Final Assignment Post 2

One of things that I concentrated on with my paper is the use of technology in the classroom. In order to talk about technopoly, I would need to talk about how technology is affecting the classroom, and to see how it either contributes or detracts from the overall college and classroom experience. It is in this regard that I base my paper on, in order to see the effect of technology. And from there, I would need to see how much of this effect actually stems from the technology and from human decisions. In order to see technopoly, I would need to see much of the human decisions and human interaction is from technology and technological influence. That would determine the "dominance" of technology in our college cultures. It is in this regards, that my paper would be based upon.

Midterm Follow-up

Yeah, I know this is very late. Anyways, I found the whole critiquing Wiki articles to be very interesting. Wikipedia is something that we take for granted, as it is always there for us, and we use it without second thought. But based on a general group, and possibly class, consensus, Wikipedia is not a very scholarly source overall. Unreliable sources, facts, information, etc. makes wiki not that useful as a source for research papers or any other serious project. However, Wikipedia does seem to be a useful as a quick reference or a quick glance, as it does cover the necessity to learn a subject.

One of the problems that arise out of Wikipedia is that it lacks, at times up to date information, or neglect of certain articles or information. This can be reflected on technology in American culture in that some items are neglected because they are not mainstream. Also in addition, with the open source aspect of Wikipedia, it allows anybody to alter it. This user generated content, though at times seem useful, still contains flaws. There are people, “grief-ers”, whose sole purpose to cause problems. But, then again, there are always people like that, with or without user contribution. Regardless, with any new technology or new idea, there are always strengths, or weaknesses. In Wikipedia’s case, its strength is in the user generated content and easy accessibility, but the weakness include unreliability in sources and possible misinformation.

                This assignment, if anything, has taught me that not everything should be taken at base value, especially those we take for granted. Wikipedia, though as useful and resourceful as it is, lacks the reliability of solid sources.

Final Assignment: First Thoughts

                For the final assignment,  I plan on talking about Postman’s Technopoly book to answer the prompt: “Are modern-day college campuses technopolies?” The basic argument for this paper would be to discuss how technopoly is affecting higher education. For this, I would need to discuss what technopoly is, and also how higher education is regard in this country. The main point is to discuss the effect of technology on higher education and colleges. With that in mind, I would like to explore how technology has impacted college life and higher education, and to see if technology has affected the intent of higher education. Basically, to see how technology has advanced, and how it affected college life and college education. And to see if there is a technopoly that exists.

                For the paper, I would need to define technopoly and higher education culture. From there, I would see how technology is fitting into our college life and education. I would need to see the technology being used in colleges and those that affect students and their learning. From there, to see how much of it is used for education and to see how it is. I would like to speculate how if certain technology was not present, how it would affect our education. I would need to see how much of our education is based on technology.

Current Event: Dreaming Up Uses for a Giant Invisibility Machine

The current event article I looked up was an article from the New York Times website, under technology. It was published November 28, 2010. The premise of the article was that European scientists have found a way to tailor the flow of light around an object. In layman's term, the ability to make something invisible. The European commission is very eager to showcase this because it feels that Europe is behind on technological advances in comparison to the United States. Their inability to produce their own versions of Google, Apple, Facebook, Intel, and Cisco to rival US technological prowess is a concern to them. This new breakthrough is something scientists are excited about.
What the article is getting to is the application of such technology. Besides the invisibility, the research could also provide development of perfect lenses that would provide high-definition images through microscopes, advancement in laser designs, and devices that can "store" light artificially. However, skepticism on military application arose. However, they were supposedly thought on a broader term of application, specifically on the global economy. Here is where the article lost me, because I do not see how making things invisible can help the economy. Taken from the article, it said "That stack of Portuguese bonds? Poof! That bundle of Irish bank loans? Now you see them, now you don’t. Those Greek budget fudges? Gone." I do not see how making those things invisible can help solve the economy crisis, as they are invisible, not non-existent. The article also cites how for city beautification, they can make certain ugly buildings invisible, so that the place of interest looks more beautiful. Again, I see this as masking the problem, not really solving it. But what do I know. But anyways, it will be interesting if this technology was perfected.

