Wrap Up

Hey, so...
Basically one of the largest things I learned this semester is really how big the internet is. I always new, but never really to what extent. I personally am anti-computers and can barely operate simple programs like blogger here for instance. When I learned about Icann and how their case was in congress, and that the government is deciding who controls the internet, I really understood its importance. The same thing goes along with the RFID tags and how companies or whoever can potentially track your every move. It just really put into perspective how huge the whole technology thing is. As someone who keeps herself pretty far removed from technology, except for email and such, I realized how vital it was to understand the far-reaching influence computer technology, and other technologies have on the world. They can suck us into being addicted, they can control our lives, follow us, they can blow our race off the planet, or they can help us. And they can make life better for many people.

Future

Right now Im reading this book called The Diamond Age. It is a sci-fi novel and so far the time period and technology and science they have been describing sounds entirely plausible. Especially after reading the two articles by BIll Joy and Ray Kurzweil. I happen to slightly agree with Kurzweil in so far as to say that technology is good and has helped mankind in many areas, such as transportation, medicine and industry.
However I really tend to agree much more strongly with Bill Joy's article. The possibilities he was suggesting concerning how far technology can take us, and the potential for the end of the human race is scary enough. Joy's most important point I believe, is the fact that when dealing with such powerful technology there enters questions regarding ethics and morals. What are we using these technical advantages for? Military weapons? Making it easier for consumers and the business industry to force their products and ideologies down our throats. How about using that technology to save our environment? Im not saying people arent using technology to save the environment. This technology is in the hands of a very small percentage of the worlds population and yet these technologies inevitably affect everyone in one way or another. Bottom line is, if our human species is at risk of extinction over something that we ourselves control, something needs to be done. It only makes sense though that we ourselves will be the cause of our undoing.

ARTIFICIAL Intelligence

I do not believe the Turing text to be a good indicator of whether a machine and/or computer is intelligent or not. Because just because it can pass as a human, to some people, does not make it intelligent. The people who are fooled must not be intelligent, or the chatbot is designed in such a way that it avoids all slip ups, and just talks nonsense. The chatbots that are designed for raunchy text messaging, have on purpose and one purpose only. The people who talk to these chatbots will not have intelligent conversations with the machines. I feel that artificial intelligence is being exploited. Its being used to entertain and make money off of the general public, or to just fool them. I think that an intelligent machine is a concept and not really possible. Human-like? Well perhaps it could be. Tricky and deceiving? Yes, but I do not consider that intelligent. Intelligent conversations are ones that some how spark something organic, that the people involved learn and take something away with them from it. This is not possible with a computer.

Internet Addiction

I am somewhat familiar with internet addiction because I used to think my brother was addicted to the internet until i realized it was just an addiction to videogames and porn, which is pretty normal with teenage boys. The internet just makes it easier to access. Internet addiction is just an outlet for people who are addicted to other things. I think he also just needed an outlet from his three sisters and overbearing mother. The internet nurtures addiction. It allows free access to gambling and pornography from the comfort of one's own home. They can keep it secret because of the anonymous nature of the internet and pretend to be completely different people. Its fast and offers an escape into an unreal world. One article I read described it like It offers social connection through chatrooms and such while at the same time keeping people completely cut off from society.

Piracy Rules

I don't believe there is such a thing as "bad sharing". The word sharing in and of itself has no negative connotations and therefore cannot be a negative thing. I think that music is a beautiful and powerful thing, and any true artist makes music because it is a part of their soul, and they have some innate dire need to share, or express and explain their ideas and themselves through music with the world. I don't really see the problem as that important at all. The artists/record companies who are losing money, aren't really losing money, but making less of a profit. The consumers and the small-time indie artists are gaining. More music is available to more people. More bands are able to get their music heard. If the band is good enough then it will be appreciated and people will go to their concerts and pay for their tickets and buy the t-shirts and merchandise and the highly commercial overrated untalented shmucks that the media tries to push on us with their images will wither away and we wont have to deal with them anymore. I think that the EFF-sponsored site had a pretty good idea also about creating a system called voluntary collective licensing. It is an idea to allow consumers to pay a cheap price of 5 dollars a month for access to a collected archive of music and download and share as much music as they want using whatever program they would like. This is even unnecessary in my mind but it is a very generous compromise. Basically it is my opinion entirely that "Piracy" rules, and we can do without major record labels.

In The Hot Seat

The fundamental issue surrounding Net Neutrality is whether Congress is going to pass a bill sometime later this year, possibly not until 2007. The bill could potentially allow ISP to provide differentiated internet service based on the website. New services such as voice over Internet Protocol would not be offered by certain providers or users would have to pay extra for it. Internet providers could potentially package websites like CableTv packages; some come with HBO, and some do not. Companies like AT&T and Verizon are in favor of this. They argue that the competition will spur on lowered prices and new and better next generation technologies. Companies like Google and Utube are all for Net Neutrality, which ensures the equal treatment of all internet sites. Without Net Neutrality, those companies that began as two nerds working diligently in their garages, may never have become what they are today; One of the worlds most popular search engines and entertainment websites. Without Net Neutrality those little businesses would not be able to compete with the large companies. I happen to be in favor of Net Neutrality. It has worked so far and is now being threatened by money-hungry corporations that want to turn the internet into cable TV. Without the new regulations new starting out sites with great next generational technology could be thwarted. We could be giving up on the next Google, and handing our wallets over to greedy Republican broadband companies.

What Is RFID?

RFID stands for radio frequency identification. It is a small microchip that responds to a radio signal, and transmits a unique code. It isn't battery operated, it is powered by the radio signal that is responds to. RFID tags can be extremely useful to some companies, especially in retail. They can put the tiny tags in their products and be able to track them through out the store. This would reduce theft, as well as speed up inventory. RFID tags could be used in hospitals to help track patients and their visitors as well as the locations of doctors and nurses to help provide more efficient medical services. The concept of RFID tags sounds great. There are, however, just as many concerns surrounding the tiny tags. Companies that make them have made them washable, and so tiny they are half the size of a flake of pepper. What if after purchasing something with an RFID tag, it didn't stop transmitting, and it continued to send information concerning personal whereabouts and information that is no one else's business. Some businesses want to put them on their employees in order to track their every movement, just like potentially in hospitals. It could be efficiency, or it could be violation of privacy, depending on how you look at it, and depending on how its development is handled over the next couple of years as its technology becomes more and more popular.

Die, Diebold

Thousands and even millions of Americans are deeply concerned about the controversy surrounding electronic voting systems. The bare facts show that electronic voting is not a secure way to tally votes. The Princeton review of Diebold machines was ridiculous. It showed that Diebold voting machines can be hacked into and infected with a virus to skew votes, and it can be done in less than a minute. Not only that but once the virus has completed its job, it can self-destruct, leaving no trace of its existence. The machines are not secure. The private companies that control the machines are profiting while the general public's rights are being violated. The very strange thing is that in the past 2004 election, all the skewed votes were changed in favor of Bush. Three out of the four major voting machine companies involved in setting up the US with updated electronic voting technology have large ties with the Republican party.
The truth is paper ballots are much more reliable than electronic votes. They are undoubtedly less expensive and they are the best way to take back control over the voting process from the hands of a Republican for-profit corporation.