Final Paper (Part II)

Okay, so I'm back!!! I have gotten a lot of my paper done so far.. about four pages already, so that's a relief.  I just want to brain storm some more ideas on here that I may or may not include in the rest of my paper. While the green movement has definitely, without a doubt, picked up some momentum during the last few years, you have to question some of the motives behind some of these large companies. When you think about it, it just doesn't seem financially beneficial for many of the companies to encourage a green movement. Yeah, many companies have converted to using wind powered electricity where possible, others have installed solar power panels, and others have done small things like cut down on paper towel use and water waste by installing hand dryers and automatic faucets and toilets. But, in the interest of creating business and profits, smart companies will continue to promote the principals of what Giles Slade calls "obsolescence of desirability" and "conspicuous consumption".  Advertisers will continue to promote the fabricated dissatisfaction that many consumers somehow are hypnotized to believe about a product that they've had for a number of months or years. Companies may say that they are on a path to greener business practices but the truth is, it is not a practice that particularly benefits major corporations. Another large reason why America is not ready to become a leader in green technology and green practices is the fact that our government has failed to pass legislation that would eliminate e-waste and the contamination of our fresh water supply by manufacturers.  Our country is a fine example of what a great leader should be in many ways but the way we handle our waste problem is not one of them.  Until we create stricter laws and are tougher about enforcing them, America will have a hard time putting their over consumptive ways to rest. I know I sound very pessimistic, but I just don't see how we're going to break a vicious cycle that we've been headed towards since the past one hundred years.

Final Paper (Part I)

Well it was a tough decision that I have contemplated for a couple of days now, but I  have decided to choose the essay assignment on e-waste and Giles Slade's book, Made To Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. I'm in the process of writing the beginning of my paper on America's product obsolescence and e-waste problem, and I figured I'd take a moment on here to reflect some of my ideas.  Giles Slade's book, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, is of real help to me in supporting my ideas on the United States' failure to end over consumption and electronic waste. Luckily, when I first read the book a couple of weeks ago, I highlighted and marked many of the important points made by Slade. I'm finding that referring back to my previous blogs on the book, "Made to Break,"  is also very beneficial for giving me ideas in my writing. We are on an inevitable path towards over consumption and disposal. The green movement will not gain enough momentum to have a global affect upon society. Our wasteful lifestyle has been engrained into every aspect of our lives. The effect of marketing and advertising from the last 100 years has changed the way Americans live. In the eyes of large corporations, the benefits of product obsolescence and conspicuous consumption far outweigh the consequences of e-waste.  Manufacturers would rather fill their wallets while at the same time fill our fresh water with toxins, than to pursue a green movement. It is just as beneficial to consumers as it is corporations in that consumers not only stay up to date with more evolved technology, but they come off to others as advanced and well off. Alright, well I think I have enough ideas for now to get this paper rolling. I'm going to go back to writing my paper before I forget some of the main concepts I just discussed. I'll be back with more ideas in a couple days!

Controversy Over New TSA Procedures in Airports

TechNewsWorld.com has published an article,  "Abandon Shame, All Ye Who Enters Airports,"  by Paul Hartsock, about the new backscatter scanning machines and TSA procedures in airports across the United States. It explains that with the coming of the holidays and the increase of travelers, comes stricter security and scanning implemented from TSA agents. In recent months and weeks, controversy has erupted because the backscatter scanners are said to produce pretty invasive pictures and the new TSA "pat downs" are considered to be a form of "groping." Although TSA argues that the scanned pictures cannot be saved and that the new pat downs are standard (no one will be singled out or excluded), many still believe that the new rules cross the lines and take away one's dignity. In the TSA's defense,  TSA administrator, John Pistole, explains that the new procedures not only help to protect us better but that they are still minimally invasive compared to many scanning procedures used in Europe and the rest of the world.  I don't believe that there is anything wrong with these new procedures. If we have the technology, we should implement it.  This technology could save lives and hey, if it doesn't actually increase the likelihood of catching terrorists, at least it psychologically puts one more at ease knowing there is "more security." People these days are so worried over every little thing or worried about being politically correct. Give me a break! At the end of the day, does it really matter? Even if TSA agents do have the ability to save scanned photos, your face and name aren't attached to those pictures, and I'm sure that the images are not nearly as vivid as the pornographic images found on the Internet. People claim that these new airport procedures invade people's privacy but then they have no problem posting the most personal information about themselves on Facebook for the whole world to track down. The other day, I was watching an entertainment news program on television which featured a story on Kim Kardashian complaining about the new TSA scans. Isn't this the same woman who released a "sex tape"  in order to achieve fame?

