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?)