The 20th blog entry!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/business/media/17privacy.html?_r=1&ref=technology

For my last blog entry for this class I found an article about new legal problems arising from companies tracking people on the internet and seeing how they should advertise to them.  The Internet policy task force is trying to make what companies can and can not do on the Internet more clear so people know what is being traced when they are on the Internet.

It is very weird to think about always being tracked on the Internet.  Even if it is just putting the information through a computer system to see how many people have the same interests as me.  At first thought I can not imagine what they would do with my information.  Would they just see some young adult who likes crappy punk rock who will not buy anything now, so we will just disregard his information until he gets a real job and truly starts consuming?  Then once my mind starts working on what kind of advantage a company gets with this information is kind of scary.  Who cares if they know you as an anonymous  person who goes on facebook twelve times a day.  The dangerous part is that if these companies are using this technology well, they can get a great deal of information about the general public and could be able to know how to market to everyone better than everyone else.  This would not be because they had a superior product, it would be because they could afford to obtain the information.  Knowledge still is power and if one company makes it so only they know this Internet information no one else would be able to compete.  Another unsettling part about this is that the general population does not completely understand if not know about this privacy issue at all.  When it seems that something is being hidden there is a good chance it probably is and for sure it's going to be something that they know in some respect is wrong.

Final Blog Entry 3

Just finished my final paper and put it in the sakai drop box so now I thought I would share some final thoughts I had about my final paper and the topic I wrote about.  In my paper I take a pretty hard line about how technology has taken over the life at college campuses.  Though I do agree that a big part of life on college campuses whether it being academic or social is controlled very much by technology I do not think it is to the extent I made it out to seem.  The trouble is that human progress moves a lot slower than technological advancement making it less obvious then something physical like a new cell phone.

I do strongly believe that technology is accepted very blindly, which is not a good thing.  From my experience I have found that not buying new technologies right when they come out is very beneficial.  When a new technology is introduced their is always kinks in the setup.  The next invention that comes out using the new technology will obviously be an improvement using the parts of the technology that actually work and cutting out the junk that is not needed.  When people allow themselves to purchase all the latest advancements, they are allowing themselves to be exploited by a company, giving up their money and also potentially making their life harder and more stressful trying to incorporate new technologies into their life. If Universities with all their expendable income and influence on such a large population fall victim to this exploitation by companies huge problems will arise.

The main concern with technology in Universities is whether the students are learning how to think and solve new problems in creative ways (which is the main reason of higher education) or if they are now just being taught how to use these new technologies.  It may actually be impossible to stop this because in order to function in this modern world it seems like knowing how to use the technology is one of the most important things.

Final Blog Entry 2

In my final paper I bring up a personal experience involving how technology was pretty much being forced into my social life here at Rutgers.  I had to keep it brief in the final because it was only an example and I did not want to get off topic, but for one of my final blog entries I thought  I could expand on it and tell the whole story.

When I moved into the dormitories on Busch campus I just could not seem to relate to any of the other kids on my floor or in my building.  I figured it would just take a longer time for them to get to know me and then everything would just kind of work out.  While the semester went on this was not the case.  Everyone seemed to be getting closer with each other and I still could not seem to get to know anyone in the dorm.  Occasionally I would over hear kids talk about some dormitory relationship building meeting that happened where there was free food, and I would ask them "how do you know about all these events."  Every response I got back would go along with a confused look and always the same response of "didn't you get the message that the RA sent out?"

By this point in my college career of not being able infiltrate the friend circle of my dorm,  I was going with the mentality of "screw the kids living in my dorm I'm going to make my own friends."  After about half a semester went by I was spending most of my time on College Ave away from my home on Busch.  I would only come back the dorm when I wanted sleep, and this seemed to be the relationship I was going to keep with the dorm and the other students who occupied it.  Then one night when I got back to my dorm, there was a floor meeting happening that once again I had know idea about.  Right when I walked in the meeting just came to a halt, you could even hear the record scratch that happens in movies when something awkward happens.

The RA, who I felt like I had not seen since move in day, did not look happy with me.  He called me over and asked why I had not been coming to these MANDATORY meetings.  To say the least that question pissed me off a bit.  I explained how I would come if I had any idea they were happening, and once I again I got the response of "didn't you get the message?"  Once again I was puzzled and then he told me that the only messages he sends out are through facebook, which I did not have.  He then went on to explain how if I got a facebook I would stay better connected with the world.  This is when I got super annoyed, "How does this make any sense?  How does staying at home and staring at facebook connect you more with the world than actually going out and meeting people in the world!"  In the end I got a facebook, never went to another dorm meeting on principle, and I remained equally connected to the world as I was before but now I had facebook as the middleman.

