Interesting Websites

Just saw this post sitting in my draft section. Woops!

Interesting websites that I like to use are:

hypem.com: this website allows you to search your favorite artists, displays new songs by them or remixes and lets you to listen to them as well; it also links you to certain blogs that have posted these songs; i enjoy this website because I like finding new remixes to my favorite songs

stumbleupon.com: I cannot tell you how addicting this site is, I could literally spend hours browsing through all these random websites that come up; when you sign up there's a section where you check of your interests, such as photography, music, art, travel, world news, etc; after that, then you just click "stumble upon" and it redirects you to a website pertaining to one of the interests you selected; what I like most about this site is that there are billions of websites on the internet, some that you may never come across, but this feature allows you to be exposed to an eclectic array of websites geared towards your interests.

I don't really know any other interesting websites that I go on. These two are the most unique; others are just normal websites such as Gmail, listening to music on Grooveshark, Facebook, BBC news, Yahoo.com, myRutgers, Sakai, clothing store websites, and probably a few more.

Final Paper Blog 3

So after getting all my ideas together, I finally finished writing my final draft of my paper on Technopoly. The key arguments that I discussed were about generational gaps caused by technology, how everyday students use technology, and how universities and businesses have integrated technology into their everyday routines. Postman's book Technopoly was very biased against technology, saying that America has become too reliant on these advanced tools, and believes that our culture should take a step back and realize what we are losing by becoming so dependent on these tools, such as computers, internet, cell phones, televisions, and etc. I do believe that our world has integrated technology into all aspects of our lives. Today's generation is completely defined by technology. However, there is no way for us to revert back to the days where we didn't use technology for schools, colleges, and the workforce. There is no doubt that technology gives us convenience, it makes our lives easier. We can do things faster, and because of that we can accomplish even more tasks. Because of these changes, technology also alters the way teachers present and teach to students, and it also affects how students learn. The internet and television have redefined the way not only students, but how people use these media outlets in acquiring knowledge. I don't think that technological advances detract from a university's mission to give their students higher education, it just redefines the way students go about in learning it.

Final Paper Blog 2

So after skimming through Technopoly I realized that I can definitely relate to it more, being that we all are students in this technology era, and have decided to write my final paper on it. The question if modern day college campuses are technopolies can be answered in a few ways. By being at Rutgers, a state university, for four years now I can without a doubt say that our campus is a technopoly. I've started writing my first draft of my paper, and come up with several ideas to support my stand on college campuses being technopolies. Universities today are very keen on presenting themselves as a "state-of-the-art institution" and having many resources available for their students. Students need to have easy access to computers and printers to complete homework assignments and obtain class notes. Online school emails and class websites are also created for conveniently sending out mass messages to the student body. The emergency text system is also another technological resource our school uses, knowing very well that the quickest way to contact students in a campus-wide emergency is by cell phone text messaging. Then I began to think about schools that specifically specialize in certain fields of study, such as architecture, engineering, computer programming, and etc. Students attend these schools because they are well known for their programs, and offer students the latest technology and software to learn about the specific area of study they have chosen. As universities and colleges gain more technological advances and apply them in their school, it increases their standards as a higher education institution. They become more publicized, and the need to uphold their reputation is increased as well. There are many consequences to all this technology. Because everything is so convenient, the effort that students put into actually learning seems to be decreasing. Postman even talks about how many of the jobs on the market today are looking for people with "skills" and not just a well-rounded education. Most jobs require people to use technology in some way, and if a recent graduate isn't familiar with a certain program or software in his or her field, it is unlikely that they would be the first one picked to get that job. Those are some of the ideas I have for now, and hopefully I'll have a more concrete flow of thoughts when I start editing my paper.