The following is the link to the article mentioned: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71281.html

Thoughts on Internet Privacy and Third Party Trackers

According to a TechNewsWorld.com article, "Internet Explorer 9 to Let Privacy Minded Web Users Leave No Tracks," written by Rob Spiegel, Microsoft plans to include a new feature called "Tracking Protection" on their new release of Internet Explorer 9, which will be available in 2011. The new privacy feature will prevent third party websites from monitoring a person's web use at the discretion of the user. It is very similar to Internet Explorer's "InPrivate Browsing" control that is already in use except that it will allow for more privacy customizations at the user's decision. If Microsoft releases this feature, it is believed that it will replace the government's need for a "Do Not Track" regulation which the Federal Trade Commission may have had trouble enforcing to begin with. I believe that this is a great idea on the part of Microsoft because it not only eliminates the government from having to get involved, which can create a mess in itself, but it also eliminates third party companies from tracking websites that people have visited. Most often, companies who gather an individual's information are using it to compile personal profiles about that person.  A person's profile may then be sold to marketers who place advertisements that are tailored to that person's interests or needs on the websites that he or she visits. Now, this may not seem like a big deal to some, and in fact, many people may actually like receiving advertisements that are catered towards their interests, but to others, it is an invasion of privacy.  There is no reason not to include such a feature because the people who do not feel threatened, don't have to use the privacy control and the people who would like more privacy, can control their privacy to their heart's desire.  Personally, I would probably use the settings, just because you never truly know who is in control of your information these days. I know companies such as Facebook persuade people to share their information and encourage people to become more open on the web, but I just don't know if it's such a good idea. It is still too early in the years of the Internet and social networking to tell what the extent of damage will be by placing too much personal information on the web.  Since Microsoft is now just developing this feature for Internet Explorer, it is obvious that people are still concerned or are growing concerned over the issue of their privacy on the Internet.


The following is a link to the article referred to in my blog: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71412.html

Critical Analysis- The Facebook Effect (Part III)

So, I have finally completed the book, The Facebook Effect, by David Kirkpatrick, and I must say that it was, by far, my most favorite book of our technology and culture course. I loved learning about the creation of Facebook, and I think that because the book is about something so current and relevant, it is all the more interesting. Facebook has had a huge impact upon the whole world, whether one participates on Facebook or not. Many businesses have now chosen to promote their goods and services through Facebook pages rather than their own websites. If a person wants up to date information on a current product, he is better off creating a Facebook account so he can visit that company's Facebook page rather than their websites. Not to say that a company's website won't be up to date or give you the information that you desire, but their Facebook page allows the consumer to become more interactive. Many fan pages created by businesses encourage consumers to provide feedback and ideas for new products. Facebook has realized this and has found a way to profit by placing ads on Facebook that allow users to "like" or comment on something. Because of the success of these types of ads, Facebook decided to completely do away with banner advertisements. Facebook has also found a way to profit by using Facebook as a platform for other applications that are created by companies other than themselves. When people use the applications on Facebook, they are essentially agreeing to allow third party companies to use their information. Facebook also has the right to gather user information posted on people's pages to compute data statistics and demographics to sell to other companies. It is even said that Facebook has access to more information about people in the United States than the government does. Now, as much as I feel that this is a sort of invasion of privacy and a policy of surveillance, it is very smart in the interests of Facebook since more people visit Facebook than any other place on the web. Facebook gives Google a run for its money. Google places advertisements according to what people search and are already interested in, but Facebook runs advertisements that create new desires for products by showing that their friends are also interested in the product as well. With that being said, I feel that Facebook is here to stay for a while. It has touched the lives of many across the world and has continued to provide a standard of practicality for everyone who uses it. MySpace is no longer a threat to Facebook, especially now that it's shifted its focus on media entertainment, and Twitter is not meant to provide the types of services that Facebook does.

Current Events Presentation: "What The Internet Knows About You"

So for my current event presentation in class, I chose to present an article called "What The Internet Knows About You," by Jessica Rose Bennett, which was about the Newsweek reporter herself, who asked a company named "Reputation Defender" to compile any background information they could find about her on the Internet. The company had nothing to go by except for her name and email address. Within 30 minutes, they were able to find her social security number, address, body type, and health status. They then published a whole report about her that ranked her education, body type, attractiveness, sexuality, health, drug and alcohol use, and financial status. They also compiled numerous photos of her. One interesting finding that really shocked me was the fact that they rated this reporter as a heavy drug user because they'd found pictures and references of marijuana that were associated with her name even though it was actually because she'd previously done a report on medical marijuana. The fact that this company was able to find all of this information, which should be kept confidential and private, within a half an hour is very scary. Credit card companies and data collectors sell this information to advertisers everyday and it's perfectly legal. When you use social networking sites such as Facebook, your information is often given to third parties. All of this information could affect a person's insurance premiums or chances of getting a loan or a job. The article later mentions that there was a situation in Canada where this women was given sick leave for her depression but after her insurance company found her Facebook profile with a picture of her smiling, they revoked her insurance benefits. I believe that this practice is totally unfair and unethical, as did the rest of the class. Various companies should not be allowed to use information they find about someone on the Internet to make assumptions or accusations that may not even be true. While most companies explain their terms and conditions, such as their rights to sell one's information, before a person signs up to use their services, it is often hidden in fine print that people don't understand or bother to read. While hearing about such practices does make people a little weary about what information they put on the Internet, most of our generation is so desensitized to these unethical practices. We have some how just learned to accept that this is the way things are.