The Facebook Effect pgs 214-333

The last part of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick goes through how facebook is now being run much more like a legitimate business when compared to how it was originally run.  This part of the book goes in detail about how facebook is taking new approaches to how they run their business in order to keep it as popular as it is.  The main way they are doing this is by willing to push the envelope on what people think is possible for them, and making sure they consider consumer satisfaction over instant monetary gain.

Kirkpatrick shows how companies are not untouched from the negative effects of the fast advancements of technology.  The difference with facebook is that they work to not let technology grow without being checked which is was Technopoly tells us as a society we need to do.  Facebook does this by finding new ways to do advertising so the website is not destroyed by flashy ads like most other websites.  The only way this was made possible was due to the fact that facebook does not take the first offers they get when it comes to advertising and makes sure customer satisfaction comes before initial monetary advancement.  Customer satisfaction has proved to be very important since the next social website could take off and overtake facebook just like facebook did to myspace.

The effects on American culture shown in this section are not necessarily from what facebook is, but what as a company they claim to be doing.  The things that facebook claims to do is that it is a place for freedon of speech, and is helping to create a gift economy on a large scale which is helping keep companies honest.  The only things that facebook says they remove from the site is content advocating hate, violence, or breaking laws.  These are very broad concepts to say they are removing, and could possibly fit almost anything said in one of the categories.  Especially if advocating breaking laws is removed then nothing in a society could be change through facebook.  The fact that they are claiming that they are keeping companies honest is a scary thought.  The first question would be who is keeping facebook honest and what companies could do without people knowing just because facebook says they are legit.  With these claims facebook could possibly change how our culture views freedom of speech and decide what companies will succeed and which ones will fail just from their backing power.

Final Blog Entry 1

Deciding on which of the two topics to write my final on was fairly simple.  I am going to choose the first topic which is about if modern day colleges campuses are technolpolies.  The main reason for this decision is that I am scared if I pick the second topic I am going to get off topic.  Since the professor warned in the description not to get too opinionated about the green movement in general, this makes this topic a hard one.  Since I believe the green movement is extremely profit influenced, only focusing on aspects of conserving that still make people money, my argument would be simple and not generate many topics to write about.  My argument would be something along the lines of even though the green movement is based on conservation in ways it still is contributing to our disposable society.

Another reason why the first topic would be better to write about is because for most of my blog entries I have referred back to Postman's writing.  This tells me that I have an understanding and I will be able to reference this book more easily then Slade's.  Reading Postman's Technopoly I definitely felt more opinionated when compared to reading the other books because I agreed with certain parts and during others just felt like he was making ridiculous connections in others.  This will help make a more interesting paper, since it will not be in completely agreeing or go against Postman.

At first glance of this topic a few key ideas come to my mind.  Colleges pride themselves as being more relevant and accepting when it comes to new ideas when compared to high schools and earlier education.  They also pride themselves as being long standing institutions that know what values need to be upheld.  My choice for the paper needs to be what choice colleges are making in what seems to be conflicting roles. Another talking point is how the students use of technology effects the choices the University makes.  Effects of Universities becoming run more like businesses in order to attract more students and how that changes the schools view on new technology.  In the end I would probably say that campuses are technopolies.  This last paragraph may seem like I was just regurgitating arguments that will be in my paper (which the professor said not to do) but this was a was a way for me to get these ideas written down so I do not forget them later.

The Social Network.

The last time I went to the movies I went to go see the stinker which is known as Alice in Wonderland.  When I decided to go see The Social Network In theatre for extra credit, I thought to myself why do I put myself through all these bad movies and pay so much for them?  Luckily I was pleasantly surprised that The Social Network was actually pretty entertaining.  This blog entry is not a review though, but about how this movie relates to American culture.

The movie follows Mark Zuckerberg who is the founder of facebook and tells how facebook originally came to be.  Mark Zuckerberg is made to seem his age by showing scenes of him partaking in college activities expected by of a college student, but not expected of a business owner.  Throughout the movie it breaks into scenes of the courtroom where he is getting sued by Eduardo, who helped start the facebook with him, and some kids who feel that Mark stole the facebook idea from them.  Though Zuckerberg is the main character of the flick he is not shown in a positive light.