Facebook Effect, David Kirkpatrick, Part 3

    Facebook has become a major impact upon  our culture since its introduction. Social networking has become a large part of our society now. Time spent on social networking greatly exceeded time spent by internet users on e-mail, according to the Nielsen Company research firm in March 2009. Time spent on social networks grew 63 percent in 2008 around the world. However, Facebook would greatly exceed this, as time spent on Facebook had grown 566 percent in a year. This just shows the very impact Facebook had upon our society and culture. Nielsen calculated that by the end of 2008, 30 percent of the world’s Internet users were on Facebook. In fact, the only service with more users than Facebook was Google.
    The idea of total domination by Facebook seemed like a joke, but the reality of it seems surprisingly close. Facebook had become globalized, in that Facebook was available to nearly every major nation in the world. In fact, the freedom that comes with Facebook greatly clashes with ideology of people and nations around the world. Kirkpatrick mentions how a father in Saudi Arabia caught his daughter interacting with men on Facebook, and killed her. Certain group arose throughout the world, and governments, in response to some, attempted to ban them. It is here that we see how Facebook has grew to encompass a global position in our culture. Facebook now effects and is effected by the world and the ideology that people have. Cultural differences would affect Facebook as well, as people of many different cultures would come to Facebook and interact with each other. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen had supporters on his Facebook page. He used it as a way to connect with the ordinary voters. Obscure Colombian rock bands like Koyi K Utho found an audience on Facebook to promote concerts and albums. These are just some examples of how Facebook is being utilized in our day and age. President Obama had set up social networking pages during his presidential campaign as well, showing the impact Facebook had upon our society.

The Facebook Effect, David Kirkpatrick, Part 2

 Facebook started as a simple college project, used to connect the college body. It soon exploded outwards, as investors and businesses became interested in the future application of facebook. Many investors flocked towards this new idea, but the one that would take hold would be with Accel. Any aspects of the financing were unusual, and unprecedented. First, the valuation was so large, and it stunned people; the 98 million dollar dwarfs Google’s initial 75 million dollar value estimates. In addition, the bonus payments to the three young men of facebook were kept quit; such a bonus for company founders was rare, very rare. This marks the building up of facebook, as it now had plenty of money. It could now afford a real staff, and use real servers not held together by baling wire.
    Facebook was well on its way to becoming a company. Money was no longer an obstacle, and the service continued to grow rapidly among students. Among its first priority were hiring more people, but as with any new upstart company, people are reluctant to work for. In the minds of many people, social networks like facebook were a fad, and were probably going to lose popularity in the future. Along with this problem, the company had a reputation for rambunctiousness. They had to hire recruiters and other public relations first. Interesting enough, one of the people that was hired who left after a few weeks was Steve Chen. Chen would go on to start youtube, another internet phenomenon that would dominate popular culture.

The Facebook Effect, David Kirkpatrick, Part 1

    The social networking really became a major cultural phenomenon in the later half of the twentieth century. However, it is faceb ook that we think of when the term social networking is used. Facebook was concieved by Mark Zuckerberg back in September 2003. His starting project being Course Match, in which it helps students pick classes based upon who was in the class. It was an instant success. He continued working on web programs, and on Wednesday, February 4, 2004, Thefacbook.com went online. Four days afterwards, more than 650 students registered. at least 900 were registered by the following Monday. By the end of hte first week, about half of all Harvard undergraduates had signed up. It was not only limited to students, but staff and alumni as well. After three weeks, it had more than 6000 users.
    The possibilities of facebook is what appealed to these young people. The ability to set up a profile that would identify you and who you are is one of hte appeals. Many other things, such as relationships, personal photos, and small things, like pokes, furter increased the popularity and made it fun. It was a tool for self-expression, where people were themselves. However, it also added practical nd wholesome uses as well, such as study groups, arranging club meetings, and notices for parties. All this is what made facebook popular.
    This is what makes it popular even today, the ability to customize, the ability to express, the ability to connect to people. It connects people, in what they do, what they plan, and what they want. This one idea, one prokect would change the world, as it connects the world, reducing the distance between people.

Made to Break, Giles Slade, Part 3

    One of the most relevant piece of technology in our lives is the computer. It is one the things that define our digital era and our information era.  What makes this technology possible is the invention of the microprocessor. In 1964, IBM announced its System/360 line of mainframe computers. These machines became very popular and very useful in the next few years, and IBM sales more than doubled. What made it successful was the microprogramming, allowing it run earlier programs without losing processor speed. However, this microprogramming would mark IBM’s last gasp of innovation. As society advanced, the demand for greater and more efficient systems would gradually push the System/360 line out of the way. In this, we see the emergence of obsolescence in technology.
    Throughout history, we see technological obsolescence, as newer technology makes older ones obsolete. Another exampled discussed by Slade is the slide ruler. The slider ruler was a simple ruler with a slide that allowed people to make simple calculations, but it was with limitations. What would replace it would be the calculator. From 1971 onwards, we see the development of increasingly powerful, sophisticated, and cheap pocket calculators. With every new calculator being developed, it puts previous one out of business.
    We’ve experienced this obsolescence in our own time. The computer is the most prominent of technological obsolescence. Computers are developed and sold every year, with each new one being more advance than the last. This is needed to keep up with society’s advancement. My current laptop is at least four years old, and as it were, It cannot run most current programs. Also, the hardware are slowly degrading as well, such as the battery no longer working, so I cannot use it anywhere I want anymore. It is planned obsolescence as laptops are not really made to last for a long time, and as such will eventually break. And in doing so, consumers would be required to buy a new one in the future. Also, they would require to buy a new one just because it would be outdated if they didn’t. As it were, I am overdue for getting a new laptop as it were, but chances are I will continue to use my current one for at most another year. 

