an hour reading. What was funny about this is that I found that as I read more further strengthened my already strong reading habits, which made me want to read even more. As I set out to attain a balance in reading and Facebook I found that I read way more than I spent on Facebook. So i shall take it a step further this week. Every hour that i spend in front of a screen I shall attempt to read for an hour. Also this week I will actually record hours spent doing each. I will not be counting answering text because that will be hard to record seconds at a time.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Social Networks
Many people believe that social networks and texting have ruined personal relationships. I would have to disagree. Although many of the people who are my friend on Facebook are friends from the past that I no longer see, it is useful when trying to stay in touch with someone who is living 3000 miles away. My sister has lived all over the country, California, Nebraska, Tennessee, Maryland, Iowa, etc. Facebook has actually been a great way for me to stay in touch with her. Sometimes I see her two, maybe three times in a year. With her being in a different timezone, I can never decide when a good time to call her would be. So I send her a message on Facebook. She can also post pictures of my three nieces and nephews who I also rarely see. This makes me feel as if I am still a part of their lives, even though I am not able to see them on a daily basis. This is what makes me feel that social networks are a good thing, when used the right way.
A Generation of Pancake People
So far in class we've discussed how the internet has made us, as individuals, into pancake people. But, this phenomena is far from localized. Marshal P. Duke commentented on the effects of a pancake generation in an article for the New York Times. A link is below. http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/pancake-people/
Duke argues that this pancake generation has obtained a new kind of enlightenment or "super consciousness." This new generation is spread across a vast network of information limiting adherence to culture. This leads us to speculate, what will happen to our culture as the generation of pancake people take hold?
Does limited adherence to culture mean a decline in religion?
or a decline in patriotism, and what does it mean if people start seeing themselves as world inhabitants, not inhabitants of their own country?
How will the world function with a unified culture, language, philosophy, brought forth by technology?
Most interestingly, what is your perspective on these questions?
Beyond SOCIAL Networking
What both Scruton and Cowen failed to discuss was the other uses of Facebook. Today Facebook goes beyond interactions beyond friends. It is used for many other reasons, including company pages, contests, surveys, etc. Examples would be local radio shows that hold Facebook only contests to win prizes and opportunities to speak with celebrities (B105 held a Fbook chat with Ronnie Dunn the other week). My job is to create websites for local businesses, and every single one that I have done, the client asks for me to interlink their business website with their Facebook page, just because it makes finding people and letting people stay in touch with the business that much easier.
Personally, I hardly use Facebook for social interaction. I can't tell you the last time I wrote on someone's wall, and I usually just post interesting news articles. I'm one of those losers that participates in the contests, but with a smartphone, it does not require too much time out of my way to do this. The one reason I use Facebook anymore is to talk with my friend who is serving over in Iraq at the moment, without Facebook, we would not have any way of keeping in touch (the quantity and quality of our relationship would diminish)
But back to the other uses for Facebook. In my eyes, Facebook is not social interaction between me and my 'friends', but a means to keep in touch with the world as a whole. Examples: Moammar Gadhafi was killed today, and had I not been on Facebook seeing the news posts of others, I would not have known this until tomorrow probably on the radio. My girlfriend would not have won tickets to a concert if she hadn't been on Facebook, and I certainly would not have happy clients if I could not get their Facebook feed on their websites.
So my closing argument is that Facebook is not just for 'social interaction' (creeping), but has expanded that it is now useful for many more reasons that essentially make it good for all, even those who think that it degrades real life social interaction.
Social Media/ Social Networking
Social networks like Facebook have now taken over the way we communicate and interact with people. In the sense social networking takes away from the experience and knowledge that can be gained through a face to face conversation. Scruton talked about how face to face communication is the best thing rather then all the other forms of relationships or friendships over the internet. Through interaction with others over the inter you lose the ability to truely understand what one means in that the message they are trying to get across to you can become distorted due to communication over the internet. Facebook has become addicting to everyone and takes over there time and becomes the only way people now commnunicate with others. Face to face communication is the most productive way to communicate with others, but now due to technology advancements social media is taking over and now leads everyone to communicating to others through, facebook, chat rooms, email and other forms of media instead of face to face communication.
Who is Siri?