The following is a link to the article: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/forget-privacy-what-the-internet-knows-about-you.html

Critical Analysis- The Facebook Effect (Part II)

Pages 107-214 in the book, The Facebook Effect, by David Kirkpartrick, are mostly about new features that were added to Facebook, as well as the many successful companies that were interested in buying the company from Mark Zuckerberg. It also touches upon MySpace's success and Facebook's great desire to be everything that MySpace isn't/wasn't.  As I read further and further into the story of Facebook, I start to develop mixed feelings. Where on one hand, I feel that all the newly added features and openness to allow everyone on Facebook are great, at the same time, I also feel that Facebook begins to kind of sell out as time goes by. I mean, maybe they had no choice, but to make Facebook accessible to everyone or to rapidly expand their advertising seems like a loss of authenticity. People were able to convey a very clear and real picture of themselves through their Facebook profiles when networks existed, but when networks were eliminated, people felt the need to be more guarded or protective over themselves. Without a more tight knit network, a sense of trust is lost.

The invention of a news feed on Facebook was a great idea. When the news feed function was first introduced to Facebook, many people were outraged because they did not feel comfortable with their status information and whereabouts being posted instantly for everyone to see. But as uncomfortable as everyone was, it did not take long for people to get used to. Today, as a user of Facebook, I feel like the news feed is Facebook's number one attraction because you don't need to visit every single individual's profile in order to obtain an update on one's life; the news feed instantly publishes updates on your friends lives in real time. It is also a quick way of keeping in touch with multiple people at the same time without actually having to communicate with them. These days, people rarely have time to stop and converse with everyone on their friend list. The invention of the news feed on Facebook was one of the reasons that MySpace rapidly differed from it until they too, invented a news feed. Also, where MySpace was a place where you could create your own profile and meet new people, Facebook is a place to keep in touch with people who are already your friends in real life. I admire Mark Zuckerberg's determination to keep Facebook mostly under the ownership of himself rather than under big corporations like MySpace currently is. There is a reason that MySpace is failing and Facebook is not.

Midterm Project- My Wikipedia Audit Experience

Wikipedia should not be used as a scholarly source because there is a very large chance that it contains biased or slanted information as well as unrealiable sources. Even if an article does not contain such things, one would have to spend an enormous amount of time researching the subject and auditing the sources just to be reassured of this, which is not only a waste of time but is especially inconvenient. Wikipedia is great to use as a starting point for an overall view of a subject but research on a certain subject should be extended beyond a Wikipedia article. This would not be a problem if the average person actually went above and beyond to do this when learning about particular topic, but unfortunately they do not. People all too often make the mistake of not taking things they learn from Wikipedia with a grain of salt. While Wikipedia is great for a quick reference and contains almost anything anyone can dream of, it has its flaws. Articles may be deemed unreliable because of Wikipedia's anonymity. Anyone can edit or delete anything that he desires, whether correct or not.

These strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia tell us a great deal about the potential effects of technology on our society in many ways. Wikipedia's strengths show us that technology has the ability to help people share knowledge with others. The more knowledge and different points of view that are out there, the better it is for our society. These technologies, such as Wikipedia, have helped to broaden the way we think and have brought convenience to our finger tips. Because the vast majority of people in the United States frequently refer to Wikipedia for its promptness, it implies that we are a culture who yearns for quick responses and when we do not receive one, we get frustrated or impatient.  When people participate on Wikipedia, whether writing or reading articles, despite the weaknesses, such as the anonymity and lack of credentials, it implies that people may not know or even care that they may be writing or reading flawed articles. It is evident that our culture is becoming more accepting of things without actually questioning their validity.

Although I have never used Wikipedia as a scholarly source in the past, I have learned from our article audit that I definitely shouldn't believe everything that is written. Even if every source that is sited in an article is legitimate, the article may still be slanted towards one position since people can pick and choose what information to provide. Because of this, many sources are not used wholly. I will probably always use Wikipedia if I need to know get a generalized overview on a subject but I will never take the information learned to heart.