One of the main themes of this movie is to show how Zuckerberg and other characters such as Sean Parker are trying to full conflicting roles in American society.  They are trying to be young college students and young adults who partake in parties, drugs, and promiscuous sex while trying to also be business men (who  are portrayed to do the same thing in American culture but more discretely).  The fact that these conflicting roles have been presented to these two shows how technology has reshaped the business world.  Technology is moving so fast that society is willing to accept any new advancement without question with idea that it will soon become obsolete soon anyway.  This mentality allowed facebook to take off the way it did and throw both Zuckerberg and Parker in a position of wealth and power which they appear from the movie to not be prepared for.

The fact that this movie is such a success and that there is not a huge outrage against facebook shows a great deal about our culture too.  The reaction from America about this movie shows that our standards say that it is fine to do all the things that Zuckerberg did as long as the general public does not know about it.  Being cut throat when it comes to business and screwing over those who have helped (like Zuckerberg did ti Eduardo) is well known as common practice in America, but when it comes to the spotlight we tend to just give a slight slap on the wrist and then not think twice about it.  Technology adds a whole new element to this too, since we still view Zuckerberg in a positive light since he has given us this new great piece of technology.  The new question has now become how much can someone get away with who is capable of advancing technology?

The Facebook Effect pgs 107-214

The second part of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick tells how facebook functioned in the earlier days as it was becoming a company.  Throughout this whole section Kirkpatrick keeps mentioning different offers facebook was getting from various companies trying to buy facebook.  He also makes sure to include various accounts of people not wanting to work for facebook because it was being viewed as a childish company.  These two points are brought up throughout this section while discussing additions and changes to the page and how the users react to them.

During this section of the book the photo section of facebook was added.  This increased facebook's popularity tremendously, because it made it possible to see what people had recently been doing especially since the photos were kept in chronological order.  This allowed facebook to grow the same way as which technology grows.  Technopoly and Computers both show how development and growth in something are capable of happening unfiltered due to people's desire to be included or in the know of something new.  Zuckerberg also avoided the danger  that goes along with people's interest in something new.  He did this by how he introduced new groups into the page.  This was done by only letting high school kids in if they were invited by someone who was already in facebook.  Also changes were made to the site to make it seem less childish before adults were allowed to join.  If facebook was instantly opened to everyone then Zuckerberg would have lost control of how people used the page and due to people always wanting something new facebook would quickly have become obsolete from people losing interest.

American culture is greatly effected by how facebook is run and what facebook is.  The fact that our everyday interactions have become a way for people to make money shows the interests of our culture as a whole.  This is that if there is a way to make money off of something that people are doing someone will try to.  Once again the idea of how people are being thrown into the industry younger because of how quickly the industry grows comes up because the older generation of companies can not understand why Zuckerberg will not take the offers he had been getting for his company.  Since he was young facebook was run differently and had more ideals then to just make the most profit (which is why facebook is still strong today) thus making a different way for a company to be run in America.  The popularity of facebook has also made it possible for facebook itself to effect American culture.  Since Zuckerberg has been opposed to allowing people to have two profiles, it has forced work life and social life to be integrated for many Americans.  This of course also leads to new cultural problems people have to deal with.

The Facebook Effect pgs 1-106

The first part of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick goes through the beginning stages of facebook of how Mark Zuckerberg originally got the ideas for facebook and how he worked with his friends to begin to make facebook what it is today.  The book makes sure to present Zuckerberg and his friends as young college students who live a common college lifestyle.  Kirkpatrick also makes sure to point out all the mistakes the young creators of facebook made along the way.

Kirkpatrick points out that facebook's founders were young and made legal mistakes along the way not only because it makes the book more interesting, but because it shows how young the technology and computer industry have become.  Books such as Computers and videos we have watched in class describe how since technology advances so fast so do people.  This means that like older technology people can easily become obsolete in the industry.  In Kirkpatrick's book, Zuckerberg is described as having the capability of creating programs that people enjoy using.  It seems that all the network pages that Zuckerberg created before facebook people also liked using as well.  The reason why Zuckerberg had this capability was because he was young and he knew what other people his age would enjoy using.  Zuckerberg also when asked in the earlier stages why he was making this site, his answer was that he did it for fun not profit.  This is probably why facebook is as successful as it is today and also why it ran into a good amount of legal problems.  Since it was for fun, Zuckerberg did not sell his site to the first bidder and remains in control of the company, thus allowing the site to keep its aesthetic that people have come to enjoy using.  The legal troubles come in, because when one is not trying to make money off of something one usually does not worry about others trying to take credit (in other words money) for what one has made.