For those of you who have ever seen Eagle Eye or dialed nonexistant numbers on your phone you know what the typical automated operator sounds like. But those women's voices will soon be in the backseat as Siri and the iphone 4s become more popular. Siri is basically a walking personalized Google that knows everything you have in your phone and also everything you'd ever need to know. Need a pizza place, just ask Siri. need to call your parents, just ask Siri. Need directions, just ask Siri. This program, being introduced with the iphone 4s, and also available to those with the already outdated iphone 4, is the most accessible glimpse into the future available to the public. Those fortunate enough to have $600 to spend on a cell phone and $90 a month to surf the web and use their phone, have the ability to get the 4s and Siri, and they will never need another mp3 player or gps system ever again. This is another example of how far cell phone technology has come. and with the growing popularity of Apple's latest software, it will be a matter of time before Siri becomes a household name and everyone recognizes her voice.
Social Networking
It is very clear to people that social networking sites are slowly taking over the way people communicate. Some feel that Facebook is a great way to communicate while others still believe in the value of having a face to face conversation. A debate between two men shows that everyone has a different opinion when it comes to communication. Screwton, has stopped using his Facebook because he feels that a Facebook friendship is not the same as a friendship. A facebook friendship replaces the avenue to a true and lasting friendship. Facebook is becoming an addiction for most people. Humans are beginning to help the gadgets rather than the gadgets helping us. We have the lost ability to know information from disinformation. Screwton stays true to his opinion that face to face conversation and relationships are more important than any relationship on Facebook. It will be interesting to see how conversation continues to change over the years as technology continues to become a major part of out everyday lives.
The Internet: it's all in one place, but you can't get it all
An interesting contrast has come up in our readings and discussions about the Internet. In Carr's Chapter 5, he points out that one of the Internet's unique points is its multimedia presentation of information. The user is able to get text, video, music, and images all in one place. Consumers no longer need to use their radios, TVs, books, phones, and DVD players simultaneously - all of these services can be accessed from within a web browser. The amount of information that exists without an Internet copy is dwindling quickly as libraries are digitized and new articles are published exclusively online. With these considerations in mind, one can appreciate the unprecedented wealth of information available on the Internet. Easy access to this information warehouse should give everyone the opportunity to expand his/her mind, right?
Eli Pariser describes a problem with this universal information in his TED talk. Because of the user customization used by information gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook, different users see different sets of results. These customization algorithms are designed to increase site traffic by improving user experiences. However, a (possibly) unintended consequence of these algorithms is the censoring of information deemed unimportant to the user. Pariser says that the remaining, unfiltered information is contained within "filter bubbles," which are unique to each user's characteristics. Because only some information is available, the Internet doesn't always help with expanding minds and broadening horizons.
Here lies the split: the Internet has made more information quickly available than ever before, but not all of it is not easily accessible to everyone. It will be interesting to see how far these customization services progress before there is widespread negative consumer reaction. Or, it will be interesting to see if everyone ever notices the information censorship.
Eli Pariser describes a problem with this universal information in his TED talk. Because of the user customization used by information gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook, different users see different sets of results. These customization algorithms are designed to increase site traffic by improving user experiences. However, a (possibly) unintended consequence of these algorithms is the censoring of information deemed unimportant to the user. Pariser says that the remaining, unfiltered information is contained within "filter bubbles," which are unique to each user's characteristics. Because only some information is available, the Internet doesn't always help with expanding minds and broadening horizons.
Here lies the split: the Internet has made more information quickly available than ever before, but not all of it is not easily accessible to everyone. It will be interesting to see how far these customization services progress before there is widespread negative consumer reaction. Or, it will be interesting to see if everyone ever notices the information censorship.
James Falzone at Thomas More Friday
Music Feature – East Meets West in Allos Musica Trio
Posted By Ernie Paik On October 19, 2011 @ 1:24 pm In Music Feature | | No Comments
[1]For clarinetist, composer, and improviser James Falzone, a quote from the anti-war protest singer Phil Ochs resonates with him in the post-9/11 world: “In such ugly times, the only true protest is beauty.”Observing the great lack of understanding between the western world and the Arabic world, Falzone created pieces that were inspired by the centuries-old song concept of the lament, recorded and compiled on the 2010 album Lamentations by his ensemble Allos Musica Trio.
A celebrated clarinet virtuoso whose home base is Chicago, Falzone has a strong background in jazz that is enhanced by his studies in Arabic music, and his interest was piqued earlier in his musical life by listening to the multicultural work of Peter Gabriel. While a lament can express grief and sadness, it could also be an expression of concern, and it is not necessarily gloomy music; Falzone’s laments are pensive and fascinating, while also spirited and kinetic, with improvisational moments built into his compositions.
In advance of his Chattanooga show with Allos Musica Trio, Falzone answered some questions for The Pulse.
The Pulse: Did any specific experiences or stories inspire your compositions on Lamentations?
