My addiction to the internet

This past week of finals has been rough an tiring...and it took a lot of time out of leisure to study. So, with my busy schedule, I decided to deactivate my facebook account to buy myself some more time for studying. Good idea? Not really.

Day 1.
The first day I went off of facebook, I felt free. Free from communication, free from status updates, and free from the troubles of my friends. I actually liked being off of facebook. It provided me with a lot more time for studying and for myself to just enjoy the sweeter things in life.

Day 2.
I started to feel lonelier and more nosy. I found myself wondering what so and so was up to, and what they were thinking, what they looked like, if they put those pictures of that party up yet, etc...This derived my first thought. I feel that a deactivation of facebook results in an isolation from the rest of the world. You no longer feel like you have a place in the world. You no longer feel like people are curious about what you are doing or what you are about. With this, day 2 felt like I didn't have friends.

Day 3.
Day 3 started out fine. I actually had stuff I needed to take care of and so I didn't notice my deprivation of facebook like usual. However, it was mid day when one of my friends asked me what I've been up to. they had said I hadn't seen you in days. I thought to myself...I hadn't seen this girl for months! Then I realized that she was referring to facebook. At that point in time, I felt like I had a genuine attachment to the website. With this website I create presence. People knew what I was doing when I was doing it, and why.

Undeniably, facebook has become a social tool in our lives; much like cell phones, instant messenger, and emails. If you are not on facebook, you are a no body...I found this out the hard way.

One of the most fascinating things I discovered about this class was my addiction to facebook. Had it not been for this class, I probably wouldn't have given my usage a second thought. Now, I see that facebook can be very dangerous and a clear breech of privacy.

Its been a great semester. I've learn a lot about the technology used in the past, present and the future. I really enjoyed listening to professor ferguson's perspective on a more diligent theory on our consumption and use of technology.

Final Paper...part 1

So for my final paper, I'm choosing to write on the second topic where I will have to use Giles Slade's book, "Made to Break" to answer the following question: “With the recent rise of the environmental movement in this country, will America continue on the path of a disposable society described in Slade’s work or finally turn to the path of going green?” I choose this topic because I honestly think that it was a lot of substance to it. In today's day and age, we are evolving from a once wasteful society to a more 'go green' attitude. I feel that I can tie this movement in perfectly with Slade's work using ample sources from the media and latest technologies made today.

To answer the question without any research conducted thus far, I'm going to hypothesize that America is on a path of going green, and that Slade's vision of America as a disposable society is slowly deteriorating. Of course there will be debate and differences in my paper. I will undoubtedly find conflict in the financial and social interests of Americans when evaluating current society. But in terms of how Americans choose to live, and how necessary technology is to the individual; I will certainly find a lot of good juicy information with plenty of fuel to make this paper both interesting and enlightening to both myself and my reader.

I'll keep yall posted on the research...

The Facebook Effect Part 3

Kirkpatrick beings the third and final part of his book by discussing platforms. Platforms, as he describes opens facebook up to hundreds and thousands of programmers to develop their ideas into a UGI based library with tons of potential for all types of applications. Kirkpatrick mentions several of which that are actually used today including Causes, Chat, and photos. While he goes on to describe this unique aspect of facebook, what I really found interesting in the third part of the reading was his input on advertisement.
“It is merely a useful shorthand, as in the Sandberg sessions, to refer to a process in which companies spend money to get people more interested in their products.” (Kirkpatrick 245) In my opinion, facebook has a huge advantage in the advertising world. Usually, the case is that producers have to aim their advertisements to a certain group of consumers looking for a certain type of product. However, using facebook profiles, that list “activities” “interests” “movies” ”music” etc…facebook now has identified its users to producers. Generally speaking…producers no longer have to “shop” for their consumers or make their ads extensively broad, instead, they can gear their ads to a select group of individuals. For example, in my facebook profile, I listed tennis as one of my activities and interests. So, essentially a company such as tenniswarehouse could offer its ads to my margin as oppose to someone who has no interest in tennis at all! What is driving facebook’s powerful advertising dominancy is its gigantic user base. The problem with a lot of adware agencies is that it’s tough to get the attention of everyone! With billboards and newspaper ads, it’s more of a hit or miss kind of thing. But with facebook profiles, producers can now hit who they want to hit every time. The algorithm is similar to that Amazon’s in that it memorizes what users want to see and keeps feeding them with relevant or similar products; its actually quite revolutionizing from the paper coupon books, flyers, and other now primal ways to get people’s attention. (Kirkpatrick 264)
Not only are computers generating these specified ads, but also now users can specify exactly what they want to see. When you close one of the ads generated by the algorithm, it will ask you why you don’t want it: “You have removed this ad. Why didn't you like it? Uninteresting, Misleading, Offensive, Repetitive, Other.” I find it amazing that this is where the future of advertising is going, and I am very curious to see what it is going to look like in about ten years or less! As Dave Tapscott noted, “this is not about friendships, this is changing the way we orchestrate capabilities in society to innovate and to created goods and services.” (Kirkpatrick 265)

Facebook's News Feed

I always wondered how Facebook prioritizes your friends to the twenty or so that show up on your news feed once in a while. When logging into your account, Facebook automatically publishes the news of friends that are correctly relevant to your social life. I mean, lets face it, I'm not bffs with everyone of my 800+ friends, so how does facebook know which friends I'm actually interested in reading about?

I feel that Facebook's algorithm on the news feed is based off of two things. 1) the people who you stalk and 2) the people who stalk you. Admittedly, I am guilty of the occasional stalker personal. Like everyone else on facebook, I go throught the pictures, walls, and even now, friendships of people that I feel are worth stalking. While many people think that their stalkerish lifestyles are their own little secret, clearly, someone in working for facebook knows who you are looking at, and how many times your looking at them. There are applications on facebook (not legitimate or detail-based ones) but applications non the less that claim to tell you who is your stalker. These applications get 1000 hits daily simply because people want to know who is looking at them, and their everyday life. You know who has the real answer? Facebook!