Final Paper Blog 1

At first, when I read the topics for the final I immediately decided that I wanted to write my paper on Made to Break. One reason being that I enjoyed the points that Giles Slade made about Americans being accustomed to the idea of obsolescence in many aspects of their lives. American society had invented the idea of disposability themselves, and in doing that there have been benefits, but many consequences as well. As new technologies emerge, faster and more convenient products are made. Americans have become obsessed with having all these new tools, whether it be for entertainment or some actual useful purpose. However, not many of us consider what happens to the older tools that we all have replaced with new ones. Personally, I do believe in the Green Movement, and definitely feel that many of us take for granted all the technological tools we are exposed to. People in other countries can barely afford to feed themselves, and here we are buying new computers, cell phones, iPods, and whatever else, when many of our old products are still in perfect working condition. Now we have to come up with solutions to store or dispose of these unwanted products. It seems that the more advanced technology becomes, along with it comes problems that we as a country must deal with and find solutions for.
I'm still undecided if I want to write my final paper on this topic though, because I find it interesting but the idea is  very broad. I can still relate to it, but the other topic about college campuses being technopolies is directly related to all students. By being at Rutgers University for the past four years, it's easy to analyze firsthand how the school itself, students, and faculty all use technology. In my opinion, I do believe that Rutgers is a technopoly, students and faculty rely on several technological tools for every single class that I have taken at this university. Even though I find Made to Break more interesting, I think Technopoly can be more related to my personal experiences which is why I will most likely choose to do my paper on it.

The Facebook Effect Part III

In the last section of The Facebook Effect, Kirkpatrick continues to discuss the many programs being implemented on Facebook. "Why were photos and events so good?...It was because despite all their shortcomings they had one thing no one else had" (pg. 217). The website had created simple concepts, but unique to their site because other competitors did not have them. Zuckerberg stated that "we have the most powerful distribution mechanism that's been created in a generation" (pg. 217). There is definitely no arguing that statement. This social "distribution mechanism" allowed users to use applications, play games, create notes, upload photos, update personal statuses, message and connect with people from all over the world, and all on one site. "Facebook was becoming it's own self-contained universe" (pg. 227). Facebook did tackle some problems, a major one being Beacon, which was an alert service that affiliated itself with many consumer driven websites. Many people who purchased items on these Beacon affiliated sites would be asked very briefly if they would want their purchases published onto Facebook. Several cases of users that were unaware of this had their private purchases published in the mini-feeds of their friend's on Facebook, and hence caused much controversy. Beacon was invasive and misused personal information, and was completely shut down.
Companies have also begun to market themselves on Facebook, by creating their own pages that users can become "fans" of. It's almost like a new form of advertising, and in this case, many consumers can interact with the companies. For example, Mazda asked fans to help design a car for 2018. Ben & Jerry's asked the people on their Facebook page what their new flavor should be. Facebook users that interact and "like" or write on these fan pages, their activity is published into their friend's mini feeds. This allows however many friends you have on Facebook to see that you "liked" or wrote on Ben & Jerry's page, and sometimes might even lead others to go to that webpage as well. This new form of interactive marketing seems much more efficient in getting consumers to recognize companies. Just recently I went to a wedding, and my mom had asked the photographer for his business card. He handed her a card and also said that you could find them on Facebook as well, if she wanted to see pictures of other functions they have done. Companies and even small businesses seem to be putting more emphasis on promoting and building up their Facebook page, even more so than their actual company webpage.
In all honesty, I really do believe Facebook has good intentions. I'll be the first to admit that I have wasted several hours on it doing nothing but chatting or going through people's profiles. However, with all the programs and interactions that it allows us to accomplish it essentially connects our world, and if we don't abuse it for unproductive or wrong reasons, it can really be a beneficial aspect of our lives.

Solo Current Event Presentation

 I found my current event article on the Wall Street Journal's website, and was titled "Sites Feed Personal Details To New Tracking Industry." The link for the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393173432219064.html

The article goes on to tell us that some of the United States major websites such as Google.com, MSN.com, Dictionary.com, and several others are installing tracking tools on the computers of people visiting their websites. When we use the internet, we are supposedly accessing "free content" that the websites provide us with, but in return without our consent, tracking devices are installed to our computers by the websites we visit. The tracking tools that are installed come from companies that are in the business to gather data and create consumer profiles that can be sold, and then use that information to target specific advertisements to people online. The ad industry says that tracking does not violate people's privacy because the data being sold is anonymous. Tracking technology has begun to raise concerns, and Congress is even considering on implementing laws to limit and regulate tracking. 


In my opinion, I don't see the harm in tracking devices so far. The advertisements that come up when I visit websites are definitely related to my interests, but I never seem to click on them. I don't find them helpful at all, but don't mind if they are there either. Although, I can definitely see why other people would be concerned about tracking files being installed into their computers without their consent. Personally, I'm not too worried or affected by it, so I don't really mind. 

