Some Final Thoughts

This has been an interesting and fun class.  It's opened my eyes to things that have been going on around us for years but I that failed to truly see.  The reading assignments were both interesting and relevant, and I'm really glad I took this class.

I think it's sad that our society is so materialistic, and that we're never satisfied with what we have.  I'll admit that sometimes I'm guilty, as well.  Around the holidays, many of us take time to reflect, and think of those less fortunate than we are.  Then, when the holidays are over, it's back to thinking of ourselves again, and how we want the newer, bigger, and better products.  We don't realize how much we already have, and we always want more.  We also don't think twice about tossing our old products out like yesterday's news--except that we might actually recycle the newspaper.  It takes more effort and know-how when it comes to recycling our technological gadgets, so we usually don't, and we are slowing suffering from the effects of this e-waste.

Technology will most definitely brighten the future of the world we live in, but we need to remember several important things.  Technology is only as good as the people who create it and make it work.  We are humans, and we are imperfect.  We also need to use technology wisely, and dispose of our products more wisely, or we're going to suffer many consequences of our incessant throwaway lifestyles.  Sure, we may not see immediate results, and may not even see any major changes during our lifetimes, but wouldn't it be nice if we weren't so selfish?

Motion in East Brunswick!

Yesterday, while in the car listening to the radio, I heard about something pretty cool--Motion movie seats have arrived at Mega Movies in East Brunswick!  I love, love, LOVE this sort of thing when I go to amusement parks, so I just had to find out more.  Unfortunately, my excitement pretty much waned when I learned the rest of the story.

Mega Movies on Route 18 in East Brunswick is the first movie theater in the state to have motion seats.  These seats make you feel as though you're a participant in the movie.  They roll, pitch, turn, heave, etc...in perfect sync with the action on the movie screen.  You can even adjust the seats, to modidfy the amount of motion you feel.  They're called D-Box seats.  However, there are only 26 of these seats available, so they need to be reserved.  In addition to the limited supply of seats, the price of a ticket to sit in a D-Box seat will cost $8.00 more than a regular seat.  Wow!  Movie tickets are expensive enough.  Besides, I'm sure that the odds are slim to none that I'd be able to reserve seats for a family of five any time soon, for a movie that's suitable for everyone in the family to see.  Oh, well!

Time to start the final paper!

For some reason, this blog never got posted.  I just found it in my list of posts as a "draft" from December 7th.  I'm going to publish the post now, but it's a little out of chronological order.  Sorry!!

I can't believe this semester is almost over.  It has been one heck of a ride for me--one that I wasn't expecting.  I knew it would be a bit difficult taking on two classes this semester, since one of them is Nursing Research.   However, I've also had to tackle a few unexpected issues, that really couldn't have occurred at a worse time.  I've had to deal with a lengthy hospitalization of my mom in November, and
now her slow rehabilitation.  My Nursing Research class has been a lot more difficult than expected, and I swear I'm getting an ulcer over it.

For our final assignment in Technology and Culture in America, we need to compose a well-supported and well-cited paper on our choice of one of two potential topics.  I have chosen to use "Made To Break" by Giles Slade as my primary source, and will answer the 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 the path of going green?"  I remember flipping and flopping, going back and forth on my opinions as I read this book, but I think I have finally come to a decision on what I believe will happen.

And now...the end is near...

I'm feeling so many different things right now....

I'm still unbelievably stressed out over my nursing research class, because that final is still looming over my head.  I'll take that today.  Wish me luck, because that class has almost killed me.  I'm also starting to feel a little bit of relief, because I know that no matter how I do on the test, it will be over today.  Thank you, God....I can actually take the exam tomorrow if I so choose, but I don't think that one extra day of studying will make a difference in my performance.  The only difference will be that of an ulcer and a bleeding ulcer.  I hate to go on and on about the nursing research class, but it's affected me in such a negative way this semester.  I feel like it has taken over my life for the past 3 months.  It really hurts that I have put so much time and effort into it, and have lost hours of sleep over it, and I'm going into the final exam with only a C average.

On a more positive note, I have just about finished my paper for Technology and Culture!   I ended up writing more than I expected.  Thank goodness The Facebook Effect wasn't an option for this paper, because I'd probably have a hard time fitting everything into a 6-8 page paper.  As it is, I think I have written 9 or 10 pages on the Giles Slade book--sorry, Professor!!

Well, I'm off to review my notes one more time...

Time to Make the Donuts!

Well, the end of the semester is drawing near.  Now that I have my nursing research paper completed and submitted, I am just going to stop stressing over it.  What's done is done, and hopefully it will be acceptable. 

Now it's time to get back to work on my paper for Technology and Culture in America.  For this final assignment, I chose Made to Break, by Giles Slade, to answer the 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?  Last week, I went back to the library to take this book out once again, and will try to remember to renew it BEFORE it's overdue this time.  I started skimming through the book to refresh my memory regarding some key points Slade makes, and jotted down little notes to myself along with little snippets of what I'd like to include from the book. 