So, how do you think the general people (i.e. all facebook users) feel about looking at random people's profiles now? Do you feel about look up that cute girl from highschool and ALL her pictures knowing that someone out there knows that you are looking at her profile every single day without a single facebook relationship other than just being friends? I know that I'm going to think twice next time I do so. I feel that the bottom line of this post is to say, stalk those who only want to be stalked; or rather, only look at people's profiles with no fear of getting caught. Who knows if one day, a hacker will break the algorithm and produce an application that shows your real top 10 stalkers with how many times they've seen your profile? Imagine gaining access to that app and number 1 is some dude you haven't talked to in years. I would feel totally and utterly violated. WATCH WHO YOU STALK BECAUSE ONE DAY THEY MIGHT FIND OUT!!!!

My curiosity found this site. the article is a great read on the dynamics of facebook's code.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-18/the-facebook-news-feed-how-it-works-the-10-biggest-secrets/

Aiming to Learn as We Do, a Machine Teaches Itself

Today, I presented my current events article from the NY times. My article was about NELL (the Never Ending Language Learning system), and how this super computer is breaking boundaries in terms of technology mastering semantics. It is actually quite superb when you read the article and see how amazing technology is getting these days. Researchers at the Carnegie Mellon University developed NELL with intentions of bringing human language to the world of computers. NELL revolves its “knowledge base” around 290 semantic categories such as actors, universities, cities, sports teams, etc; and connects all of these categories through various “relations”. NELL currently has 280 relations and scans hundreds of thousands of textual patterns and phrases to match up categories based on their relations to other categories. I thought it was quite amazing how NELL was highly automated, meaning that it could perpetuate its own curiosity and have endless knowledge with the millions of web pages out there. With NELL’s progress, we can actually have a computer that teaches itself based on the knowledge that has already been established through human establishment. I might just be a little paranoid, but while reading the article, I couldn’t help thinking about sci-fi horror films with dangerous super computers. Some movies that came to mind were Eagle Eye, and of course, Terminator’s Skynet.

But jokes aside, I asked the class if it was safe for NELL to be basing its knowledge base off of something as bias as the world wide web? From our midterm project, we determined that there are sources out there (Wikipedia) that are just not reliable. So, what if NELL were to get false information from sites like Wikipedia? Could NELL be identified as a credible source of information? I feel that one solution to the problem could be that the same or similar algorithm could be used, but instead of using the WWW as reference, it could narrow its database to credible sources such as ESPN for sports, CNN for news, etc. I understand that its knowledge wouldn’t be as extensive, but it wouldn’t be so volatile to false information or bias entries.

All in all, NELL is a great idea with a ton of potential. It’s algorithm is shaky, but with work, I’m sure that its future is bright. With NELL in mind, I am curious to find out where the future of A.I. is going. We now have a computer that can think for itself, what’s next? Robots?!?!

The Facebook Effect Part 2

The second part to The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick was very interesting. Starting with chapter 5, Kirkpatrick details the impressive financial offers by wealthy venture capitalists of the west coast. The portrayal of the battle of loyalty between Accel and The Post was very intriguing and quite astonishing. (Kirkpatrick 116) I don’t really know too much about venture capitalism, but reading chapter 5 opened my eyes to how risky these people really are. For a company that was less than 2 years old to be getting offers in the millions was very very impressive. How did these venture capitalists know what they were getting themselves into? And how did they know that facebook was going to be so big? Companies usually take decades to build their capital up to the millions but facebook did it in such a short amount of time. Towards the end of chapter I read that Accel, being the bigger firm, eventually got the deal over The Post and valued facebook at 80 million.

I have already seen the movie The Social Network, and therefore know the brief history of Facebook. So, I find it really interesting when I find conflicting information, or information was wasn’t seeing in the theaters. In the movie, Zuckerberg is portrayed as a cocky intellectual with all the right answers with a fearless attitude. However, Kirkpatrick displays several points where Zuckerberg was scared and frightened – breaking down in tears. Kirkpatrick explains “he did agree to start seeing n executive coach to get lessons on how to be an effective leader.” (Kirkpatrick 164)

Zuckerberg eventually was receiving offers at 1.5 billion dollars. Even at this point, Zuckerberg refuse to even glance at these documents. What I find impressive about Zuckerberg, and account him tremendous success is his composure when it came to big business deals. He knew that the money was going to be coming, but he continued to focus his success on the opportunities, and not the money. I also found it cool how facebook was recruiting employees from established corporate giants. In fact, facebook was actually taking employees from other giant computer companies such as Amazon and Google. Of course this is when facebook was beginning to make a name for it, but I still found it extraordinary that in the public eye, facebook was beginning to make a good, long-term name for itself in terms of employment.

The Facebook Effect Part 1

David Kirkpatrick's book, The Facebook Effect, describes the history of Facebook and its creator, Mark Zuckerberg. Kirkpatrick's book shares a very close representation of the movie, The Social Network. The book starts by introducing an interesting story about Oscar Morales and his opposition to FARC, a guerilla group of Colombian terrorist who take citizens and outstanding political figures to make their point more disturbing. Morales, an avid Facebook user used the site to create a group opposing the hostiles. To his (and my) surprise, the group attracted followers by the thousands in a very short amount of time. Soon enough, action was in store, and Morales organized a global march against the group with participants reaching to the millions. This one example exemplified the exquisite power of the social networking tool known as Facebook. Facebook was originally meant to just be social networking site has become a very powerful political tool. As Kirkpatrick stated, “Despite decades of fear and intimidation, Facebook gave Colombia’s young people an easy, digital way to feel comfort in numbers to declare their disgust.” (Pg. 5)

The author then goes on to describe the origins of the sites creator, Mark Zuckerberg. Describing him as a “geek”, Zuckerberg was also a genius. He was the graduate of a very prestigious high school and was highly involved with the innovation of highly intricate software. Before facebook, Zuckerberg had created several other forms of software that was very addictive and promoted loyalty among its users. The software use ranged from studying for an Art final to linking similar music together (much like Pandora.)

