Random Blog

So as the semester ends, I have one last blog to post about how technology affects our culture. My overall thoughts describe my feelings on how I think technology has positively and negatively affected our society. On one hand, technology is a beautiful thing. It allows us to communicate with just about everyone in the world within a few seconds. Even though I have family out in California, for example, I feel like sometimes they are in the same room as me. With programs like Skype and Facebook, those who have internet access can now stay connected to the ones they love and care about no matter where they are in the world. The type of connection and communication poses good and bad outcomes. We no longer have to go somewhere for a long time and miss the ones we love because we are now able to see and talk to them like they are with us. Yet, this instant and direct communication does not allow us to have privacy and basically draws our attention elsewhere. I feel like people are so concerned with who is calling them, who they are texting, who Facebook messaged or wall posted them and who is doing what, that no one is really giving a crap about THEIR own world and reality. Everyone seems so concerned with what is going on with other people, I feel like we have lost touch with reality in some way. I understand that reality for human lives has changed due to technology, but I also feel there is a reality where technology does not exist and we are losing contact with it. The "real world" is happening around us and right in front of our eyes, yet we are so immersed in technology, we are failing to see what is happening around us. Everyone is constantly on their laptops, on their phones, watching TV, listening to their Ipod, etc. No one is really paying attention to what is going on and this poses a problem for true face-to-face communication skills. People are becoming so used to Facebook messaging and text messaging, I feel like people are losing contact with the actual people around them. This is creating problems in the workplace, where people forget how to communicate and respond to co-workers. Th workplace is a place where communication is key, yet if everyone is forgetting how to communicate, what is that going to do to the social structure of employee relationships? I believe with the ever-growing use of technology, people are forgetting how to communicate and these skills are becoming less and less valuable. This, in my opinion, is a problem in our social world. It is becoming more difficult for people to have family dinners without half the kids on their cell phones or getting up as soon as possible to sit on their laptop for 5 hours after dinner. It is getting more difficult for kids to pay attention in school and in the classroom because they are too busy texting and playing games on these cell phones that can basically do anything now. I feel like although technology is a great way to open up communication lines between people through a computer screen or text message, it has caused a problem with real, face-to-face communication skills, which are still needed to interact and connect with actual people that reside in the world around us.

My Final Thoughts about my Final Essay

As I completed my paper, it dawned on me just how much our environment is affected by the e-waste generated by our society. Our culture is so used to throwing things away that we do not even consider the environmental effects. I think we don't necessarily "see" the effects happening, therefore we don't take them into consideration. Facilities that burn or improperly dispose of e-waste are severely polluting the earth's atmosphere. Some of the chemicals that Slade mentions in his book are rediculous. I had to look most of them up to see what they actually were and how they affect the air and ourselves. One of the main chemicals burned cause skin diseases and infertility! Yet, it boggles my mind that people are still allowed to dispose of electronics that way. It is all done for financial purposes of course. What isn't these days? The whole reason for technological obsolescence is to increase finances within companies and manufacturers. Our economy is essesntially driven by the constant flow of new products arriving on the market. Without them, our economy would be in a wirse state than it already is. Yet, with so much new technology, goes all that old technology. And where is it going? Into landfills across the world. It is poisoning our soils, polluting our waters and toxifying our air. Slowly but surely, the environmental effects that e-waste has on our planet will be so bad that people will have to consider a new way of living. We all want the newest electronics, yet we don't consider what we do with our old ones. So next time you throw away a cell phone, make sure you use a recycling program that you know will be environmentally friendly.

Beginning my Final Thought Process

So, as I think about an argument for my final paper in this course, I have to say that the option #2 is going to be the one I am attacking. Slade's "Made to Break" was a pretty interesting read and I think that there are many valid points about how and why technology is such a huge issue for the environment. Our society is consumed by the use of cell phones, TV, computers and so forth. I always wondered where all these used electronics wind up. Our landfills are becoming increasingly populated and overwhelmed by these eletronics. It's amazing that we even have room on this Earth to provide for such obsolescence. Environmentally, we are trying to become a "green" society, yet with all of the electronic components we constantly trash, is it really going "green?" I don't really think so. So, as I contemplate the argument for which my paper will be about, I am thinking about the potential effects that these electronics will have on our envrionment, but I'm also thinking about the cultural and social effect that technology imposes on our society. We all want to have the best and most up-to-date things, yet we do not think about where our old stuff goes or how it is affecting the Earth. Being an eco-friendly type person, I am excited to learn about the effects of technological obsolescence on the environment. I can honestly say that I am not satsified with how government handles the issues of the enviroment, but I can argue that something definitely needs to be done about the landfills being overtaken by electronic waste. As a society, we need to think more clearly about where our stuff goes and how it is being disposed of before we throw it away.