When I was searching the internet for additional information about the green movement, I found so much information that it became overwhelming.  I need to stop and think about exactly what it is I want to get more information on, so I can narrow it down to a few hundred search results as opposed to a few thousand.  Hey....I just realized....see that?  Once again, technology proves to be a necessity in my life :-)

Well, I'm off to start narrowing my search!

The Facebook Effect

I took advantage of technology for this assignment.  I downloaded and read The Facebook Effect on my Kindle.  I’ve had the Kindle for almost a year now, but have never used it for school until now.   It’s great, but there is a downside that I must mention.    The Kindle doesn’t show page numbers, so you’re unable to cite any page numbers for reference.

Let me start by saying that this is, hands down, my favorite book of the semester.  I think the best was saved for last.  I love that this book is a biography.  It’s such a great change from the other books we’ve read.  It’s a book that I found very interesting, as a huge fan of Facebook, and because it’s all about something that’s a part of so many people’s lives. 

The author of this book, David Kirkpatrick, was a former technology writer for Fortune.  He was invited to have dinner with Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, in 2006.  At that time, he won unprecedented access to Zuckerberg and 39 of his top employees to gather material for this book.  The Facebook Effect is now considered to be an official history of the company and the most definitive account of Facebook's rise to power. 

I love how Kirkpatrick grabs us right away, in his prologue.  If you didn’t already know all about Facebook, you learn that it can be a powerful tool.  Facebook can be used for something simple, such as keeping in touch with friends and family, but in the prologue we learn about the massive effect of a single post from one young man named Oscar Morales.   Mr. Morales started a Facebook campaign from his bedroom through a midnight posting.  He posted what was on his mind, logged off, and went to bed.  His campaign was called Un Millon de Voces Contra Las FARC—One Million voices against FARC.   Little did he know that his campaign against a Colombian guerrilla organization would lead to worldwide attention and protests.  As a matter of fact, it led to one of the largest demonstrations ever, anywhere in the world.  I find the impact of one man’s anger and disgust, and his venting on a social media website, to be just amazing.

Mark Zuckerberg is a creative genius.  He knows all about timing, and how timing is indeed everything.  He created Facebook just as people were getting faster internet connections.  His $100 million donation to Newark schools was right around the time of the New York Film Festival premier of “The Social Network” which portrays an unflattering portrait of Zuckerberg as a selfish egomaniac.  Love him or hate him, you have to respect him.

Facebook began life in a student room in 2003, as Facemash.  Its original function was to allow Zuckerberg and his fellow Harvard students to rate each other's attractiveness and flirt with each other electronically.  It was kind of a snobby website, exclusive to Harvard students.  It then became “thefacebook,” and Zuckerberg’s out-of-pocket was originally all of $35.00 to register the domain name.  

In June 2004, after a coincidental meeting with the former co-creator of Napster, Sean Parker, Facebook received its first investment of $500K from the co-founder of Paypal (another site I love), Peter Thiel.  In 2005 Facebook granted access to members belonging to recognized academic institutions and other organizations in the United States, Canada and other English-speaking countries as long as they could provide a valid email I.D. associated with their institutions. In the same year, "the" was dropped from the name, and the domain Facebook.com was purchased for $200K. Two equity and venture capital firms  (Accel Partners and Greylock Partners) then invested $12.7 million and $27.5 million, respectively.  After few months, Zuckerberg, along with Dustin Moskowitz and Chris Hughes, two of his Harvard friends who helped him to build Facebook, dropped out of Harvard and moved to Palo Alto, California to run the website as their sole occupation.

Zuckerberg was determined to maintain independence, and not sell Facebook.  (He continues to maintain that the money does not motivate him, even to this day.)  He decided to launch it globally, allowing anyone who had a valid email address to sign up for a Facebook account.   At this stage of the game, there was still strong competition from MySpace.  In 2007, Facebook was approached by Microsoft, which subsequently acquired 1.6% of the shares of the company for the sum of $240 million.  A month later, another a Hong Kong billionaire invested $60 million in the company.

Zuckerberg claims to have a passion for transparency. He believes that we'd all be better people if we shared our data with one another,  making our lives publicly available to each other.  He feels that when the gap is narrowed between public and private, the potential for hypocrisy will be reduced, and it becomes harder, for example, for people to cheat on their partners when everything is so public and out in the open.  However, Zuckerberg's beliefs have raised concerns about privacy issues that have plagued Facebook for the past few years. 