James Falzone: Most of my laments were meditations on time: the slowness of it and the lack of change that can sometimes happen in life or culture, or the never-ending persistence of time—that it refuses to allow us to catch our breath at times. All this was wrapped up in the wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fact that at the same time I was studying and investigating Arabic music and culture, my country was growing more and more suspicious of the same.
TP: How did you assemble the group? What strengths do the other players bring to the trio?
JF: I have played with Tim Mulvenna since the mid-1990s, mostly in jazz contexts, but I know Tim to be an incredible hand drummer and percussionist and a thoughtful rhythmic accompanist. He has impeccable taste and thinks like a composer. [Oud player] Ronnie Malley is an incredibly diverse musician who is deeply steeped in Arabic music traditions but also open to other styles and synthesizing that tradition with others. Both Tim and Ronnie bring to the ensemble a simpatico with my own views on music making, which is striving for honesty and depth at all levels.
TP: You’ve said that you don’t play strictly traditional Arabic music but you create compositions that indulge this aesthetic. How does this differ from “World Music Soup” as you’ve referred to it?
JF: “World Music Soup” winds up being music that dabbles in various cultural reference points with no real vision for what it is you are trying to do with those references. If you’re trying to play “traditional” music, be that Arabic or bluegrass or Irish, whatever, and your vision/goal is to learn this tradition and play that music in an authentic manner, then great, go for it. Study and steep yourself in the idiom and make it authentic.
But my vision for Allos Musica is to create my own music that has synthesized the references of my studies and interests but is not intending to be “authentic.” Nobody who knows Arabic music well will think Allos Musica Trio is “traditional,” but they would also recognize the allusions to the tradition and that those allusions are honest and studied.
TP: What are your thoughts on improvisation?
JF: I believe an improviser needs to have true command over their instrument so that it is an extension of their subconscious. This takes a tremendous amount of practice time on the instrument and a universal knowledge of theory and history. At the same time, an improviser must remain humble, allowing the moment to dictate what is needed from them. A great improviser is a virtuoso who submits their ability to the needs of the moment.
TP: What’s the most important thing you’ve learned, playing Arabic music with the Trio?
JF: I think there is an aesthetic approach in Arabic music, especially as it relates to improvisation, that encourages a slower pace and a blossoming of ideas rather than the quicker, somewhat explosive nature of jazz improvisation. I think of a favorite Egyptian singer, Oum Kalthoum, and how much time she would take exploring a mode and reaching an emotional climax in her music. I’ve learned to take my time more and allow color and timbre to play as much of a role as notes and harmony.
TP: What do you want audiences to take from your music?
JF: I’d love for them to have a sense of transcendence. That something in my compositions, in my playing, in the playing of my band mates, in the overall sound of Allos Musica, would help them transcend the temporal and move into a space where beauty and time matter.
James Falzone’s Allos Musica Trio
$10
7:30 p.m.
Thursday, October 20
Barking Legs Theater, 1307 Dodds Ave. (423) 624-5347
www.barkinglegs.org
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
More Proof to Support Carr
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/us_more_facebook_friends
The newest evidence that the internet is changing our brains. This one focuses on the fact that the more Facebook friends you have, the bigger certain regions in our brain are.
The newest evidence that the internet is changing our brains. This one focuses on the fact that the more Facebook friends you have, the bigger certain regions in our brain are.
Is Facebook destroying friendships?
In class we talked about the argument of whether or not facebook is destroying the friendships we have. I do not think it is destroying friendships I think it is helping to keep some intact. Facebook allows us to keep in touch with friends that have moved away that in the past would have lost touch and stopped being friends. For example a lot of friends people have in high school go away to college and make new friends and although you would still maybe keep in touch with a few close friends using phone and other things, a lot of the people you were close with would drift apart and be to busy in there new life to think about you. With facebook it is easy to see people online that you hadnt talked to in a while and send them an instant message asking them how they have been. Without facebook a lot of the people I still keep in touch with would go live their lives and i might never see or hear from them again.
Scruton
As a man who has also deleted his facebook account before, i have strong sympathies for Scrutons behalf. like me, Scruon believes that quality in a relationship is far better than quantity, and the social networking sites that precious quality in the very definition of "Friendship". unlike real life, at least half of your friends are either people you don't care about anymore or people that you have never met before face to face. you don't really interact with these people, and therefore have nothing to really base your relationship on other than a a few hobbbies and some half-truths they post. by meeting people in rel life, you create a relationship that is stronger and more meaningful than anything you could ever have online. thats why many people delete their Facebook accounts; the friendships aren't real enough, and therefore do not fulfill their social desires. because all you ever see of a person is their profile picture and their recent posts with an emoticon at the end, the interactions mean little, because you aren't really there with them.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Technology now in restaurants?
