~ God has given us technology to further the work. Almost everything can be used to hasten it.
~ With the world moving online, most contact opportunities are online as well.
~ If the quality of relationships goes down as people move online, it'll be harder to get other people interested in the Gospel though...
~ But it has become much easier for people who are interested to find good information on their own.
~ There's still a lot of tech work to do when it comes to languages. We'll probably have official translators for a long time, but the throughput could be so much quicker.
~ It's awesome that church references are so easy to find and search through now.
~ Storing a universal family tree is a good step in the right direction. Before, it would have been way too easy for people to continue the same line independently.
~ The efficiency of family history work has skyrocketed.
~ But it requires a comfortability with working on computers. It's usually not to tough to start now.
~ Current technologies have continually increasing potential to keep people living in the fake worlds. This will never end.
~ But people who resist could use the tech for more good than was previously possible.
~ Relationships on the internet can be easy to invest in, but they won't ever pay off.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Blog Post 5
The internet has had an incredible effect on the efficiency of church work. Family history work in particular has had a huge boost. It's much easier for people to split the work for a single line because the church has created a single family tree and collaboration between people has become much easier. It's now potentially possible to do in 15 minutes what used to take 100 hours of research, and it's much more likely no one else is spending the same amount of time on the exact same question. But along with the productivity boost, the internet has even more potential for distraction. We can now be more productive than any other time in history, or we can be the most distracted. Technology has actually provided an opportunity to be both, but this would still be a waste of potential.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Blog Post 4
The question of entertainment is generally pretty easy to answer. If something can rejuvenate you without later detracting from real world experiences or creating an addiction, it seems to be a pretty good thing. Those requirements have to be looked at honestly in each individual circumstance, but it would be hard to argue against an entertainment wherein each was satisfied.
I can imagine those requirements being blurred in the future. Imagine a virtual reality system indistinguishable from our real world. How can we say that living in the real world is better than living in the virtual one? Now imagine that the real world has no way to employ the vast majority of the populace because nearly every job has become cheaper to implement with a machine, including decision-making jobs typically thought impossible for them (this will happen long before realistic virtual reality). Say the virtual reality has a fulfilling job for everyone. The food tastes better. There are no physical risks. You can meet people similar to you or very different from you at your whim, at any time, and immediately. This means relationships could become richer than reality in the virtual world. Empirically, the people who tend to spend most of their time in the virtual world become healthier and happier without exception. Wouldn't it become unethical to discourage people from living in the virtual world?
I can imagine those requirements being blurred in the future. Imagine a virtual reality system indistinguishable from our real world. How can we say that living in the real world is better than living in the virtual one? Now imagine that the real world has no way to employ the vast majority of the populace because nearly every job has become cheaper to implement with a machine, including decision-making jobs typically thought impossible for them (this will happen long before realistic virtual reality). Say the virtual reality has a fulfilling job for everyone. The food tastes better. There are no physical risks. You can meet people similar to you or very different from you at your whim, at any time, and immediately. This means relationships could become richer than reality in the virtual world. Empirically, the people who tend to spend most of their time in the virtual world become healthier and happier without exception. Wouldn't it become unethical to discourage people from living in the virtual world?
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Study Journal 6
~ Cultural stereotypes might be the biggest factor in race/gender distributions in a field. Not just because people will make assumptions about them, but they may not decide to study it in the first place.
~ The computer science and engineering fields that still have such a large gap are seen as the most lucrative. Probably not a coincidence.
~ A field will benefit from having as diverse a contributing populace as possible.
~ Everyone needs to have some exposure to a field in order to decide if they want to study it, and in current culture men are more likely to be introduced to CS
~ Stereotypical environments are probably a strong indicator of who will begin to study that field.
~ Forced exposure (GED) to a field is one answer, but will the forcing be a negative?
~ Entertainment is probably necessary to a healthy life. But our current use of entertainment is generally a constant/addictive stream of lower quality (less uplifting).
~ A company whose business plan depends on addicting users is probably unethical, but there will always be addicted users, so it's difficult to distinguish.
~ The internet is a pervasive part of our lives, it will have an effect on all our relationships.
~ The amount of content available online is huge, smart filtering of relevant posts is going to be emphasized for a while.
~ The social aspect of the internet is still in its infancy, it's still difficult to understand all the effects it will have. Keep observing.
~ Privacy vs information is going to keep growing. Keep observing how it evolves, keep in mind that different people will have different fundamental desires on this issue.
~ The computer science and engineering fields that still have such a large gap are seen as the most lucrative. Probably not a coincidence.
~ A field will benefit from having as diverse a contributing populace as possible.
~ Everyone needs to have some exposure to a field in order to decide if they want to study it, and in current culture men are more likely to be introduced to CS
~ Stereotypical environments are probably a strong indicator of who will begin to study that field.
~ Forced exposure (GED) to a field is one answer, but will the forcing be a negative?
~ Entertainment is probably necessary to a healthy life. But our current use of entertainment is generally a constant/addictive stream of lower quality (less uplifting).
~ A company whose business plan depends on addicting users is probably unethical, but there will always be addicted users, so it's difficult to distinguish.
~ The internet is a pervasive part of our lives, it will have an effect on all our relationships.
~ The amount of content available online is huge, smart filtering of relevant posts is going to be emphasized for a while.
~ The social aspect of the internet is still in its infancy, it's still difficult to understand all the effects it will have. Keep observing.