Facebook makes most of its money by helping companies target potential customers more effectively than mainstream media. It is a routine part of the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world. Many people can be made aware of something almost simultaneously, and with ease.  You don’t need to be a genius or have any specific skills to be on Facebook.  Like on Wikipedia, everyone can be a content creator or an editor, in addition to a producer and a distributor.  Facebook changes how people communicate and interact, how marketers sell products, how governments reach out to citizens, and even how companies operate.  You can most likely find a Facebook page for your favorite brand, favorite food, or favorite store.   Facebook is the second most visited site, after Google.  Facebook claims more than 400 million active users as of February 2010, and it operates in 75 languages.

One final thought.  Two famous high tech companies were founded by Harvard University dropouts in their dorm rooms -- Microsoft and Facebook.  What are the rest of us doing wrong?

Damn You, Auto Correct! Just Thought I'd Share

Maybe I'm the last person to discover this site, but if not, I want to share it with you.  While I was stuck in the house with a raging sinus infection and a sick kid to boot, I discovered "Damn You, Auto Correct" at damnyouautocorrect.com.  It is hilarious, but I have to give a heads up--do not visit the site if you are easily offended by foul language.  For anyone who is not familiar with auto-correct, it is a feature on iPhones and other touch-screen phones that tries to "guess" what you are going to type--and fix your spelling--before you finish typing.  This program exists to supposedly make our lives easier, but judging by all of the errors made by auto correct, this isn't the case.  Damn You, Auto Correct is a website that sees the humor in this.  I sat in front of my computer, on this website, and read through 19 pages of text messages that were auto-corrected.  All I can say is that the auto-correct feature shows us how there truly are imperfections in the technology that we use every day!

My Almost 11 year old wants a Facebook account…

and she’s really not very happy about my husband’s and my decision that she cannot have one, but tough kitties.  I say that there are rules for a reason, and one of the rules when signing up for a facebook account states that you must be 13 years of age.  Sure, more than half of my daughters’ classmates have accounts, and they’re not 13, but I’m a geek.  A rule-follower.  A nerd.  Whatever.  My husband said she can have an account when she finishes college, so she should be more angry with him.  I know that my daughter is a good kid, and I trust her.  It’s some of the other kids she’ll be connecting with that I don’t trust, and I am kind of paranoid.  I read a story about 2 months ago about a 14 year old girl in England who intended to invite 15 of her friends to her 15^th birthday party.  In error, she ticked off a box, allowing anyone to view and RSVP to this “public event”.  Now her personal information, including her address were online for the world to see.  She received 21,000 RSVPs to her party.   Although the original invitation was removed from the site, a new version was visible to all Facebook users a few days later.  This new version was not created by the girl herself but her address was again posted on the site for all to see.   The party was cancelled and there was a large police presence staked outside the girls’ home at the time the party was to start.  It scares the be-jeezus out of me, how one simple ticking of a box can compromise privacy and safety.  Here’s the article. Check it out:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/21/5150049-teen-posts-birthday-party-invite-on-facebook-and-21000-rsvp

Midterm Blog--What I learned from Wikipedia

 I personally don’t believe that Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source.  I think that Wikipedia is a good place to go for quick, basic information, and that it’s a great place to start when looking for more information on a topic.  However, I think that if scholarly information is sought, further research needs to take place.  I would further investigate the sources of information used in the Wikipedia entry itself, and look through the citations and choosing those that are most relevant to my study.

While I believe that Wikipedia has more strengths than weaknesses, the weaknesses are great and can't be ignored.  Its strengths are that it is free, and easily available to anyone, anytime, 24/7.  All you need is an internet connection.  It’s easy to look something up on Wikipedia—anything, really.  There’s no need to schlep to the library to look through an encyclopedia.  You can usually find up-to-date information on Wikipedia, and often, with current events, articles are entered almost immediately.   Anyone can write an article, contribute to an article, or edit an article.  (These are both strengths and weaknesses).

The weaknesses of Wikipedia are that the information on there is only as good and reliable as the authors and their references.   It is not perfect, and there are errors on there.   The content is not 100 percent reliable.    The fact that anyone can edit an entry on Wikipedia is both a blessing and a curse.  There are people out there who will anonymously add erroneous information, promote their own personal agenda, or sabotage an entry for whatever reason.  

Technology will continue to provide us with greater access to needed information, but we always need to be on our toes.  We cannot let ourselves trust everything we read, 100 percent.  Just because it’s online doesn’t mean it’s true or correct.   Human relationships can be affected by technology in many ways.   In this day and age, people often prefer to communicate via email or text, rather than by making a phone call.  In addition, cyber relationships are very common, and “real life” relationships can suffer because of the online ones.  One can weave a very tangled web if they’re not careful!  I read something online a few weeks ago, and I think that Michael Barkey from the Washington Post summed it all up nicely when he said, “Humans are blessed with the power to make choices for themselves. How each of us chooses to respond to new opportunities depends wholly upon the values we seek to promote in our lives. People are what define a community and information technology is only another tool to help express who we are.”