The way this effects American culture is that these new technologies are forcing people to enter this marketing world at a young age.  They have the technology knowledge and fresh minds that allows them to do well, but lack business experiences which opens them up to be taken advantage of.  Once again our laws and education practices are not really keeping up with technology.  In order to fix this problem two things can be done, we must hold back on accepting new technologies right when they come out, or we must be willing to update our old system of learning and rules to change faster with the time.  For some reason our culture is willing to accept new technology blindly, but is unwilling to change outdated ways of life.

Wikipedia's take on Polygamy in North America

Auditing a wikipedia page was a very informative experience.  The first step was probably the hardest for my group, which was finding a wikipedia page worthy of having us audit.  Ideas that were thrown around were cloning, the neutron bomb,  and cassette culture.  These were either taken by another group, to short, and not controversial enough respectively.  I then suggested we audit the page for the band Gorgoroth which had pictures of crucified people on stage during their performance.  This was instantly deemed too controversial to do (probably for the best).  In the end we pretty much failed in finding our own topic and the professor gave us polygamy in North America.

At the first glance of the article, it was obvious that this article was just going to be about the most publicized and popular case of polygamy in North America which is that of the Mormon religion.  The first statement of the article made it seem that polygamy only happened with a male with multiple wives, which by the definition of polygamy is not the case.  If for some reason polygamy only occurs this way and not with any other combination of partners in North America, this should have been stated in the article.  The next obvious focus of the article was that most of the time was going to be spent on the United States.  Once again if for some reason less polygamy is practiced in the other two countries of North America this should have been stated.  These two problems with the article showed that it was too focused on one topic and did not look at the big picture of what the page was supposed to be about.

When it came to the references, we checked the validity by seeing what they were used to cite in the article and then see what they actually had to say in the article.  Most of the references had something wrong with them.  All of the extreme religious sites were used to prove statistical information instead of showing an opinion (usually an extreme one).  All of the good resources seemed to be used poorly.  For instance four very objective articles from reliable sources on genetic mutations were used to cite one sentence that did not have to do with the subject they were on.  The page barely even mentioned inbreeding which shows that a lot of the information was watered down.  By doing this individual statements were not biased, but on a whole the page was biased because of this emission of facts.  From reading the resources I got a very different picture of polygamy in North America then from just reading the wikipedia page.  Therefore the wikipedia page for polygamy in North America makes a very horrible scholarly source, but I guess is a good source if you only want to know information for small talk.

Like many of the wikipedia references for polygamy in North America I will sign off by saying "GLORY TO GOD" (luckily this doesn't discredit me in the eyes of wikipedia)

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America pgs 187-281

The last part of Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade discusses how the invention of computer chips has effected obsolescence, how weapons have planned obsolescence, how cell phones have effected obsolescence, and finally discusses the effects and how to deal with all these used electronics.  Slade goes through each of these technologies showing how once a new technology is introduced it eventually will leave the old devices using the old technology obsolete.  He then explains how this "e-waste" will keep on building and how unforeseen resource limitation are starting to present a problem.

The invention of the computer chip was the the beginning of technology obsolescence as we know it today.  The invention of the chip lead to forcing physical computing systems into obsolescence, such as the slide rule.  This does not seem to be that big of a deal, the extreme obsolescence came out once the personal computer started to be introduced to mainstream society.  When buying a computer, the two things one must balance out are cost and life-span of the computer.  It seems as if the cheaper the chips become in computers the easier it is for people to leave them obsolete, therefore allowing the life-span of a computer to shrink drastically without the consumer caring.  Slade shows this once apple released a personal computer that people seemed to buy just for one application that is offered.  The reason why this computer was also so attractive to the consumer was that it was not going to become obsolete instantly.  Now that the price for computers is dropping this life span is not as important.  The cell phone throws in an interesting element into things becoming obsolete, because cell phones have become another accessory to our everyday appearance.  Slade points out that cell phones have become like shoes, in the sense that most people are starting to have more than one pair.  It has become very common for people to have two cell phones, one for work and one for personal use.  They are also like shoes in the sense that they have become part of fashion.  Most people want to have clothes that are in fashion, for the same reason why people want phones that are current.  The actual reason is very unclear, but most people would not have it any other way than to be up to date.  This attitude leads to tremendous amounts of waste for obvious reasons.  In order to deal with the waste is a technology that can not be developed fast enough.  It is hard enough for the resources used to make electronics to be found since most people never thought certain types of metals used in these devices would ever be needed.  With all this time worrying about how to continue making these products and where is it possible to obtain the resources, how to get rid of the obsolete devices seems to be the last idea on the company's mind.  

