Kirby's view on "technology"

Advertising

2005-04-27T08:43:00.000-07:00

Why are consumers now paying money so that they do not have to watch or listen to advertisements?

The technology field provides such products so that the consumer does not have to watch or listen to advertisements. Products like Tivo, xm radio and pop up blockers all are used to avoid current day advertisements. Tivo provides the ability to record a tv show watch it later and fast forward through all of the tv commercials, this only will cost. I can understand why you would want to be able to ski commercials, because I don’t like to watch tv for the advertisements but I am there to watch the show of choice. I don’t understand how I could first of all pay for a tv service such as (cable or satellite), then pay more money to subscribe to tivo just so that I could record the shows that I am already paying for without commercials. I do not follow the logic, why can’t the suppliers of tv remove these commercials… I already paid them money.

Xm radio now provides commercial free radio, at a mere cost. I again do not understand how I could pay for radio after getting it for free all of my life. Sure it would be cool to have constant music but is it really that pain full to experience an advertisement in between songs. I just do not follow the logic. Online advertising would appear at first to be a great idea, but I have never clicked on an online add because I was interested in what they had to offer. Pop ups seem to the most annoying newest source of advertising. You click on a link for a web page on some political leader, and 4 windows open, the one you hopped for and three others, advertising Viagra, vacationing in Cancun, and “free” Ipod. Why would you be interested in all of these advertisements? So what has been created… pop up blocker programs as of right now you can get them for free, but what happens when they start charging for this also. Online advertising is not only limited to pop ups but also every page you open along each side of the web page there are advertisements for something that the web page has decided to christen you with.

I personally have not paid for the ability to stop advertising, but I could see someday that advertising might reach a level where I will make the monetary sacrifice.

It also can be said that advertising has reached its limit in paper media such as newpapers and magazines. When you get your news paper the first thing you do is shake out the advertisement for the local grocery store or hardware store and throw the advertisement away. I think personally I have looked at this insert about 1 out of every 10 times. Magazines usually provide some sort of personal interest to you. The magazine will also contain advertisements that are along the same genre of the magazine, but usually the magazine is half way full of these advertisements, which is cool I guess, but not the reason you bought the magazine.

Patriot Missile

2005-04-14T14:34:00.000-07:00

Did the Patriot Missile work?

Directly it was said that the main goal of keeping Israel out of the war, was accomplished. But the usefulness of the patriot missile to stop incoming missiles was ~one in thirty. So how did this all come about becoming standard for the representation of how America represents itself? I just do not understand how we could keep on putting so much money into the patriot missile when it had such a poor ability to intercept an incoming missile. What other projects are we throwing the American tax dollars at just to keep our little bubble around America? How long can we go on to spending this money to solve the conflicts that other countries have? I like to believe that we are putting out money towards good programs and we have the correct elected officials, who will make the correct decisions. Back to the patriot missile I think it is great that we were able to keep Israel out of the war, so the goal was accomplished but could have it of been done differently?

A Golem At Large

2005-04-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

“Science and technology as Golems”

“A golem is powerful but not self directed, has to be controlled instead of having a purpose”.

In this new book A golem at Large the study of how people make assumptions about technology has evolved. The general idea of this book is what are the experts and engineers saying to the public to explain this new technology? This is technology in general when a new product is developed how has the “experts” presented it so that the public can view it and reach their own conclusion about this new product. This medium that is created between the public and the expert/engineer causes the view of the public or engineer to be squewed. This view is squewed because the engineer does not explain what he knows in terms that the public can understand. This is where the “golem” represents the goals of the engineer but the public does not view the goals of the engineer. In other words the public views everything differently or correctly then what was meant.

The role of experts
experts with formal training in the field (engineer)
people whose expertise comes from their own expertise and study
general public
“Being an expert doesn’t automatically give you the right answer”

This brings on the objective of brining in multiple “experts” so that the correct ideas can be distributed and the correct conclusions can be made. The first chapter of A Golem at Large discusses all of this in fine detail and I agree with what it has provided as information on this topic. I believe that there is this medium between the public and the experts that disrupts the understanding of a new technology.

Mosquitos

2005-03-09T12:53:00.000-08:00

If you had the ability to destroy/eradicate a whole species would you?
This question brings many moral and physical questions and problems. A species that could be questioned would be the mosquito. The mosquito can carry deadly disease it also provides no direct benefit to the human race. There is no one person who has not at one time wished that there were no mosquito’s, on the earth. From personal experience of camping in Canada when it is in the middle of the summer and there is constantly at least fifteen mosquito’s buzzing around your head. I wished at this point that they would not exist, but what would be the consequences. Why are there so many mosquitoes in this area (Canada), because there is water everywhere which provides the perfect breeding ground for the mosquito. So should something be done to stop/eradicate the mosquito species? My point of view is NO the mosquito species can not be eradicated, the mosquito provides food for many birds, bats and insects. If the mosquito is removed from the diet of these animals these animals will have to change their diet and this would offset the natural balance of nature and might lead to the lose of another species. This was not the initial goal of ridding us(humans) of the mosquito. IF you were to ignore the physical affects what about the moral side if you are to destroy/eradicate one species why can’t you, do that with any other species. I say you can not “play god” the earth has only been able to last as long as it has because natural selection and evolution have been allowed to occur. If you are to change this method the whole earth would be threatened for survival.