Kirkpatrick eventually got to the creation of thefacebook (pg. 27). This was obviously the star of Zuckerberg work as it was a collaboration of past social networking sites like Friendster and MySpace. Other creations of Zuckerberg included facemash and course match, all of which shared a similar algorithm with that of facebook. Many of his friends blamed the creation on his introverted personality (pg. 29)…as the Kirkpatrick states, “of you’re a geek who is a little uncomfortable relating to other people, why not create a website that makes it easier.”

What I find so interesting in this book, and in the movie, is Zuckerberg’s composure when it came to making expensive business decisions. As a college kid with little money, how can you deter advertising deals that are priced in the thousands or even millions!? As indicted on page 33, Zuckerberg wanted to keep the seriousness of facebook exclusive, while making it more fun than anything…

Auditing a Wikipedia Article

This past week, I was place in a group of 4 pretty cool guys and we were assigned the tedious assignment of auditing a Wikipedia article about Polygamy in North America. My group consisted of Phil, Tom, Max, and Hussain. We all worked very well together, and got along nicely considering half of us did not know each other..

The breakdown consisted of the entire group coming over to my apartment and crafting a game plan on how to tackle the project. Tom initiated the idea of starting a Google documents account seeing that we all have Gmail accounts. This allowed all of us, even when apart, to edit the presentation with whatever suggestions we all had. To make sure we were all on the same page in terms of how to audit, and pin point exactly what we were suppose to be looking for, we decided to work on the first section of the article together. We found several discrepancies such as mismatched dates relative to the footnote [1] and an evident bias that did not talk about Mexico and very little about Canada. Another bias that we identified was that in the article, the authors mostly discuss males having multiple wives, and not the other way around.

After going over the first section, Phil created another Google word doc where we could add our suggestions and ideas about references and footnotes that we found problems or discretion with. With this, we parted and worked on each section by ourselves keeping in contact through text messages and the accessible document that Phil set up.

Again, the auditing process that we established as a group would go along the lines of this, 1. Read the article 2. Check reference list for dead links 3. Check existing sources against their claim 4. Determine bias within the article 5. Scan article for missing information. After that, we evaluated the source into 4 different categories. 1. Off-topic 2. Barely Relevant 3. Good Quality 4. Inaccessible.

After, separating the 36 different sources into their associated categories, we determined that the Wikipedia article proved a decent source to obtaining information about polygamy in North America. However, in terms of gaining comprehensive knowledge about the subject, the article did have several loose ends that did seem iffy. Some sources had dead links; some were based off of religious websites that were extremely skewed.

Made to Break (Ch. 7-9)

The last chapters (7-9) of Slade’s book, Made to break, prove for some very interesting reading. Slade first makes it apparent in his discussion on emulation. To describe this, he brings up IBM and their key role in the development of micro technology in the earlier half of the century. Slade describes how IBM avoided the scary ‘Turing Tar Pit’ founded by Alex M. Turing. IBM outlasted the competition with their innovative, system/360. This was a new microprocessor that was compatible with older IBM computer models. Much like an exchangeable part, the system/360 made older computer models as fast and advanced as new models…much like a system update or a reconfiguration for your PC. Slade states that, “in order to distinguish the system/360’s dynamic processing feature from earlier attempts to imitate or stimulate the applications of obsolete computer models, Larry Moss of IBM called this new ability, ‘emulation’” (Pg 186)

My interpretation of emulation was that people could simply keep their products for longer despite upgrades and advancements basically because old models could perform nearly as good as new ones. I feel like a lot of companies do this present day. Nearly all software made these days is compatible with every running computer. Sure, people are always looking for faster computers with higher ram and processing power for video games and what not, but for the most part, simple applications and daily tools are all made for computers dating back 5-6 years ago. I’ve concluded from Slade’s book that the life of certain technologies have become in fact LONGER. Once someone has bought the newest and most advanced thing, its bound to last a few years on the market in terms of the sufficiency that it provides to its users. Right now, I currently use a droid incredible, and a mac book pro, and I honestly cant see any reason why I might want to replace either one in the near future.

Slade goes on to discuss DEC’s equivalent to IBM’s system/360, PDP-8. PDP was a minicomputer that paved the way for subminiturization…and eventually the micro module. He also discusses how Kilby from Texas Instruments developed the solid circuit. Slade does this for some time in the book which I regret to say , was a little bit boring. I felt like I was reading ‘computers’ again, and we all know how much I loved that book.

Slade ends on the note that all technology eventually becomes e-waste and this idea in its entirety perpetuates the foundation of obsolescence. What did I think of the book? I liked it in the beginning where economics was Slade’s main point of focus, but when we begins to discuss the history of computers and how they came to be…is when my attention span begins to wander. Overall, good book, I shall be more mindful of the master plans and marketing strategies of firms and companies next time I decide to make a serious investment in something new.

The Facebook Movie

I saw this movie last night during the 11:15 showing. Despite my skepticism and inability to find things interesting, the movie provided some well recognized entertainment on one level, and revelation on another level. The movie's plot boldly describes Mark Zuckerberg, and his famous journey to becoming the world's youngest billionaire.

So what does it take to become rich in about 4 years or less? College? A degree? Nah, to get that rich that quick takes genius! From the very first scene, Zuckerberg (or the actor) proved that he was a super genius. His plan to unveil facebook to the world happened the way it should have happened and all because he did it the right way with the right smarts. It was amazing to see jesse eisenberg act out the businessman-genius and the computer-coding geek, come together in one and astonish the audience and actually made them think.

It was an entertaining movie that made me think alot about how/what it takes to build an idea and make it a fortune. How it only takes that one idea, and make it good enough for everyone to follow you. That is what i was thinking about the entire time while i was watching that movie. Even after the movie, I caught myself peeping at my phone for facebook notifications. and thought to myself, I am one of those followers...he got me too.