Made to Break, Giles Slade, Part 2

One of the revolutionary technology developed during the Twentieth century was the radio. It would affect all aspects of life, from commercial, industrial, personal, and military. One of the many problems that plagued it was the signal and static over the radio. However, even this was not unaffected by obsolesce, as certain radio technologies are made to function as long as its original durability. According to Slade, by the 1950s, the product life spans were no longer left to chance, but rather created by plan. The miniaturization of the radio as well as the elimination of static supposedly brought all this to plan. The consumers that purchase these new radios would see that s disposable, thus adding to the obsolescence. Personally, I don’t see the obsolescence of the portable radio, probably because I have never owned one. However, chances are that it would break under my care anyways, regardless whether they were designed for obsolescence or not. Regardless, I would try to make it work quite possibly beyond the planned life span it had. But as I said, I have never used or experienced the radio in great effect.
    As the century progressed, many new products came into existence, and with them, their own death dates as well. After World War 2, the Atomic Age was upon us, and with it, the ideas of obliteration from nuclear annihilation, and new effects that can and will create a “’blanket of obsolescence not only over the methods and the products of man but over man himself.’” One of the things that ran contrary to planned obsolescence was the Volkswagen automobiles, specifically the VW Beetle. The Beetles throughout the year did not make superficial model changes, with each yearly Beetle the same as the previous to it. This was something that the Volkswagen advertised, the anti-obsolescence stance of the automobile. It is something I agree with, as the car has not really changed through the years and plenty of them are seen on the road.

Made to Break, Giles Slade, Part 1

The book Made to Break by Giles Slade brings up the idea of planned obsolescence. It is a business model, a way of life, and a uniquely American invention. The idea behind planned obsolescence is that products in the United States are made to break, made to be broken after a certain time. What that means is that objects are made so they break and consumers will need to buy new products. This is born from our Capitalist economy. The manufactured goods are limited in durability and are used to stimulate repetitive consumption. This can be seen in the clichéd look on how goods, such as televisions and toasters, always break down after the warranty expires. In this case, the planned obsolescence is that the durability of the good expires after the warranty ends, and as such, the consumer would need to buy a new television or refrigerator.
Another look at planned obsolescence  is in the idea of annual model change. This idea first introduced in 1927 by General Motors. Under the guidance of Alfred P. Sloan, GM made important innovations in marketing, specifically a hierarchy of brands and continual change in the form of the annul model. I doing so, spurred competition with competing car manufacturers, such as Cadillac. By releasing annual models with additions, manufacturers hope to gain a competitive edge over competitors. This planned obsolescence is an American idea, and the car production was America’s flagship industry. The lessons of obsolescence will soon be quickly copied in all other areas of manufacturing. This is seen throughout history, and extends into the present and even into the future. In today’s economy, cars are continually being produced with annual models, with little difference between years.  Usually with some small added features that are new as technology advances, such as blue-tooth or mp3/i-pod jacks.
Personally, I don’t need any added feature or such, just a vehicle that works. My 1993 Toyota Corolla is old and out-of-date, but it has served me for the past 5 years fine and possibly for another few years. However, the car is breaking down, and now has trouble starting in cold weather.  Here, I can see obsolescence as I will need to buy a new car once the car completely breaks down. As implied in the title of the book, goods are made to break after a while and not to last the tests of time.