When it comes to American culture it is clear to see how we are effected.  These technologies have become so current that they have entered this dark category we call "fashion."  Since our culture has taught us that "fashion" is so important no one bothers looking at the negative repercussions because being unfashionable is bad enough.

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America pgs 83-185

The second part of Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade goes through various advances in American products such as the FM radio, nylon stockings, housing, and cars. In all of these cases Slade spends a good portion of time explaining the business portion of these advancements. He describes how companies would try to compete with one another and how their strategies to compete and make more money factored into how items became obsolete.

Companies are both hurt and can benefit from the obsolescence of their products. In order for a company to not be harmed by the obsolescence of a product, they must be willing to promote the next advancement that makes their previous product obsolete. RCA is described as doing just that when Slade explains how RCA was promoting the invention of the television as making their AM radios obsolete. This greatly increases the obsolescence of goods since it forces companies to constantly aim for making their products obsolete in order to stay ahead of their competition. As the book Computers shows the development towards making things as small as possible forces products to become more complicated. Slade describes the problem with this by discussing the pocket sized FM radio. Before the pocket sized radio, most things such as radios and televisions used vacuum tubes that were known to break easily so the products were designed to be able to take replacement parts with small amounts of maintenance. In order to make the pocket radio small the use of glass tubes did not make sense so a more complex technology was used making it impossible for the consumer to fix. This idea of not being able to replace a broken part leaving the whole product obsolete has not only become more common, but has become the standard. At the end of the second part Slade brings up that their was backlash against obsolescence such as this. The companies would describe it as people's want to have newer better items as "planned obsolescence" where as the consumer viewed this more as companies' way of making products that do not last. When it came to Volkswagen actually did quite well advertising that they would not make pointless changes to their model just to get their consumers to believe the old model was obsolete.

When it comes to American culture obsolescence seems to have become the standard. There are not many things we own that when they stop working we buy a replacement part. Instead we go out and buy a whole new device. Even with the occasional backlash about our wastefulness technology is moving to fast for everyone to understand how our products work in order to service them. Companies also use the fact that certain advances have become a necessity to being part of our culture and make getting the simplest design nearly impossible. Whenever I go to the cell phone store because my cell phone stopped working because they are not made durable enough to be kept in my pocket (where they are intended to be kept), I cannot get a phone that does not have a camera, access to the Internet, or hundreds of other seemingly useless capabilities. It has reached the point where we do not have a choice, but to contribute to the obsolescence and still remain part of the culture in America.

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America pgs 1-81

The book Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade describes how America has come to this point where almost everything we own is disposable or will become obsolete in the near future.  In the introduction he briefly touches on why this is a bad thing due to our increase in waste, and then spends the rest of the first part describing specific key events bringing us to this way of life.  He claims this has come about through advancements in technology, new marketing techniques, and America's crave to have the latest up-to-date things.

Advancements in technology are presented to us as ways to improve our quality of life.  The problem with this is that in order to achieve this new quality one must continue to buy newer things making their previous belongings obsolete.  In Made to Break Slade spends a good portion of time talking about Henry Ford's model T and how Ford did not want his automobile design to become obsolete, but due to advancement in technology such as the electric starter and the competition using newer technology the obsolescence of the model T seemed inevitable.  In the past obsolescence did not seem to be that much of a worry.  This is not because people did not crave the most current items, but because the advancements in technology were not as rapid.  The book Computers presents this growth by showing how in the initial stages of computer development advancement occurred very slowly and seemed almost linear, but as time progressed it turned out to actually have exponential growth.  This obsolescence is also fueled by the fact that we seem to accept these technological advancements blindly, therefore allowing everything we own to become obsolete.  The book Technopoly discusses our willingness to accept technology and how we should take a step back and see if these advances are truly beneficial to us.  By taking this approach it would also allow us to see which items should be allowed to become obsolete and which ones are better the way they are.

A big part in this obsolescence is caused by American culture.  Pretty much everyone is raised under the idea that we should strive to be as successful as possible, and of course along with that success comes luxuries.  In the past many luxuries we enjoy today could only be achieved through large amounts of wealth.  Now, due to cheaper materials and mass production, these luxuries can be obtained by a much larger population.  Along with this though comes our competitive nature.  Many would view success almost like a rank, so can one be seen as a success if everyone else is just as successful?  This then leads to even more obsolescence since in American culture, one must not only have up-to-date technology, but also have up-to-date technology that others do not have.  This of course allows us to throw away old technology without a second thought.