In class we watched a debate about social networking; this debate consisted of the social network being a bad thing due to spiritual means (related to Borgman's focal activities) vs. social network being a means of connecting to people more conveniently, making social network not be a sort of substitute, but rather a tool. I feel this argument can be made to any situation where technology comes in between person-person interactions. I recently discovered a very new scenario where technology is being placed between person-person interactions and this technology will be surprising at first for everyone, but soon will be expected.
I went out to Chilli's (the restaurant) a couple of weeks ago. As soon as the doors opened, I could see what looks to be computer screens on each table. These computers had everything from the menu on them to silent cartoons to keep kids occupied. This technology even aloud card users to not have to wait on the waiter/waitress for the bill but rather swipe the card on the machine to pay; it even had a percent calculator for tips (which by default was set to 20%). The waitress explained to me that these computers were here to make the sit-down at this restaurant that much more enjoyable.
Is this technology really making our sit-down at a restaurant that enjoyable? Sitting down at a restaurant used to be meant for a socializing group event, but now there is a piece of technology sitting between you and possibly your significant other. Is this a violation of Borgmans focal activities? Is this technology really needed? Is this just another sign of technology taking over our lives? Personally I believe it is, if a family wants to get together to eat with technology, they can enjoy a meal in front of their own television; if this keeps up, I fear the next generation of kids wont know what a true family get-together is supposed to mean, spiritually.
I went out to Chilli's (the restaurant) a couple of weeks ago. As soon as the doors opened, I could see what looks to be computer screens on each table. These computers had everything from the menu on them to silent cartoons to keep kids occupied. This technology even aloud card users to not have to wait on the waiter/waitress for the bill but rather swipe the card on the machine to pay; it even had a percent calculator for tips (which by default was set to 20%). The waitress explained to me that these computers were here to make the sit-down at this restaurant that much more enjoyable.
Is this technology really making our sit-down at a restaurant that enjoyable? Sitting down at a restaurant used to be meant for a socializing group event, but now there is a piece of technology sitting between you and possibly your significant other. Is this a violation of Borgmans focal activities? Is this technology really needed? Is this just another sign of technology taking over our lives? Personally I believe it is, if a family wants to get together to eat with technology, they can enjoy a meal in front of their own television; if this keeps up, I fear the next generation of kids wont know what a true family get-together is supposed to mean, spiritually.
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Internet
The Internet is slowly, but surely, taking over the minds of human beings. People rely very heavily on the internet. It is very uncommon for people of all ages to go a day without using the Internet in their daily lives. The Internet is making a very big impact on the way we communicate with one another. Facebook is a social networking site that is changing the way people communicate. Facebook is very easy to access and helps with communicating with people from all over the world. One thing that Facebook does not offer is the emotions that come with a face to face conversation. While chatting a friend on facebook, it is often difficult to interpret what they are saying because we do not know what emotions are being expressed. Face to face conversation allows people to hug each other which is something the internet cannot do for us. People who rely on the Internet as their main source of communication are going to forget what it is like to have a close relationship with a person. The internet allows us to be ourselves or a totally different person. It is important to have a balance between the Internet and our personal one on one relationships. We do not want the Internet to fully take over our minds.
Friday, October 07, 2011
The New Age of Information
Information, like everything else in life, has become a matter of perspective. However, unlike other experiences, it's not necessarily what you perceive, but what others perceive that you should perceive. Google, Facebook, even Yahoo news tailor their results based on the persons search history, ethnic group, background, and even internet browser. In my opinion, this borders censorship, where the algorithms computing these decisions decide that they know more than you should.
A major problem here is the interplay between man and machine. These algorithms can compute numbers, but not meanings, intrigue, but not relevance. In a world filled "trolls" inaccurate information can become common place, even promoted to be true. A key culprit here is Wikipedia. As an experiment, a classmate and I edited the Wikipedia page associated with the Ethics of Technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_technology In the last section we wrote two sentence fractions regarding course goals and pudding. Checking back the page, our comments are not as they were. Not to say they were deleted, no they were made from two fragments about the philosophy of technology and pudding, into one proper sentence regarding pudding. "Several courses regarding the ethics of technology are available nation wide. Generally speaking, utilization of source texts and film are used to engage the students in pudding." In my opinion, this is a basic experiment that to an extent, proves that the algorithms arnt reliable to the extent that human differentiation is, and thereby have no place in the censorship of information.