Critical Analysis-The Facebook Effect (Part 1)

So far, I love love love reading the book, The Facebook Effect, by David Kirkpatrick. I think that because Facebook is such a recent technology and because it has such a direct impact on my life being that I have a Facebook account, it makes the read that much more enjoyable and relatable. I find that after both viewing the movie, "The Social Network" and reading the first part of the book, I am always left thinking about how this social network grew so quickly from what it was and what kinds of implications Facebook creates for the world.

Surprisingly, I find that the movie is actually pretty close to the book, although the book does cover the development of Facebook in a lot more vivid detail. The book cracks me up because although Mark Zuckerberg and his partners are portrayed to be very serious about the creation of Facebook and the business aspects behind it, it is also evident, judging from their partying and dirty house, that deep down inside they were truely just a bunch of guys from college. Harvard undergraduates they may be, but college kids nonetheless. This is something that is not only very comical to me, but it's also something that makes the story of Facebook even more amazing. Facebook wasn't created by powerful and experienced men, it was created by a college student who knew exactly what other college students and younger generations desired. Facebook was created to be clean cut, authentic, and private in a sense that one would actually feel comfortable revealing their true selves. Facebook was meant to be a true social connection where networking would not only be possible to help people expand, but where people's networks would also be clearly illustrated for others.

I believe that Facebook grew so quickly not only because of its ease to use, but also because of its emphasis on un-anonymity and networking/mutual friends. If everyone was anonymous, then no one would know who anybody was or if they really knew the person or not, thus preventing a network. By being anonymous, one can choose to portray himself however he chooses and that is not real. I think after a decade or more of remaining mostly unidentified on the internet, people were craving the sense of feeling like a real person again, especially because we all spend more and more time on a computer now a days and this may be our only method of communication. Facebook was successful because it was created for a generation of college students who were used to multitasking and completing everything on a computer. It was also successful because unlike Friendster or MySpace, it was one of the only social sites that required an .edu address and a real name, which helped to create a sense of real community.

I remember when I first signed up for a Facebook account and it still required an .edu email address and verification from someone else in that network to join. Boy, have we come a long way from that.. Now, Facebook is open for everyone, which I think was inevitable. People graduate college, make more friends and connections on the job and before you know it, everyone is demanding Facebook. It's such a great way to connect with long lost friends and family members without having to leave your living room or buy a plane ticket. I recently "met" my cousins from California and Florida, whom I've never met in my life, on Facebook. Now, thanks to Facebook, I feel like I've known them all my life.

Critical Analysis- Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (Part 3)

So the book is finally completed!! What to say, what to say.. Overall, it was interesting. I found the beginning of the book more enjoyable than the ending but maybe that's just because the ending focused more on the invention of computers. Towards the end, it was very similar to the book, "Computers: The Life Story of a Technology" because it went into detail of the history of calculators and computers. Computers are a product of obsolescence in that smaller, faster, and more efficient computers are constantly invented.  Computer software has forced people to fall victim to product obsolescence because of constant updates, even if only minor tweaks have been done to the program. We live in a society that now has a major e-waste problem. Cell phones that could have probably lasted for at least a good five years are just thrown away at the young, ripe age of one and are replaced with more "up to date" phones. We have this notion that our forms of technology quickly become "worn" out even when there is nothing wrong with it. This idea of obsolescence isn't new or limited to just computers or cell phones, but has affected just about everything, including calculators, home video game consoles, and coin operated video game arcades which the book later mentions. One major component described by the book that increases the risk of obsolescence in a product is the emphasis to create smaller, handheld products. We crave convenience and intimacy with our technology which is why we quickly replace things, but what is ironic is the fact that our technologies have actually caused us to be less intimate with ourselves. Another point that the book emphasizes is the fact that before the 1960's, obsolescence was only applied to physical objects, but now this concept can be applied to people's knowledge and skills. This is problematic in that people in the workforce must constantly strive to keep up with new technology and ways of doing things. If someone does not keep up to date then he may have a chance of losing his job and being easily replaced by someone who is more qualified.

Critical Analysis- Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (Part 2)

