Technological Advances: Logical Indeed?

On the subject of advancing technology, my views run far more parallel to Joy than Kurzweil. Although Joy's specific fears and mine are not the same, I am fairly pessimistic in in my opinions on this subject. I am less concerned, however, with the impeding takeover of computers, and more with how integrated computers will warp our perceptions of the surrounding world. People are already terrifyingly unmoved by the beauty and power of nature compared to how we generally feel about the world within the computer. I wouldn't exactly call myself a hippie, but I definitely do not think I could deal with a world in which, as Martin Heidegger feared, we see nature as only a means to an end, see everything according to what we can do with it or make out of it.

Besides that, I think that there are places where technological advances are entirely beneficial. Medicinally, newer ideas such as nanotechnology bring some amazing possibilities into light, such as the idea that we can program a computer so small that it is able to be injected into a person's bloodstream and act in accordance to whichever disease it faces. This, also, brings an entire series of philosophical questions with it. What will happen if such technology is so effective that disease -- and subsequently, death -- are considered obsolete and no longer inevitable? I have to admit, upon imagining a world in which children grow up personally knowing the 16 generations that preceded them, in which people live to ages currently believed unimaginable, dying seems like a very appealing end to life.

Ultimately, I believe, my technological cynicism stems from the fact that upon the invention of technologies from the past (the telephone, etc.), the motivation came from a person having a great idea. Now, it seems that motivation has shifted to large companies competing for more money. And now, the inventions are not necessarily connecting people to each other and societies to each other. Rather, we are becoming more isolated creatures, satisfied without human interaction. There is a saying which states that your experience, no force can take from you. So I must ask: are the things you do in virtual reality going to take the place of real-life experiences?

Robot... or Human?

For a machine to pass the Turing Test -- that is, for a robot to act indistinguishably from a human -- we would need to program it to behave with some of the more complex aspects of human personality. I think that in order to accomplish such a task, the computer would need to "study" hours upon hours of humans chatting with actual humans. This way, it would learn some common vernacular, possibly learn meanings of word-sets beyond the literal, and be able to memorize some standard responses to certain questions. Also, it would need to problem solve; in case the person on the other end of the chat made a typographical error, the robot would definitely need to be able to figure out what the word was supposed to be, dependent on context. It would need to have some knowledge of emotional expressions, an encyclopedia of references, and basically either be able to discuss anything a human wanted to discuss, or express in a human-like way that it knows little of the topic. The computer would also need to be able to learn from its own mistakes, and in case of a mistake, understand the correct protocol for recovery. Basically, the Turing Test doesn't test for real intelligence, the way most people think of it. It could be passed by a computer with a large memory capacity and extraordinary ability for brute memorization.

Electronic voting!

In general, the problems with the Diebold voting machines have to do with poor design and poor security. All of the machines use a central program to tabulate the results (Gems) which, as we saw in the film, can be easily tampered with by someone who knows what they are doing, bypassing even the need for an administrative password. Besides hacking Gems, a person can write an encrypted program on the memory card which hold all of the votes within the Diebold machine. The outcome of the votes can be changed without the number of voters drastically altered, so if there is no alternate reason to hand count the ballots, the adjustment will likely go completely undetected. The documentary also showed that the receipts from the machines, which the officials sign off on are not properly kept track of, nor are they consistent. It seems that the people in charge of the polls do not do all that they can to ensure proper tabulations.
I am a strong believer that this system is in great need of change. First of all, the people in charge of vote tabulation need to put speed on the back burner for a while and concentrate on accuracy as the main concern. The votes need to be tabulated by the machines as well as counted by hand. Unless all of the numbers match (or are within an EXTREMELY small percentage, to allow for human error), the votes must continue to be re-counted. I think that every voting machine should leave a paper trail. Also, I think the fact that the machines are made by a company whose CEO is quoted as saying they are committed to delivering the election to a particular candidate is utterly disturbing. I actually think this quote is a justified reason to separate the voting machines from the Diebold company completely.
If a company can make an Automatic Teller Machine that is basically un-hack-able, there is no reason why something as important as a nation's votes can not be accurately tabulated. This system needs to be re-designed, and this must happen as soon as possible.