The World and Wikipedia pgs 114-225

The second half of The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality by Andrew Dalby explains why we love, the chaos behind, and why we trust and do not trust Wikipedia.  For why we love Wikipedia the book discusses how it makes everyone as equal, and the fact everyone gets to write about whatever they want.  The following chapter is cleverly titled "Chaos and Beyond; or Why We love it Version 2.5."  This chapter talks about all the editing wars and vandalism on Wikipedia, but then explains why this also makes a lot of people more interested in Wikipedia.  On why people don't trust Wikipedia Dalby writes on the fact that the readers do not know why an author has written the articles they have posted which means they might be biased.  When it comes to why we do trust Wikipedia the point that all facts are subjective no matter what encyclopedia one reads is brought up.

The Internet has made it so everyone is a contributor and not just readers or watchers.  When it comes to Wikipedia a apparent sixteen year old boy from New Jersey was able to win awards and receive recognition for articles he posted on the British Peerage system.  Just like the case of youtube people have been able to be recognized as amazing dances without having to go to school for it or even travel to show off what they can do.  In the Ted talk they even mentioned how a gathering of dancers from youtube performed at the Grammies. Even the chaos involved in Wikipedia just showed how much more we love it.  Normal encyclopedia's are viewed as borrow, the reason why is because there is no drama.  Wikipedia is described in the book as another social networking site where people argue through editing of articles.  Like the same reason facebook is popular, Wikipedia allows us to get caught up in the drama of writing an encyclopedia and we cannot seem to get enough of it.

Many worry that our culture will be effected negatively by this because nobody knows the reason why the author of an article posted the article in the first place.  This of course causes a lot of people to worry that everyone will be relying on biased information that has been posted on Wikipedia.  The fact is though that our culture is already based on biased material.  Almost everything can be viewed as subjective.  The book talks about how some encyclopedias just credit Edison for the light bulb while others also credit Sir Joseph Swan.  Its impossible to write anything without being a hundred percent unbiased, but if an encyclopedia is written by many biased people wouldn't that make it less biased than an encyclopedia written by one person?

Current Event Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/10novel.html?_r=1&ref=technology

The current event I found titled Wider Streets for Internet Traffic by Anne Eisenberg from nytimes.com was about how our use for the Internet has increased so much there are worries that technology will not be able to keep up with our hunger for the Internet.  The future of Internet transportation is fiber optics, which is sending the information by light waves down tiny fibers.  The reason why light is used is because its an electromagnetic so information can be put on each varying wavelength.  In the past it was just based off of the intensity of light, sending a signal of either being on or off.

The most interesting point made in the article is that many professionals in the field never thought this technology would be needed since information can already travel at such fast speeds with the technology we already have.  Now everyone is worried that if the rate of every one's Internet use continues to grow the way is has been this new technology might not be able to do the job fast enough.  One electrical engineer is quoted as saying, "We are looking at a point soon where we cannot satisfy demand and if we don't it will be like going over a cliff."  When this problem was expressed to the class no one seemed particularly worried about this, not because they would be able to handle using the Internet less but because they just figured more servers could be put up and that could solve the problem.  This shows a very common view of the Internet in American culture which is that most of us do not see the Internet as physical thing that is also limited to the laws of physics.

Another question that comes up is that should we let ourselves reach this "cliff" or should we start now to limit ourselves to soften the blow?  If we reached this limit today we would basically being going off the Internet cold turkey and there would be panic.  It would be a horrible blow to the economy and a line of communication will be shut off which many people rely on.  With everyone using the Internet as a global market place and people having the Internet as the only form of contact to at least someone in their life for our case we only have contact with our teacher through the Internet like these blog entries.  We know their would be panic if this happens since every time our class cannot figure out how to send in their homework our teacher gets flooded with emails.

The World and Wikipedia pgs 7-113

The book The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality by Andrew Dalby attempts to explain how Wikipedia works, where it comes from, and the positive and negative impacts of it.  The book begins by giving examples of how contributors to Wikipedia sometimes basically have to compete using their Wikipedia editing skills in order to get the information they want up on the web page.  The next chapter gave a history of the encyclopedia, which allowed for a comparison of it to Wikipedia.  The reading assigned ended with a chapter on common criticisms of Wikipedia followed by a chapter of why we use it anyway.