The World and Wikipedia Part 2

Wikipedia was something that was a revolution of its time. The open encyclopedia was something that almost everyone liked. Why we love it comes in many different reasons, but one of the main component is that it’s a virtual world. We the community work to make this virtual world work, and let our work be explored by others. In this sense, the community, the people, make Wikipedia work, because without people, there would be no articles, no contributions, no nothing of the sort. This sense of building something that the entire world will read and see is a feeling that many love. It somewhat empowers us, and that is one of the reason, I believe, that we love Wikipedia.
Another thing we love Wikipedia is that it lets us write anything about whatever we want.  It lets us write about topics on things normally not found in encyclopedia or other sources. Things of the Star Wars universe, Lord of the Rings setting, online games, and other stuff are usually not explored in regular encyclopedias or reputable sources, but they are widely explored with in Wikipedia. There are lengthy articles on the setting of the Star War universe, including story, lore, history, religion, and other aspects. The fiction world of Star Wars come alive through Wikipedia and widely explored with in Wikipedia, something that does not happen in other media or reference sources. I think it’s this that people really love about Wikipedia, and something that makes us come back to it everytime.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality

    The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality is a book that engages us into the reference source that has changed our lives. The book shows us the inner workings of Wikipedia and why we hate it or love it, and why we always use it. The book starts off with examples of the involvement of users and their ability to change Wikipedia. It starts with the earthquake that struck central Italy on April 6, 2009. Within the hour, there was a Wikipedia article about it. By the end of the day, there was two different articles in two different languages: English and Spanish, both exceeded 1000 words in length and contained maps and tables. There were a total of 20 different language articles were created on the subject by day’s end. This shows the positive side of Wikipedia, as people rallied together to bring news and information of a tragic event together to be shared to the world.
    However, as with anything, it is not immune to vandalism and  defacement. The books cites an incident that happened on March 25, 2009, in which a person set up an account under the username Keykingz13. 6 minutes after setting up this account, began to change information on the Wikipedia to various articles. His further editing betrayed the fact that he did not speak English naturally through his grammatically incorrect English. It was not till five days later that all the damage that he made was reversed and corrected. This course of action reveals the relation between man and technology.
    I believe that the author brings up a valid point in the talking about the relationship between man and technology. My belief here is that technology is not naturally good nor evil, but rather it is up to the people that use it and perpetrate it.  In both cases presented, it was the user who decided on how they were going to utilize Wikipedia. In the first case, the technology is used for good, in that people gathered information on the earthquake and its effect and share it with others who want to know about it. It proves useful to connect people from around the world. Wikipedia allowed people to connect and share. However, there are people that would purposefully deface it and share false facts and lies, as seen in the second instance. It is up to the person to decide what to make of the technology.
    As for a reason why people hate Wikipedia, it is mentioned in the book is that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit it. It is one of the first thing that was criticized, and how it was vulnerable to vandalism. However, Wikipedia has generated some surprisingly accurate articles. An example of the vulnerability of being able to change the articles is an example I witnessed while watching the Colbert Report. Colbert urged his viewers to change the article on reality to display “Reality is a commodity.” Within 10 seconds of this statement, the article was changed at least half a dozen time. We see through this how people can easily change articles on Wikipedia. However, luckily, the article was locked down within the minute so that it could not be changed. One of the things many people seem to underestimate is the number of people working to keep Wikipedia free from vandalism and accurate. Overall the book brings forth many different points arguing for and against Wikipedia.

First Blog Post

Hi, my name is Peter Chen. I'm a student of SAS, though technically I came in as Rutgers College, which unfortunately does not exist anymore. This will be my 5th year at Rutgers. I am a History Major, and am taking this course to fulfill a requirement for the Science, Technology, and Society minor.
Anyways, moving on to the assignment: my network usage for the past 3 days. Unlike the rest of society, I actually don't care for any of the social networking stuff. I don't have a myspace or a twitter. I do have a facebook, but i get on it about once a week for like 10 minutes at most. So my network usage is very limited without this major waste of time. I'm a commuter and because of my class scheduling, I'm on campus for like 12 hours a day, so my access to the internet is limited. I don't have one of those new phones, so no internet access through that either. When I do get home, my network access is mostly limited to getting on AIM, and accessing my e-mail, and sakai site to see what homework i need to do for the next day. Accessing my e-mail and sakai takes about an hour or so. And I don't really talk to anyone on AIM and no one usually bothers me either, so not much internet usage there either. My internet usage is actually pretty much very limited, probably much, much less compared to the average of society.Actually, with the most of my free time, I do play games online, specifically games on my Playstation 3. If anything, that would constitute the majority of my internet usage. The breakdown of my average net usage is like 10% AIM conversation, 30% checking email and Sakai, and 60% gaming.
Anyways, my thoughts on blogging is, well, i personally I don't really like it. I did use a xanga back in High School, but I really found no point to it. I really don't care about blogging or blogs or any of the sort. I really don't care what other people think, or what people think about me, or even what I care to share with others. This probably stemming from my anti-social and introvert personality, but whatever. Anyways, that's all there is to it.