~ Privacy vs information is going to keep growing. Keep observing how it evolves, keep in mind that different people will have different fundamental desires on this issue.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Blog Post 3
The discussion on the lack of women in the computer science field has become increasingly confusing as I read more about it. Sure, there are still major problems in the workplace that need to be fixed, and hopefully there will continue to be progress in that area. That, however, likely has little to do with why so few women to choose to get a computer science degree in the first place. The blame then moves to early education. Perhaps girls are (hopefully unconsciously) pushed away from math and science, and that's why they don't end up choosing a computer science major. That doesn't seem to be the full story; women are better represented in many of the other STEM degrees. I think computer science is unique in its increasing gender gap because there is generally no exposure to computer science in school. Computer science is unrelated to any of the sciences taught, and while the theory behind computer science is a math, its practical application has little to do with the math taught in school. Because there is so little primary school exposure to anything like computer science, it is uniquely susceptible to cultural stereotypes and impressions. Something in culture is pushing boys towards that initial exposure to computer science, and leaving girls out. Trying to influence that culture will be incredibly difficult, so I suspect the easiest way to increase the number of women studying computer science would be to add an introduction to computer science to the general curriculum. If everyone will be exposed to it regardless of that cultural bias, people can find out if they enjoy the field without having to factor in the stereotypes. This would not be a strange thing to add to education; understanding how computers work seems at least as generally relevant as calculus/optics/mechanics.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Study Journal 5
~ I don't understand why people were willing to buy these internet companies at so high a price per share. There was no evidence that the value of the company increased after the first day of going public, and they regularly failed a couple year later.
~ Did people assume that all internet technologies were valuable? Why? The only reason I can think of is because it's a new technology that the people buying shares didn't understand.
~ Did the companies do poorly later because they missed out on the money gained in the first day after the IPO? That shouldn't be the case, any IPO becomes money to use, even if they didn't get what they should have.
~ I suppose there is technically always a trade-off with new technology, even if only that the public's ability to survive without it becomes questioned. But is that negative always relevant? I think it's certainly possible that a technology has no relevant negative side.
~ The idea that the winners try to convince the losers that they're actually winners is an interesting one. Sure, the real winners don't want to lose out on some benefits by the new tech getting cut, but are individuals really that gullible? I suppose it's certainly possible.
~ It is almost impossible to tell how a new technology will influence the world. I absolutely agree with the reading that the future won't be simply same world + new tech, but will be a mixture where they both effect changes on each other.
~ The easy access to information / entertainment made possible by the internet makes it incredibly easy to get lost there.
~ Bookmarking acceptable sites is a fantastic idea for keeping undesirable sites from being accessed, for people used to obtaining entertainment easily the extra time spent searching for other sites might be a deterrent.
~ I love the idea that parents should become familiar with the new tech that their kids are becoming used to. It's much more effective to talk to the child about what and why things are inappropriate rather than blanket banning the tech (internet, games, ...)
~ Did people assume that all internet technologies were valuable? Why? The only reason I can think of is because it's a new technology that the people buying shares didn't understand.
~ Did the companies do poorly later because they missed out on the money gained in the first day after the IPO? That shouldn't be the case, any IPO becomes money to use, even if they didn't get what they should have.
~ I suppose there is technically always a trade-off with new technology, even if only that the public's ability to survive without it becomes questioned. But is that negative always relevant? I think it's certainly possible that a technology has no relevant negative side.
~ The idea that the winners try to convince the losers that they're actually winners is an interesting one. Sure, the real winners don't want to lose out on some benefits by the new tech getting cut, but are individuals really that gullible? I suppose it's certainly possible.
~ It is almost impossible to tell how a new technology will influence the world. I absolutely agree with the reading that the future won't be simply same world + new tech, but will be a mixture where they both effect changes on each other.
~ The easy access to information / entertainment made possible by the internet makes it incredibly easy to get lost there.
~ Bookmarking acceptable sites is a fantastic idea for keeping undesirable sites from being accessed, for people used to obtaining entertainment easily the extra time spent searching for other sites might be a deterrent.
~ I love the idea that parents should become familiar with the new tech that their kids are becoming used to. It's much more effective to talk to the child about what and why things are inappropriate rather than blanket banning the tech (internet, games, ...)
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Current Event Post 3
http://www.cnet.com/news/man-charged-for-refusing-to-give-up-phone-passcode-to-canadian-border-agents/
As the link says, a canadian man was arrested when he refused to give border agents the password to his phone. Granted, that's just how the story is told in the media; we can't be sure that was the only reason. However, people can't be compelled to provide access to the contents of their devices without following some sort of process (I'm not entirely sure how this works, obtain a warrant or something like that?). An inspection of the device itself is certainly acceptable, but the contents of a phone or laptop are usually deeply personal. People have a right to privacy about these contents, and authorities must have "reasonable suspicion" to demand access. There's no real reason for this requirement to be relaxed at the border either. If the contents of a phone were really a threat to a country's security, it would have been much easier to smuggle it in over the internet. Checking the contents of a device would be a completely unnecessary step.
As the link says, a canadian man was arrested when he refused to give border agents the password to his phone. Granted, that's just how the story is told in the media; we can't be sure that was the only reason. However, people can't be compelled to provide access to the contents of their devices without following some sort of process (I'm not entirely sure how this works, obtain a warrant or something like that?). An inspection of the device itself is certainly acceptable, but the contents of a phone or laptop are usually deeply personal. People have a right to privacy about these contents, and authorities must have "reasonable suspicion" to demand access. There's no real reason for this requirement to be relaxed at the border either. If the contents of a phone were really a threat to a country's security, it would have been much easier to smuggle it in over the internet. Checking the contents of a device would be a completely unnecessary step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)