The Facebook Effect - Part 2

After Accel invested in Facebook, it was finally a real company, and could now afford to build a real staff. In 2005, from June to October alone, Facebook's users went from 3 million to 5 million. With the increasing number of people using the website, the company had to find ways to maintain the servers for the huge influx of users coming in everyday and the more that were to come in the future. Now that Facebook was a legitimate company, Zuckerberg faced the many challenging tasks of hiring people to work for the company, but also keeping it a fun and hip place to work. Facebook was initially biased toward the youth of today's generation, but as we see today, it has become a social network for all ages. There were many innovative features and ideas that Facebook implemented over the years, which helped in keeping its users interacting with the site. One of the many features that Facebook had that I believe a lot of people enjoy, including myself, is the photo tagging. The idea seems so simple, allowing users to put pictures on a website, and then "tagging" their friends in the photos so it would show up on their pages as well. However, the Facebook team made an important decision, in that to see the next picture all you had to do was click anywhere on the photo you were looking at. "They were attempting to encourage that 'Facebook trance' that kept people clicking through pages on the service. It made looking at photos simple and addictive" (pg. 155). Simple and addictive is definitely the right way to put it. I can't even fathom how many hours I might have spent looking through pictures and photo albums, sometimes of people that I barely even know. Although, what's interesting to note is that while reading, Kirkpatrick mentions how  Zuckerberg was not interested in increasing the company's revenue or making money with advertisements on the website. I personally don't know if I believe that completely, but I'm sure Zuckerberg had good intentions when starting the site and wanting to create a social network. However, after some time I'm sure there was pressure and somewhat of a desire to keep the success of Facebook going strong, and soon advertisements were put into effect, along with other programs as well. The "News Feed" was also another program that Facebook decided to try out. At first, users did not like it all, and there was a high negative feedback. Although, ever since the News Feed was put into effect, there was an increase in the use of the website, clearly showing that people did use it. Therefore it stayed, people became used to it, and Facebook increased its use of the service. What I enjoyed most about reading this section of The Facebook Effect was that it gave you a slight inside story on what and how the programs that we use on Facebook came into play. I always seem to forget that someone had to come up with these ideas over time, and lots of work and hardship was put into making something so successful.

The Facebook Effect - Part 1

David Kirkpatrick gives an in depth story of how the creator of The Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, brought this revolutionizing social network to life. Starting off in his dorm room at Harvard University, Zuckerberg was constatnly finding new projects to develop. The idea for developing an internet social network for Harvard was something that he had been considering for a while. "Zuckerberg went online and paid Register.com thirty-five dollars to register the web address Thefacebook.com for one year. This site borrowed ideas from Course Match and Facemash as well as from a service called Friendster" (pg. 27). With just a merely cost of thirty-five dollars, he had first launched a website that would forever change his life. When reading this section of the book it reminded me of when I had gone to the Texts From Last Night event. The creators of the website TFLN had no idea that it would be such a success when they paid someone only two hundred dollars to design their website. Before TFLN, there were many sites similar to it such as FML.com, and same goes for Facebook, whose competitor was Myspace. Essentially, in the beginning Facebook and Myspace were similar in the sense of social networking. However, Facebook offered limited functions and a plain white profile page, while Myspace allowed you to customize your page. Facebook was also more secure, at first only allowing Ivy League students access to it. Unlike Myspace, Zuckerberg had created a social network where individuals were allowed to keep their profiles private and only viewed by friends they accepted, therefore allowing people to share more information when using the website. "Facebook is profoundly, centrally, about people. It is a platform for people to get more out of their lives. It is a new form of communication, just as was instant messaging, email, the telephone, and the telegraph" (pg. 16). There is no doubt that Facebook has become a great new way of connecting with friends, acquaintances, and sometimes even strangers.
Zuckerberg became a CEO of a billion dollar company at the age 20. It's crazy to think how someone my age could invent something so unique and hold all that responsibility, but clearly it can be done. When developing The Facebook, Zuckerberg took ideas from many other social networking websites and combined and used them for Facebook. Zuckerberg was also sued by his fellow classmates for allegedly taking ideas from "Harvard Connection," a project which he worked on for 10 hours, with no contract, and was never paid. (pg. 84). The book goes into detail about several of the lawsuits, and I know the recent film "The Social Network" was loosely based off of them as well. Even though I never saw the movie, from what I've heard and seen from the commercials, it portrays Zuckerberg in a bad light, while the book shows him in more of a positive light. Whatever the case may be, the many ideas that Facebook uses were already out on the internet, he just managed to bring them all together. I honestly do believe that Zuckerberg deserves the credit that he receives for the initiation of Facebook. However, is Facebook the social networking site that he sought out for it to be and a beneficial part to our society? Well, that could be questionable.