Digital Divide bloggity blog blog

The term "digital divide" is used to describe the relation between those people who have easy access to all sorts of new technology and those who do not. Generally, people of wealthier socio-economic status/people in more "developed" countries have a much higher chance of internet/technology use. There are many different situations where the digital divide comes into play, and problems with each. For examples:
1) Education - many people think that incorporating more computers and technology into schools will greatly benefit students who, in the future, will find these computer skills necessary for securing jobs. However, introducing such technology will require new training for teachers who have long survived without the intrusion. I find this very unnecessary. When computers are in a classroom, they often take over students' attention, and the teacher becomes more of a burden than a help. Why listen to the person lecturing to you when you can learn the same information online, whilst messaging to your friends, and simultaneously watching YouTube clips?
2) Government - government can often just fall back on technology to solve problems or make solutions easier. Take, for example, what we talked about in class, how after hurricane Katrina, FEMA told victims to claim benefits via their website, as if those people had internet access. Internet technology can create dependent governments, who find it such an easy solution that authorities don't fully think their actions through (as illustrated above).
3) Health - People who do not have access to the internet may have a harder time booking doctor's appointments or making sense of symptoms. It sounds far fetched, but there are some really reliable sites on which one can identify symptoms of illness and gauge their importance. Also, hospitals with less money for newer computer systems may have problems with computers mixing up patients, resulting in severe medical trauma.
4) Entertainment - Although this prejudice is not present among the people with whom I associate, as I understand it, people actually judge others by awareness of the media. With more and more media appearing on the internet, people who do not have that access are severely missing out. Actually, strike and reverse my first sentence. I have been berated many times over with the line, "You haven't seen [insert trendy YouTube clip] yet!?" Also, this is somewhere between entertainment and government, but some campaigns for presidential candidates took place exclusively online (such as that for democratic candidate Mike Gravel).
5)Work - To put it simply, higher paying jobs often cater to people who have more experience with computers, only worsening the cyclic digital divide.

Web 2.0 Lab

1) http://people.emich.edu/mchiang4/MapYourBuddies/
2) http://www.programmableweb.com/mashup/sacramento-crime-tracker
3) http://new-york-ny.hotelreservations.cc/

I think that MapYourBuddies is actually pretty creepy. Mashing up Facebook, Amazon, eCommerce, and Google Maps, MapYourBuddies locates Facebook friends on Google Maps and recommends gifts for them, presumably based on the interest sections from Facebook profiles. Amazon donating gift ideas is pretty cool, even though they're probably not that creative, but why exactly is Google Maps necessary?

Sacramento crime tracker uses Google Maps to record all of the crime in different neighborhoods over the past few years. This is a cool idea, and I chose Sacramento in particular because that's where my parents live. This is a useful application of Google Maps (unlike the records of all Berlin's public ping pong tables that I found).

The third cool Mashup I found was a site with travel guides including YouTube video guides for the top ten United States cities. I think this is a cool idea, but it would be better if there were more cities represented.

File Sharing: A Heinous Crime?

(Just to break a vicious cycle, although I vote "PRO" on this one, I will refer to the action as "File Stealing")