The second part of the book, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, by Giles Slade, discusses how obsolescence in the United States grew even more after World War I and World War II, especially with the invention of radio frequency and television. With the development of FM radio, new radios needed to be produced to accommodate such new technology. Soon after, radios began to become more compact, cheaper to replace, and a product of planned obsolescence. For example, Japan specifically designed small, cheap, plastic radios that came in many different colors, with the intent that consumers would just throw them away after they died and a buy a new one for a very low price (106). This also became true with pocket radios as they were too small to be repaired, leading to the coining of the phrase "death dating" which sounds exactly what it means (113). When the fabric, Nylon, was invented as a substitute for silk, it not only allowed the United States to end all trade with Japan, but it also allowed women to buy disposable pantie hose for very cheap, which again contributes to this idea of product obsolescence (118).  Later on in the book, Slade discusses how consumerism changes in the 50's and 60's, more specifically with the invention of porchless houses. Here, we see that consumers aren't just interested in purchasing houses as a product of their functioning, but for more reasons of appeal. After the depression, porches became associated with poor households because people would hang out on their front stoops and sidewalks (134). People realized the notion that what you own reflects upon who you are as a person, and no one wants an outdated house (how taboo!!). This same concept of keeping with new technology is also illustrated with the invention of computer technology. Where the ABC computer was once the best thing since sliced bread, new computers such as the UNIVAC came out, and the ABC computer became outdated (141).  It is during the late 50's and 60's that the term "product obsolescence" really comes into play because of the research done on consumerism and technology. Volkswagen realized this and created ads that actually attacked "product obsolescence" in order to persuade the consumer that their cars never became outdated. Volkswagen's advertisements stressing this fact became so successful that there was a six month waiting list for their popular "Bug."  Towards the end of the reading, it becomes evident that product obsolescence comes in many different ways. Either the consumer is forced to purchase a new product to replace a broken one, they need to buy a new product to keep up with newer, better performing technologies, or they just psychologically feel that their technology is "worn out" even though it may be working fine.  I feel that society's constant struggle to keep up with new technology creates a world in which we are always on edge and in competition with each other. We are hostile, materialistic beings and it's only getting worse. Where I can see that in ways, product obsolescence is positive because it forces manufacturers to always strive to create better products, it is also very damaging to our culture in that it's very artificial.

Critical Analysis- Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America

I feel like the first part of the book, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, written by Giles Slade, gives us an inkling as to why Americans are over consumptive and materialistic. During the late 1800's and early 1900’s, America began to suffer from an overproduction problem due to the advance in technology. Manufacturers needed to figure out how to increase demand for certain products as well as overcome a distribution problem to ensure delivery all across the United States (10). In response, many solutions came about including branding and the development of disposable products. Branding, which was meant to attract consumers and create an association of reliability with a product, became very crucial for increasing demand. Manufacturers relied on consumers to consistently buy the same product again and again. In fact, branding was such a success that brand names such as Band-Aid, came to be used as generic terms for products. The development of disposable products was also a success. Products such as the disposable razor blades were consistent, reliable, and convenient, and forced the consumer to come back. Women were of special importance in the early 20th century because it was more and more common for women to do the spending and shopping in a household. In a mass consumerist culture, new products such as Kotex and Kleenex were especially aimed at an audience of women. Of course, there were many implications that came along with the invention of disposable products. The throwing away of disposable products caused people to make these same generalizations toward other products that wouldn't normally be thrown away. The wasting of perfectly working things causes product obsolescence (24). As time went by, it becomes more obvious that the aesthetically appealing products are more important than the actual proper functioning of a product- a type of obsolescence of style. For example, as much as Henry Ford is admired for his determination to create a long lasting product and maintaining a low cost, it is this logic that had caused his mistake. Where Ford refused to redesign the Model T, General Motors chose to do just this by "repackaging" their own cars (36). We, as Americans, have become a product of conspicuous consumption. We are addicted to buying new products that specifically display our wealth. We throw out barely worn clothes just to make room for new clothes, in the hopes of increasing our status. It is actually kind of sickening to think of how materialistic our society has become. Consumerism has engulfed our lives to the point that one of the main goals in life is to own every new product that comes out on the market. No one wants to be left behind using obsolete technology. The last page that I left off reading especially bothers me. Manufacturers were and still are encouraged to produce products that last a shorter period of time than they're capable of. We are getting ripped off all in the name of demand and profit.

Extra Credit- "The Social Network"

Now I have to say, I didn't exactly have the highest expectations for this movie in the beginning, but after all was said and done, I actually kind of enjoyed it. I found it really interesting to see how "The Facebook" came to be. To think that some brainy kid from Havard, who invented this simple website to allow people at his university to communicate and share pictures effectively, became the youngest billionaire ever just blows my mind. Two things come to mind when I think about this movie; the first being the actual story behind the creation of Facebook, and the second, the effect that Facebook has had upon the world.

Mark Zuckerberg is one brilliant kid. First, one has to have the computer knowledge to even build a website of that size and second, one has to actually come up with an idea for such a website. I'm not sure if the movie exaggerated on some parts (I'm sure that it did), but I can't believe Facebook was created as the result of a breakup with a girlfriend and the resentment of rich fraternity boys. I feel that it is obvious that Mark Zuckerburg did not steal the idea of Facebook from the twin brothers belonging to the fraternity, but it is obvious, from what the movie portrayed, that he did screw his friend, Eduardo, over. I don't know about anyone else, but I almost felt bad for Eduardo, especially with that crazy girlfriend of his. I also feel like Sean Parker squeezed his way into a company that he didn't belong to and took over his Eduardo's position. But that's a whole other story in itself.

