Study Journal 7

~ 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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, ...)

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.

Study Journal 4

~ The internet was not designed for security. All security measures are just band-aids as problems occur.
~ Hackers believe that all information should be free, yet somehow keep personal privacy and less-than-legal organization secrets as pretty high priorities.
~ It's a shame the term hacker has changed. The original meaning was cooler - people able to create really cool things with basic tech tools.
~ When the government mines metadata, that means they don't get any contents of your message. They have a from email address and a to email address. Email addresses aren't very secret already.
~ Arguably, knowing who is talking to who might give them some information, but I don't really see why there's a problem. Businesses gather much more than that.
~ Stoll's idea of the internet being a network built on trust seems a little outdated. Most people just assume others will attempt to hack any and every site they create now.
~ There is no real leader for hacktivism. It will be very difficult for the government to stop leaks of confidential information by prosecuting individuals.
~ It's interesting to see Stoll's portrayal of people being unconcerned about unauthorized accesses to their networks. It's difficult to imagine that happening now.
~ Patents are supposed to encourage innovation by letting them be rewarded for their inventions. I don't mind them being able to sell the rights to a patent, but something needs to be done to prevent companies abusing that.
~ Contract agreements with a company can be a very laborious process when done correctly, it's easy for them to sneak things in that are less than desirable. New hires must have representation!
~ Patents are abused by companies. They seem to just collect them. Patents are supposed to only be granted for real innovations, but it's difficult for the office to determine what that means. Look-and-feel isn't really innovative generally.
~ There needs to be more protection for the real inventor. The person who benefits from a patent is generally the first to file, not the first to create.

Blog Post 2

In the "hacker ethic" identified by Steven Levy, the idea that all information should be free appears. At the same time, many beliefs by self-proclaimed hackers maintain that users deserve to have their privacy. Hacker organizations tend to be very secretive. Sure, they do it so they stay out of jail, but their actions potentially have an effect on the public. That's the exact reason they claim for why they publicize government secrets. Hacker organizations seem to be built on a contradiction. How do hackers reconcile the claim that all information should be free, yet make anonymity a priority for their own organizations. (I can understand personal privacy still being a priority - that same "hacker ethic" sets mistrust of authority as another top priority. But again, how can they excuse their own and other similar organizations of the same requirements?)

Current Event Post 2

http://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-a-reality-fcc-votes-to-bring-internet-under-utility-style-rules/

The FCC has reclassified broadband as a service that they're allowed to regulate (more strictly than they've done before). It's a complicated situation, with many potential implications and future lawsuits. The primary concern heard from consumers is that this increase in government regulation will lead to increases in consumer prices and lower internet speeds. These concerns aren't unfounded; Extra bureaucratic overhead has that potential, and the FCC will have the authority to directly add more taxes to the service. Despite claims that this decision is simply an attempt by the government to gain control, I don't believe these scenarios are likely. I can't imagine that consumers from either political party would approve of any motion that would slow their internet speeds or directly increase their prices. Maybe it's just a naive hope that the people's government will run the way it's supposed to, but I do actually believe that the FCC passed this reclassification with only net neutrality in mind.

Study Journal 3

~ Sure, there will be less crime/mayhem if everybody's inside playing video games, is that healthy? There's been a few dystopias written about groups of people who spend their entire lives hooked up to virtual reality, never seeing the real world. Is that really bad?
~ That guy is claiming that it's much more difficult for people to regulate themselves in a large scale conversation, and it sounded like he was implying individuals, but it's probably just about the increasing statistical probability of having that one jerk who can ruin an area by him/herself.
~ The internet as a social experiment is intriguing. Sure, the instant world-wide connectivity is amazing, but observing the social dynamic that is created in the huge number of sites could be revealing.
~ The small advances, little changes that are available to everybody have a way of causing social changes that no one expects. The big advances are awesome, but don't change an individuals daily life.
~ Predicting the effects of technology before understanding what it's actually able to do and how quickly potentially creates a divide politically that people in the future who know what can be done with the technology will find silly.
~ The fact that claims made on the internet are so difficult to verify probably is the worst part about comments online. Any claim can be made, supported, and accepted, and that has a lot of potential for damage.

Blog Post 1

Apple's participation in the PC revolution and their current smartphone sales seem somewhat similar. First, Apple releases a product - not the first of its category, but one that helped shape where the technology was going (Apple 2 / iPhone). Apple spends a lot of effort making this product right, and keeps everything within the company. They see huge initial success. Second, many other products in the same category are released. The interesting ones are (MS-DOS machines / Android smartphones). Many different companies built these new machines, and then licensed the aforementioned operating systems from (Microsoft / Google), splitting the responsibility for different parts of these products. Third, these new products gain ground, and Apple loses market share (although the iPhone not nearly as much as their PC line). Analysts usually attribute most of this switch in the market to that basic structure; the separate responsibilities allowed for cheaper products and more opportunity for developing widely-usable apps. The smartphone market is still in flux, and finding programs for the iPhone is easier than it was for the Apple 2, so I can't claim that the same situation has occurred, but I find the similarities interesting.