The Facebook Effect Part III

The last part of this read follows facebook's overall success in the recent year. Companies could use facebook as a platform for advertising, sponsorships and business building. Zuckerberg's idea as Facebook as a platform was unarguably successful. "Activity on applications, he argued, would generate more activity in Facebook," (221). And so it did...These applications allowed for politics, non-profit organizations and music-sharing apps such as iLike, etc. to be publicized and user-generated. These examples were just some of the social applications that "brought offline behavior into this new online world," (228). Global advertising was also an opportunity that allowed for growth on Facebook. Half of Facebook's users were international, therefore Facebook had to start advertising globally with Microsoft as a partner in order to create more world-wide usage and growth. This critical step in the process of expanding Facebook was all about timing. Zuckerberg never rushed into accepting advertising company's offers and for this reason alone, Facebook came into a lot of advertising money at the right time. During this financially successful growth, Zuckerberg also hired a new COO, Sheryl Sandberg, who became his "#2."
Facebook generates ads based on user info, age and location, which greatly increases sales revenue and allows for Facebook to make a huge profit. Zuckerberg's key state-of-mind is that what really matters in this process is the growth of the user base. Facebook, therefore, got really big, really fast. This was because of a simple user-interface and a "friend-only" nature. Also, by maintaining a language that people around the globe speak online and offline made Facebook the ultimate social tool for everyone. Facebook is also used as political tool, as we see in the FARC event at the very beginning of this book. "Facebook has been embraced by many governments as a tool to communicate more efficiently with citizens and employees, in situations both large and small," (294). Zuckerberg called his Facebook community the "gift economy." "I create some news for you, you create some news for me," (295). This type of giving and receiving is what drives Facebook. People will soon be able to go anywhere with Facebook in their pocket. It's becoming available on most phones and hand-held devices, which allows for people to constantly be connected. Yet throughout all the possibilities, Zuckerberg's ultimate main concern is about who controls your information. This is essential to people's social availability and growth.
Facebook is a constant connection to the people in your social world. Since there are less and and less people everyday who DON'T have Facebook, it is obvious that updating your status and posting on someone's wall is becoming the number one form of communication between people all over the globe. No longer are we forced to meet people at the mall or in a coffee shop. No longer are people's lives kept private and isolated. It's now easier than ever to send a message or post an event and have hunderds and thousands of people respond or comment on what you are doing and what you have to say. Even the most anti-social person can communicate with others effectively through Facebook. It is the ultimate social tool. Everything you post or say is read by your "friends," which links you to hundreds or thousands of people with a click of a mouse. Our thoughts are now exposed and it's amazing how freely people express their opinions, what they are doing and/or how they are feeling to everyone they know in an instant. Is this good or bad? Well, on one hand, it is the simplest thing to express a feeling of joy, happiness or content to those you love and care about. People are connected through these comments and most people feel appreciated because they can now know what their loved ones, friends and family feel on a daily basis about whatever is going on in their life. On the other hand, Facebook has exposed people's personal information for almost anyone to see and has generated this feeling of "I have to post this thought to share with others" within pretty much everyone who uses it. I myself am hesitant to post things because when I truly sit back and think about what I am doing, I don't really want people to know what I am doing and/or how I'm feeling. Like, who cares? But...people do. That's what keeps Facebook going and it amazing to see how it has effected our daily lives and the world around us.

Solo Current Event Presentation

My presentation was about a "space-time" cloak. Scientists are trying to configure this technological article of clothing by using extremely advanced technology and metamaterials (molecular materials that could bend light). The cloak would ultimately move a moment in time and hide an event. This concept is obviously very abstract and insane. To think that a burglary could be hidden from surveillance cameras or someone could cross a highway within the blink of eye is extraordinary. The immense amount of technology needed for something like this to be successfully invented is, with the way things are going, not far in our future. Scientists have only figured out how to do this an a small scale so far, but the concept is pretty cool and can be completed within our lifespan. The fact that people may be shooting in and out of time and space like this is just one example of how technology is truly impacting our world. Scientists are constantly thinking of new ways to boggle people's minds and use technology to create life-altering phenomenons. Not that everyone will be walking around in these cloaks (which will probably not be available to the public and/or they'll be so expensive only true scientists will be able to experiment with them), but it is the concept that ultimately has me thinking. If something like this could be invented and a person could move in time and space, the concept of reality will be completely thrown off and examined. Gee and I thought the "Real World" was a phenomenon. Looks like we have a whole new way of "being here" and "being there" in present time thanks to technological advances and science.

The Facebook Effect Part II

Throughout these chapters, Kirkpatrick discusses the economic expansion that Facebook went through. Facebook's team went into some long term investing committments with companies like The Washington Post, although Zuckerberg had a hesitant attitude towards investing changes. He did not want the company moving too fast into a direction that could ultimately hurt the company and cause it to fall apart. Yet, with offers like $80 million from comapnies like Accel, who could turn that down? Zuckerberg relied on Parker to do most of the negotiating and talking to the investors because he was good with his words. These types of settlements gace Facebook the financial boom it needed. Now that Facebook had no money issues, they had to hire more people to keep up with its rapid user expansion. As more employees were hired, the more fruitful Facebook became. Advertisers were desperate to have a part on Facebook. Clever advertising was done by target advertising. For example, Gwen Stefani's hit song "Holla Back Girl" was used in specific profiles (like those of cheerleaders for example). This ad would go into any Facebook profile that mentioned cheerleading somewhere in their profile and targeted the prime audience that would be interested in this type of music. The succes advertisers had on Facebook was extraordinary business for the companies and Facebook itself. "The combination of real validated identity information and extensive information about individuals could yield insights no Internet service had previously had seen, (143).
Meanwhile, Zuckerberg and Parker were having issues. Parker's arrest for drug possession and erratic behavior jeopordized his position at president of Facebook and he eventually stepped down. This change gave Zuckerberg control of three seats on the Board of Facebook, which ultimately gace him the most power in the company. With changes in the company's employees and constant addition of users and schools, Facebook was exploding more than ever. Zuckerberg was constantly thinking of new ways to enhance the Facebook experience. His ideas included photo sharing, tagging and uploading, which ultimately becomes Facebook's most popular feature among users. Furthermore, Zuckerberg end s up getting millions of dollars worth of offers to sell his company, but keeps refusing and turning them down. he does not want to sell the company too early and/or make any mistakes. He has a smart head on his shoulders and decides to take things at a slow pace with the company to avoid jumping into anything too fast and causing a downfall. Zuckerberg also avoided too much advertising on Facebook. "Zuckerberg remained uninterested in advertising that interrupted the Facebook experience and distracted users' attention, no matter how lucrative it might be," (177). This way of thinking is what keeps Facebook so financially stable. To further facebook's popularity, the invention of the News Feed was established as well. This was crucial to people keeping up-to-date with each other's lives and knowing what they are doing and when they are doing it.
It is amazing to me to realize how much money Facebook made and how fast they made it. I think Zuckerberg's slow-paced and "chill" attitude throughout these business and financial experiences is what ultimately keeps Facebook alive and keeps investors and advertisers on their toes. Not everyone in the business and financial worlds act like Zuckerberg. His slow decision making and laid back type of style keeps him apart from the average millionaire or billionaire company owner. I think that Zuckerberg knew how big Facebook was going to be the entire time and it was imperative that he kept a cool and collective head in order to make the right decisions. He knew how much money he was riding on and how popular his company was going to be. As far as the cultural impact, I think this invention of Facebook was the biggest impact to our culture in the past few years. I think this is what Zuckerberg wanted most out of his ideas and his site too. I think he realizes how much of an impact Facebook has had on our culture and I believe this makes him more successful than anyt financial aspect. His ideas and ways of structuring the site are what keeps Facebook so popular and ultimately keeps every user going back for more. I don't think he doubted himself for one minute and it is so interesting to see how Facebook has become the cultural phenomenon of our decade.