As entertaining as the story line is behind the development of Facebook, a bigger question has yet to be answered... How has Facebook affected the world? That's exactly what I was thinking by the end of the movie. Facebook started out as just a website for Harvard students, and then spread to other colleges and universities, and eventually opened up to allow the whole world to join. Facebook is an example of how influential social networking can be, considering how fast it caught on. As the demand for Facebook increased, so did too, Facebook's quality and what it was capable of. Facebook has reconnected lost relatives and families, brought together college students and other groups, and has even acted in place of the television. You no longer need to turn on the television to watch breaking news, just log onto Facebook and read your friend's statuses. Facebook is a great way to catch up with someone without actually having to talk to them or leave your house, as pictures and statuses can tell us a great deal. These days, Facebook is everywhere, and if you don't have a Facebook account, it is almost like you are falling behind or setting yourself up for failure. So many jobs today, especially in fields of journalism or communications, require that their employees have a Facebook and know how to use it. This right here gives us an inkling as to how big social networking sites have become and will continue to grow in the future, especially with the rise of laptops and smart phones.  

Critical Analysis- The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality (Part 2)

The second half of the book, The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, by Andrew Dalby, discusses why people love the use of Wikipedia, why its use can be damaging (especially if you are editing an article about yourself), and why Wikipedia can and cannot be trusted. It is evident from the "Why we love it" chapter, and also somewhat amusing, that the authors of certain articles on Wikipedia are very defensive and protective of their contributions and beliefs about what is actual fact. For instance, take the French toast example. What we have here is fellow Wikipedians fighting over whether French toast was always referred to as French toast or if this popular breakfast food was once called German toast before World War I (115-116). To me, it is very comical to take such an unserious subject matter and turn it into something that causes serious debate. Later on in this chapter, Dalby describes Wikipedia as virtual nation or a type of community where one can be free to be as candid or anonymous as he or she likes, and where one can also be recognized (120). Up until reading this book, I'd never really realized how much Wikipedia really emulated a virtual mini world, complete with mailing lists, politics and scandals. Wikipedia is a world where there are no page limits, and where everyone is treated equally, PhD or not. Later on, Dalby mentions some of the things that must not occur on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedians love to talk about themselves and show off their knowledge, it is an unwritten sin to contribute to an article written about themselves because it's hard to remain neutral (148). Unfortunately, Wikipedia contains acts of plagiarism, harassment, and political biases which should also be refrained from as well. Because of all of this, and the fact that you never know a person's credibility or why he chose to edit an article in the first place, or if a source is simply just a mirror of a Wikipedia site, Wikipedia cannot be trusted in some ways. On the other hand, Dalby does make the argument that Wikipedia can be trusted in other ways and is in fact, raising its credibility. Where other encyclopedias can sometimes be one sided themselves, for instance, Encarta only gives credit to Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb (203), Wikipedia includes information from all points of view. Dalby also claims that because Wikipedia is putting other Encyclopedias out of business, Wikipedia has no choice but to increase its standards. As the years go by, I feel that Wikipedia will, without a doubt, become bigger and bigger. It is sad to see other credible sources go down the tubes, but hopefully this will only make a better product out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be used as a sole source of information, but it is definitely a good supplement to learning. The convenience that it provides millions cannot be beaten. While the world is a reflection of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is starting to become a reflection of the world.

Critical Analysis- The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality (Part 1)

So far, The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, written by Andrew Dalby, is actually a pretty interesting read because it is a very current form of technology that greatly influences our everyday lives. Although Dalby, one of the many Wikipedia contributors, obviously seems to favor Wikipedia and believes that there are many benefits, he also discusses the negative outcomes that have come about since it has been invented. The first part of the book states how Wikipedia was started, how it has changed the way society uses an encyclopedia, the damage it has done to printed encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica , and the implications. I found it really interesting to read about the establishment of Wikipedia and the google effect that helped give it popularity. For some reason, it makes me kind of sad that printed encyclopedias are dead. Where as the content on Wikipedia is user generated and can be edited by anyone, printed encyclopedias are written, unquestionably, by credible authors. Because a reader of Encyclopedia Britannica cannot just simply edit information based upon their liking, you know you're getting quality unbiased information. The death of printed encyclopedias is not only a loss of tradition, but it is also a loss of a type of symbolic status. Back in the day, owning a set of encyclopedias was a sign that you were well established. Wikipedia is a form of disconnect because we do not physically own a copy. Wikipedia's anonymity allows people to write whatever they please, whether correct or incorrect, biased or unbiased, because people have a shield to hide behind. Wikipedia can also be used maliciously against other people. For example, Dalby discusses John Seigenthaler and his falsely accused connection to the assassination of Kennedy (58). This being said, Wikipedia is not all that bad. While anyone can contribute and hinder the quality of information being provided, it is because anyone can contribute that also makes Wikipedia so great. The more people that participate, the wider an array of information that is contributed from all backgrounds and perspectives. Wikipedia is also useful because it is so convenient. I would never use a Wikipedia article as support in a research paper, but in the case where I'm dying to know something, I am shown enough information to become familiarized with a subject in matter of a few seconds.