I am not exactly sure the reasons behind my pro stance on the issue of file stealing. I suspect that the reasons behind my opinions are based almost entirely in the fact that this whole phenomenon occurred in my lifetime, when I was at a very impressionable age. I remember the very day that Napster was shut down (I was crushed, as most were), and blame that very day for my current viewpoint. Whatever the reasons may be, the connection between downloading and stealing is one that is, while not completely over my head, not something I can entirely see clearly. As for the specific situations... here goes:
- Downloading songs that I don't own from major recording labels is something I possibly do with great frequency (I don't generally know what labels the artists I enjoy are signed to). I have no problem with it. There are several reasons for this, one of them being that I think instead of labels complaining about mp3 stealing (which obviously is not going anywhere anytime soon), they should find a way to work around it. It seems like the perfect time for some innovation, but instead of taking advantage of the increased publicity, labels are fighting it. This, to me, seems counterintuitive and something the labels should be encouraged to do. Thus, I download.
- As for downloading from independent artists, it seems like the opposite should be the case, but it is my observation that most of the time it is the label that oppose file stealing instead of the artists. That being the case, most indie artists don't mind people downloading their music as they value the publicity over the money. Since labels gather revenue from the artists selling product, they care more about getting tangible objects into the hands of consumers than people enjoying the music. Thus, I download.
- Downloading a copy of a song that you already own seems unnecessary, but still fine. Not because you already paid up, but for the reasons I listed in the first two scenarios.
- Predictably, I don't think that stealing a CD from a store is okay. This may be because of my aforementioned prejudice. It seems mostly like because file stealing is such a new phenomenon, the public finds it harder to recognize as an actual crime. It seems a bit odd to think of yourself as stealing something when there is no tangible object that you have acquired. Also, the store owner or company has paid for the CDs that you are stealing, and so many people disconnected from the music industry have the potential to suffer from physically taking a CD from a store.
- As mentioned above, I think file stealing is acceptable in its own right, so yes, downloading a song to try it out is also fine by me. And yes, I have actually downloaded a couple of songs off an album to see if I liked it and then actually gone out and bought it. Stealing mp3s does seem nicer this way, but most people don't actually go out and spend money when they don't have to.
- I have the same opinion for the last two scenarios. In sync with United States law, doing what you please with music of your own creation is cool, and the possibility of sharing it online just makes the whole process easier and faster. You can be a lazy bum on the couch and still get famous.

Mathy Stuff

Converting numbers from base 2 to base 10:
1. 1011 = 11
2. 101010 = 42
3. 11111 = 31
4. 10010 = 18

Converting numbers from base 10 to base 2:
1. 31 = 11111
2. 51 = 110011
3. 7 = 111
4. 103 = 1100111

How long will it take to download a 100MB file on each of the following connections:
1. a modem at 56KB/second
1KB/s = .125 KB/s = 56 KB/s = 7 KB/s = 100,000 KB/7KB/s = 3.97 H
2. DSL at 5 megabits/second
1MB/s = .125 MB/s = 5 MB/s = .625 MB/s = 100 MB/.625MB/s = 2.66 Min
3. high-speed connection at 10 Megabits/second
1MB/s = .125 MB/s = 10 MB/s = 1.25 MB/s = 100 MB/1.25MB/s = 80 Sec

If an internet connection an upload 3 megabits/second, and an MP3 is 60 Megabytes, how many MP3s can you upload in an hour?
3 MB/s = .325 MB/s = x/.375 MB/s * 3600 Seconds = 1350 MB / 60 MB = 22.5 Mp3s

Net Neutrality

One point lurking conspicuously under debates on net neutrality is whether or not the current system of the internet should be changed. Currently, all information on the internet is passed between computers with the same priority level, whether the information is a silly e-mail, or a scanned college diploma. Because of this, new sites just beginning potentially could turn into something largely known and popular in a very short time period, like YouTube. People who oppose net neutrality wish to assess priority levels of various transfers and give speed advantage to some.
Pro net-neutrality sites (ie. savetheinternet.com, Google, etc.) are in favor of keeping the system as it currently is. They feel that market power should play no part in how quickly information is transferred, because it would inhibit smaller companies from growing to their full potential.
Anti-net neutrality companies (ie. AT&T, Verizon, etc.) feel that certain programs and information should be given higher priority over others. They do not agree that the government should play such a large part in internet law, and think that giving special treatment to new technologies (such as online gaming) gives way to new innovation.
I personally think that the internet needs to remain the way it is, behaving neutrally towards all data. Corporations and large companies are taking over the rest of the world as it is; the way the internet currently works is so fair, and continues to be one of the few technological "places" one can be without supporting huge companies. The idea of large company having a monopoly over how quickly I, a non-gamer, receive the information I choose, really bothers me. I believe that to remain fair, net neutrality needs to remain in the system of the internet.