Wikipedia Audit Blog Entry

I've used Wikipedia for many years, and I always find it to be a reliable source when I'm in need for quick pieces of information. Whether it be for an academic purpose or pop culture fact, Wikipedia definitely has evolved as the internet encyclopedia of our time. However, after auditing and evaluating my group's Wikipedia article on Decriminalization of Cannabis in the United States, I realized many things regarding the validity of Wikipedia. There were many cited sources that lead to dead links or third party websites, which completely discredited that section of the article. The primary and secondary sources that were cited were valid, but much of the information taken from them was taken out of context. Bias was definitely present in the article, which is expected when talking about such a highly controversial subject such as marijuana. Overall, in all honesty I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source, especially not one to be cited for academic purposes. The beneficial aspect of Wikipedia is that it allows users to research an array of topics. Its weaknesses are that many of the information presented on the site can be changed by anyone, some of it is out of context, and in some cases it is contradictory or not accurate at all. Technology has such an immense influence on American culture, which can be a good and bad thing at times. By relying on Wikipedia we are allowing ourselves to take in information that in some cases may not be accurate, or not portray the full aspect of a subject, and be misinformed. However, many people still use Wikipedia, generally because it's quick, easily accessible, and best of all free. This idea of quick and easily accessible has become very prominent in our culture, and most probably why we are so reliant on technology (even if it may harm us). In the end, I learned that Wikipedia should not be the first or only source of where I get my information. However, I will most likely succumb to the easy access of technology and use Wikipedia again, but this time being fully aware that it is most probably not a reliable source. 

Thought this was interesting!

One of my Facebook friends just posted this and it came up in my mini-feed. I thought it was an interesting video, and relevant to our class discussions...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2n8Ma7y4-I

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America Part II

The next three chapters in Slade's novel I found to be sort of confusing and almost irrelevant. Chapter 4 went into a very detailed chronological order of how new innovations of radio manufacturing and broadcasting were the beginning to the development of product obsolescence in the industry of computer electronics. Then Chapter 5 went on to discuss how the invention of "nylon would soon make Japanese silk obsolete" (pg. 123). This is where i started to lose my focus. I understand that onset of World War II and the use of nylon "symbolized America's creative industrial capability as well as its determination to do without Japanese silk" (pg. 127). However, the detail that Slade went into I felt was a bit overwhelming and unnecessary. I also didn't see the connection of obsolescence between the choice of nylon over silk. Slade goes on to talk about how silk is still used today, but the context of how we think about it is different. Nowadays people think of silk as a luxury item, mostly used for sheets and intimate or expensive clothing. Nylon was less expensive and therefore companies preferred to use it over silk, which doesn't necessarily make silk obsolete, but just less favored in use during mass production. However, I can see in some sense how clothes and certain fabrics become obsolete when fashion trends fade in and out. In Chapter 6, the fifties and sixties were all about planned obsolescence. Companies made good products and induced people to buy them, but then deliberately enhanced these products so the next year they could market them and make the old ones obsolete, solely to make money (pg. 153). It is definitely clear that companies have not lost this mentality with all the new devices that come out every year - iPhone, iPod, Computers, TVs, etc. Obsolescence in this form makes more sense to me than when Slade was talking about the switch from silk to nylon stockings. Companies are driven by the sole desire to make money every year with their new products, where some aren't even that much different than the year before. In these three chapters Slade discussed the development of obsolescence in America through the war, and 50s and 60s, and it certainly shows that the ideas and tactics that were followed in the past are still present in culture today.