Critical Analysis- Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (Part 2)

Okay, so after reading the second half of Postman's, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, I have come to a few conclusions. The first conclusion is that while Postman definitely holds a biased grudge against technology, he does make some valid points. Throughout the book, he makes references to everything from the negative influences of medical technology in the 1800's, to the personification of the computer, to the transformation that made symbols meaningless. His discussion of the personification of computers is a good example of why he considers the society we live in today to be a technopoly. He explains that since computers have become popular, humans refer to themselves in computer terms.  For instance, the human brain is referred to as a piece of "hard wiring, capable of retrieving data" (113-114). People also refer to computers has having "viruses," which is a human capability. Another example of the negative impact of technology on society is illustrated through Postman's reference of symbols. He claims that once important figures, symbols, and holidays have been rewritten to represent less serious, jargon filled nonsense (167). 

The second conclusion is that Postman goes too much out of his way to denounce the greatness of technology. I feel that the positive qualities of technology much outweigh its negative qualities, but unfortunately, Postman feels otherwise. For instance, he explains that the invention of the Stethoscope and other medical technologies in the 1800's has actually had negative effects on patients' treatment because doctors rely too much on technology and less on their own knowledge or gut instinct (99-106). He goes on to discuss America's over aggressive use of machines in the medical world compared to Europe. While this may be true, we would be nowhere near where we are today in treating many illnesses without these medical tools. To not have these technologies because of a few issues with lack of communication between patients and doctors would be silly; saving lives is more important. Reading on, I am able to come to my third conclusion. It is apparent that Postman must stretch too far out of his reach for examples to prove his point. He goes as far as to denounce social sciences, more specifically discussing Milgram's famous psychological experiment as not empirical nor confirming or disproving to any theory of human nature since the experiment took place in a laboratory setting (151-153). Overall, I feel that Postman has few convincing arguments and that his ideas are very far fetched. While I'm not the most optimistic person in the world, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology is just too pessimistic for my taste.

Critical Analysis- Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology- Part 1

Neil Postman defends his position on the dangers and negative effects of technology very thoroughly in his book titled, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. He believes that technology is running our lives and determines the way that we perceive reality. Postman begins his story with the legend of Thamus' and goes on to discuss scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, proving that technology is not a relatively recent concept of the last century but has, in fact, been around for thousands of centuries. He describes that there are three types of cultures: tool using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies.  According to Postman, there are few tool using cultures left and to find one we must travel to some place exotic (22).  Tool using cultures use tools that were mainly invented to do two things; to solve specific problems of physical life and to build castles and cathedrals for the church.  He claims that in this type of culture, tools do not interfere with the integrity of the people (23-27). Technocracies are cultures in which technology is deeply rooted. Postman argues that this culture emerged during the middle ages and started to be hindered from the inventions of the mechanical clock, the printing press, and the telescope. These inventions threatened oral traditions and religion and started to intrude on people's lives (28-29).  In the third culture identified by Postman, technopolies, technology completely rules society's lives. Postman believes that Technopoly in America started during the beginning of Henry Ford's empire (49).  In this culture, technical calculation is superior and human judgement cannot be trusted (51-52).  Postman even goes as far as to say, "Technopoly is a form of cultural AIDS" (63). 


While I believe that technology, without a doubt, is beneficial to our society, I also believe to a certain extent, Postman's argument that technology is damaging, although he is a bit too extreme for my taste. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, describes our society in such a way that we are all submissive to technology, whether we like it or not.  As new technology comes out, the older technology strives to keep up and maintain an audience of users, which creates constant competition. It is not only the creators of these technologies that are forced to keep up, but it is also society that is forced to keep up to avoid being left behind.  Technology has the upper hand upon us all, because it controls every aspect of our lives, including whether or not we get that new job.