Wikipedia Mid-Term Follow-Up

In my opinion, Wikipedia should definitely not be used as a scholarly source for researchers and readers. The biased and controversial information we found on just one article is enough to prove that Wikipedia is not the best website for valid information. It does have some positive attributes though. It is a great start for researching information and can give the reader a general idea about what they are trying to find out. It has substantial information that can be used as a guide to research, but not entirely. I believe that because it is edited so often and by so many different people, it is impossible to have valid and reliable sources and information within the content. This is where its weakness lies. The sources (whichever ones are not a dead link) are not particularly accurate and informative as primary sources. Most of them are articles in magazines, personal blogs and so forth.
These strengths and weaknesses ultimately prove that technology is advancing and becoming a primary candidate for information sharing and editing. It has become to popular to share information and let the world know something as soon and as fast as possible. This is what Wikipedia does. It shares information through the internet in a timely manner to millions of users worldwide. Then if someone has something they want to add or delete, they are free to do so. Technology in this way is awesome because it allows for us to access information about anything within seconds. On the other hand, it has created a controversial website that cannot be depended upon for accurate information. Technology in this sense has effected the culture of our world in such a way that now anyone is a researcher and expert on information. It thwarts the talents of true researchers, but gives the average person a chance to shine.
After completing this project, I learned how controversial Wikipedia really can be. At first, I had no idea that there was so much useless information on the website. I used it all the time. Now, I will definitely think twice about citing Wikipedia as a source for any of my research papers. It has opened my eyes to the world of information editing and clearly demonstrates the power of revision.

The Facebook Effect Part 1

The very beginning of this book really implicates the effect Facebook has had on the world. The fact that Oscar Morales, a computer-savvy, civil engineer from Columbia could create a National March against FARC with just a few words and mouse clicks on Facebook is fascinating. He essentially created a world-wide event that literally brought over 300,000 people together to voice themselves against this organization. "Now, two years after Morale's stunning succes, one can find Facebook-fueled activism and protest in every country and community where the service has caught on-and that is pretty much all of them in the developed world," (6). Therefore, because of Facebook, this one event (although extremely effective and large-scaled) has changed the way society thinkes, acts and lives.
Mark Zuckerberg was just your all-around average Harvard student. With a lot of luck, a lot of skill and a lot of patience, he managed to create a social networking website that forever changed the ways of communicationing with one another. He did this while sitting in his dorm room, slugging beers and ocassionally, sleeping. With the help of his friends/suitemates Dustin Moskovitz, Chris Hughes and Billy Olson, Zuckerberg started off testing his social networking programs with wesbites like Course Mash, Facemash and Thefacebook. With his intellect and input of his friends' ideas, the websites were essentially a hit throughout the Harvard campus. "It was a very basic communications tool, aimed at solving the simple problem of keeping track of your schoolmates and what was going on with them," (29). People could not get enough of using them and would spend hours logged onto these sites rating the hottness of people, as well as sharing personal and educational information. Thefacebook was the one social networking site that really took off. After going live, it spread like wildfire throughout the campus. Kirkpatrick calls this a "viral explosion," (31). People would get an e-mail asking to be a friend, then they could invite friends to join as well. This domino effect had more than 650 students connected after just four days (31). Zuckerberg (with the help of Moskovitz) then figured out a way to launch the incredibly popular site throughout other universities and also created a template for connecting students within different universities by mutual agreement (the basis of Facebook connections today). Zuckerberg quickly became prime meat for interviews and school magazines. He also settled some financial and business deals with investers who were interested in his site. While attending meetings in NYC to meet with different executives and venture capitalists, "a financier offered Zuckerberg $10 million for the company," (41). Mark was twenty years old. Then came the ad companies (like Mastercard) who wanted a piece of the action, as well as investment firms. There were some who were willing to give Zuckerberg's site millions of dollars because of the site's potential and popularity, but Mark himself was more ineterested in keeping the users happy and changing the world rather than money. Zuckerberg constantly says, " 'I think we can make the world a more open place'," (43). Zuckerberg moved to California and later named Sean Parker, a young entrepreneur because of Napster, president of the company. With Parker's help and expertise, Zuckerberg managed to make Thefacebook one of the most rapidly growing websites in the world. Kirkpatrick compared it to Google but says, "Their site was about people; Google was about data," (54). While partying hard and working hard in a house in Palo Alto, Zuckerberg was deciding, with the persuasion of his friend and business partner Saverin, whether or not to turn Thefacebook into an Interent company. Yet after Zuckerberg's decisions to change Saverin's percentage share to zero, they quickly became negotiating and legal enemies. Also, Zuckerberg was faced with lawsuit actions from Tyler and Cameron Winkelvoss and Divya Narendra, claiming he stole their idea. Yet, as Kirkpatrick tells us, the social networking "idea" has been around for quite some time now. Websites like Friendster and MySpace got the boat rowing. Yet the first social networking site aimed specifically at college students was Club Nexus, which began at Standford University in 2001, (77). As for the Winkelvoss brothers and their idea on Harvard Connection, well, Zuckerberg basically took it into his own hands to develop something similar without the crappy ideas these brothers seem to have. Although Zuckerberg helped them at first, he slowly realized what his pontential could be on his own. "From sixdegrees to Friendster to Facebook, social networking has become a familiar and ubiquitous part of the Internet," (85).
The first part of this book is fascinating so far and the story about Mark Zuckerberg's ideas are incredible. Although he seems like such a shy person with little social qualities, its bizarre that he is the creator of the most popular social networking site in the world. Obviously he is brilliant. He has amazing computer programming skills and has a well-rounded education from an Ivy League school. This helps him become successful in my opinion. He is not just the average college student, he is a genius. His business skills and his website ideas are the foundation for why has come so far in such a short amount of time. Although Thefacebook was just the beginning of such a huge and popular phenomenon, it is clear that the basic and simple structure is what drives Facebook. People who have an account and who use it often, as well as Zuckerberg himself, thrive on the easy user interface and the idea of having fun. These are such simple terms and Mark Zuckerberg knew and understood that that's all you need to have a successful social networking site.

