Writing Assignment 13/ Summary

There are two major things that I have gained from this class based on the readings and discussions during class. First off, I realized that anyone can find out a ton of information about person- where they live, who their relatives are, their phone numbers and ever more. If someone digs even deeper, they can find out a lot of social information about a person by browsing social networking sites. At first I used to think that this was acceptable because it was possible for a long lost friend or relative to locate a person. However, now I think that is slightly scary and a dream come true for stalker. I've learned how to try to "hide myself" on the internet because anyone from a psycho to a potential employer can find out any information about me- whether it be true or false. The fact that anything can be found out about almost anyone on the internet can haves its advantages, but the disadvantages stick out most in my mind.

Secondly, the RFID chip seems to have its advantages and disadvantages as well but when it gets into the wrong hands there is room for abuse. After learning about this in class, I have heard more and more about it. I've heard my boss discuss it and how he plans to change some of this inventory and I've even heard it featured on Law & Order when a man placed a chip in his wife to track her moves and catch her cheating. It seems like a form of technology that can be extremely useful when used correctly, but as with many other forms of technology, when in the wrong hands, there is room for potential danger.

Writing Assignment 12/ Future Technology

I don’t agree with either of these articles. They both seem too out of line. The Kurzweil article is really far out there and exaggerated. In fact I almost thought it was a joke. “By 2009 there will be no computers” is what he remarks in his article. This just seems to soon- that’s about two years away from now. How will companies be able to afford all of this new technology- especially within two years? This statement was just a little too radical. Maybe the possibility of having programs being written into our retinas will be possible at some point but even if it were- not everyone would do it or could afford it. I personally wish I had the money to correct my vision with laser surgery. If I can’t afford that- why would I spend money on putting a program into my retinas- especially when I can’ even afford a new laptop. I think that it could be possible to display laser images- such as keyboards or virtual reality and I also agree that technology keeps getting smaller and smaller but I don’t think that it will occur too soon. Perhaps some people may obtain this new technology- but not just yet.

The second article seemed to focus a lot on machines and people allowing them to make decisions for us. If this does occur- I don’t think that it will be within twenty years. This goes back to what we discussed in class- these robots can be programmed to be at a certain level of intelligence- but they aren’t street smart to make some decisions for us. One tiny error in the programming and it can cause a problem.

I think that both articles were giving technology more credit than it deserves. Yes, we have great and advanced technology, but we aren’t going to be warping into different dimensions any time soon.

Writing Assignment 11/ Intelligence

I don't think that these chatbots qualify as intelligent the same way that we consider humans to be intelligent. In class we used the example of the language translation services and they completely destroyed a simple sentence such as "hello, how are you doing."

In order for a machine to be considered as intelligent as humans I think that it would require much advancement. The slides that we viewed in class featured chatbots that based their response on your previous sentence but these programs seem like they could encounter many problems revolving around details.

I think that it's hilarious that some people "porn-text" and are actually fooled by machines. I think that if those people need dirty talk that badly, what they don't know can't hurt them.

Writing Assignment 10/ Net Addiction

I think that it's very easy for someone to be addicted to the internet. People can get addicted to anything- substances, gambling, electronics... You name it and I'm sure there is someone out there who can be considered an addict.

I've encountered many people who get caught up in websites such as myspace and facebook. While I admit that they can be fun and a great way to avoid homework, some people can't live more than a few hours without logging in. During many classes I see people surfing these networking sites rather than paying attention. People just get too addicted to checking "their comments".

I think it's ok that some people use these sites as their hobbies, but I also know people who become far too anti-social and let these sites interfere with their lives. Some people get mad if you "don't post a comment" on their page and I even know couples who have broken up due to things such as their "top 8". This is all pretty ridiculous if you ask me, which is why I do believe that people can be addicted to the internet. They are letting these sites control their lives and feelings- just the way any other destructive behavior would do.