Critical Analysis- Computers:The Life Story of a Technology- Part 2

So after reading the last half of the book, Computers: The Life Story of a Technology, by Eric G. Swedin and David L. Ferro, I have come to the conclusion that it is much more interesting than the first half of the book.  Perhaps, maybe this is due to the fact that second half of the book tells a story of computers that takes place in more recent times. As a result, I found that it was easier to imagine these computers and relate to the processes of designing and building them. As the story progressed closer and closer to today, I found myself reminiscing of what it was like when our family got our first personal computer and what it was like to use it for the very first time. Soon after, another memory popped into my head that had me instantly laughing- the use of dial up to log onto the Internet. Today, this technology seems so mundane and outdated but just a decade or two ago it was cutting edge. Something I found really interesting was when and how the Internet was first developed. According to the book, the first form of Internet was actually referred to as the ARPAnet and was developed in 1969 by the military (113-116). I'd never realized that the first form of Internet even existed that early in the development of computers. It is hard to imagine that the network started out consisting of just four nodes and that by 2000, the network, which was by then the Internet, increased to more than 51% of US households (132). I'm sure today, being 10 years later, that number has increased even more. I was also intrigued to read about how Apple Computers and Microsoft came to be. Both of these companies have had such a big influence on the direction that computers have taken and their future. Since the increase in knowledge of computers in the last 10-20 years, technology has constantly changed which makes things obsolete even after only a year.  It will be interesting to see the results in the next decades coming. As a society, we do not know what life is like anymore without technology. It shapes our everyday lives and how we interact. We no longer use the telephone anymore, nevermind mail letters. Email on our laptops and texting on our smart phones have replaced the need to even speak. While this may be in many ways convenient, it is also very dangerous in that we cannot thoroughly communicate our emotions through text. Computers have also made us somewhat lazy, and we tend to take the easy way out.

Critical Analysis- Computers:The Life Story of a Technology- Part 1

Throughout the history of mankind, humans have always looked for ways to improve their everyday lives, ways in which make their days all a little bit simpler. The book, Computers: The Life Story of a Technology, written by Eric G Swedin and David L. Ferro, presents a fantastic example of how the human race has continually strived to perfect technology. The authors describe the history of how computers come to be in present day, dating back to 35,000 BCE when the first notched bones were used for counting (xi).

Computers: The Life Story of a Technology, illustrates the importance that people and culture have placed upon technology. Throughout the centuries, humans haven't just settled on one or two inventions to fit their needs, the envelope has been very frequently pushed to create bigger and better machines. Computers weren't just developed out of the blue, they were derived from inventions such as the abacus and adding machines, which soon became electronic calculators. In 1890, Herman Hollerith created the Tabulating Machine which was used to tally census results. The machine became so successful that in 1896, Hollerith established the Tabulating Machine Company which later became the company we all know today, IBM. Over the next many decades, IBM became one of the biggest players in developing super computers (21-23).  Though IBM is a major contributor to the development of computers, the idea of the first all electronic computer was derived from the US military. In 1943, an electronic calculating machine was built named Mark I, and in 1945, the ENIAC, which consisted of 49 foot cabinets, 18 vacuum tubes, and weighed 30 tons, was built  (38-43). Not only does this show that the military played a major role in the development of computers, but this also shows that improvements were made each year as newer computers came out. Additionally, it illustrates that computers have come a long way from what they are today.

While some might find this read a bit boring, I actually found it to be quite interesting. Before now, I'd never really known too much about where the idea of a computer even came from or how one was developed. I feel that computers are very much taken for granted in our society, especially with younger generations who have always had such technology in their lives. I am part of one of the last generations that was born and went to elementary school at a time when the average person had no PC or Internet. I still remember playing on the old school Apple computers that had floppy disk drives and no color. It is clear from the book that the invention of the computer in the early years was intended clearly for war and mathematical purposes, and not so much for the use of word processing and especially not for recreational use like today.

Introduction & Reaction to Internet

My name is Jocelyn, and I'm in my 5th year at Rutgers, set to graduate this January which I am very excited about. I chose to take Technology & Culture as an elective because of the rave reviews on ratemyprofessor.com (haha). Despite the fact that public speaking scares me to death, though I have done it many times, this class seems like it will be very interesting.


After logging my Internet usage for the past three days, I have realized that I definitely make inadequate use of my time online and in general. Only about a quarter of my time online was spent on school related websites, where the rest of the time was spent mostly refreshing Facebook. Time was also spent on shopping websites. Keeping track of my time online has made me realize that I need to maybe reorganize my schedule/routine. I also never realized how much I rely on the Internet to survive everyday life. Even when boredom strikes and I'm too lazy to get to my computer, I can always just grab my phone nearby and check Facebook from there. This is both a bad thing and a good thing. Bad, in that technology and the Internet has made us lazy and distracted, and good, in that we are always connected and have access to any information we need in a matter of seconds.


The process of creating this blog was sort of tough for me, but I eventually figured it out. I consider myself technologically challenged for a reason. I mean, I'm not that bad but still, I'm definitely not the best when it comes to figuring out new forms of technology and communication. I'm new to this blogging thing if you don't count Facebook so this is different for me. I probably wouldn't blog for recreation, but that's just me. The experience definitely can't hurt.