the future!

When it comes to my views on the future and technology, I am closer in beliefs to Kurzweil. Although I find some of his predictions a tad too farfetched, such retina computers, I do think that overall technology will benefit and advance mankind. Computers have been a vital asset for the last 50 years and, as Moore's Law has proven, have been quickly advancing. New research and technology will definitely extend our lifetimes and help us overcome problems. I think that advanced computer skills will help us end world hunger, slow global warming, and find cures for diseases. Just two or three years ago we didn't have a vaccine for cervical cancer, a common disease for women, but because of advanced technology we can save lives. Overall technology will benefit mankind, but some aspects of it, such as war technology can be harmful. Likewise the digital divide will impede some of the benefits of technology.

I think that Joy is wrong in the fact that computer are "endangering" mankind. Yes, computers do make life's tasks easier, they can only be as smart as the people who are programming them. His initial arguement, that machines will be able to make their own decisions, seems highly unlikely to me. I'm not an expert in computers or anything of that matter, but I can't see my laptop getting a mind of its own one day and then clamping my fingers off because it can control itself. I also disagree that people will become so reliant on computers. Because of ecomonic gaps, there will never come a time where everyone has the exact same access to advanced technology. I can definately see the entire population owning a computer, but it would be a simple machine with basic applications like a word processor. However, to become so reliant on a machine that "turning it off would mean suicide" would entail that society had some advanced and widespread technology. One of his points that I do agree with, however, is that advanced computers separate society into those who can and those who cannot understand them. His idea of an elite oligarchy of computer scientists is propable. He takes the idea to an extreme though and suggests that human beings will become like domesticated animals. Yes, a controling oligarchy of scientists could POTENTIALLY gain power, but Joy assumes that they are going to all be evil and use machines to control the masses. By his logic, because humans rely so much on medicine and doctors already, we should technically be pets for the medical industry. Again, I don't see this as very plausible.

When new technologies came out during the industrial revolution and the age of enlightenment, society was just as optomistic or as fearful as they are today. There are always going to be two sides of the issue. Industrial inventions like the steam powered engine caused tremendous growth in factories in areas that weren't near a water supply. It allowed for more jobs to be built because the water powered engine was obsolete. In this case, and I believe in most cases, technology helped society. At the same time, people are still afraid of growth in technology, especially warfare. I believe that many peole lost their faith in science after the A-bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seeing technology destroy lives, rather than advance them, increased the fears and numbers of ludites.

Joys concerns over the growth of technology do hold some truth to them. But the bigger issue here isn't machines controlling society or humans living to be 1000, it's that there is still an enormous gap of people who can and cannot understand technology. This is the real problem that Joy and Kurzweil seem to be forgetting. Real advantages come from owning a computer, and disadvantages come from not owning one and not understanding one. Regardless of whether or not we have computers built into our retinas by 2009, there are always going to be a group of people who are significantly behind.

Overall I'm hopeful for new technology in the next 30 years but at the same time I'm afraid of a generation of people who are literally growing up in front of a computer. I'm also afraid of how this is going to affect the generation after mine. For example, technology has opened doors to some parts of human life I don't want to see, such as the execution of a world leader video taped on a cell phone and then posted on youtube. That is a disgusting abuse of technology. When society begins to accept these abuses, that is when we should be afraid -- not of technology itself but of the values we adopted.

Turing Test

In order to pass a Turing test, the subject computer would need to know how to communicate with a human like a human. A Turing test winner would have to know basic speech, how to respond to simple things like hello, goodbye, how are you, etc. It would also need to understand how to respond using proper and understandable grammar. Some machines say incoherent responses. Likewise, the machine would have to be able to recognize and respond to basic slang terms. In order for a machine like this to exist, it would need a large memory base and an extended vocabulary. Unlike SmarterChild on AIM a Turing bot would need to understand what something vague like "what's up" means. It would also need to have a variety of responses. Most chat bots will use the same responses over and over again if they don't understand something, or even when they do understand. It would also need variety, unlike bots that specialize in telling you a specific thing like the weather or movie times. Expanded knowledge on multiple subjects would also call for a larger memory base. It is easy to tell that you're talking with a machine if all they do is agree with you, repeat themselves and only know a few things.

Problems with E-Voting

1.) There are multiple flaws and glitches with the Diebold voting machines that make people skeptical about them. For one, the documentary proved that the tallying program, Gems, can be hacked in less than a minute, even if you don't know the administrative password. They simply went in the code of a mock high school president election and changed the outcome. With an administrative password, Howard Dean logged into Gems and changed everything without having to deal with codes at all. Likewise, they also showed that Diebold votes can be hacked on just the memory card, without going into Gems at all. On the memory card they wrote a program that reverses the number of votes per candidate, but keeping the total number of voters the same. That way, it doesn't look suspicious because the number of total votes is proportional. Also, the reciepts that get printed and signed by a precinct official are wrong. Unlike a Gems hack, where the original local votes are accounted and signed for but the flaws come with the total votes at the end, the memory card hack is undetectable. This is incredibly frightening considering the elections in the past decade have been incredibly close and that having a different president may have changed the course of history completely. Also, the documentary showed that votes from local precincts are not compared with the county results. After digging in garbage to find the original signed voter receipts, they did not match the 'copies' that were printed at the voting center. Aside from hacks, Diebold has been accused of promising votes to winning candidates for money, they throw away original voting receipts that are protected under law, they inadequately test machines, and when they are presented with one of the multiple flaws in their system, they simply lie about it. I think that flaws like this are one of the reasons that the voting outcome has been so low lately.