The Digitalization of Your Health Information

In our ever-evolving technological world, it was only a matter of time before hospitals made the conversion from paper charting and medical records to computerized charting and electronic medical records. This is something that's here to stay, whether or not we like it. Few other industries still rely on paper records.

The President's plan to re-design the nation's healthcare system is controversial. The Obama administration has set aside $46 billion to help doctors and hospitals with the costs to go electronic. This is a reimbursment--they still have to buy the systems with their own money.

There are many pros and cons to replacing the old fashioned paperwork. Like the title of this article states, computers are not foolproof, and therefore we should not rely on them to be 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time.

Electronic medical records are used by health care providers, hospitals, clinics, and other sectors of the healthcare industry. Some advantages of using EMRs are the following:

Electronic health records supposedly reduce errors in medical records. Handwritten records are often difficult to decipher due to misspelling, illegibility, and differing terminologies. Up to 100,000 patients in the U.S. alone die in hospitals every year because of medical errors. That's the equivalent of one major airline crash a day, every single day of the year. It is believed that with the increased use of electronic medical records, there will eventually be a standardization of patient health records.

Healthcare providers can get immediate access to an entire chart, so they can quickly read reports, chart notes, and orders easily, without having to take the time to decipher someone's handwriting, and never having to wait for someone to finish using a chart when they need it.

Electronic medical records keep information safe, because papers can easily be lost due to irresponsibility, fire, flood, or other catastrophes. Digital records can be stored forever.

Digitalized records also keep health information that patients tend to forget, such as vaccinations, previous illnesses and medications. They also consolidate all of the data in one place, unlike paper charts/records, where everything is scattered. Computerized records save both time and money, because there won't be as many phone calls, emails, and faxes to get access to records from other places. The computerized records will also prevent medical tests that have already been done from being repeated all over again, incurring unnecessary costs to the patients and the health care system. They also facilitate coordination between health professionals. Coordination between care providers has always been problematic. Computerized records facilitate the coordination of care and continuity of care. The efficiency and speed of diagnosis translates into better health care service for patients. Similar to the previously discussed point, correct and timely information can significantly increase the quality of health care service rendered to patients. They can even save lives.

As you can see, there are many advantages to all the digitalization of medical records. However, there are also some serious disadvantages:

Learning the systems can be tedious and time consuming. Combining computer proficiency and fulfilling patient direct patient care can be challenging each day. Spending time just completing the documentation on the computer can actually lead to less time spent at the bedside, especially if the person isn't very fast on the computer.

Electronic medical records threaten our privacy. People are not comfortable having their entire medical history recorded and digitized for almost just anybody to see. For example, what if a hospital employee was hospitalized and happened to be HIV positive? Do you really think they'd want co-workers to know this? Well, guess what? They can easily find out everything their inquiring minds want to know. Sure, they have no right to do so, but that isn't going to stop them! I remember something that happened when I worked in a hospital about 15 years ago. One of the nurses I worked with was 8 months pregnant, and she developed pre-eclampsia, and subsequently, eclampsia. She was admitted to the hospital in distress. Her baby was saved, and she died. She was only 30 years old. We were all shocked beyond belief. There was no computerized charting, and her paper chart was kept secure. However, almost everyone who worked with her tried to look through her chart! They also went to gawk at this poor woman right after she died. Some even went to the morgue! Everyone came back with stories about how "horrible" she looked, how she "didn't look like the girl we knew", etc....I am proud to say that I wasn't a part of all that, out of respect. My point is that people are curious. OK, downright nosey. And they will try to find out whatever they can, just because. Although I have nothing to hide, the thought of people going through my records just gives me the heebie jeebies.

Medical data can even be used against a person in some cases – whether when applying for job, insurance coverage, or a college scholarship. Although it is against the law to discriminate against people with illnesses and disabilities, it is routinely done. In addition, there are just way too many stories about data hacking, identity theft, blackmail, etc...

In the process of digitalization, the interpersonal aspect in health care may also be lost. In handwritten hospital charts, doctors and other health care practitioners may write what they think and they feel based on their personal observations in their very own words. With computerized charting, one just checks off boxes on electronic forms. Healthcare providers are not always able to express a personal opinion on an individual case. Because of the lack of flexibility of many electronic reporting systems, cases of misclassification of patients and their conditions have been reported. I think that it's very easy to get too comfortable, and just "go through the motions" with the charting, without putting any thought into the patient.

Electronic medical records are still far from being standardized and not as efficient as they are supposed to be. There are over 60 different proprietary programs out there, and they are not necessarily compatible. Records can't always "talk" to one another.

What happens when the computers are "down?" You will need to revert to paper charting, which in and of itself is not a big deal. However, if the system goes down, providers won't have that immediate access to their patients' information.