Study Journal 2

~ Personal computers mostly came about because hobbyists built things that were cool for themselves, and then shared with others. Does that affect quality of a product? When a person has a passion for a particular topic, and builds for themselves, does the product end up better?
~ Having the drive to create these cool things is more productive than a standard 9 to 5. Getting people to work harder than the 40 hours per week isn't easy if they don't really like what they're making.
~ It's a shame that personal computers are becoming more and more difficult to open up to see the hardware. Laptops usually use unusual screws now. Big transition from when everyone had to build their computer themselves.

~ It's interesting that during the start of the personal computers, frequently the inventor or first to commercialize something rarely ended up making the most money from it. I guess it seems tough for a company to tell where a technology needs to go when it's first created.
~ It's also disappointing to see in negotiations that one party often comes out a clear winner. Although it's not always the company with the lawyers that wins. Microsoft was able to sell their OS to everyone after IBM released their PC, while the IBM clones took over the PC market.
~ Strange that a couple of companies ended up creating cult followings from this. And that those followings are still around 40 years later. (Although no one admits to being a fan of Microsoft anymore.)

~ It's really cool that so many companies realized how big the internet would become as soon as it started. That's a lot like social media right now, as much as I hate to admit it (I'm not a fan of social media at all).
~ It's odd that Apple and Microsoft became such big rivals when they only partially marketed in the same space. Microsoft did Windows and other software, while Apple made complete products. It seemed at the time that Microsoft made the more successful business decision, because they were able to sell their OS and software to so many people, and now with the smartphone market the story kind of repeats itself: Apple held on to the market share for a while, but they're no longer even the top hardware manufacturer of smartphones. (I word it that way because in OS market share they lost ground to all the different android phones pretty quickly, but as the only iOS phone they kept hardware manufacturing market share a bit longer)
~ Having the right vision of where the future tech will go can make you a lot of money. Xerox missed out on a lot of stuff when they let Apple see their ideas for a GUI. If their management had been thinking more forward, Xerox may have had a larger part in the PC revolution.

~ When you treat your user-base as debuggers, do you owe them compensation?
~ On the topic of compensation, how do you get people to create products that are targeted towards non-developers? No users will be able to help create the product, so you have to pay developers to do it. But I guess users that are non-developers are probably more likely to need support, so maybe the income can come from there.
~ That means the whole idea of open source is strangely complete. When the users are developers, there's a lot of free work on it, and a good product can be made with all the extra testers. When the users are non-developers, hopefully they'll pay for support.
~ I initially figured that the free software movement was wrong, the creator should be able to determine who, if anyone, can ever see the code that was created. But I kind of agree with them now. When someone purchases software, they should have the right to be able to look over the code and make sure it won't do anything that wasn't advertised. Preventing the user from making sure that's the case is an ethical issue.
~ Maybe the software should always be open for people to view, but it could be copyrighted. A user could change it, but only for non-commercial purposes. I can't really see how full free access is an ethical right. You should be able to make money off your creation, if other people support your app, you can't make any money off of it.
~ And the leaders of the free software movement really need to stop using the word free. That's just way too ingrained as meaning no cost, it's confusing even after clarification.

Current Event Post 1

http://gizmodo.com/facebook-wants-you-to-know-it-loves-free-speech-except-1682288927

Quick summary is that Turkey demanded Facebook censor images of the Prophet Muhammad, and Facebook complied, despite supposedly being very pro-free-speech.
The article writers and commenters believe Facebook committed a grave sin by complying with the demands and applying the censor in that country. I disagree. As a business, Facebook needs to comply with local laws in order to operate in any particular country. If they decide to comply with censorship in order to be allowed in, then that's their choice to make. Facebook owes its users no moral stand.
Some social networking stories involve people using social networking to get messages about conditions in particularly oppressive governments out to the world, and that's admirable. But a business does not have an obligation to stand against a country it wants to operate in, and refusing to censor blasphemous images wouldn't help anyone's conditions there anyway.
Also, it seems that all quotes from Zuckerberg that I read about this are pulled out of context. He clearly stated that they'd follow government rules in a particular country, but wouldn't allow anyone else to dictate what users can share globally. So this situation isn't hypocritical.

Study Journal 1

~ Critical Observation is a skill that needs to be trained.
~ Most of the time spent developing is spent researching/designing how/what to build. Once the knowledge is there, recreating it from scratch is much easier than it was the first time.
~ Each failure teaches how not to do something, so is not a waste.

~ Most information is not used or is used unwisely
~ The media focus on negative news fosters distrust and unhappiness
~ Church is supposed to be a place where people help each other, try to act and view situations accordingly