I found myself 'youtubing' videos of Zuckerberg during computer shows such as TechwebTV and businessinsider just to listen a little bit more on the Zuckerberg story. I was trying to imagine exactly what kinda tool facebook is...an addressbook? a spy tool? a background checking device? and how could zuckerberg be so smart as to make it stick in the market with unless growth in front of it? Personally, I kept thinking to myself, "because its free...and has all of that" but that's just me.

What do I think of facebook? I think its dangerous. I realize that it is a tool of background checks, auditing, and profiling...but why is it so damned addictive? it destroys personal interactions and lays out a cyberworld where people can actually 'follow' you. Plus, how can you have you life run through a computer? Can can you get out to see the world when your stuck worry about whether or not your girlfriend is confirming you relationship status...yet here I am, with facebook open on another tab...I am guilty...

Good movie...i'd suggest it.

Why the internet is amazing

The world wide web has become to greatest thing invented in human history. With it, information is available literally at your fingertips, the world of communication has expanded to unprecedented levels with phone calls now available for FREE, relationships and social networking now heavily rely on the power of the internet as well. So ask yourself, can you really live without the internet without being considered outdated, primal, or stone-aged? Honestly, the answer is no. Simply, if you are not using the internet, you are clearly an outcast of society.

Specifically, why is the web so amazing? Well, the resources would be its most notable attributes. One can skip the process of searching for the girl of their dreams by using Match.com. They would simply put in their 'likes', 'dislikes', physical characteristics, etc...and find someone looking for those qualities or something close.

I remember being around 8 years old, and going on road trips with my family to places we've never been before. Inevitably we would get lost, and my dad would pull out a big book with hundreds of maps of different areas of the country. we would have to find where we were, where we want to go, and route a set of intricate directions to get from point a to point b. Now, we have maps.Google.com where one can simply type in the address of their destination and in less than a second, will have their trip planned out with alternative routes pending on toll roads, traffic hours, local, or highway.

Who remembers those terrible research papers back in middle school where one would have to tediously cite their sources in a certain format relative to the type of source. You know what I mean, newspapers, internet articles, scholarly journals, etc...Well, now they have something called noodletools.com where you can type in the exact source you had, and the site will format it, MLA, APA, etc to what you want it to be. No more..this in "", or italicize that...the site does everything for you!

Of course I have to mention the online shopping sites. notably, Amazon.com and Ebay.com. these two sites have revolutionized the world of shopping. A virtual super store with clothing, sporting goods, food, computer parts...everything you can possible imagine, is on the market in amazon or ebay.

I'd like to mention a not so popular site called wolframalpha.com this website is the first computational knowledge engine. what does this mean? If you type in any computational equation (e.g. derivative of log (x), demographics of..., or you can even do as far as adding colors!) yes, this is the first website I have come across that can compute almost anything! I feel that this is a breakthrough in search engines and we will be seeing more of things like this in the future. Wolfram is indeed impressive. So if you are bored or have some calculus webwork to do, just give it a try.

Made to Break (Ch. 4-6)

Slade’s following chapters continue the extreme discussion of technological obsolescence in America. However, unlike the first three chapters, Chapter four begins with the introduction of a bitter rivalry that lasted for decades, or rather through a series of advancements in a particular field. The first competitor, David Sarnoff, was describes a business genius who saw the strategy in planned obsolesce and took advantage of it with attempts to introduce RCA and Television into the world. The second competitor was Edwin Howard Armstrong who never left the foundation of FM radio only to make it a stronger piece of communications technology.
Slade describes the movement of different sectors of market share and their how they went up and down at the times they did. The strategy that Sarnoff represented was to short live the time of FM radio and quickly destroy it with the introduction of television. However, Armstrong saw the potential greatness that FM radio had to offer and worked on perfecting it for the remainder of his life. The eventual excitement of TV made consumers excited and curious about the new product, but further penetration of FM radio continued to make record achievements in the world of wireless communications. After a series of legal battles between Sarnoff and Armstrong, the bitter rivalry that was once seen as mutual respect began to loose all integrity as time wore on. Once betrayed, Armstrong slowly regained power and authority of the communications world and as RCA began to bow down to the FCC, Armstrong “deliberately wanted to prevent Sarnoff from being able to manufacture FM radios and transmitters…His personal motive may have been to punish Sarnoff and RCA.” (Pg. 96)
Isn’t it interesting to view the corporate innovations of yesterday, and how their rivalry drove the technology of today? How did the TVs and radios that we use right now become the result of an epic legal battle of these two parties? I still find it fascinating how the ideas of obsolesce can be used as such a powerful tool in the hands of business mastermind. One can literally predict the market (hopefully correctly) for years to come.
While exciting, it was very sad to read about how such a battle between the two eventually lead to the tragic death of Howard Armstrong. Throughout the chapter, I really was rooting for Armstrong in the end just because I felt that he deserved the recognition after all the bullying over his patents and inventions.
Interesting how Slade discusses the silk trade movement in Asia. Till this point in the book, he has discussed obsolescence in a sense of technology. But the beginning of chapter 5 was a discussion of the obsolescence of silk. How synthetic substitutes made the market for silk slightly smaller and more elastic. Slade made it clear that “although it had not yet been invented, artificial silk was clearly the fabric of the future.” (Pg. 118).
In the beginning of the book, I didn’t really understand the meaning of the title, “Made to Break” but as I read on, I am beginning to understand what Slade means by this. He literally means that pieces of technology are made to be broken in order make room for new devices in the future.