The difference between old encyclopedias and the new Wikipedia is that now anybody can update the information inside.  The obvious negative part, which is always pointed out, is that the information could possibly be incorrect or bias.  A hope of Wikipedia was that experts could be able to update articles relating to things they are good at, but from the first part of the book describing how one edits Wikipedia, it shows that the people who know how to use Wikipedia best, are more likely to get their views uploaded.  The positive side of Wikipedia is that the information is not filtered through a select group of people.  Just like many other things that have benefited from the Internet, it has given people the choice of what they want to be exposed to (a close example is youtube and hulu when compared to old fashioned television).  In order for Wikipedia to become what it is now, it needed people to be willing to post and update articles to help popularize the site.  A main contribution to the site was Google putting Wikipedia articles as one of the first things that pop up for certain searches.  This idea of a website having so much control as to be able to popularize a different website is a concept brought up in Technopoly.  The fact that we are so willing to trust technology without thinking of the consequences greatly affects our culture and our everyday life.

The way most people relate the effects of Wikipedia on American culture is how it has become a way for us to use as a reference source and view as straight fact.  This also leads to the complaint that there has been an increase in plagiarism since Wikipedia has been around.  The problem with this is not Wikipedia, it is the fact that our culture does not embrace new ideas fast enough and state how this new resource can be beneficial and how we should avoid using it so it will not become harmful.  Instead the new technology is shunned, but continues to be used by everyone.  This of course is very dangerous because it views the positive ways of using Wikipedia as equal to the negative ways of using Wikipedia (getting incorrect or bias facts).

Technopoly pgs 93-199

The second half of Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman explains how our culture has wonderful resources when it comes to technology but the resources are used in negative ways.  He explains how the medical industry could easily be used to keep us healthier but instead its allowing us to be unhealthy by knowing that we can just get our health problems fixed later on in life.  The next chapter discusses the idea that different technologies help encourage different forms of thinking but our culture ignores this and uses certain technologies with wrong form of thinking.  The next point brought up was the fact that symbols do not effect people like they used to since we have become so desensitized to them through commercialism in technology.  Postman ends the book by admitting that he mostly just lists problems without addressing possible solutions, but then explains that his point was to help people distance themselves from the technology thought process so we could then criticize and modify it.

Postman brings up a very important idea about how technology has allowed our culture to become lazy.  Instead of helping us advance and become better people it has made it possible to indulge in the present guilt free and then fix it later using technology.  The best example explaining this was when Postman talked about the increase in heart bypass surgeries and how common they have become in America.  Instead of using technology to allow us to become healthier, we allow ourselves to become unhealthy guilt free knowing its possible to fix ourselves later. Postman blames technology mostly when even he is willing to see the potential in new technological developments that are being abused by the people using them.  Postman even explains how technology is abused because of a lack of understanding of the thought process involved with each piece of technology.  In American culture we seem to want to use the same devices for everything.  We use television to educate and for down time, and we seem to try to use the computer to do pretty much everything.  Postman's main point pertaining to this is that just because the technology is there does not mean we should use it for everything.  One odd point that Postman makes is that through technology we have become desensitized to symbols.  I do not think this is such a bad thing.  This means that people in American culture are so used to seeing symbols along with things that we have finally realized we can not judge things at face value and have become willing to look deeper.  I do not know why Postman would view this as negative since he himself does not want to view technological advancements as what people present to him.

Technopoly pgs xi-91

The book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman begins with a description of why there needs to be someone like himself who is willing to question the benefits of advancements in technology.  He claims this is necessary because the people who are making the advances are not going to look at the negative side because they have grown to attached to there work.  The book then continues to describe how people have warned about technology advancements moving too fast, how people have had to deal with the problems of these advancements, and what problems will be expected to arise in the near future.  Postman claims we are living in a "technopoly" which means that our culture has become completely run by the advancement of technology.

One interesting topic Postman discusses is the idea that teachers are embracing new technologies and claiming how beneficiary they are when in actuality they should be condemning these advancements because in the near future it will force their practice to become obsolete.  This is the exact opposite view of technology when compared to Swedin/Ferro's book Computers.  Swedin/Ferro show how in order to keep advancement growing and for the individual to stay relevant with technology, one must be willing to accept it.  If teachers actually did take a hard line on this issue and refuse to use technology in a teaching environment, it would force teachers to become obsolete even faster because their students would not be equipped to deal with new technologies that they would encounter out of school.  The problem is not new technology and advancement, the problem is not knowing how to use the new technology in a beneficial way.