Internet Filtering
In class today, we watched the video in which filtering of the internet and search engines was discussed. It talked about how based on items you choose to view or what you are searching that the website or internet will then give you answers based on relevance to associated personal preferences. There preferences are what the internet is telling you that you want to see. This idea is surreal and is somewhat similar to what is going on full-scale in somewhere such as China where news of the protests in northern Africa and the Middle East was removed from the internet of citizens of China. Without the technology to base what you find on what you view, then it would not be possible for such extreme levels of policing the internet. Filtering has started the internet on a slippery slope in which who knows what will be the endpoint. So much of what our culture knows about the world is based on what the internet gives us, that if it limits the ideas and news we see, that our culture will be at a loss.
Google Filter
In class today we talked about how google filters our results based on what kind of things we normally looking at. Google should keep it to one format where everyone gets the same results for a particular search. By google filtering out certain things it keeps people closed minded to one particular view, and doesnt give them a realistic view of the world. Although it would maybe be convenient in some situations for google to know what you want to search for the technology isnt good enough google cant read your mind it has no clue what you want. Google is a search engine to provide information from all over the web it is making itself less reliable by filtering out certain things.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
The Shallows
A quote in Nicholas Carr's book "The Shallows" caught my attention.
"Sometimes our tools do what we tell them to. Other times, we adapt ourselves to our tools' requirements."
This quote got me thinking. In todays society do we tell our tools what to do, or do we now have to always adapt to fit technology into our everyday lives?
The latter seems more true with the technologically advanced society that we now live in. Although we are telling our tools, laptop computers, cell phones, and many others, what to do, it seems like we must adapt to them to live our daily lives. They have become a necessity that make our lives liveable. Even kids today are learning to adapt to technology. People in years past may have never dreamed of cell phone use. Now teenagers can have a video conversation over their cell phone with someone miles away. But the real question is, does technology really have to take over? This brings into mind the idea of focal things and practices. Are they becoming extinct or are new ones being created? Technology has led to new focal things, but this doesn't mean that focal things of the past must be eliminated all together.
Technology has become part of peoples everyday lives, which means we must continue to adapt to it. The conflict of this question will however never be resolved. Society will always continue to adapt, while telling their tools what to do.
"Sometimes our tools do what we tell them to. Other times, we adapt ourselves to our tools' requirements."
This quote got me thinking. In todays society do we tell our tools what to do, or do we now have to always adapt to fit technology into our everyday lives?
The latter seems more true with the technologically advanced society that we now live in. Although we are telling our tools, laptop computers, cell phones, and many others, what to do, it seems like we must adapt to them to live our daily lives. They have become a necessity that make our lives liveable. Even kids today are learning to adapt to technology. People in years past may have never dreamed of cell phone use. Now teenagers can have a video conversation over their cell phone with someone miles away. But the real question is, does technology really have to take over? This brings into mind the idea of focal things and practices. Are they becoming extinct or are new ones being created? Technology has led to new focal things, but this doesn't mean that focal things of the past must be eliminated all together.
Technology has become part of peoples everyday lives, which means we must continue to adapt to it. The conflict of this question will however never be resolved. Society will always continue to adapt, while telling their tools what to do.
Technology on the Brain
I believe that technology limits the ability of the brain. Technology such as the internet is a culprit. Although the internet is a great source of information, it causes a negative effect. It compartmentalizes all the information. In other words, the information we gather in is stored away, and only used for that original purpose. This hinders the ability to analyze information and situations. If we come across something that is foreign to us or unfamiliar, the first reaction is to look it up on the internet and find the answer. Instead of using the capacity of the brain to analyze the situation at hand, we first seek technological help. I noticed this while doing my physics homework, instead of working out equations, i just used googled answers.
Our Physical Brain and Descartes' Dualism
In his digression between chapters 2 and 3, Carr raises an interesting paradox about our brain: it is the sensory center of our body, yet we are unable to sense it at all. To me, this phenomena meshes perfectly with the Cartesian Dualism theory. Descartes separated the physical tissue of our brain from our consciousness. According to Carr, the this theory gained mass acceptance at the time because it proposed a clear separation between science (the mind) and religion (consciousness). Fast-forwarding to the present-day, this dualistic line becomes much more blurry. We have the ability to produce readouts and images of the brain's activity in any state and in response to any stimulus. These readings have allowed us to create precise maps of the areas of the brain that correspond to various areas of consciousness and sensation (vision, speech, thought, movement, etc.)