Made to Break (Chapters 1-3)

Giles Slade’s book, Made to Break is my favorite book that we have read so far in this class. Not because it involves technology anymore that the other reading that we have done, but because it involves economics. I am an Economics major here at Rutgers University, and many of the arguments that Slade has to offer are not only compelling in theory, but also very interestingly applicable to real life as he clearly showed in the first three chapters. Chapter 1 discussed the variability of marketing strategy and the tough task to get loyalty among customers in an era where marketing and consumerism were primal. Slade uses several examples of how innovators used branding and packaging, eliminating cost, inventing disposables in a time of cheap consumption, and all the while maintaining reliability. A familiar name Slade introduces would be King Gillette himself and his innovation of the Gillette razor blades. This product was cheap to product, cheap to consume, and disposable; all characteristics of the demanded product at that time in history. However appealing these disposable products appeared, they became a hassle. Slade goes on to explain that the age of the disposables eventually turned into the age of waste and thrift. Apparently the sale of these incredible products didn’t come with any recycling labels, or “dispose of properly” labels. So, consumers felt that it was acceptable to just throw these products away. These products, being cheap, accessible, and disposable; were easy targets for trash, littering, and thrift. Campaigns were created by officials, yet their efforts seemed useless. America eventually cleaned up but not because of the campaigns, but rather a different direction on interest. As Slade explains, “…they now turned their attention to comfort, luxury, and prestige in the products they bought.” (Pg. 28)

To discuss this quote, I wanted to bring up the impressive analysis that Slade uses between (some of) the great masterminds who established the industrial revolution. Slade exemplifies the battle between the great Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan. These two geniuses developed GM and Ford (respectively) in different ways. As Slade points out, the outcome of their marketing turned out to be very different. In his cars, Henry Ford had much to offer; dependability, parts that last, and craftsmanship. Slade spells out that Ford was a strong believer “against unnecessary obsolescence. He represented an absolute ethic of quality and durability in manufactured goods.” (Pg. 33) He compares this to Sloan’s product where technological innovation supersedes this idea of “lasting” by “increasing efficiency and reducing cost.” (Pg. 33) Sloan’s product had a “new and improved” mentality in its sales versus Ford’s “if its not broken, don’t fix it” mentality. Both of these slogans can seem very attractive to different consumers; however, the idea of competitive advantage seemed to give Sloan the upper hand. I thought this example was excellent in that it showed the change in demand of what exactly consumers wanted. Slade displays that eventually, technological innovation took over the antiqueness of old fashioned models, and it was clear that people want new things even if there is nothing wrong with old things.

Finally, I’d like to point out one last thing about Slade’s book that I found attractive. He brings up the idea of Progressive obsolescence and hot it drove perpetual market change and thus our current capitalistic society. To clarify, Slade’s explanation of Schumpeter’s model of Creative destruction is the exact thing that works our current economic consumerism. Today, you see everyone (able) seeking the latest gadget, the coolest toy, or the smallest most compact tool. No longer are we looking for saving or investing, but rather the consumption of futuristic inventions. We can refer back to an in class discussion where consumption is a necessity to being involved with society’s upper class. I enjoyed Slade’s book because he gave us a very accurate depiction of the change that went from penny pickers to big money spenders.

The world and Wikipedia...second reading

The second part of Andrew Dalby’s book has three main parts explaining: why we love it, why we don’t trust it, and why we will trust it. The first of the three, why we love it, has five parts to it that Dalby considers; however, I felt that only two of the reasons had some real substance to it, and practical meaning behind it. According to Dalby, one of the reasons why we love Wikipedia so much is credible to the freedom that it allows its authors. Dalby clearly states on page 130 that, “we love Wikipedia because it lets us write about whatever we want.” Unfortunately, the author uses this one characteristic as one of the main flaws of Wikipedia as he pointed out several times in his book. I feel that the freedom that Wikipedia offers is both a gift and a burden. As I mentioned in my previous blog, the access to edit pages and topics is in the hands of anyone. This means that anyone can log in (anonymously) and change the wording of subjects that they don’t even know about. The controversy here, is that Dalby’s reason for us hating Wikipedia is the same reason why we love it.

Dalby also claims that another reason why we love Wikipedia is because of its equality. In the world of Wikipedia, every user has the same credibility. This simply means that anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia and not have to show proff of their knowledge. What does this mean? Well, ordinary textbooks, encyclopedias and other credible sources of information are based off the findings and impeccable research of professors and doctors, but when an article is found on Wikipedia, the author could be a high school kid. Again, Dalby’s point can be made here, “in this virtual world, we’re all equal, from professors…to unexpectedly learned school kids.” (Pg. 136) As Dalby shows us, the reasons why we love Wikipedia so much can very well be the same reasons why we hate it.

If that section didn’t make you dislike Wikipedia enough, Dalby mentions the amount of political controversy that arises with Wikipedia. Here, Dalby brings up Richard W. Worth again, and discusses how politicians, friends of politicians or even affiliates can change the articles of important people; dismissing the bad and glorifying the good. An interesting point that Dalby brings up is how Wikipedia has become a Virtual Marketing Tool. He uses the example of a fictional character, Jamie Kane and the Boy*d Upp band. Conspiracies flourished in this section of the book as one measly fictional article. With this one article, accusations were made, and fingers were pointed at, but in the end, everything turned out to just be a fake, fictional joke.

In one of Dalby’s closing remarks, he mentions that one of the reasons why we don’t trust Wikipedia is due to one huge faulty error. The fact that an article can make footnotes based off of another Wikipedia article makes room for something called double error. As Dalby explains it, this could result in false data based off of false data built on a foundation of false data. One could easily see the catastrophe in this type of background.