Made to Break II (pgs 83-185)

In Slade's novel "Made to Break" (Chapters 4-6), he discusses some of the most important products of the twentieth century and how they have been made to become obsolete for American consumers. The radio was one of the many technological advancements in American society that forwarded society's communication with one another. At first, there was an on-going battle between the FM radio broadbands, which was started by Armstrong and RCA televisions (developed by Sarnoff). They fought legally over rights and there were speculations as well as accusations as to which form of communication would become obsolete first. During the post-war era, Sarnoff thought he could sweep the radio-listening generation up with the invention of the television, making radio obsolete to the American public. Although radios became less popular after the war (because the TV was picture and sound combined), they ultimately remained on the nightstands and counters of American households regardless of the television's visual and auditory achievement. The development and manufacturing of these products were ultimately done so that Americans would constantly upgrade there electronics and continue to buy new radios and TV's. "By the 1950's, product life spans were no longer left to chance but were created by plan, and it is at this moment (from about 1957 on) that the phrase planned obsolescence aquired the additional meaning of 'death dating'," (Slade 113).
Slade goes on to discuss the importance of synthetic silk within chapter five. "Even before it had a name, nylon made two natural fibers obsolete: hog's hair and silk," (115). Nylon became the ultimate material for stockings which were worn by millions of women once they had been developed. Nylon was the fabric of the future once the chemistry of its fibers had been mastered. Not only did our silk trade with Japan become obsolete, but our fashion industry was highly motivated by the production of nylon. "It is the story of a symbolic contest between two cultures fighting for economic dominance," (128). Therefore, it is clear that such a huge development (and ultimately such a small product itself) can make such a large impact on our society socially and politically. Slade's book also discusses the obsolescence of man in a philisophical way by the invention, creation and usage of the atomic bomb. Although nuclear tests and bomb dropping did not inevitably cause the obsolescence of mankind, it did raise a flag for many politicians that nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction are in fact real and ready to be used against enemies of our country.
Furthermore, Slade discusses the Cadillac tailfins that were in and out of the market quicker than expected. He also discusses the study called The Waste Makers, which focused on planned obsolescence in contemporary America. They distinctly categorize obsolescence in three different meanings: Obsolescence of function, quality and desirability. This sums up all of the meanings of the way in which "planned" obsolescence exists in the manufacturing of products. Ultimately, products become obsolete based on the functionality (that is, if a new product functions better than the old, the newer product will obviously be bought). They also become obsolete based on their quality. That is, if a product gets old, wears out or does not work anymore, there is usually another product lined up to take its place that has better quality for a higher price. In the obsolescence of desirability, it is ultimately based on the minds of consumers that "a newer product means a better product." We have a desire to buy newer things because of style and appearance.
I focused on this part in Slade's book the most because I think it is important to understand the business aspect of planned obsolescence within American consumerism. It's all about making more money. I myself am a victim (as we all are) to this planned obsolescence. We automatically assume that a better-looking product will be better functioning and a better quality. Though it is not always the case, it is usually true. Manufacturers have been doing this on purpose because they know that Americans have to have to best of everything in order to keep up with the Jones. They know that Americans will spend thousands and thousands of hard-earned dollars on the simplest things in order to have the newest, coolest, high-tech gadgets and products in their lives. It is why we shop for new clothes, new cars, new appliances, new furniture and new electronics. Planned obsolescence is at its all-time highest in my opinion, especially with new technologies and the fast-paced development of products of all kinds. We are distributing more waste to the landfills than ever before. After reading these chapters, it was interesting to realize how much waste and how many products were thrown away due to obsolescence.What is even more interesting is that technological obsolescence is happening moreso than ever before. The number of products (electronics specifically) that will go to waste in the next few decades will be staggering.

The Next Best Thing - "Made to Break" (p1-81)

The beginning of this book discusses some of the examples of how consumer products have to constantly be updated, re-vamped and made to meet to the standards of the constant emerging culture of the American people. This is called technological, psychological, progressive and dynamic obsolescence. According to Giles Slade, author of the book, "All of these terms refer to the mechanism of changing product style as a way to manipulate consumers into repetitive buying," (Slade 5). He goes on to discuss the idea that all products eventually become worn, stressed, old, out-dated and simply boring. In order to feed consumers wants and desires, manufacturers of these thousands of products will do anything in order to keep their customers coming back for more. Manufacturers have come up with marketing strategies in order to promote repetitive buying and consumption. For example, "from branding, packaging, and creating disposable products to continuously changing the styles of nondisposable products so that they became psychologically obsolete" (11) were the main strategies used to promote consumerism since the nineteenth century. Disposable razors and tampons were just some of the products that began this phenomenon.
Another way manufacturers kept up with obsolescence was through the process of updating the automobile. For example, in the 1920's, Ford Company and General Motors battled against each other to see who could make the most money by selling the most cars. It seemed that the only way to do this was to keep updating their automobiles to keep car shoppers interested. They wanted to keep people coming back to the dealerships for the most up-to-date, stylish, yet affordable car. Henry Ford (inventor of the Model-T) was opposed to this obsolescence strategy and he eventually had to get rid of the rusty, old, outdated Model-T. He has to "get with the program" as they say, of style over functionality in order to maintain his business and keep his sales up. "Psychological obsolescence was now the rule for U.S. automakers. And because car production was America's flagship industry, this lesson was quickly copied in all other areas of manufacturing," (47). So not only were cars an important aspect of this "new is better" phenomenon, but most other items that consumers bought were also forced to be the newest and most updated.
Slade then goes on to discuss the manufacturing of goods and product addiction. He discusses the idea that products are made in order for people to collect and own (like Barbie dolls and baseball cards), which ultimately put people at risk for product addiction. Slade mentions that it is a self-conscious concern that we have to be up to date with the latest fashions and models, which defines this psychological obsolescence. This was a new mentality that people had to adapt to, especially in the 1920's and during the Great Depression era. During this time, a man by the name of J. George Frederick became famous for inventing progressive obsolescence (58). His principle focused on means for buying efficient and stylish products that were up-to-date rather than using something until its last resort. His wife Christine also became famous for identifying the buying habits of women during this time and how important it was for women to have the most stylish and new items above and beyond any other reason for purchasing things. "In their everyday lives, ordinary people were becoming familiar with the need to discard not just consumer goods but ideas and habits that had suddenly became obsolete," (62). Her ideas revolved around the psychological effects that progressive obsolescence had on people during this time.
Planned obsolescence, in my opinion, is just a business strategy that has been around for almost a century now. Businesses and manufacturers are constantly trying to come up with new ways and ideas to keep the consumer happy. Obsolescence is a way to keep consumers psychologically happy because if it's not new, then who would want it? Although I know a lot of people who use the crap out of things and refuse to by new things (i.e. my dad has had the same cell phone now for 7 years), I believe it does make a person feel better about themselves to have the newest and latest trends, fashions and technology. Along with a psychological effect, obsolescence has a lot to with the economy and technology. Since we have become so reliant on the latest technologies, we are more prone to obsolescence. Phone, computer and television companies are always catching onto the latest technological advancements being developed. These companies will continue to keep up with technology in order to satisfy their consumers and to keep their businesses going into the future. We as consumers have to have to latest cell phone and television in order to experience these latest technological developments. Sure, anyone can still pull their old TV out of the basement cellar, plug it in and watch basic cable, but why should they when there is a High Definition, plasma or LCD screen television just waiting to be bought down the road on a shelf at Wal-Mart? The reason we buy new things is to keep up with the fast-paced consumer world. For example, phone companies (like Verizon) have startegically planned a 2-year activation agreement with all of their customers because they know that within 2 years, most people will want a new phone. So basically, a Verizon customer is forced to purchase a new phone and extend their account with them in order to keep Verizon's service. It's funny too how 2 years is too long sometimes and some people have to have a new phone every year or even less. It's plans and strategies like these that businesses strive to promote because they know that consumers will have to upgrade. The lifespan of any product nowadays is shorter than ever. It's inevitable that we as consumers always have to have the "next best thing."