However, connection between our brain and our mind is more interesting that this one-to-one correspondence between physical location and mental process. Interesting questions can be raised. If the mind is a series of chemical reactions that are responses to other chemical reactions, where did these reactions start? And then, think of our brain and mind mathematically. Focusing on the nature part of our development, the connections between our neurons are partially determined by our ~2.5*10^4 genes. But, each of the 1*10^11 neurons in our brain can form thousands of synapses with other genes. How can such a complex pattern be formed by such relatively few genes (assuming unrealistically that every gene directed neurons)? The coexistence of the body of the mind seems to become a chicken-and-egg question - what is a result of what, the body or the mind? It's hard to imagine the immense power and scope of our consciousness without a physical basis in our mind, but how could the complexity of our physical mind be formed without the formative force of our consciousness?
My biology teacher in high school constantly asked us as we were learning: "What is a thought?" In doing so, she was attempting to bridge the gap between our consciousness and brain. Someday, when we are able to fully understand the chemical basis of a thought, the connection will finally be made between the halves of Cartesian Dualism.
However, connection between our brain and our mind is more interesting that this one-to-one correspondence between physical location and mental process. Interesting questions can be raised. If the mind is a series of chemical reactions that are responses to other chemical reactions, where did these reactions start? And then, think of our brain and mind mathematically. Focusing on the nature part of our development, the connections between our neurons are partially determined by our ~2.5*10^4 genes. But, each of the 1*10^11 neurons in our brain can form thousands of synapses with other genes. How can such a complex pattern be formed by such relatively few genes (assuming unrealistically that every gene directed neurons)? The coexistence of the body of the mind seems to become a chicken-and-egg question - what is a result of what, the body or the mind? It's hard to imagine the immense power and scope of our consciousness without a physical basis in our mind, but how could the complexity of our physical mind be formed without the formative force of our consciousness?
My biology teacher in high school constantly asked us as we were learning: "What is a thought?" In doing so, she was attempting to bridge the gap between our consciousness and brain. Someday, when we are able to fully understand the chemical basis of a thought, the connection will finally be made between the halves of Cartesian Dualism.
Is the Internet Making Us Non-Readers and Giving Us Slower Attention Spans?
In the novel we are currently reading, the Shalllows, Carr brings up the issue that since the internet has become a huge part of our culture, many people have lost focus and stopped reading books. He mentions that he can't even concentrate to read an article online that is only a couple paragraphs and he skims it usually. I find that I do this also. I usually skim when reading things as well. If I do try and read the whole thing I find my mind wanders and my thoughts are on different things. So in other words, is the internet making our attention spands shorter? I feel that this could be true. Maybe not only the internet is to blame but other technologies as well. However, the internet is mostly at fault. Instead of going to a library and reading books to do research, many people go on the internet. It is convenient, it ususally gives u summarys of certain things so you wouldn't have to read a whole book, and you can stay in the comfort of your own home. All very tempting qualities for anyone. It is very rare for people to read whole books anymore, especially just for fun and on their own time. A whole new era of how people read has developed but is it for the better?
New Gaming Technology
http://walyou.com/ps4-game-console/
This is the link to view what's next in the videogaming world. Our world has seen nothing like Sony's Playstation 4 that is set to release towards the end of 2014. The newest gaming console will be the perfect combination of Xbox Kinect, 3D television and the newest and latest gadgets and features. My question to any gamer is how much are you willing to pay for this? I myself am limited to an Xbox 360 with no 3D capabilities and no Kinect feature, which is like a high-def Wii. I am not a serious gamer, but can't say i wouldn't love to get my hands on one of these. But i guarantee the starting price for this console will be no less than $1000, and then you have to buy the 3D TV, which is another $2000, and I'm sure the games will probably be around $100 a piece, so just the startup cost is over $3000 at least. To me that just isn't worth it. To think now-a-days that what began wit ha simple paddle moving a line up and down a TV screen to hit a ball transforms to som ething this hightech and expensive in only 40 years! this is a classic example of techn ology growing exponentially, and who knows when or if it will ever stop.
This is the link to view what's next in the videogaming world. Our world has seen nothing like Sony's Playstation 4 that is set to release towards the end of 2014. The newest gaming console will be the perfect combination of Xbox Kinect, 3D television and the newest and latest gadgets and features. My question to any gamer is how much are you willing to pay for this? I myself am limited to an Xbox 360 with no 3D capabilities and no Kinect feature, which is like a high-def Wii. I am not a serious gamer, but can't say i wouldn't love to get my hands on one of these. But i guarantee the starting price for this console will be no less than $1000, and then you have to buy the 3D TV, which is another $2000, and I'm sure the games will probably be around $100 a piece, so just the startup cost is over $3000 at least. To me that just isn't worth it. To think now-a-days that what began wit ha simple paddle moving a line up and down a TV screen to hit a ball transforms to som ething this hightech and expensive in only 40 years! this is a classic example of techn ology growing exponentially, and who knows when or if it will ever stop.