It is my belief that, like the title of this article states, computers are not foolproof. Therefore, we should not rely on them to be 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time, or to be the perfect solution to all of our needs.

Made To Break--Technology and Obsolescence in America

Author and historian Giles, we are a society of waste. There is no waste not, want not for us--oh, no. We always want bigger, better, newer. We get rid of things not because we have to, but because we want to. Giles tells readers how, during the 19th century, many new materials were discovered which allowed for the creation of disposable goods. So much for our ethic of conservation and re-use. Enter the big-time manufacturers' profitability of repetitive consumption. Always driven by the almighty dollar. Of course, not all disposable products are evil. We can be eternally grateful for many of the disposable personal/hygiene products invented--diapers, sanitary napkins, and condoms, for example. However, do we REALLY need ALL of the disposable products that are available to us? Not only are we wasting money, but we are destroying the planet we live on.

Slade feels that we dispose of objects out of sheer obsolescence, not because of the objects' failure. He talks about the unethical "planned obsolescence", the deliberate use of shoddy, poor quality materials in products to necessitate their replacement after a short life span that was perfectly planned as such by the manufacturers. Slade also talks about "psychological obsolescence", saying that companies use tactics to stimulate a perpetual dissatisfaction among consumers. We are willing to "trade up" just for style, and not just technological improvements, long before our products are ready for the trashcans. Take clothing/fashion, for example. It's impossible to keep up with the never-ending trends and must-haves. Of course, we may try, and it's very easy to get caught up in it all. We have to keep ourselves from falling into all these traps that are constantly being set up for us. Another example is the iPhone. I have a first generation iPhone, and still love it. I have absolutely no problems with it. However, Apple has since released several newer and "better" versions of the iPhone, trying to lure me in. Yes, it's tempting, but thankfully, I'm not easily swayed.

Slade says it all when he says, "Deliberate obsolescence in all its forms--technological, psychological, or planned--is a uniquely American invention. Not only did we invent disposable products...but we invented the very concept of disposability itself." I think that in today's economy, we need to re-think this obsolescence...we keep digging ourselves into deeper and deeper holes--and these holes, by the way, are already filled with all the other stuff we've tossed away over the years.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, Conclusion

I found the second half of Dalby’s book to be less interesting than the first, because it seemed an awful lot like the first half.

Wikipedia claims to be “fair” by maintaining 3 rules for posting: neutrality, verifiability, and no original research. Many contributors adhere to these rules, but many do not. Don't get me wrong--there is a great deal of reliable information to be found on Wikipedia, but there's also a lot of bias, regardless of the “neutrality” rule. Wikipedia also tries to encourage respect and congeniality among those who post however, the “good guys” are often overpowered by the “bad guys”, who are mean and petty people.

Wikipedia is great in that you can pretty much find out about something in real-time articles will be written by someone, somewhere, within hours (or sometimes minutes) of late-breaking news. Whenever you do an internet search, on Google, for example, did you notice the first result shown? Most of the time, it’s the Wikipedia entry on the topic. That’s a huge web presence, and it's definitely impressive.

The ultimate power on Wikipedia belongs to the administrators. They can block entries, as well as delete entries, with a simple click of their mouse. How does one become an administrator, you might wonder? Well, administrators are brought on as such by other administrators. It doesn’t matter how much how much a person has contributed, or what the quality of their contributions have been. If an administrator likes them, they’re “in," and they, too, can be an administrator. Kind of like a school-kid mentality, if you ask me.

One has to wonder why many articles still exist on Wikipedia even though they are one-sided and biased, lacking the neutrality that's supposed to be maintained by Wikipedia. We can thank the administrators for these articles. If the admins like it, regardless of the rules the rest of us must follow, it stays on the site. This reminds me of that school–kid mentality again. Rebellious--rules be damned!

I agree with Dalby when he sums it all up, saying, “No one can claim that Wikipedia, as a whole, is a “reliable source”…We need to judge each article for its reliability on its merits, and “take the crucial detail as unreliable, until we confirm it in an independent source.” This seems like good, sound, and, dare I say it--reliable--advice to me.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, Part One

When I first learned about having to read this book for class, based on the title of “The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality” and saw “Confessions of a Contributer” on the cover, I was expecting a really exciting tell-all type book. It’s not as juicy as what I was hoping for, but for the most part it’s interesting and it is very informative. It does get kind of boring and monotonous at times, though.

The author, Andrew Dalby is an English linguist, translator and historian, whose main interests are food and foreign languages. He’s also a Wikipedia insider—an active member of the site’s editing community.

Dalby begins the book with a story about how articles on Wikipedia appear and are edited, and edited, and edited again. He didn't tell me anything that I didn’t know about already, with the exception of the specific articles he referenced from the site.