As for the book, I can’t say that I was a fan. I wasn’t a fan of Andrew Dalby’s random bolding of words, or the sporadic usage of usernames and witty remarks. And one thing that I couldn’t take was the topics that he chooses off of Wikipedia. Sure, Star Wars was cool, but did he really have to talk about historical politics for more than 10 pages? Ugh…

The World and Wikipedia (Pg. 7-113)

Andrew Dalby in his book, The World and Wikipedia, portrays the costs and benefits of the resource known as Wikipedia. He starts his book with a strong example of how volatile Wikipedia can really be. In his example, he mentions the 2009 Earthquake in Italy Shows how users initially based their articles with elementary info from rudimentary broadcasts from credible sources. Even though articles can only start out at a few lines, hundreds of different contributors add to the article as the news gets older; adding statistics and details of the incident. Eventually, the article explodes with information, editing old news with the newest and latest stuff. I thought this was amazing how one topic started generically by any random guy can turn into a reference backed up by multiple users all in matter of a few hours.
Wikipedia proved itself to be astonishing, however deceitful as Dalby later introduces a somewhat chaotic event. He describes that while many users can contribute so much, certain ones, incompetent ones, can destroy Wikipedia and all the credibility that it stands for. For example, Dalby mentions keykingz13, a one time user of Wikipedia who edited several pages that didn't really know what or who they were editing about. This type of destruction of legitimate information and recreation of 'fake' information is what makes Wikipedia seem so weak. Its instances like this that create havoc and distress in the Wikipedia World.

Another section of the book discusses the identity crisis in the online resource. He uses Richard W. Worth as an example, a politician who made changes to his own Wikipedia page using the user name ‘Richard Worth.’ This created a scramble in Wikipedia because of the fact that Worth revised several demising notes about himself and his career. Later, Dalby mentions that “Worth’s approach to Wikipedia was perfectly honest and open. That was his mistake.” (Pg 17) What can this tell us about Wikiedia? That people don’t possess the power to edit the information that the world tells about them? Where is the freedom in an encyclopedia that doesn’t accept information from the source itself? That is at the mercy of its critics?

On a lighter note of the Wiki, Dalby credits its unprecedented variability in language. He mentions that there are now 265 languages in Wikipedia. That means that there are thousands of articles all published for a different demographic spread of users. Never before has a encyclopedia granted its users the same information in hundreds of languages; freely edited by the people itself. Admittedly, some users prove incompetent, but amazingly, one topic can get the feedback of 5 different people from all over the world. As Dalby notes, this can all be credited to Jimmy Wales, who was the one to had the far-fetched visualization in the first place!

Dalby’s first appealing pro for Wikipedia came when he mentioned the Nature survey that paralleled Wikipedia’s performances with that of other sufficient and reliable sources like Britannica. This was a huge step up for Wikipedia because it’s most appealing characteristic was its openness to the public and its FREE resources. So when you have two competitors in the same market, where one makes you pay, and the other one gives it to you for free, of course the majority of the population will choose the free source; regardless of its “32%” error rate. Later on page 54, he states that, " The fans of the site believed it to be refreshingly democratic and claimed that over time, accurate comprehensive articles would materialize…”

I liked this book for the most part. But I feel that Andrew Dalby is somewhat repetitive in his argument on how good, or bad Wikipedia was. Perhaps he will come up with something new in the second part of the reading, but I felt that alot of the book put emphasis on the eligibility of the writers and their freedom to edit pages at their liking. I was especially surprised to read later that Dalby himself is a Wikipedian; it is hard to determine the authors stance on exactly what he perceives Wikipedia to be.

Technopoly: The Surrender of a Culture to Technology (pg 92-199)

The second part of Neil Postman's Book, Technopoly: The Surrender of a Culture to Technology
starts with yet another radical perspective of how technology is ruining the human race. He starts with describing the 'aggressive' hands of the modern doctor, and how they have lost the gifted touch of the once respected profession. As a man born into this chaotic lifestyle over-driven with technology, I am curious as to what the heck Postman was talking about. I've had my fair share of hospital visits, ER walk-ins, and routine check ups; and I have never lost and respect for my doctor or the tools he uses. In fact, as Postman reassures us, patients (like myself) feel more at ease when doctors assure their judgment with x-rays, MRI's, or Cat scans. Postman claims that their procedures make the modern doctor look weak and even goes as far as calling him/her incompetent. Personally, I think to say this is not only ignorant, but also disrespectful. The fact of the matter is, is that today, people are living longer and healthier lives; and what is responsible for this longevity? Technology! What would the world look like if doctors relied on their eyes and ears for diagnoses? Let me provide an example...
I have a close friend whose mother was recently diagnosed with multiple myeloma. The disease first started with minor back pains that grew progressively worse. A doctor's negligence, much like that of Postman's war against the machines, dismissed the pain with prescription. Eventually, X-rays started to identify fractures in the back and weeks later; an MRI discovered the actual cause of the fractures was multiple myeloma. This case proves that doctors cannot be fully responsible for the identification of a certain pain, disease, or medical issue. The fact that we are living longer temps death's gruesome hands to find new ways of killing us, and I feel that technology is one of the weapons that can be used to fight this in inescapable fate.

Postman goes on with his theory to describe that the reason for this catastrophic lifestyle begins with humankind's sovereignty of technology, or rather our easy acceptance and trustworthiness of technology. He states that today, 'medicine is about the disease, not the patient. And what the patient knows is untrustworthy; what the machine knows is reliable.' To an extent, why is so wrong to make this claim? I mean, I'll admit that a machine knows a lot more about my body than I do about myself. How do I know my resting heart rate off the op of my head? How am I supposed to figure out the HDL and LDL cholesterol in my body? I don't know about deficiencies or surpluses in my body, and that is what I have a machine for. On page 102, Postman describes the situation quite well, “medical competence is not defined by the quantity and variety of machinery of machinery brought to bear on disease.”

Another interesting, yet highly debatable topic that Postman brings up is this idea of a symbol drain. He explains the technolopoly story as a “progress without limits, rights without responsibilities, and technology without cost.” (Pg 179) He explains (from chapter eight) that a world revolving around technology destroys morality. Then, Postman complains that there is no longer a symbol for American freedom; stating that eventually symbols will disappear and the disastrous mindset will remain. Furthermore, Postman labels those who resist the American technopoly as people “who refuse to accept efficiency as the preeminent goal of human relations.” (Pg 184) This again, is a cynic’s perspective of how terrible technology is and how detrimental it is to the human race.

What I can’t understand about postman’s argument is why he can’t just accept the way the world has evolved? Why can we be efficient? Why can’t we guiltlessly make things easier for us? These were the questions that were in my head as I was reading Postman’s ENTIRE book.