Cybersituations.

Before the class in which we learned about Cybersquatting, it had honestly never occurred to me as a serious problem that businesses and companies would have with the internet. I always assumed that, since the internet is an open network for people to add to, it operated on a first-come, first-serve system. In fact, I think this is the way it should operate. Despite whether it is on accident or deliberate, it seems to me that there should not be laws that prevent available hostnames from being used. In fact, it seems almost elitist, seeing that the people who would probably win the coveted hostnames are large, rich companies and large, rich people who have the money and ability to file lawsuit.

Discussion of Cybersquatting also brings up the issue of whether or not one has a "right" to their identity online. How can we argue in favor of this when there are "common" and "uncommon" names, implying that people barely have a right to their own identity in real life?

As far as buying a certain domain with intent to sell, I can equate this to a real estate purchase made while considering that the cost of the property might rise. Although this could be considered "cheap", it is just like any other sales strategy. If the company has a huge problem with thinking of a hostname that is not already available, they should just be able to deal with buying it. Especially the case of Mr. Nissan not wanting to give up his own website just because some auto company makes more money than he does. He scored nissan.com before the other company did, and I say more power to him.

Advance of Technology

I know this entry is coming in really late, but I thought I'd write it anyway.

In just ten years, my usage of technology has increased significantly. Obviously, technology has advanced in that time, but even the uses of the technology that was available did not compare to what is so commonplace today. Now, it seems very natural that one should be able to walk around with thousands of songs at their disposal, to turn on, off, or up -- even to the point where it is considered an inconvenience if such a service is not available! I do, however, remember a time where it was a luxury to carry around more than one CD to play in my discman.

Of all the things that have progressed, internet technology has become possibly the most commonly used. Until I got to high school, websites were not accepted parts of any bibliography. Now, although teachers often request that student include research completed from magazines, books, interviews, etc., I think they are losing the expectation that the students actually will branch out from the web.

The negative influence that I've observed in the internet is that it seems to create an impulsiveness in people that was not previously there. Before there was so much information available, any kind of research had to be premeditated for hours or days. Even finding the right book in the library was work enough to make today's college students wince. Without so many people linked onto social networking sights (Myspace, Facebook, etc.), contact with people not in one's immediate group of close friends was less likely to happen, because with daily updates on Myspace, people do not seem so separated. Although this is not in itself a bad thing, the impulsiveness that is developing in this generation is potentially destructive.

I, however, do realize the positive influence that is so obvious. The internet has changed my habits in a way that I currently recognize as for the better (even though who knows how I will feel in the future). Information is available literally at my fingertips, and just because the research can be conducted as soon as I think of what I want to learn about, I've acquired information that I definitely would not be aware of if I had been forced to take a bus to the library and go through dozens of books that were wrong for what I was looking for. And, the internet now contains sources that are academically acceptable. Even books and magazine articles have been transcribed online. Even though I would be fine with living in the simpler time, it is very exciting to be living through a technological revolution.

Introducing Jordan!

My name is Jordan Sahmaunt. I'm in my second year at USF, and although my official major is Undeclared Arts, in my heart I am an English major (which I will have to declare by the end of this year anyway). Unfortunately for my computer experience, my father is a computer programmer, which means that I've never really had to learn anything about computers because there was always someone around to ask for help. I'm looking forward to this class, because this will be the first time I will have officially learned about computers. I'm also taking this class because I think it will be a better way to fulfill my math credit than Statistics, which I already dropped in my second semester. Thank you for letting me into this class even though it was closed; I'm already enjoying myself!