Ask any 13 year old what Wikipedia is, and they can probably tell you. If there's anyone out there in the blogosphere who doesn't know--and I doubt there is, but I'll explain, anyway. Wikipedia a free, web-based, collaborative multilingual encyclopedia project that is supported by the non-profit Wikipedia Fund. It is currently the largest and most popular go-to site online when seeking general reference. People no longer go to Encyclopedia Brittanica for their information. Is this a wise decision?

There have been several studies done to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia, and they show that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry on Wikipedia contained 4 errors or omissions, while Encyclopedia Brittanica had 3 (CNET News 2005).

Wikipedia strives to be a legitimate compilation of verifiable, neutral, information with no original research articles. However, its best and worst features are one in the same. Anyone can edit pretty much anything they choose to, and can do so anonymously. Even their email addresses tied to their accounts can remain anonymous. Dalby gives examples of the good and the bad participants, and shows us how one person can totally screw up an entry for no other reason than just being spiteful. He also shows us how long it can sometimes take before the “fake” information is found and corrected. Since anyone has the ability to edit virtually any content on the site, things can and do get skewed, and downright ugly sometimes. Political agendas and bias find there way in, and the most controversial topics, such as religion, race, politics, philosophy and terrorism cause the site to become a public battleground.

Wikipedia is not perfect, but like anything else on the net, and technological, it will probably continue to grow and will most likely improve as time goes on. We must remember, however, we need to take into account the authors’ accountability, reliability, vandalism, authority, accuracy, scrupulousness, and scholarly credentials. I will continue to look at Wikipedia, however, I will never, ever rely solely on the information found on that site. It's just too risky.

It's the end of the book--not the end of the world, Mr. Postman!

I’ve finished “Technopoly” and my opinions haven’t changed all that much. I really enjoyed this book. It was informative and entertaining, even though I feel that Mr. Postman did a lot of rambling, saying the same things over and over. Sort of like a Doomsday Prophet. For the most part, I disagree with much of what he has said, however, he does make some sense and I have to give him credit where it's due. For example, Mr. Postman states that “our youth must be shown that not all worthwhile things are instantly accessible and that there are levels of sensibility unknown to them.” I also agree that elementary education should place more emphasis on fundamental disciplines such as logic. We do sometimes rely too heavily on technology, and we cannot forget how to think for ourselves.Or to THINK in general.

I’m not going to lose any sleep for fear that technology is going to take over the world, as depicted in movies such as “Terminator” “The Matrix”, and “I, Robot.” However, I think that people do need to pay more attention to WHAT they are doing, and the CONSEQUENCES of their actions. Take for example, the unbelievably sad case of Tyler Clementi. This young man and fellow Rutgers student took his own life after his college roommate and another student captured Tyler’s intimate moments with another man on video, and shared the video/live feed with anyone who wanted to see. This is disgraceful. I’m fairly certain that the kids meant for it to be nothing more than a stupid college prank that would gain them popularity, however, their actions cost a young man his life. His family will never be the same again, and their lives and the lives of their families won’t, either. These kids didn’t stop to THINK about what they did, or what the consequences might be. Internet stalking and bullying is on the rise, as well. Sometimes it’s just too easy to hit “send” or to click through a couple of icons or links, without putting much thought into what you’re doing. I think many of us can say that we’ve had regrets or second thoughts after clicking that “send” button. I know I have. I’ve gotten that sick feeling in my stomach, after hitting send, and then thinking, “Did I send that to the right person?” “Did I fill out the CC/BCC correctly, so everyone doesn't get all the replies?” “Should I have sent that at all?"

Mr. Postman was a very good writer and storyteller. Throughout his book, he makes some valid points, but for the most part, he is very one-sided and comes off sounding a bit paranoid. For example, in Chapter 6, Mr. Postman talks about the dangers of technology in the medical profession. He feels that doctors and surgeons should not be using computers to assist with surgical procedures, and that using machines for making diagnoses is also not a good thing. I disagree wholeheartedly. Machines can guide us. They see things we cannot see with the human eye. Machines break down blood cells to determine abnormalities. Without the diagnoses made largely by machines, we cannot have the treatments.

One thing that does concern me a little bit, as both a healthcare provider and a healthcare consumer, is the computerized charting/electronic health records used by most hospitals now. For the most part, I am “for” their use. There are definitely more pros than cons to their use. It’s a lot faster, and records are easily accessible to physicians and all members of the multi-disciplinary team. Data is much easier to locate on computerized charts than it is on paper charts and finally, handwriting can often be difficult to read (especially that of doctors!) Computerized charting eliminates the guesswork and possibility of any misinterpretations, as well as saves time when you don’t need to call someone to ask them what the heck they wrote on such-and-such a patient. I can't tell you how many times I've had to do that in the past. It's a colossal waste of everyone's time, and time management is essential.