2.) If I was in charge of monitoring elections in California, I would make many revisions to the system to make sure the elections are fair, especially if I was an elected official. The Rolling Stone article noted that it is not required that voting machines print out a paper trail anymore, which is frightening because that was one of the few comparison pieces. I would enforce paper receipts at all precincts AND a monitor to make sure that the totals from the signed documents match the totals from Gems. In fact, I would have multiple monitors and they would be handpicked random officials whose identity would be more secret than the MPAA Rating Board. However, that covers a Gems hack, but not the just as easy to complete memory card hack. I'm not sure if there could be a fool proof plan to protect the memory cards at the local electorate level but I would attempt to make their movement more secure. If Diebold can have ATM machines that very few can hack, and if they can find adequate means to transfer all that money around, I'm sure they can also find a way to make voting memory cards secure. Maybe kept in a lockbox that only a nonpartisan third party can access, preferably not also a Diebold employee. At the state level I would also make sure that all memory cards are accounted for and don't "accidentally" get lost somewhere. However, I would pressure Diebold to make the memory cards more secure. Because that would be out of my jurisdiction, I would attempt to enforce Diebold to encrypt their memory cards better, I know it is possible. Government agencies, school records, banks, even online games use strong encryption that makes it difficult to hack at all, let alone in a few minutes. Votes are more precious and should be secure, Diebold simply has to try, retest, and wait until they have a product that is far more reliable than what they're currently testing.

The Digital Divide

The digital divide is a growing problem in the computer science world that doesn't get much mention. Many people who hear the digital divide assume that it only pertains to economic status, however the divide occurs due to health issues, location, age, and general understanding of computers as well. Those who know and understand how to correctly use computers have an overall easier time in most aspects of life. Categories in which the digital divide affect people are education, government, health, entertainment and work.
In the education industry, computers are an essential part of learning. However, schools that cannot afford computers are at a severe disadvantage against schools in better off communities that can buy new technologies. Likewise, if a computer lab is built in a school they still must teach the students how to use them to their best capacity. This can be a problem in a school where computers were never present before because there might not be adequate faculty to teach the students. Also students who own a computer have an easier time filling out college and SAT applications online. They are also more aware of web resources and utilizing the internet to their full learning potential.
In government, things are becoming more and more web based. For example, appointments at the DMV, tax filing, paying off a traffic ticket or 'attending' traffic school can all be done online. Because those who are poorer cannot afford a computer and those who are elderly have less need for a computer, they are at a disadvantage for these opportunities. Instead they have to wait in longer lines at the DMV or risk making errors (such as in tax software that guides you through steps and has a warranty against audits).
For health, the internet has become a useful tool for finding doctors, applying for insurance and even looking up symptoms and household remedies on the internet. Again, elderly and the poor have to look up doctors and insurance the old fashioned (and therefore more long and tedious) way. Also, they may not be able to search for their symptoms and if they don't have health insurance, they are missing out on home solutions to simple health problems that could benefit them. Likewise, people with disabilities who cannot use a computer are also at a disadvantage to making doctors appointments or renewing subscriptions, both of which are available to do on the internet in many places.
In entertainment, the internet is a haven for celebrity gossip, ticket sales, information on movie listing, and guides to city attractions. Without the web, people would have a harder time getting to purchase tickets to a sporting or music event. For example, presale tickets are usually online only now. For people who are looking for a night out, one may check the internet for various events, but without the web it is difficult to find last minute things to do.
Lastly, the digital divide is very prominent in employment. Many employers post jobs on Craigslist or Monster.com. Again, poorer people without a computer miss opportunities for jobs. Another growing problem concerning employment is that many jobs are developing in the tech industry. Those without knowledge of computer skills are at a severe disadvantage for finding a job. As more jobs become tech oriented, more people without computer skills lack employment or funds to purchase a computer, causing a vicious cycle for the less tech savy.

Web 2.0 Lab

1.) http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/
I like this mashup because I like to know who my neighbors are. It's also going to be useful for when I want to find an apartment. Sex offender locations are also a good indicator of what property value in an area is like. This mashes up the Meghan's Law database with GoogleMaps

2. http://www.findthatpet.com
This mashup is great. I'd be really sad if my dog ever got away, and this would be a great tool to help me find her. They mashed up Google Maps and their pet reporting system to help people post that a pet ran away, and to post if they found a lost pet.

3. )http://www.scholr.co.uk/
Uses Amazon E Commerce to find a book you like and relate it to other books, similar to last.fm. I like this app because I read a lot and like to find new books. Unfortunately it's British, so I only use it for reference, if I want to buy a book I have to find it myself.