Wikipedia - Part Two

Wikipedia, the biggest encyclopedia in human history, is a popular source mainly because people all over the world, scholars and students alike, love to contribute and interact. Whether it's a question of "French toast" or "German toast," or whether the Fig Newton cookie is really named after the town Newton, Massachusetts (118), people will not hesitate to add, delete or edit information that goes onto Wikipedia's site. It is also a form of social networking that allows unlimited interaction of Wikipedia users worldwide. "We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world," (120). This interaction can be good and bad though. Some people who are genuinely intelligent and can write an article based on facts can be criticized by others, which undermines their intelligence and eventually their ego. For example, a woman known as JHK left Wikipedia because she felt that people did not respect the information in her articles because they were considered bias. She also felt that there was a lack of community within Wikipedia, which left her disheartened and "socially" isolated (127). This ultimately leads to another reason why people love Wikipedia: edit warring. People love to edit, a lot, which is why Wikipedia had to set a "Three changes per 24 hours" editing rule. Also, there is no size limit to what one can write in Wikipedia. Space is unlimited. The fifth reason we love Wikipedia is because we can be whoever we want to be as a user. From elite professors to average school kids, we can say that we are someone, when we are actually someone else. Who will ever really know except yourself? Ah the virtual world. In cyberspace, people can write what they want about anything, including themselves. Wikipedia is obliged to people writing and editing facts about themselves, yet people do it anyway. For example, in 2005, Joshua Gardner 'pretended' that he was Duke of Cleveland, which obvisouly didn't work out in the end because it was clearly a false identity (148). The editors of Wikipedia (whoever they may really be) would not allow him to put content up on the site (especially false content) about himself. "The worst thing to do is to edit yourself anonymously," (149). There is to be no autobiographies created on Wikipedia then.
With many controversial issues concerning Wikipedia, it is clear that it is not the most accurate and reliable source. According to Dalby, "The official, openly-stated view of Wikipedia is that it's a work in progress. It isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be cited as if it were," (191). This, I believe, is most certainly true. There are way too many people with way too many opinions out there that can constantly argue and edit the pages that are known as Wikipedia. Yes, it is a very easy site to access thanks to Google, and it is very tempting to believe everything that is stated on the website. Yet after reading this book, we must question the validity of the information before we use it in our reasearch. Only true and honest research is worth doing and analyzing, therefore Wikipedia should not be a source through which all research is found. Granted, most of the information is true, but not entirely. That's like a teacher saying "It's okay to plagiarize some of your paper, but not all of it." It just doesn't cut it in the research field. If people are solely reliant on Wikipedia for information, they are definitely misinformed and will ultimately be doomed to falsehood. Although Wikipedia is a fascinating tool, it should not be used to build the entire house.