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America Part 1

Let me just start off by saying that out of all the books we have read so far, Made to Break by Giles Slade is definitely the one that has captured my interest the most. In his novel he discusses how Americans have become accustomed to this idea of obsolescence in many aspects of their lives. As Slade states, "we invented the very concept of disposability itself, as a necessary precursor to our rejection of tradition and our promotion of progress and change" (pg. 4). Technological advances and innovations lead to the first phase of product obsolescence, where newer appliances replaced older ones. Then came the second phase known as psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence, where companies used the marketing mechanism of changing their product style as a way to manipulate customers into repetitive buying. Planned obsolescence was also another technique that came about, where manufacturing companies artificially limited the durability of their products in order to induce customers to continue buying their items (pg.5). Looking at American culture today, there is no doubt that we have become obsessed with the idea of obsolescence. It's easier to use a product, and then once it has served its purpose, then to just throw it away. There are thousands of companies that manufacture disposable products such as paper cups, paper plates, paper towels, disposable contacts, disposable cameras, and so much more. We repetitively buy these disposable products because it is more convenient, and the very idea of thrift or durability is not as much of a concern. Desk top computers, laptops, cell phones, iPods, and cars are all products that generally when people buy they consider them to be durable for at least a few years. However, with the marketing mechanism of psychological obsolescence, companies stimulate consumers to repetitively buy these electronic products by coming out with newer models every year. The annual model change for cars is one very good example, or the many iPods that have came out within the decade. As a personal example, I've been using the same laptop computer for about four years now. However, I've been looking into getting a new one, not because mine doesn't work, but it's "outdated" and I would rather have a newer model. Were all guilty of thinking this way about the electronic products we own, but I'd blame this mentality on product manufacturers. There's always newer and faster products coming out every year, with more applications and functions, making our old products seem useless. I've been using the same phone for about three years now as well, and it still does exactly what I want it to do - call and text people. However, I wouldn't mind getting a new iPhone or something of the sort, to able to go on the internet and have all these new applications. Then there is the problem of what to do with all these computers and phones that still function, but are just too outdated for anyone to want to use then. Disposing of these items has become a problem already, and will probably be a bigger issue in just a few years to come. While reading this novel it was eye opening to realize how much American culture has and still is being driven by this constant necessity for the newest and best products out on the market, and just makes me wonder how much worse it will become in the next few years.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality Part 2

"First reason why we love Wikipedia. We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather virtual world...the people of this virtual world, can be as shy and anonymous as we like, and yet our work, good and bad, is listed and others can explore it. We may seldom speak to one another, yet our paths cross unforeseeably" (Dalby 120). The internet has allowed our whole world to connect with each other through websites, blogs, social networks, and so much more. These various internet sources have given people the ability to express their thoughts and opinions to friends, and even anonymously to strangers. Perhaps this is one reason why Wikipedia is so popular, because anyone can anonymously create a Wikipedia topic page or edit and make changes to established pages. People in our society today are more likely to be less inhibited when interacting on the internet, probably due to the fact that there is no actual face to face interaction. Therefore, many 'Wikipedians' as they call themselves, create and edit Wikipedia articles to share knowledge on topics that others want to know about or research. The problem with using Wikipedia as a source of information is that "the articles, which are supposed to become definitive and stable, are in reality endlessly mutable" (pg. 164). The way I see it, a Wikipedia article is basically an ongoing collection of data that various people wrote about because either they have found data on it or claim to have knowledge of it. "Articles get longer because it's easier to go on writing than to compress what one has written; it's easier to write than to edit what others have written; and it's easier to write than to get into a dispute over deleting what other people have written" (pg. 181). Hence, Wikipedia articles turn into a hodgepodge of information, but this could also be something that attracts users to keep using Wikipedia. "Reading Wikipedia is just like using the web...We read half a page, we see a blue link, we click on it and start reading another page" (pg. 216). The fact that so much information is available on one site is definitely a major reason in why I and probably many other people use it as well. Wikipedia has introduced itself as one of our society's major internet research source, and we should embrace it for what it has to offer, but also take into consideration that it shouldn't be our main or only source of gaining information.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality Part I