File Sharing Do's and Don't's

File sharing is a touchy subject for most people. Many Internet users have downloaded something from the Internet illegally, whether it be a song, a program or even a picture from Google Images. All three are breaking copyright laws, yet music has been the primary target in the file sharing debate. The RIAA sees all forms of file sharing as illegal, but many users have a different distinction for what they consider fair and unfair.

I think that file sharing should be taken on a case by case basis. Downloading songs from a recording artist (no matter if they are famous or not) without permission from them is stealing. If it doesn't belong to you, don't take it. Many argue that recording artists aren't seeing most of that money or they're wealthy enough anyway. This is the equivalent to stealing a CD from a store. Besides, who is one to judge how much money someone should or shouldn't have? People should not take it upon themselves to be the arbitrator of wealth. However, if an artist makes an album available online for free (The Decemberists leaked their own album on bitTorrent for example) then it is legal. I think that it should also be legal to download songs if you already have the album. For example, if I had LPs and vinyls, should I buy another copy of the album so I can have it on an mp3 player?, I think that if I were to download digital copies of those songs, it shouldn't be punishable.

Another excuse that downloaders use is "try before you buy." Many of my friends download songs just to "see if they like the artist." This is unnecessary because most recording artists have a couple free downloads on their website, have streaming capabilities (some even make their entire albums available), or videos on youtube. If you can legally download some songs or listen to them, do you really need to download more just to "see if you like it." Most of my friends don't end up buying the albums anyway.

The last ethical dilemma in file sharing is uploading and making music available to people. Once you buy a CD, the RIAA states that you don't own the music, which I can understand. Lending a CD to someone so they can rip it to their computer is illegal, same with putting music files online for other to download (whether it be a few friends or everyone in limewire). However, I think a distinction should be made between people who let a friend copy a CD and those who upload torrents. The audience is much bigger, and each of those people who download it can in turn upload it to more people. People have been copying music from each other for decades, it is impossible to track down everyone who has ever copied a tape or CD.

In short, file sharing is not a black and white issue. Simple rules cannot be laid out for it. Each case has to be carefully examined and punishment should be based on each unique scenario. Also, I think it's costing the RIAA and major record labels more in legal fees than actual money they've been receiving from those they are suing. I think that the taboo on file sharing will pass eventually, like all new technological threats.

Week 7

The quickly changing formats for sound, images, and animation have revolutionized the entertainment industry, particularly the movie industry, in ways that were unthinkable a decade ago. Although I think that it's great that technology is easier to access now, and that film makers can expand their horizons in terms of special effects, the transition to digital media has had its drawbacks.

Back when I was a kid on my feeble Windows 98 o.s. I couldn't make images using photoshop, the best we had was M.S Paint. I'm not sure if photoshop was around yet, but if it was it was probably very expensive, difficult to use (I still don't understand the interface completely), and unaccessible to everyday people. Today, photoshop and other programs like i-movie and garageband are a staple on most computers. Gone are the days where the best image manipulation device possible was cheesy looking lines using the spray paint tool. I think that now it's better for people who are interested in music mixing, movie making, and image design to have these tools more available to them. My friend, for example, uses his gameboy to make music on garage band. It's the ultimate mix of analog and digital. However, the internet is home to junk, and a great deal of the creations made on i-movie or photoshop falls into that category. I'm really tired of videos on youtube that parody other videos. It was funny, ONCE, we don't need to see a photoshopped dramatic prairie dog wearing a monocle. The same goes for YTMND websites. And how many times have people photoshopped old pictures to make it look like there's a 'ghost?' Sometimes having technology available to 'everyday people' can have adverse, and annoying, consequences.

Another mixed issue in the analog-digital debate is special effects. Professional movies have come along way in CGI, blue/green screen technology, and even just movie quality in general. Older movies have faded colors and sometimes poorly mixed sound where the music is much louder than the dialog. I really enjoy new special effects in some movies. Pan's Labyrinth, for example, was a visually stunning movie. The effects, alongside a powerful storyline, made it one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. Then, there are movies created specifically to show off special effects. This is where director Michael Bay comes in. Transformers, though great special effects wise, made money only for it's novelty value. With new technology making film production cheaper and more accessible, compelling story lines and strong acting isn't necessary to make a blockbuster movie. Also, I think some creativity is lost with CGI. When Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey, he used new and innovative techniques to match his dream, and the result was stunning. Now, if Kubrick was alive he would make the spaceships and cavemen on a computer with CGI, the Discovery One would just look like another spaceship from Star Wars. It becomes the staple movie maker, and after a while CGI is homogeneous and bland.

I think that we should mix analog and digital. This way movies will still have creative elements, and be able to stun audiences. If directors keep going the way they're heading, actors will be obsolete, why hire them if we can make the ultimate looking CGI actor who doesn't demand a high wage and bottled water? This is an extreme situation, but even so some forms of art are obsolete because of the wave of the future. How many traditionally hand drawn cartoons are still made in the US for example? I, for one, miss hand drawn cartoons and think that CGI singing rats are weird. Digital media has definitely made some great advancements, but it's important to not forget traditional art.