Wikipedia - Part One

Wikipedia is currently our generation's main reference for information on anything and everything. It has become the new form of the Encyclopedia and the use of actual encyclopedia books is almost non-existent. The need for knowledge and information has always been around. Books and manuscripts have told us so many interesting facts and have provided us with so much information about so many different things. As we look as history, we see that even the earliest forms of organized and logical information were made available to anyone who could read. Andrew Dalby's book,"The World and Wikipedia," discusses that the first person to establish a "full circle of knowledge" (20) was Pliny the Elder, who scribbled notes and took in information from books that he read throughout most of his lifetime. He was essentially the first one to create an encyclopaedia, which generated a wealth of information to readers everywhere. He used this term, encyclopaedia, as a way "to explain his purpose, which was to offer a full circle of learning, a complete system of knowledge laid out in a logical pattern," (21). His successors were also significant because they added great amounts of information and logistics to the wealth of knowledge that was being formed, including facts about law, science, archeology, art and so forth. The three main books that were used to eventually establish Wikipedia were the encyclopdeia, the dictionary and the sourcebook. This eventually led to the Britannica Encyclopedia, first as a collection of books, then to CD-ROM, which could be used on computers.
The problem lies in the updates of information. Everyday, events occurs marking a moment in time where something should be recorded. History happens everyday, so how is a CD or a book able to keep up-to-date information readily available? They're not. Then came the introduction to The Wikipedia, the world's first online encyclopedia databse, where thousands of articles could be submitted and revised for everyone's viewing. This website was also open to the public for anyone's input, editing and information. The website grew so quickly that between its launch in January 2001 and March 2009, Wikipedia reached over 2,800,000 articles (39). Wikipedia also developed millions of articles in over 250 different languages (42). "An encyclopedia that is actively growing in nearly all these languages ia an unprecedented and matchless resource for the multilingual world in which we live, a resoucre that no one in the world would have dreamed of until, about ten years ago, Jimmy Wales dreamed of it," (49).
The question is then about quality, not quantity. One of the best and worst features of Wikipedia is that anyone is able to go on and add, edit or delete information, which raises the question: How accurate is the information on Wikipedia? "It differed from conventional encyclopedias, however, in that each page was a work in progress," (52), which proves that the never-ending information will constantly be edited and revised and updated again and again.  For example, the Seigenthaler case described in Dalby's book is a classic example of how Wikipedia can be toyed with and false information can easily be added and posted for readers to believe. Uncredited information and vandalism are significant ways that Wikipedia is arguably unreliable. There is also the argument on the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as discussed by Dalby, and how exactly a "point of view" is neutral when it is obvisouly someone's view. "Individually, however, it's hard for an editor (or anyone else) to distinguish correctly between 'my viewpoint' and 'a neutral viewpoint'," (79). Wikipedia tried to maintain having a NPOV within their articles, yet it seems merely impossible to do so because everyone has their own opinions. If Wikipedia allows anyone and everyone to input information, there is always going to be people who are left-winged, right-winged and everywhere in between putting their two sense into an article, which ultimately makes an article bias.
Although Wikipedia's sources and credits may not be 100% reliable, it still encountered the "Google effct," which helped Google and Wikipedia's popularity. Wikipedia is usually the first website that Google suggests as a reliant source for anything you search. It's always at the top of the list of webpages. According to Dalby, "Favouring Wikipedia was the simplest way to ensure that the average Google results page would looks useful," (86). Since this is the case, we as web surfers are almost always going to click on the first website that Google reccomends because that website will have the most abundant and accurate information...or so we think. But why wouldn't we use Wikipedia? It is free after all. There is no annoying advertising. There are no "free trials" or subscriptions. It is just there, full of (unreliable, opinionated) information and ready for our access. So although we tend to use Wikipedia more than we should, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the information can be legitimately used for academic research and whether or not we should go back to using a more reliable source of information, like, hmmm....encyclopedia books? This generation? Yea right.

The Social Network and the Revolution of Communication

So the other night I went and saw the movie "The Social Network," the film about the creation of the worldwide social-networking phenomenon, Facebook. The movie started off with a late night conversation between Mark Zuckerberg and his girlfriend at the time, Erica Albright. After the fact that she broke up with him, he goes into his dorm room and starts establishing Facemash on his computer. This is a program where people can log on and rate girls and their hotness. He also manages to bash his now ex-girlfriend publicly on his blog, which ultimately keeps her out of the picture. Nevertheless, he eventually meets up with a few guys who have an idea to create a social networking site where people can communicate through one website. Mark (the genius computer programmer he is) takes this idea into his own hands and after some odd days sitting behind his computer, he eventually creates what we know now as Facebook. Within hours, he has thousands of people logging on and connecting to the site and becoming "friends." After a couple legal battles and business hook-ups with people like Sean Parker (inventor of the free music downloading website Napster), Mark becomes the youngest billion in history. So much for going to school and getting a degree to make money.
So after watching this film, it is interesting to realize how Facebook was created and how far it has come since it was first made public to the world. After 6 or 7 years, I have come to realize that Facebook is an important part of our lives and our generation, just like the invention of the TV and microwave were so many many generations ago. For most of us, it is a daily routine to log on to our computers and check our Facebook page for updates, tags in photos and just to see what people are doing. Since when did it become so interesting to know what people are doing? That's my question. Yet, it is still necessary for me to scroll down the entire page to look at what Joe Schmoe from Idaho did exactly 23 minutes ago, or what he will be doing with his day. After I log off, I realize I have no idea what I am doing because I just wasted 2 hours on Facebook. It really is eerily addicting, like a drug. People do it everyday (3-5 times a day on average according to the Blogger poll) and when we do not have access to it for some time, or just can't get to a computer for while, most people will check their Facebook before anything else as soon as they can to fulfill their addiction and need to log onto it.
Mark Zuckerberg is a genius. His computer programming skills and his intuition combined have created the most popular webpage in the world and that is something crazy! He has literally changed our generation and the way we live our lives. How can one person be solely responsible for this type of radical change in communication? He has revolutionized the way people connect to one another. He has made it possible for one person to know basically everything about another person without ever talking to them. The idea that you actually have to talk to someone to find out who they are and what they like is becoming obsolete. Although I'm not so sure this is the best thing to happen to a worldwide population, I can say that Facebook sure is the most popular way to communicate nowadays. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to check my Facebook. Thank you Mark Zuckerberg.

"Back to the Basics" (Technopoly pgs. 91-199)