I don't know anyone who has dropped out of a class or school to spend more time on the internet but I do know people who let the internet affect their grades and study time. I get distracted on the internet too but I know when there is a stopping point. However, not everyone has the strength or self-control to just stop surfing the net and get to work, which is why I do believe that there is such a thing as internet addiction.

Writing Assignment 9/ File Sharing

I think that file sharing is a huge issue that needs to be solved. I download songs online for various reasons which I find acceptable. For starters, I used to own a very large collection of music, but a certain crazy individual destroyed all of my CDs. Since I cannot afford to re-purchase all of those CDs, I will occasionally download some of those songs. I also own many CDs that are at my parent's house in Texas, so rather than having them ship me the CDs, I'll download some songs that I really enjoy. I don't think this qualifies as theft because they are songs and albums that I have already purchased.

I also download songs that I hear on the radio and enjoy. These are songs on albums that I would never purchase, either because I don't like the artist enough or I know I wouldn't like the CD. This isn't stealing either because how am I stealing something that I would never purchase anyway?

I believe that downloading a song from an independent artist is acceptable as well, as long as it's for personal use and not for distribution. This kind of download could potentially help an artist because a fan could generate more fans through word of mouth.

I would never download an entire album through file sharing. First of all the quality would be horrible. Second, when there is an ablum that I actually like entirely, I prefer to have the physical CD to listen to it on my stereo or in my car. I would never steal a CD from a store because that is just plain stupid. Why risk so much for so little? Shoplifting is an obvious method of "stealing".

I have copied a CD from a friend, and once again I don't think that qualifies as stealing because someone already paid for the CD. Albums are far too overpriced these days so until the record companies lower their prices, I will continue to download songs.

Another reason why I download certain things is because of availability. I love music in Spanish and I am not about to go all they way to the Mission to look for a Latin music store. If the music industry made it easier to access more kinds of music then we wouldn't have to download songs.

I like the idea proposed by the EFF to create a voluntary collective association. I would pay a small fee in order to download unlimited songs without any risk and I think that many others would do the same. We could get safe, high quality music and the profit driven companies could get their money.

Writing Assignment 9/ Mashing Lab

The first link that I found which I think is pretty interesting is a virtual tour of NYC. I'm going to a conference there next month and I've never been there so it was nice to see actual photos and real people in action. This site mashes up with Google maps.
Here is the link: http://www.virtualnyctour.com/index.php

My second favorite link is again related to New York. This one shows everything in Manhattan (at night), from 24 hour pharmacies to cafes. I'm the kind of person that would go out at 2am to buy gatorade so I like this site. It is also hooked up to Google maps.
Here is the link: http://maps.fiftythreedegrees.com/

The third site that I chose was to help find cheap gas prices in San Jose. Although I do not live in San Jose, one of my close friends does, and she commutes a lot so she could benefit from this site. Surprise, surprise, this site is also mashed up with Google maps.
Here is the link: http://maps.fiftythreedegrees.com/

Writing Assignment 8/ Net Neutrality

The issue of the net remaining neutral has to do with the phone and cable lines that companies are trying to take over. First of all, I would like to say that I think these lines should belong to the public- just the way radio waves are said to be owned by the public. This is a huge debate and concern because certain companies want to take over the net and charge certain companies more in order for their links to move or connect faster. For example, a company could charge AT&T more money so that their search results would be faster than google's- thus creating more clients and users for AT&T. The group "Savetheinternet.com" is trying to lobby these companies and avoid these profit driven companies from taking over the net.

On the other side of this debate are groups such as "Hands off the Internet" which are in favor of these companies having more control over the net. To me the name 'hands off the internet' sounds like it's more 'hands on the net' rather than the opposite. This group claims that if opposing groups win this debate, the government will actually have to step in and control this issue.

I really am not buying into the arguements of groups such as "hands off the internet". I wouldn't doubt it if the people leading these groups also had connections with media giants such as Yahoo! and SBC. To me it sounds as if these groups are simply profit driven and not interested in the what is best for their clients. The internet should belong to the public and not to media conglomerates.