Continuous Upgrades
The most recent article that Professor Langguth posted brought up an interesting point that I want to expand upon. The latest advances in technology are very much controlled. Either you upgrade or buy the latest version of a certain device or settle with your current device that will become obsolete. Technological advances have become "take it or leave it" phenomena. The companies that produces these devices implement this concept all the time.
For example, Apple has most of the technology to make a much better iPhone, but they release the upgrades gradually. If Apple released the ultimate iPhone now, sure, many of the phones would be sold. However, after a few years when the majority owned one, not as many phones would be sold. Therefore, Apple keeps continuously upgrading because consumers are willing to buy new and improved phones.
I also have anecdotal evidence of this concept. I still own the original 30 GB video iPod. I haven’t upgraded my iPod throughout the years of its advance. It hasn’t been necessary. But recently the version of the videos sold on iTunes don’t comply with the software on my iPod. The software on my iPod is outdated. As a result, my video iPod doesn’t correspond to its original purpose anymore of displaying videos. I have the option of purchasing a new iPod with the capabilities of displaying videos or comply with my outdated iPod. I can still listen to music on my Ipod, so I’ve kept it. Unfortunately, I didn’t have any middle ground or better option. It is one extreme or the other. I have been tempted to just buy a brand new iPod, but that would just affirm Apple’s strategy of continuously upgrading products and services to obtain more money. Sure, the advances are great to have, but are they really necessary? I’m not suffering for still possessing an old video iPod.
If America Jumps Off a Bridge, Would You?
Every new technology seems like a miracle device and it puts the old technology to shame. It seems that we will never be satisfied with good enough. The VHS seemed good enough at the time, but now it is nothing more than a brick stacking game for children. Slowly everyone moves on with technology and this isn't ever going to stop.
People have to be doing what other people are doing and my question is why? What new technology can we possibly need? Could we not settle on a 70" HDTV? No we have to make it jump out at us in 3D too. Or how about a cell phone, having that brick phone that never seemed to break continuously gets replaced by something that resembles a handheld super computer. My point is that we have to have what everyone else has and if we fail to get it, we are considered socially awkward on the same level as our technology impaired parents. We are social creatures by nature and we strive for that attention that makes us feel wanted (i.e. those awesome Facebook statuses people post about their lives). Even though our social lives are shifting from personal communication to Facebook, we have to be doing what everyone is doing and we would plunge to our death if that was the newest technology.
People have to be doing what other people are doing and my question is why? What new technology can we possibly need? Could we not settle on a 70" HDTV? No we have to make it jump out at us in 3D too. Or how about a cell phone, having that brick phone that never seemed to break continuously gets replaced by something that resembles a handheld super computer. My point is that we have to have what everyone else has and if we fail to get it, we are considered socially awkward on the same level as our technology impaired parents. We are social creatures by nature and we strive for that attention that makes us feel wanted (i.e. those awesome Facebook statuses people post about their lives). Even though our social lives are shifting from personal communication to Facebook, we have to be doing what everyone is doing and we would plunge to our death if that was the newest technology.
Our addiction to texting.
In class we began to talk about texting as applies to current young people and adults. A statistic was brought up in class of monthly texts that were sent and received. When this number was brought up I couldn't help but laugh because I knew that I sent and received way more than just under three thousand texts last month. What I find interesting about this fact is why is it just young people that text so much. Take my mom for example she has just a few hundred. Why is this? If texting is so in so to speak why are adults not picking it up? If the Internet is changing our minds much like Carr says in The Shallows that we are reading in class, then what is texting doing to our ability to communicate? This is the real question.
I would say that texting is destroying our ability to communicate. The reason being is that we are addicted to texting. This new technology has caught on like a wild fire and is running rampant in our society. We are so addicted to texting that we don't want to write letters, call or even email each other. It is removing all personal relationship from our communication. Texting is streamlining our communication process much like the Internet is streamlining the way we read. Now the next question is are these bad things?
I would say that texting is destroying our ability to communicate. The reason being is that we are addicted to texting. This new technology has caught on like a wild fire and is running rampant in our society. We are so addicted to texting that we don't want to write letters, call or even email each other. It is removing all personal relationship from our communication. Texting is streamlining our communication process much like the Internet is streamlining the way we read. Now the next question is are these bad things?
In the post below Carr sums up some of his thoughts on the internet and our brains. He goes into detail on how we lose the process to contemplate, think deep, and concentrate on one thing at a time. He does however agree that the internet is good in a way, in that it allows us to contact family and friends as well as access information faster. He thinks we become distracted, and that there has been a shift on the emphasis of human thought. We just do not think the same way as we use to because we have access to the internet. You can listen to this 8 minute video and decide what you think.