Neil Postman's theories about the way technology and culture collide and coexist together seem to put into perspective the significance of how technology really does affect our culture (in a good way, but also in a bad way). Medical technology, for example, has come such a long way since the invention of the stethoscope. Medicine relies on technology because machines are inevitably more reliable in diagnosing a problem with a human condition than a human is. "Machines eliminate complexity, doubt, and ambiguity," (93). The human mind is constantly at war with these emotions, which ultimately limit our power of knowing the true medical facts and outcomes about a patient. "What the patient knows is untrustworthy; what the machine knows is reliable," (100). Therefore, according to Postman, medicine has always relied on technology, and it seems that it always will.
Postman also brings up the point of how technology affects the human experience. "The computer claims sovereignty over the whole range of human experience, and supports its claim by showing that it 'thinks' better than we can," (111). Is this true? Can computers really "think" better than we can. Some may say so, but without the intellect of the human mind, computers would have never existed inthe first place. Postman uses the metaphor of human as machines and machines as humans (117) to signify the fact we use the same terminology for the human sickness as we do for the computer "sickness." When we say our computer has a "virus," we are ultimately using a human medical term to describe a malfunction of a computer. This, according to Postman, has serious limitations.
The hidden technologies of our world, such as language, also effects us culturally. Language is essentially who we are. It gives us an indentity as individuals and defines where we are located and how we exist with other people in a socially and culturually changing world. Postman says it is an important factor when considering the effects of technology. "Because it comes from inside us, we believe it to be a direct, unedited, unbiased, apolitical expression of how the world really is," (125). He relates to actual machines, which are outside of us, tangeable and modifiable. He is saying that language is a hidden technology that cannot be screwed with, while computers and machines can constantly be modified to fit the needs of the human race.
From medical machines, to the importance of language; from how a question is answered, to the facts about scientism and the world of Technopoly, Postman brings his argument to a close by stating that we need to go 'back to the basics' in order to achieve a future of success and development within the world. The importance of artistic expression and the significance of history all play a role in how we develop and think about the world. We as humans must dust off our books, step away from the computer screen and really consider what is going on in the world without being attached to a machine that is (according to myself) not really more intelligent than the human mind. I agree with Postman's theories and ideas because he is calculating (no pun intended) the methods of how technology is a positive and negative factor within our world. It has done so much good for us, yet has taken away the essence of the natural world and put all of us into cyberspace and virtual realities. We are so dependent upon the technologies that have been generated over the years. Every profession, except for perhaps teachers, are now 100% relying on computers and machines to get the job done. I exclude teachers because they are the educators of the world, and without education, the other careers don't have a chance. It is amazing to realize the scope of how technology has affected us and where it will possibly go in the next 100 years.

Technopoly (xi-91)

Neil Postman is trying to explain the good and the bad associations with technology in general. From the beginning of time until now, we as humans are constantly battling over the positive and negative impacts of technology. Postman goes on to say that technology has benefits and deficits, while there are also winners and losers of technology's impact. He questions the impact of technology on schools and teachers, for example, how computers (which inevitably were created thanks to the invention of the printing press) are taking over teacher's jobs. The whole idea of reading, writing and arithmetics is being transformed and weened out of school systems due to the use of computers. New technologies are re-structuring the way we think about things, our interests, our character, the nature of community and the arena in which thoughts develop (20). From tool-using cultures (the times of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler) to technocracies, to the still-developing technopolies, we have as humans, ultimately relied on technology for the development and progress of the human condition. Postman states that technology has essentially helped humans invent inventions. "We had learned how to invent things and the question of why we invent things receded in importance," (42). Technopoly, "the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology," (52) happened for four different reasons according to Postman. First, the American character was altered due to the "limitless possibilities" within our society. Second, American capitalists sought after economic possibilities. Third, there was no other reason to look for fullfillment, creativity and purpose because technology gives all of that to us. Lastly, old sources of beliefs were failing and swindling, while technology never fails. Furthermore, Postman talks about the idea of information control. Schools, courts of law, family and political systems are all sources of information control. We are at a point in our time where information is "garbage" (69) because there is just so much of it and we are running out of ways to control the way information is processed throughout our society. "It is what happens when a culture, overcome by information generated by technology, tries to employ technology itself as a means of providing clear direction  and human purpose," (72). We are essentially at an information overload, and there is no stopping or controlling it.
My thoughts on his ideas and discussions are essentially in line with Postman. Technology, in my opinion, is a good thing and a bad thing. We have so much information at our fingertips and we are so easily able to access any type of information within seconds. The development of technology has come such a long way, yet it is interesting to discuss the workings of Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus and how their inventions, thoughts and theories still affect our information and technology-driven society today. Postman talks about the idea of religion and technology, which I find interesting. He goes on to say that "religious tradition serves as a mechanism for the regulation and valuation of information," (80). There has always been a debate over religion and its effects on government, cultural opinion and so forth. Now there is a never-ending conflict with religion and technology. We resort back in time to scientific sources to try to understand the "truth" and why we are here, but this has always been debated in religious views because science and God (The Bible) cannot be combined to deliver truth. I think it is amazing that the findings of these "Sleepwalkers" as they call them, advanced the progress of technology and ultimately gave reason and purpose to life. There is in some way a connection of science to the progress of human life, and this stems from the development of technology. Yet there is also an underlying factor of disconnectivity within technology that affects our society culturally and socially. With our predispositioned bias of technology, we are ultimately changing and growing as humans in our cultural world due to technology. Like Postman says, "It changes everything," (18).

Computers Analysis (pgs 85-149)

The oh-so-elegant Altair 8800, seemingly the first "desktop" microcomputer, which could be purchased (as an unassembled kit) for as little as $397 in the 1970's, was just the beginning of the in-home computer revolution. As Bill Gates was getting shoved in lockers with his underwear pulled over his head in junior high school, the now Microsoft Corporation was being established by his (and Paul Allen's) computer programming creativity based on this computer. Therefore, Microsoft was essentially formed because of the invention of the Altair 8800, which says a lot (seeing as how Microsoft runs the computer world nowadays). While the Altair eventually failed as a company, "Some fifty different companies developed and marketed their own home microcomputers," (90). This was just the start of the of the in-home computer revolution.
Meanwhile, Steve Wozniak, founder, creator and designer of the Apple I and II, launched a huge succes with his invention. Most of his computers were put into schools and these were the first computers students ever got to interact with. So not only were computers being introduced into the home, but they were being put into school systems. Although this was a phenomenon during the 1970's, it ultimately became a necessity to have computers in the classroom since then. Then came IBM's invention of the PC (personal computer). In conjunction with Gates and Microsoft, IBM chose them to be their operating system, and business boomed from there. "Despite the other efforts, the successful combination of IBM and Microsoft killed most of the rest of the personal computer market," (96). With marketing and retail success, IBM established a computer that could easily be used in businesses, schools and homes throughout the world. It is no wonder that companies like Microsoft and IBM are still around today. It seems as though the technological world would not be the same without the success of these companies. Microsoft is one of the world's largest and everyone now knows the name Bill Gates. With his genius ideas, creative mind and billions of dollars in his bank account, he's no longer getting shoved into lockers or being called a nerd. Windows and Microsoft Office also helped establish a world where people from all ages could play games, write papers, create professional spreadsheets and document pretty much anything they wanted to in a professional format. Schools, businesses and personal-usage were all reaping the benefits of these programs and are doing so currently as well.
During the Cold War, J.C.R. Licklider, a psychologist, was "driven by his beliefs that computers could significantly enhance the ability of humans to think and solve problems," (112). His beliefs during the time of the Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union were the foundation for computer networking. Seeing as his ideas were formed during the 1950's, it is quite impressive to realize and experience how far they have come since then. With the invention of the telephone and communicating through a series of wires and cables, it is no wonder computers would eventually connect us to the other side of the world. The Internet was the direct source for transmitting data through wires from computer to computer. Finding marketing success with the internet, it is no wonder how big of an impact (economically and socially) it has on the world today. This fascinating invention allows us (now) to connect with anyone we want with a touch of a button. With the development and fast-forward use of domain names such as .com, .net, .org and .gov, we are now forced to come up with unique and original names to proceed these extensions just to establish a website on the internet. We are forced to buy the most up-to-date computers to staisfy our need for speed and connectivity. We are are forced to connect to everyone through sites such as facebook and Myspace just to feel socially acceptable. The invention of computers has led our society into a technology-crazed freinzy of social networking, online business meetings, online classes, video-web communication and many other fascinating ways of communication and isolation. So as I sit here (physically alone) in my room, I don't feel alone because I know that just a click away is my best friend in Rome, Italy, waiting for me to "talk to her" on Skype. What a long way we have come from lunar and solar calenders.