In all honesty, Wikipedia has become one of my "go to" sites when I am searching for information on a topic and need quick and easy access to it. That probably is the best part about Wikipedia, is the convenience of attaining that information, even though being fully aware that all of it might not be accurate. As author Andrew Dalby states, "Wikipedia is a good first stop to get the basics in a hurry, especially for tech and pop culture topics that probably won't ever make it into Britannica" (pg. 91). The first half of the book goes on to discuss how Wikipedia came about. In earlier days encyclopedias were used as a source of information and to obtain knowledge about certain topics. However, printing and creating updated versions of encyclopedias was a tedious and expensive task. Then came the next solution, electronic encyclopedias on a CD-ROM. As this new phenomenon emerged, there were many different electronic encyclopedias sold, however, "Encarta was sold cheap and bundled liberally. It swept the market" (pg. 30). When I read that I laughed, because I actually remember back in the day when I used Encarta as a source for most of my information on school projects. So instead of researching in encyclopedias or checking out books at the library, electronic encyclopedias allowed people to find information in the comfort of their own home at their own computer. It also didn't hurt that the CD-ROM was reasonably priced as well. This is what our society is most obsessed with today, convenience and money, and another reason why Wikipedia is so popular is because it's free and easily accessible. However, the fact that information on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone is it's greatest downfall, but that doesn't seem to outweigh the benefits because millions of people still use it. "'Neutral point of view' is probably the most practical aim for collaborative project like Wikipedia" (pg. 78). However, much of the information on Wikipedia generally tends to be liberal, showing a slight bias against right-wing views. Anyone can use Wikipedia, and therefore anyone can anonymously edit the information presented on topic, so therefore filtering out opinions and biases is not an easy task. Then there is also the problem of citing. Who is given credit for the information posted on Wikipedia? We discussed this in class a few weeks ago how the definition of plagiarism is changing or becoming hazy because of all these sites like Wikipedia. If a student uses a certain website for a school project, but cannot site who the author is, is it plagiarism? If these are the problems were facing with internet sites today, then i can only imagine the problems we'll face in the future. Internet sites have the ability to spread like a viral plague. The problem with our society is, once it catches up to us we get attached and accustomed to it, and by then we don't know how to work without it. We know Wikipedia is not the best source to gain our information, but we still use it anyway. It has become the best alternative to quickly find the information you need, all in one place.

Computers: The Life Story of a Technology (Intro - pg. 83)

I know this blog is extremely late, but I got this book a week ago and it took me forever to get through all of it! So anyways, here's what I thought about the book...


Eric Swedin and David Ferro's book Computers goes through the many stages in the development of technology and computers starting from the very beginning. To be completely honest, I found the book to be too factual and detailed, and nothing seemed to completely grasp my interest at all. However, there are some good points made throughout the book, such as when the need for technological advances came about. "World War II, was fought on battlefields and in the laboratory. Never had a war been so dependent on research in science and technology." The war had summoned a new era, where this understanding of science had brought upon the invention of radar, computers, jets, airplanes, missiles, and the atomic bomb (pg. 47). It's ironic to think that the beginning of our country's technological revolution was caused by such a catastrophic event. However, with the onset of the war, it created jobs for people, and to keep up with our enemies technological advances, it also paved the way for new and better inventions. From then on, the constant desire for better technology and new innovations just kept on increasing. Businesses, such as banks, insurance companies, and government agencies had already started to become dependent on computers that had specialized processing systems and applications (pg. 52). Computers that were invented during this era were used as useful tools to alleviate tedious tasks in the scientific and business world. Even during present day, computers are still used for the same reasons, but are capable of doing many other things as well at a faster speed. Our workforce has become incredibly dependent on the use of computers, from small businesses to large companies, neither one could survive without computers. Then finally, "in the 1970s the microprocessor became the key technology that enabled the computer to shrink to fit the home" (pg. 83). Looking back on it now, this was most likely the key invention that had impacted and lead our society to what it has become today. 