Facebook Use
Like Tony said also about having a facebook, i also myself dont have a facebook and in class Dr.langguth talked about how facebook is addicting and you cant get off of it. I feel that facebook consumes your times and waste the valuable time you have that could be spent doing other things like homework, sports, activities with friends and such. Facebook can be seen as a way of communcation to family and friends that live a far distance from you or just simply to stay in touch with those you dont get to see often, but others issues arouse like bullying, drama, abuse and inc. I was wonder whether you think facebook has turned our to be a positive thing or do you think there is more negative to facebook then their is positive? Do you feel facebook takes over your valuable time you have everyday when it could be spent doing other things. Does the use of facebook affect your school work in sense is consumes your time or get your off track and worried about other things?
Facebook...what is it about?
The other day in class, Dr. Langguth talked about his dependence on facebook. He talked about how he could not get away from facebook and how it was addicting. Then he asked who didnt have a facebook. I was one of two people that didnt raise their hands. I know that facebook has all kinds of features and social aspects to it. I was just wondering, what does everyone personally use it for? Do you use it to keep in touch with friends? Im just interested in the different ways people use Facebook.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Identity crises?
Today in lecture we discussed Nicholas Carr's book "The Shallows." In this book, Carr describes how there are three views to look at technology, or the internet more specifically, these three views were substantive, Instrumentalist, and pluralist. The substantive theory describes technology as a substance or thing to itself, having profound effects on human nature (the borg hypothesis). The instrumentalist theory describes how technology is only good or bad with respect to who specifically uses it. Pluralist theory describes how we have to wait on technology, how users modify technology into something the original creators did not for see, like the cell phone having all the capabilities it does: music, pictures, apps, and etc.
Carr states how he rejects the instrumentalist theory, it is a superficial analysis fo the problem. He believed it changed the way we think and believing in this theory is just being a numb stance, the problem is becoming more and more invisible to "us." I would have to agree on this fact that internet is not neutral, all the technology was created for a certain purpose, and people don't realize they are being sucked in.
I ran across a small article titled "Mind Prison: Internet Addiction"; this article I think helps push the fact that the internet is a drug that is very addicting unless used in moderation. According to this article, studies have revealed that there is a strong connection between excessive internet use and serious mental disorders. They try to explain this from an individuals identity.
Our identity is what makes us who we are, it is what makes us different and unique from one-another. When we get involved too in-depth with personal internet usage, we often create an entire new identity for ourselves, an identity that we "wish" we had. We do this because technology acts as a barrier from our true selves to others. Doing this, we have two different identities to keep up with, and after a while, these two identities could very well be mixed up, causing us to forget who we truly are, losing our "true" identity. People who lose their identity become more depressed, no goals or desires, all they want to do is live their "fantasy" identity. This is an identity crises, something that technology has made for us, and yet we keep making more "involved" technology inventions. Will this ever be fixed or at least monitored? Should "we" humans have to look up to technology for our well being? What ever happened to normal social life? I understand that these are some extremes for some people, but its happening to more and more people, this is a world problem that needs to be dealt with.
http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02049/problems_2.htm
Carr states how he rejects the instrumentalist theory, it is a superficial analysis fo the problem. He believed it changed the way we think and believing in this theory is just being a numb stance, the problem is becoming more and more invisible to "us." I would have to agree on this fact that internet is not neutral, all the technology was created for a certain purpose, and people don't realize they are being sucked in.
I ran across a small article titled "Mind Prison: Internet Addiction"; this article I think helps push the fact that the internet is a drug that is very addicting unless used in moderation. According to this article, studies have revealed that there is a strong connection between excessive internet use and serious mental disorders. They try to explain this from an individuals identity.
Our identity is what makes us who we are, it is what makes us different and unique from one-another. When we get involved too in-depth with personal internet usage, we often create an entire new identity for ourselves, an identity that we "wish" we had. We do this because technology acts as a barrier from our true selves to others. Doing this, we have two different identities to keep up with, and after a while, these two identities could very well be mixed up, causing us to forget who we truly are, losing our "true" identity. People who lose their identity become more depressed, no goals or desires, all they want to do is live their "fantasy" identity. This is an identity crises, something that technology has made for us, and yet we keep making more "involved" technology inventions. Will this ever be fixed or at least monitored? Should "we" humans have to look up to technology for our well being? What ever happened to normal social life? I understand that these are some extremes for some people, but its happening to more and more people, this is a world problem that needs to be dealt with.
http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02049/problems_2.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)