Sub-human Japanese

2005-03-04T19:21:00.000-08:00

"Likened Japanese to insects because whereas Germans, when outnumbered would surrender, Japanese would continue to fight - a concept American's couldn't understand.”

I like both of these quotes found in a personal web page by one of the groups. The statement “a concept American’s couldn’t understand” is very thought provoking. Did we as American’s really not understand that the Japanese would fight until the end? Does this show that they are more loyal to their country then we could ever imagine being? I think that the Japanese ignored the number factor and they really had their minds set on that they can and will win the war. Their determination in winning the war was not based on recourses, unlike the usual method that America would use to determine who might win the war.

“People saw the Japanese as sub-human - unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor, while American's talks were occurring between high Japanese and American officials was one of the main factors that lead to this belief. “

This quote pulled from the same web page came before the previous quote. By saying the Japanese were “sub-human” are we sudjesting that the Japanese are really not human and can not perform like a normal human. It is viewed that the attack on Pearl Harbor was immoral because there was very minimal warning that they had declared war, this can be viewed as immoral or as a tactical move by the Japanese to try and get the upper hand on us the American’s.

Tesla

2005-02-13T19:26:00.000-08:00

Nikola Tesla is one of the primary developers of our present day electrical systems. In the late 1900's Tesla performed many experiments with the AC (alternating current) that was being developed. DC (direct current) was the only supplier of electricity in 1880, and was used till 1886 when AC was first implemented in Buffalo. AC was a better choice because it provided the ability to apply transformers to the circuit. With the transformer you were able to minimize the power lost when the transmission of electricity was needed for long distances. So over the next few years the AC system developed. But it was not till Tesla discovered the three polar method of transmitting AC which uses three wires rather than two. With the three wire method AC was very stable and could be controlled easier. We presently use the three wire method, so I find that this is very important to present day electronics.

Tesla went on to develop the AC motor, Tesla coil, Radio, Remote control, and improved lighting. The AC motor was highly dependent on the three wire method of transmitting electric current. Because it was three wire the AC motor did not require any brushes to alternate the polarity of the internal electro magnets.

response to teacher at Massachusetts

2005-02-13T15:59:00.000-08:00

My response to the comment made below found here.

A friend who teaches at an engineering college in Massachusetts wrote to me on this topic:
The example I use is the talented auto mechanic who can fix anything wrong with any car. I make the point that one of my daughter's teachers xx years ago praised such a person for having a deep knowledge of physics. I ask my students -- many of whom are struggling with freshman physics -- if they agree.

Most do not. If you agree, in what sense do you mean it?

I do not believe that the Mechanic has a "deep knowledge of physics". I believe that the mechanic is mechanically inclined and that he is able to read a car manual. All that the mechanic needs is the basic understanding of how a functioning car works, and by relating that to how your broken car is running he can solve your problem. So he has problem solving skills. Again the mechanic is mechanically inclined, he knows the basics of how mechanics of a car works. So is this mechanic performing science by fixing this car, I say no. The mechanic is just using the knowledge and the know how he has to replace or fix a mechanical part of the car.

Lowell

2005-02-06T19:21:00.000-08:00

While reading about what Lowell did in the work place for the women in America, I came up with an idea. Could the Lowell methods be applied to present day America? Or what if we still had systems like this would it provide a more secure job?

In the Lowell factory system he hired New England women between the ages of seventeen and twenty-four. With this massive force of easily trainable individuals he was able to create a work force of a very controlled capacity. The women then would work in the factories which were very decent jobs. For this workforce Lowell provided a place to live, and payment for their work.

So could the Lowell methods be applied to present day America? Or what if we still had systems like this would it provide a more secure job? I think that if we still executed this type of job atmosphere it would provide a better work place, and better job security. The job freedom that our present day market provides would be lost, and would be replaced by a more refined system. So if this system was applied it would not only focus on the women work force but also the male. How would this provide a better workplace? Each individual would be trained for that specific job and would be guaranteed that job once they were trained.

With very minimal research and insight into the job market I think that if the Lowell methods were applied it would prove to be better. But it would also be rejected in present day America where we are like to be “Free” to do what we want.

my view on technology vs science

2005-01-24T13:41:00.000-08:00

What you will find here is an obscured view on what I think technology has become in America. I think that my view will be obscured because I have only been able to live my life in this day and age (not having experienced the 1900's or 1800's). I do not believe that "basic science is knowledge for the sake of knowledge".

I find it hard to say that when the pilgrims were developing, better axes that this was not a truly science. Because every one person wants to be able to better society and when you find that a tool is not working "perfectly" you want to be able to perfect that tool. So my view on science is that every day of your life you are performing a level of science. You don't have to perform research and do studies on a tool to be able to perfect it. Lets say the handle of the axe breaks after using it 3 minutes. You would think that it was made poorly and would want to replace the broken handle with a stronger handle maybe larger in diameter shorter in length, stronger wood. How is this not science you went through a thought process of why did this axe handle break.

I think that all technology is created by science, and that labeling technology by either "craft technology or technology that is developed by formal scientific research" is incorrect.

~kd