However, we do need to consider those cons: It is just too easy to go through the motions, becoming lax by clicking away, without putting much thought into your documentation (which is legal and you are held accountable for). Electronic health records are also not hack-free, therefore, your privacy may be compromised. Finally, what happens when the system crashes, and you can’t access the records? Then what???

I really do not believe that technology is the enemy, destroying traditional culture and creating a culture without a moral foundation, as Mr. Postman did. My concerns lie with the humans using the computers and not the computers themselves.

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

For starters, all I can say is "Wow!" I may not agree with author Neil Postman, but this is a book I am going to have a hard time putting down for several reasons. I can picture him standing at a pulpit, preaching, seriously. I can also picture him walking around carrying a sign that reads, "The end of the world is coming!" or "It's the end of the world as we know it!" Yes, it is a mistake to assume that technology has a one-sided effect. Every technology comes as both a blessing and a burden; not either-or, but this-and-that (pages 4-5). Mr. Postman claims to be open minded, however, he seems to be more of a technophobe than middle-of-the-road. He's very leary of technology and all technological advances, and he ever-so-subtly gets his "digs" in toward anyone who feels otherwise--mainly, the technophiles.

Mr. Postman feels that technology has invaded our culture, and goes on to write that computers have increased the power of "large scale organizations", but wonders to what extent computer technology has been an advantage to the masses. He doesn't feel that technology has been beneficial to people such as steelworkers, vegetable store owners, teachers, mechanics, musicians, bricklayers, dentists, etc, and most of the rest into "whose lives the computer now intrudes." I don't even know what to say to this! I'm guessing that he has a growing stockpile of water bottles and other non-perishables somewhere in his cellar. He believes that technology re-defines absolutely everything from religion, family, politics, truth, privacy and intelligence--but not for the better. He feels it is dangerous, and basically that we, as a society, are now less educated because of technology changing the way things were done years ago, back when people had to...think.

In my opinion, Mr. Postman has made a few valid points, but quite a few more ignorant statements so far. Yet, I still find him fascinating. (I wonder what's up with that??!!)

Second Half of The Life Story of a Technology

Well, I am happy to say that the second half of this book met (may have even exceeded) my expectations. It was filled with so much information that we could all understand and relate to, and there were very interesting stories. For example, Edward Roberts' microcomputer, the Altair, was introduced to the general public via Popular Electronics in 1975. I just love the way this machine got its name. It was given the name "Altair" by Roberts' daughter, because "Altair" was the name of the planet visited on Star Trek that night. I think that's hilarious, and I'm not even a Trekkie. The Altair was sold as a completely unassembled kit for $397, or assembled for $497. This didn't include any peripherals, either--no keyboard, monitor, disk drive, printer, software, operating system, or any input/output devices other than the toggle switches and lights that were on the front panel!

At that time, there were two men who ran a company called Micro-Soft who took a very keen interest in the Altair. Their names were Paul Allen and Bill Gates, and they wanted in on this product. They believed that they already had the programming language that was needed for the Altair. Within six weeks, Roberts licensed the interpreter from Allen and Gates' company, and hired Allen as the sole programmer and director of software. By the late 1970's, there was fierce competition for Roberts and his Altair microcomputer, and now its peripherals, as well. In 1977, Roberts sold his company and the production of the Altair stopped the next year. Roberts went back to school to pursue his other interest, medicine, now that he could afford to do so. He later went on to combine both electronics and medicine, creating a suite of medical laboratory programs.

I really enjoyed reading about the creation and development of companies and products that I'm familiar with, such as Apple, IBM, and AOL. One other topic I found very interesting was that of the digital divide. For the most part, we take computers and internet access for granted. However, there is still still a gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology, and those with very limited or no access at all. This gap exists globally, but seems to be exacerbated along racial, income, and educational divides. (page 133)

Computers accelerate the pace of technological change at a phenomenal rate. I personally have a hard time keeping up with it all. Just when I learn and get used to something, there is a bigger/better/new and improved product available on the market. It seems that if something can be imagined by someone, somewhere, then someone, somewhere can create that which was imagined. In my opinion, this is both intriguing and frightening. My husband works in IT, so he is alway on top of all of the latest and greatest of whatever is out there. He soaks it all in, and is ready to embrace it all. Me, not so much. I am still using my first generation iPhone, and am very content in doing so.

Analytical Blog Entry #1--Early Computing and Personalized Computing Experience

Until now, I had never read any books pertaining to technology before, so I will admit I was somewhat apprehensive about the required reading for this course. I found the history of technology to be more complex than I realized, and it really is interesting. I had never really given much thought to how things were done thousands of years ago, or even hundreds of years ago. Swedin and Ferro take us back in time, starting with the discovery of the first mechanical computer that was used to calculate lunar, solar, and stellar calendars. I think the fact that it was found on a ship that sank somewhere between 100 and 40 B.C.E. is AMAZING--that this is how it all began, that long ago. Swedin and Ferro continued to hold my interest as they wrote about technology and how it developed and evolved throughout history, from the way calculations were made before computers, to the very first IBMs.