All for now…

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (Pg xi-91)

Neil Postman's book, Technopoly: The Surrender of a Culture of Technology is an interesting read about a skeptic’s view of how technology’s emergence into the world, or rather a culture, is detrimental to its future. Starting with the introduction, Postman states, “The accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity.” (Pg xii) He goes on to explain that a culture twined with too much technology is a culture without moral foundation. Interestingly enough, Postman admits that there is a line that separates the good and the bad technology; confirming that technology is both a friend and enemy with costs and benefits. This thought brings the author to chapter 1 where he discusses the Judgment of Thamus. He distinguishes two separate categories among society calling one side the Technophiles (those who only see the benefits of technology), and the skeptics (those who only see the harm of technology.) Upon accepting a technology however, both skeptics and technophiles much analyze the technology with their “eyes wide open.” (Pg. 7)

Absurdly, Postman observes an interesting theory. He tells us that those who cultivate competence in the use of a new technology will become an elite group—granted undeserved authority. Arguably, I cannot agree with this. I feel like those who do achieve competence in a technology are credited into this elite group and thus it is not underserved. Page 9 in the book describes this theory a little further. Harold Innis believed in what are called Knowledge Monopolies. This mindset creates a variable subset of winners and losers where the winners are competent and the losers are not. Then, he states that losers eventually succumb to learning a new technology leaving no more room for an incompetent subgroup. What I don’t understand about this proposed theory is why there cant be a balance between the two. Why cant there be one large group adding to universal knowledge?

Chapter 2 describes ‘tool using cultures’ as technology being integrated in culture, but not obstructing its prevalence. However, when tool-using cultures begin to take advantage of their tools, is when they begin to transform into technocracies. Postman declares that there is a difference between tool using cultures (Descartes, Galileo, Newton) and technocracies (beginning with innovators like Sir Frances Bacon.)

Chapter 3 describes the transition from a Technocracy to a Technopoly. On page 45, Postman says, “Technocracy gave us the idea of progress and the necessity loosened our bonds with tradition—whether political or spiritual.” He goes on to describe the beginning of the shift when Henry Ford started his industrial empire. Technopoly started in America for 4 main reasons. 1. “The Distrust of Constraints” 2. “The genius of American Capitalists” 3. The “convenience, comfort and speed” of technology and 4. The “devaluation of traditional beliefs.”

Chapter 4 describes the improbable world where human progress is taken over by technological progress. This is clearly stated on page 70, “cultures may also suffer grievously from information glut, information without meaning, information without controlled mechanisms.” Postman’s closing in Chapter 5 says that what technopolies want, they cannot have, and the consequences will follow later.

Computers: The Life Story of a Technology (Pg 85-149)

The second part of this book by Eric G. Swedin and David L. Ferro was a little more interesting in my opinion. While the first part of the book was of the coming of computers and the general background that they have, the second part of the book was more about the computers that we use today; or at least something that closely resembles what we use today. To be honest, I felt that the first part of the book was like reading a history book; the history of the computer that is, while the second part of the reading was much more translatable to the current generation.

The second part of Swedin and Ferro's book starts with chapter 5. Here, they introduce a common name to even the users of the current generation--Intel. Intel is as famous today as Swedin and Ferro described it to be in the past. They are a company that initially started the innovation of Microprocessors for the first hand held computers. The authors explain vividly the history if Intel; verifying that Ted Hoff was the initial creator of these Microprocessors and go on to explain how hobbyists like Gary Kildall strived to created the a variation of what we all know as the 'desktop.'

Swedin and Ferro continue their historical discussion by bringing up Altair created by Edward Roberts. The computer was one of the first that could be used at home and was quite expensive. Then a revelation of new technology introduced to the public, it was still by no means impressive to our standards today. The Altair came with 256 bytes of memory and peripheral devices were NOT included! However primal this device seemed to be, its fabrication laid out the foundation for the creation of Microsoft with Paul Allen and Bill Gates.

I really enjoy reading about the creating of Apple. I recently became a huge fan of Apple products. Skeptical at first, after plenty of research and a lot of saving, I finally decided to purchase a Mac Book Pro--I am satisfied to my fullest extent. I enjoyed reading about how the genius minds of Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs came together to create the premises of such a terrific product. These two masterminds started out with simple, yet brilliant ideas including the popular arcade game, Breakout, and the invention of blue boxes. Eventually, they discovered their created invention, Apple.

I also found the history of Microsoft and their long term relationship with IBM. It was very early on when the two started to work cooperatively in recognition of the competition, mainly Apple. Together they created a power Operating System known as MS-Dos or PC-DOS. These popular and extremely powerful OS creations were the main driver in popularity in computers. One fact that I found incredible was that with the popularity rising in these machines, Time Magazine decided to name the PC as Man of the Year. This was the first time that the Man of the Year was not a 'Man.'

I thought that this was the major chunk in the second part of the reading that I found comparable and intriguing. The authors had an interesting read on the establishment of Wireless networks describing how AlohaNet was created by Norman Abramson and how he link a network through the Time Division Methods Access (TDMA.) When that failed because of AlohaNet's numberous terminals, innovators tried again with CDMA/CD. And thus lead to the creation of a network of computers no longer tied together with cables.

I'd also like to discuss Sedwin and Ferro's decription of the internet and how it was developed. He described how Tim Bemus Lee wanted to make information more accessable to the world. He did this with Computer Networking and Hypertext. With the creation of the internet followed Microsoft's attempt to maintain its stability as a technological monopoly; thus the creation of Internet Explorer.

Again, I found this second part of the reading to be much more interesting and enjoyable as you might be able to tell with the size of this blog entry. I liked discovering the past of the tools that we use today; a past that I can actually see, not something about Astrolabs or the Tally system. It was fun reading and I discovered a few things that I never knew before; things that will make me think next time I'm on the internet or in the Apple store.

Until next time...

