Summary

After taking this course, I feel like I have better general understanding of where this huge technology boom has come from and where it will go in the future. Before this class I had never even thought about how or why the internet was created, but now, by knowing its past purpose I feel like I have a better understanding of its present form. I definitely appreciate how user driven the internet has become, seeing as it was originally intended to be a place where research was to be stored and accessed. The internet was a sort of read only interface in the beginning, but now it is a place where anyone can create and add. I think it is interesting to see how far the internet has come in such a short time.

My thoughts on where technology would go were pretty limited at the beginning of the semester. I had the standard thought of faster internet, instant video, various household appliances being linked together on one network, and other cool, but somewhat inane ideas. I really was not aware of how far advanced technology is becoming and how rapidly our world could change. Kurzweil's article was especially eye opening and rather shocking. I was not aware that computers had the capacity to lead us towards such a futuristic life style. It still remains to be seen if Kurzweil's ideas are possible, but the thought and the support is out there. That alone is a huge step forward in technology.

Furturism

Reading Kurzweil's article was like being in some strange science fiction movie. I had a hard time reading his article, because he sounded completely crazy. His ideas of sharing sense and entering virtual reality on the web was too much for my small mind to process. I felt like he was throwing crazy ideas out there for wow factor. I thought his goals were completely unrealistic and would take our society too far away from humanity. I don't believe virtual realities and man made organs are everyone's dream of utopia. In fact, some people would say it sounds like hell. There are people out there who find pleasure in the beauty of human life. This need to invent the next best thing is leading us further and further away from the wonders we have right beyond our commuters.

I suppose I side more with Joy, but I think his point could have been made in far fewer words. I am not against technology evolving, I even think a lot of it is really cool. But, Kurzweil's ideas take it to an extreme that I am not prepared to follow. His ideas completely discredit how wonderful natural life is. I would chose spending a day out in the fresh air, experiencing life first hand everyday over these virtual sense he speaks of. I rather sit, face to face with my best friend over a cup of over priced coffee at Starbucks, rather than meet in some sort of virtual room via the internet. Give me humanity any day.

Turing Test

The Turing Test seems like a great idea for computers, but not as good for humans. Being able to a fool a human into thinking that a computer is a real person is a huge advance in technology. I think it's safe to say that, that is an intelligent computer. One of the main concepts for commuters is to make them more humanlike, so that they can take over menial functions for us. If that is were technology is headed, then the Turing Test is perfect. This is the best way to test these new computers and find out if their doing a good job. If they can outsmart a human, then I believe they really are intelligent.

I'm not sure that this would be a good way to measure a human’s intelligence. With the way these programs are formatted, they are geared to make you believe that they are human, so why should we be considered less intelligent for believing this. It doesn't mean that we are less intelligent; it means that somewhere out there, there is an extremely intelligent person who has wrote this program. The computer has merely done its job. A computer doing its job is not an accurate way to measure human intelligence.

Web 2.0 Lab

1)The first site I found was called Winery Bound and lets the user search wineries and events in a specific area. The site use google maps to locate the winery, as well as gives information on the winery. I think this site would be a great tool to plan a weekend in the wine country in and is perfect for wine lovers.

2) The second site I used was called I Love Music Video. The user simply types in an artist name and the site gives you a list of video with links to youtube and lastfm. This site mashes youtube and lastfm. I really liked this site because I was able to find an Alice Cooper video I've been looking for. It makes it really easy to see all of an artists videos.

3) The last site I found was called Bunker Shot. This site uses google maps to locate golf courses in the users area. I like this site because it gives me directions and a visual to all my local golf courses. It would also be nice if I was going on vacation somewhere, I could do a search on golf courses before I left.

File Sharing

File sharing is a tricky topic to pin as right or wrong, simply because there are so many different types of file sharing. According to the RIAA file sharing simply means stealing, but is it really that clear cut? Does that mean that when a dance school, who has spent hundreds of dollars buying pieces of classical music on CD, compile their master CD for a performance that they are stealing? It is for that reason that I do not believe that file sharing is a clear cut good or bad. By the RIAA's standards, I am a dirty pirate because I have taken music off CD's I have bought and compile them onto one CD for a roadtrip.

I believe that once a person has bought a CD they have the right to do whatever they want with it, as long as they gain no profits from it. A consumer should be allowed to make an extra copy of the CD, in case the original gets scratched or they want a copy for their car. They should be allowed to rip tracks and make mixed CD's. And why shouldn't they? They have spent the money on that CD and I don't think an artist should expect to profit twice on one CD per one consumer. I'm pretty sure that music artists don't go out and buy two copies of every CD they want. These actions are all ethical and I don't think any artist is going to lose profit from these examples.

The other side to this coin is illegally downloading music. Though I will admit to having done it on occasion, I do believe that this is wrong. My experiences with downloading music consist of music that is not available in America, had the tracks or CD's been available in America I would have gladly purchased them. In this particular instance, I don't think I have committed any great crime. It is not me who is causing these artists to lose profit, but rather record distributors. My downloading has taken nothing from them because I couldn't buy their album anyways. So if these artists want their rightful cut, they need to insist that their albums are available world wide. If that was the case, I would have no problem supporting them by buying their music.

The wrong part of file sharing is ripping off albums that are clearly available to us in stores or on online sites such as itunes. By downloading these files, we are taking money away from many aspects of the industry. Even though I believe this type of file sharing is wrong, I do understand why people do it. Music has gotten extremely expensive in the last few years. An album used to cost between 10 and 12 dollars, but now its closer to 18 or 20. I believe that if the industry kept albums at a reasonable price, there would be less file sharing and more purchasing.

Net Neutrality

The fundamental issue behind net neutrality is, whether companies like Comcast and ATT should have the power to determine which websites you use. If this law passed, these companies would have the ability to force you into using their sites. They would do this by making other, smaller sites that offer the same services, harder to access and by taking away their quality. This would severely limit your choices on the internet and could completely wipe out start up sites like Youtube. Right now all sites are treated equally, but if this law passed this would no longer be the case.

Both Yahoo and eBay are pro net neutrality. eBay has even gone so far as to send out emails to its customers, encouraging them to support net neutrality. Both companies believe that each site should be treated equally, and that there shouldn't be an extra charge for one site using more bandwidth than another.

On the opposite side of the debate is Verizon and ATT. Both of these companies that sites that use more bandwidth should be charged. These companies would also be able to influence what sites people use, by making their sites superior to another.

I am pro net neutrality. One of the best things about the internet is its lack of restrictions. It's not like when I turn on my tv and I flip through the channels and half of them are not available to me. I think the internet would lose a lot of this became the case. I love being able to use youtube, rather than the video player ATT DSL provides me with. The whole principle of the internet is to be able to have free choice. If they take that away from us, then we have lost the internet as we know it.

Voting

The main problem with Diebold voting machines is, they can be rigged. After watching the video, it it painfully obvious that it is too easy to tamper with the voting machines. Computers are imperfect and that make it easy for error to occur. This causes a problem for voters. How are they to know if their votes are being counted?

I don't think there is one way to keep voting safe from those who want to rig it. Whether its a computer or written out in pencil, people will always try to find away to change the way an election goes. I'm not sure it's possible for us to fix it. I thought that paper ballots would be our best bet, but after watching the video I realize that nothing is safe. If someone truly wants to change the outcome of an election, they will. No computer program can stop someone who truly wants to control the outcome of an election. I don't think technology plays a huge factor in this. I think this is human will at its strongest. And there is no way to stop a determined person.