Something that truly amazed me was the fact that many of the people who played such an important role in the earliest technological devices were so YOUNG. One person in particular that stands out to me is Blaise Pascal. According to Swedin and Ferro (page 11), Pascal worked out Euclid’s geometric theorems ON HIS OWN at age twelve, described complex conical geometry in writing when was just sixteen, and invented a mechanical device called the Pascaline for adding and subtracting when he was only nineteen. He originally invented this device to assist his father in his job as tax collector. In order to create this machine, Pascal had to train himself as a mechanic, because there were no local mechanics that had the ability to work with the fine precision needed. I think back to what I was like at 12, 16, and 19, and I certainly wasn’t a great thinker, nor did I know any others my age who were. The fact that someone so young played such a pivotal role in the history of technology is truly impressive.

With Computers: The Life Story of a Technology, I was expecting a boring read, with a whole lot of terminology thrown at me that I wasn’t going to understand.  Instead, Eric G. Swedin and David L. Ferro created a book that is actually an interesting and easy read. Thank you, gentlemen! I’m looking forward to the second half of the book.

Assignment Number One: Keep track of all internet/interface activity for one week

9/2/10

• Check my email—this is the first thing I do online each and every day. This goes hand in hand with my morning cup of coffee.

• Log into Facebook—update my status, check out what my friends are doing, check out new photos posted by friends, post photos myself, send birthday/anniversary wishes if appropriate.Comment on friends’ posts and photos if appropriate.

• Log into Yahoo Groups—I belong to 8 different groups on Yahoo

• Log into eCollege—This is where my Nursing Research class is found online

• Log into Sakai—This is where my Technology and Culture in America class is found online

• Log into Elluminate—This is where my Nursing Research class lectures are given live each week, on Thursdays at 10:15 A.M.

• Visit eBay

• Visit foxnews.com

9/3/10

• Check my email

• Visit weather.com

• Log into Facebook

• Log into Yahoo Groups

• Log into eCollege

• Log into Sakai

• Visit Girl Scouts of The Jersey Shore website

• Log into Youtube account

9/4/10

• Check my email

• Log into Facebook

• Visit weather.com

• Visit Foxnews.com

• Visit website of St. Thomas the Apostle School

• Visit website of Marlboro Middle School

• Visit website of Asher Holmes Elementary School

• Log into Yahoo Groups

• Log into eCollege

• Log into Sakai

9/5/10

• Check my email

• Visit Foxnews.com

• Log into Facebook

• Log into Yahoo Groups

• Log into Sakai

• Perform about 20 google searches for Nursing Research class

• Log into eCollege

9/6/10

• Check my email

• Log into Facebook

• Log into Yahoo Groups

• Log into Sakai

• Perform about 10 google searches for Nursing Research class

• Log into eCollege

9/7/10

• Check my email

• Log into Facebook

• Visit weather.com

• Visit Foxnews.com

• Log into Yahoo Groups

• Log into Sakai

• Log into eCollege

9/8/10

• Check my email

• Log into Facebook

• Log into Yahoo Groups

• Log into Sakai

• Perform about 10 more google searches for Nursing Research class

• Log into eCollege
  

After seeing everything written down, I realize that I visit several websites on a daily basis. It’s almost out of habit at this point. I also came to realize that I look forward to checking my email first thing in the morning, rather than checking the news or weather first. Most of the communication I receive is via email, whether it is personal, business, or school-related, so it definitely takes priority status.

Every once in awhile, I think back to what life was like growing up without the internet. How did we ever survive? Now, if my internet service goes down for a couple of hours, I’m lost. I feel out of touch and out of reach (even though I know that isn't the case). I’m glad my children don’t have to know a life without the internet. Kids today will never know what it’s like to schlep to the library with as many dimes as they can find, and spend hours photocopying dozens of pages from dozens of different reference books. I’m very grateful, but at the same time, it kind of annoys me. Since kids have no concept of a world without the web, they tend take many things in their life for granted.

And so it begins...

Let me start by saying this--I have never been a blogger. I have a Facebook account, but that's all. I don't Twitter, and I honestly cannot stand MySpace. I created accounts on both of these a long time ago, didn't like using them, and abandoned them both. This blog is being created as an assignment for my Technology and Culture in America class.

I thought that choosing a name for my blog would be the easy part. I was wrong. Each time I thought of something I liked, or that sounded good, I searched and found that it was already being used. I don't think that really matters with a blog, but I didn't want to be a copycat. I also wanted to select a name that I wouldn't feel the need to change, should I choose to continue with my blog after this class is over.