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology Part II

In the second half of Technopoly, Neil Postman continues his ongoing rant about the consequence of modern technologies. While discussing medical technology, he completely takes a negative viewpoint on the matter, saying "doctors rely more on machinery than on their own experience and insight" (pg. 99). Medical machines have definitely revolutionized the way doctors diagnosis and treat diseases and/or medical problems, but the argument that Postman makes is unreasonable. Doctor's must be able to use both their personal judgment through experience and knowledge that they have acquired, along with the results that a medical machine may come up with to make the best possible diagnosis for a patient. For example, I've been working at an optometrist's office for over a year now, and some of my responsibilities are to pre-screen patients before they see the doctor. One of the machines that I was taught how to use actually refracts the patient's eyes, basically giving the doctor a small print out of what the patient's prescription might be; MIGHT being the key word. If all doctor's were to go by this information, I'm sure a lot of our patient's would have many complaints about their vision. The refraction machine is mostly there to give the doctor an idea of where to start, to be able to have an idea of what might be visually clear and/or blurry to the patient. The technologies for the medical industry, I believe, were invented to enhance doctors ability to help their patients as best as they possibly can, not completely replace a doctor's educated judgment. However, there was a certain point that Postman made that I do agree with. He discussed how pregnant women nowadays opt to have a Cesarean section rather than normal vaginal delivery. C-sections are surgical procedures that were mostly an option for women that had complications during child birth. For a woman to choose to have a C-section as just an option puts her in unnecessary danger that she could have avoided (pg. 103). In certain cases Postman has a valid point, patients have become accustomed and reliant on new technological advances available to them, but we have no one to blame but ourselves for that. Moving on to Postman's next argument, he discusses how the world has come to believe that the most serious personal and public problems can be solved using technical solutions, such as computer technology, because of its fast access to information. However, he poses example questions about people dying of starvation, families breaking up, children being mistreated, what can computer technology do in addressing them? (pg. 119) Many charities and non-profit organizations have commercial advertisements, internet websites where people can donate money online, or through text messages even. In this sense technology is a beneficial factor, but in these examples many emotional problems that people suffer cannot be solved through technological solutions. Postman ends his novel with a proposal, for a new beginning of education, where it goes "back to the basics" and in complete opposition of technopoly. By doing so, Postman believes our world will then realize what technopoly has done to our society and only then will we be able to analyze, criticize, and finally modify it (pg. 199). Honestly, I highly doubt our society will ever go "back to the basics" mainly because technology has impacted every aspect of our daily life, and there's definitely no changing it now.

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

In Neil Postman's book, "Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology," he discusses the many beneficial and also consequential aspects that technology has brought to our culture. Over centuries our society has changed in drastic ways, through new inventions and revolutionizing ideas. Postman states that "Cultures may be classified into three types: tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies. At the present time, each type may be found somewhere on the planet..." (pg. 22). All countries were tool-using cultures in the beginning stages of their development, and there are some still present today. The usage of their tools was more specific to everyday necessary tasks, such as tools in the use of waterpower, windmills, wheeled plow, and construction of castles and cathedrals (pg. 23). The difference between a tool-using culture and a technocracy, is that "in a technocracy, tools play a central role in the thought-world of the culture...they are not integrated into the culture, they attack the culture...bid to become the culture" (pg. 28). Technocracy was the beginning of an era where new inventions replaced old traditional ideas. For example, the mechanical clock allowed people to follow a new perception of time, and even the printing press with movable type got rid of oral tradition (pg. 29). As the American culture proceeded to advance in its technologies and inventions, it brought forth the rise of Technopoly, or as Postman describes it "totalitarian technocracy" (pg. 48). Our American culture has grown into this technopoly, where people in our society have become consumed by technology and machinery. One reason for this is that it provides convenience in our everyday lives. Looking at the modern world today, a very large majority of our population would not be able to survive one day without the use of technology. Our very existence and everyday lives have become dependent on cars, computers, cell phones, high-tech medical instruments, and so much more. These inventions have definitely created a comfortable and longer life for people today. However, as technopoly emerged, old customs and traditions dwindled away. "Technocracy also speeded up the world. We could get places faster, do things faster, accomplish more in a shorter time. Time, in fact, became and adversary over which technology could triumph. And this meant that there was no time to look back or to contemplate what was being lost" (pg. 45). In just a few sentences, Postman has accurately described what has happened to our American culture. How many of us have actually thought about how much technology has changed our lives? It has revolutionized the way we communicate with others, brought new teaching methods for education, caused advances in medicine, and so much more. However, on a different scale it has also changed how we think and act. A simple example would be if a student was given an assignment to write a paper on a certain topic, the first place they would probably look for information on such a topic would be the internet. Before computers had changed our whole world, "information" was found in books and encyclopedias. Technology has developed our country into what it is today, and there is definitely no going back. However, our culture does need to take a step back to think how this technopoly has effected us, and what affect it will have on our futures.