The book Technopoly makes it seem that our culture is completely defined by technology.  It claims that most changes in culture are only resulting due to changes in technology.  Postman does not describe how culture should change otherwise, but says that these changes are effecting us negatively.

Ferro/Sweden Computers p.85-149

The second half of the book Computers: The Life Story of a Technology by Sweden and Ferro is very similar to the first half in the fact that it tries to list as many technological advancements in close to chronological order as possible up to present day.  The difference is the time that is covered in the second half involves once many people have obtained personal computers and the internet was invented.  Therefore culture was more heavily effected and computer advancement was happening even more rapidly.

The main idea expressed in the second half of the book, through the numerous advancements in the short period of time, is that the more common computers became and the more connected these computers became to each other the faster the rate of advancement increased.  These two things developed through affordable personal computers and the use of the internet.  One point that comes up in the book on page 132 is that when a certain part of the world does not have computers and is not connected to the rest of the world through the internet chances of technological advancements goes down tremendously and even the rate of advancement is less making it almost impossible to catch back up.  The book describes this as the "digital divide."  The TED talk we watched in class discusses this exact issue, but not only about technology, it also talked about how people's hobbies could advance faster such as dancing.

These advances in technology not only increase the rate at which technology advances but also increases the rate at which culture changes.  New technology changes culture by just being part of the stuff people use, and possibly makes life easier (even though sometimes it seems to make things harder)  allowing the individual to partake in other activities.  The thing about the internet is that it brings tons of ideas together which makes it very easy to view other cultures and may cause the individual to act differently when off the internet.  Either by learning a new way to cook food, hum a song, or a new dance move off the internet culture is changing no matter how small a change it may seem.

Swedin/Ferro’s Computers p 1-83

The book Computers: The Life Story of Technology by Eric G. Sweden and David L. Ferro is set up to basically list, with a brief description, all the advances that led up to the first computers along with how computers have advanced since their invention.  The book begins as far back as when language was first being taken down by using complicated methods like knots in strings or tally marks on sticks.  By page 83 Sweden and Ferro did their best to list chronologically all the advancements in computers up to the development of the microprocessor in 1971.

The idea of the first half of this book is to show that computers exist due to people's want to keep information.  Even the machines that were used just to find logarithms were just a way for people to obtain a piece of information more easily than before.  Another point of the book is to show the speed at which computers are advancing.  Describing this rate Sweden/Ferro write, "...commentators have predicted that this trend would hit an obstacle that engineers could not overcome and slow down, but that has not yet happened..." (p. 68).   This was predicted in Moore's law to occur in 1980 but like the book says it still has not happened.  Even looking at the the timeline in the front of the book shows that the rate of these developments are not slowing down and are even increasing exponentially.  It starts off by showing a significant development about every one hundred years, but by the end is showing numerous advances for every year.  This idea was also presented in the PBS special we watched during class while talking about the difference in regular years versus computer years.  By saying this it was not only showing how fast old technologies become outdated, but also how people in the industry can only keep up for a certain amount of time before fresh minds are needed.

American culture is affected the most by the speed at which these technologies are coming out.  If technology advanced at a slower rate people's ability to adapt would not have to react as fast.  Many of us feel that if we do not obtain the latest piece of technology, it will become impossible for the individual to keep up, once the new technology becomes part of everyday life.

Technology Log/Feelings on This Blog

Technology Log (thoughts and opinions):
For the past three days I've tried to keep the best log I could when it came to using the internet.  It turned out to be harder than I thought because of how often I use it unknowingly.  I would be doing my homework and realize I should have logged it down because I was streaming music off the internet.  On saturday I watched Popeye and that even involved the internet because I was streaming it from Netflix.  A certain amount of time was spent on the internet during free time and for school work.  The most interesting part was how long it would take me to get through my everyday activities on the internet.  About once a day I check my e-mail, facebook, and myspace.  The facebook and myspace were originally created to help me book shows for my band, but soon after I was using facebook like everyone else (to look at pictures of cute kittens that my friends post).  Over the past three days I spent about an hour everyday just checking those three sites.  Obviously over time that adds up to a lot of hours.

Feelings on Starting This Blog:
I am pretty excited about starting a blog.  I think it is an interesting way to creatively write about one's life or express one's opinion.  The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about it, is that by having a blog it puts out the idea that I have decided that I've got something so important to say that it should be made public on the internet for everyone to read.  This is the reason why I have never done one in the past, but now I can just say I started it for a class and no one will really know how full of myself I really am.