"Computers" (pgs. 1-83) Analysis

As far back as we can remember, people have been using different methods of calculating. The earliest devices were used for identifying calculations for lunar, solar and stellar calenders. The Antikythera methods of calculations were important for modeling the history of humans as well. "The Antikythera device, astrolabes, and other measurement devices show the importance of calculation and modeling in human history," (Swedin Ferro 3). With thousands of years of development, the devices created and used throughout history have eventually turned into what our computers are today, which is said in the simplest way.
The earliest forms of caculating mathematics can be seen in the creation of rods, the abacus, the knotting system and Babbage's Difference Engine. Slowly but surely, machines were created to make the process of calculating numbers more efficient and easier. "Until the advent of the digital calculator, these types of machines were the backbone of automated calcualtion on desktops in the Western World," (13). It is interesting to find that such methods of calculation could be done with so little resources available. Throughout history, and as knowledge and information became more readily available, these machines continued to grow and expand in detail and functionality. John Vincent Atanasoff, for example, was responsible for initiating the idea of "memory" into a machine in 1937 when his method of "jogging" (passing electricity through condensers to refresh them) became the essential problem-solving technique for storing information. He also continued his research and inevntions by creating the first electronic digital computer in 1973, known as the ABC computer (30). It is also phenomenal to realize that advancement in computing technology helped the allies win the war against Germany during World War II with the secretive invention of the Colossi, which decrypted messages and was kept secret from enemies during the war. After these computers, came another machine called the UNIVAC, which was eventually used to predcit the winner in Presidential election in 1952. This was a huge technological innovation for the development of computers because its effinciency and wide-spread use was such an important factor. "Mauchly and Eckert did successfully develop the UNIVAC as the first commercial electronic computer in the United States," (45). It is interesting to understand and realize how big this machine was and how much time, effort and work went into maintaining and fixing it. It also put out so much heat, workers needed to dress accordingly in order to work in the same room as the machine. Imagine going to work on a computer nowadays in your shorts and underwear just so you didn't overheat!
The development of computers was also important in the advancement and outcome of the Cold and World Wars. "The greatest war in history, WWII, was fought on battlefields and in the laboratory," (47). This is interesting because it was the first war in which technology and science played an important role and truly made everyone aware of the significance of computing and technology within society. This was a time when computer technology really seemed to move forward quickly and extensive governmental research and money went into technological developments. People were starting to realize how important technology was and they started to rely on it more and more. For example, aircraft simulators and radars were some of the first technological developments that helped Americans become successful in the war. Without these advances, we might not have succeeded in winning the war, which would ultimately change the course of history.
Another advancement during this time (the Second Generation) was the invention of transistors, which replaced the vacuum tubes in computers. They became the major component in computers that helped them become more efficient and more reliable. With this invention, IBM took over the world of computers and became the biggest and widely-known company in the computer industry, (57). IBM's programmers then came out with languages to help establish programs that were later used by the US Government and Space Stations. Even more interesting during this time, was the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which tested a computer's ability to act and think as humans do. Though tested and tried, it seemed impossible, yet the beginnings of computer design and intelligence were clearly advancing. This can be seen in the invention of the monolithic idea, or the intergrated circuit, designed by Jack Kilby in 1958. With all electronic components on one single chip, these microchips became used by NASA, as well as the American defense industry, (67). It is definitely understood that if NASA is relying on this technology to operate their space missions and risk the lives of astronauts, that these are some of the most important inventions ever made.
It is clear that technology was becoming more and more commercial and that with every invention, came another. Essentially, it seems as though computers were being used to make new computers and older technology was being used to create new technology. This phenomena is fascinating when realizing how far we have come in the last 50 years or so. With the success of IBM as a master of computer technology and software program creations, as well the establishment of high-powered communication systems, it is obvious that the interest and the fascination of technology has always been present, even thousands of years ago.

First Post

I have never used a blog before, so this was an interesting event for me. I never realized how easy it is to share and communicate anything you have on your mind with the entire world in such a short amount of time. Technology is amazing, yet very intimidating to me, as I have grown up accustomed to books and record players. This is actually my first laptop I am using as well to post this blog, and I am still not sure how to use it. Although I have to admit that I do spend a lot of time on my laptop. After tracking my time wasted (I mean, used) on this machine, it is very interesting and astonishing to see how much time I devote to the use of a computer. Technology has totally invaded my life and taken over time that I would normally spend doing other things. For example, I remember when I started college back in 2004 at Brookdale and there was maybe one or two classes I had to use a computer for. (Granted, I was an Art major and spent a lot of time in the studio) Now at Rutgers, every class I have is associated with an online site or requires some form of computer accesss. This is understandable though because everything we as humans do requires some sort of technological connection nowadays. I just sent a text before typing this sentence; point proven. After logging my technology-active time, it is clear to me now that I spend more time on my computer and phone than I do actually talking to people or eating food or exercising. That is absurd, yet a fact. It is very interesting to realize how my life has progressed with the ever-changing technological advances.