Texts From Last Night

Ben Bator and Lauren Leto, creators of the newly famous website Texts From Last Night (TFLN), were just a couple of average college students two years ago. In just a few years they have created a company, hit website, a book, iPhone application, and a television deal with FOX. The idea for TFLN came about when Ben and Lauren would both forward text messages they had received from friends to their other friends. After realizing how hilarious text messages out of context can be, they decided to make an online website to list them all. They showed the website to a few close friends, and then their friends had forwarded it to others. After getting a lot of positive feedback about the website, they had paid someone $200 to redo the design for the TFLN site. Just like any young entrepreneurs, Ben and Lauren knew they had to take a chance on this website. Lauren who was originally in law school, and Ben who was planning on applying to law school, had both decided to drop out and pursue their TFLN website. Now they are young and successful entrepreneurs, and marketing TFLN to the fullest.
To be completely honest, I didn't really find their success story that interesting. When it came to representing themselves as founders of a company, in my opinion, they didn't do a very good job at being inspiring entrepreneurs. Their success mostly just came from an idea that happened just by chance, and is now continuously fueled by the general public. It just goes to show that even the most simplest things, such as a funny text message, can turn into a phenomenon. The internet has become this world that doesn't physically exist, but people can create something successful from it, another example being Facebook. TFLN and Facebook are two websites that don't actually provide anything beneficial except entertainment and/or laughter, but our generation has become obsessed with them. Ben Bator had mentioned that the best way to gain success is to take a simple yet original idea and market it in the cheapest way possible. It seems our society has become consumed with the "get rich quick" idea. This is mostly because so many people have had success with it in the past, and will try to ride out their success as long as they can. TFLN is currently in it's prime of success, and I guess we'll just have to wait and see how long it will go on for until something else comes along.

this is strange...

Well, this feels kind of weird. I have never blogged before, and I'm not sure how I'm liking it. My friends have sent me links to theirs and I've read blogs, but I've never actually caught on to the trend. It does seem like a good place to let your thoughts and feelings out to your other friends who blog, or even complete strangers. Personally, I'm not one to write about what I'm thinking on some internet website. Maybe I'm just over thinking it, but either way here goes nothing.
So our assignment was to keep a technology log, and I have discovered two things from doing that. First off, what did any of us do before the internet came along? Between Google search, Facebook, Youtube, Grooveshark, and AIM, it's sad to say I must have spent about four hours glued to my computer last night. And yes, I still use AIM. It may seem slightly outdated, but it's one of the ways I keep in contact with old high school friends. I can have conversations with six different people all at the same time. How can you not love that? Amidst all of that, Google search has become something I can't live without. As I research for Optometry schools, I'm also looking up food recipes, finding song lyrics, shopping for clothes, buying books for school, and who knows what else. The possibilities of Google search are endless, and conveniently right at our fingertips. Grooveshark has been recently added to my favorites and most visited websites. It allows you to find and listen to all your favorite songs, and also create a library and playlists to your own account. The best part is, it's completely free. Such a great thing about these internet sites, everything that we love, and at no cost to us. Lastly, Facebook and YouTube are probably two of the worst yet greatest inventions to come about. The countless hours that I have spent watching pointless YouTube videos or going on Facebook just clicking through people's profiles and pictures, many of which I never see or talk to anymore, is such a waste of time, but we all do it anyway. Which brings me to my second realization, is that I mostly use the internet for 70% personal entertainment and 30% for actual school related work, or reading up on world news (which sadly happens on a weekly basis). This kind of makes me upset that I have become so dependent on my computer and the internet to keep me entertained and connected with the world. But that's just the way our society is moving, and technology along with all it's new inventions doesn't seem to be slowing down either.
On a final note, I guess blogging wasn't so bad. It's still going to take me a while to get used to. I hope I didn't babble on for too long and bore everyone. And finally, here's something that you will hopefully find as amusing as me and my roommate did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4foOe9kUgY