Omegle

Hi all,

After yesterday's class discussion on social networks and telepresence on the web, I was intrigued and very taken back by the class experiment. I've never heard of chat roulette or omegle before and was interested. I noted the (hilarious) conversation we had in lecture and decided to have a little fun myself at home. What I found was interesting...

These social websites give courage and security to its users; however, these characteristics board a dangerously thin line with safety and uncensored vandalism. In the experiment I carried at home, I used Omegle and had to go through 8 users till I found a 'decent' conversation. In the first 8, all of the users were male, and they immediately requested my sex. As soon as I revealed myself as a male, FIVE of my conversations were disconnected. The other three asked if I was Bisexual. It wasn't until my 9th time on the site, where I found a decent conversation with a girl in Canada. She asked about accurate depictions of the popular MTV show, the Jersey Shore. We went on to discuss the racial disputes on the show, and admittedly had an intellectual conversation for about 30 minutes.

There are two sides that I would like to talk about in my experience with Omegle. First I'd like to say that this site, and many like it are extremely dangerous. The fact that there are 15-17 year old children on this website talking to threatening perverts is a scary thought. It took me 8 times to find a decent conversation with a decent human being. The fact that there are tons of people out there that use this website to take advantage of its' closed curtain is outrageous. Some may find it funny, but when you think about it; the ideals are far from funny. I used to wonder when I saw something on the news about children being kidnapped and how irresponsibly stupid they are for putting themselves in that position. The fact of the matter is, the irresponsibility lays with the parents for opening up this realm of insecurities and threats. How is an innocent 15 year old child able to defend him/herself from the deceiving minds of a public enemy, a night walker, or a spook?

The other side I'd like to discuss is a little more light-hearted. I'd like to discuss the genuine relationship that I DID establish with my Canadian buddy. You see, while it was very hard to come by, I had a very nice discussion with this girl, and to be honest, there wasn't much of a difference between a physical introduction and this one. Once we established our sexes, I asked her to "prove me wrong..and not talk about something absurd..." She simply replied "ok..." Skeptically, I asked a hetorical question, "is it possible to get a humane/civil conversation with decent people in this world?" and she delicately replied, "you're having one right now." I was taken back by such a remarkable response. Still on my toes, I carried our dialogue with intriguing Qs and As and interesting topics until it was time for me to end. The bottom line here is that I enjoyed our conversation and I thought it was an enlightening discovery to find that such a relationship could be created without the means of asking for a mere name! This leads me to discuss a topic that I am looking forward to hopefully talking about in class in the near future. Can cyber-relationships possible by legitimate? I know that there are a bunch of online dating sites and social matchmakers out there, and this one online conversation I had with an equivalent intellectual proved to me that these type of things have the potential to make people truly happy; to cut out social awkwardness, and dismiss shyness.

This is the end of this blog, and i'm sure I will have much more like it to come in the future. Peace to all you hopefuls out there. Give Omegle a shot, but be wary.

Computers: The Life story of a Technology (pgs 1-83)

Computers: The life story of a Technology by Eric G. Swedin and David L. Ferro is a book informing the reader about the historical past of computers. In the opening chapter, Swedin and Ferro discuss the primal ages of computers beginning with anthropologic discoveries such as the Antikythera Device and Astrolabes. Slowly, the authors build their discussion as they introduce the crucial role that computers and technology began to take in the modern world. They start by talking about the early parts of math development such as logarithms and algorithms; the authors explain the establishment of the decimal system and other important parts of math progress. Swedin and Ferro explain how elementary parts of the mathematical system lead to higher more advanced levels and eventually the industrial revolution where these systems of automata began to remove the human element! The authors soon begin to introduce the early mechanical computers—the ancient relatives of the computers we use today. They use IBM as the leader of the early computers and discuss the company’s efforts to create the first analytical machine. I learned something interesting in their chapter section about the development of technology in computer chips. The project was initiated by John Atanasoff and started the concept of ‘jogging’ in computers in his ABC computer. This section was appealing to me because a lot of the computers that we use today still have that same concept, but I’m sure at much higher processing levels.

Another part of the book that I found interesting was in the authors’ discussion in the role of computers in war. And how technologies such as ENIAC and enigma code were just a crucial part in combat and in winning. Other topics that I found interesting in the topic of War and computers were the British Bomb and Code Decryption. I was able to fully understand the idea of an arms race not in terms of how many guns you have but more what kind of technology you have.

The book was interesting and well written. I feel that I was given a very in depth lecture on the early ages of computers, and their rise to what they are today. I realized that the world wouldn’t be in the state it is in now without computers and I realized that they play such a crucial role in society’s efficiency and power. The World is only going to become more and more dependent on technology like this because in the end, who doesn’t want their life easier? Companies are looking to reduce labor, and replace it with capital; to make things faster, less error, and more competent then any human could every be.

Introduction

Hi,

My name is Justin Chu and I'm a senior here at Rutgers University. I'm majoring in Economics and minoring Philosophy. My interests include tennis, running, boxing, and philosophy. I have broken my five year tradition of going to the US Open every summer, but I still follow it avidly. I have 5' 9" and have a muscular build. I like going out to the bar with my friends and catching up with them. I'm friendly and outgoing, and love talking about business and current world affairs. I also have an insane movie IQ.

As far as keeping track of the amount of modern technology in my life? I'd say its normal. I mean, nowadays, who doesn't check facebook at at least twice a day (morning/night), who doesn't have an online bank account, and who doesn't use google to search for the answer for their everyday questions? I'd say that my top 5 sites are Facebook, nytimes, sakai, my online bank site, and my fraternity's forum. I check ALL of these sites compulsively simply because they are not a routine part of my lifestyle. Other pieces of technology would include my cell phone. In thinking about this assignment, I actually realized that I NEED my cell phone; and no, that is not an understatement. I have my emails, texts, calls, and entertainment on this thing, and I would be no where without it. So there it is, the two most valuable (materialistically speaking) things in my life right now.