Response to Artifact 4A & 4B

I really don't understand the hype that's surrounding the creation and production of droids. What's so fascinating about creating something that looks and acts like a human., when there are six billion humans already populating the earth. I've heard the argument that scientist will be able to create the perfect droid; a droid that's honest, caring, loving, courageous, and above all loyal to its owner. I've yet to met a man who says he is without flaw, so how can I expect a world that's full of flawed men to create a droid free of any vices. There's and old saying that if you live in a world full of devils how can you expect to live like an angel. In other words if droids become apart of our everyday lives and witness the cruelty of man, how can they not adapt. How can the droids exist and never once exhibit hate, envy, jealousy, or greed? I think the obsession with droids comes from mans desire to be in control, to dominate. For the most part humans are born with the power to choose; choose what they want to believe, choose in who they want to worship, choose who they want to date, choose what line of work , and the list goes on. Initially with droids, humans would be in control: programming them with what to say and how to act.  Humans would become puppeteers and the droids would be the puppets doing whatever their owner/master asked, whenever they asked, and wherever they asked them to do it.  Furthermore, the one aspect of humans that sets us apart from any other species is our ability to reason, I want to know how well will droids be able to do this. In war would a droid be able to asses a friendly from a hostile? In the event of a disaster like 9/11 would a droid have the wherewithal to coordinate rescue efforts and effectively communicate across several mediums in a time of chaos? For me there's just too many unanswered questions surrounding droids, I cant support any efforts to see them built and implemented into our everyday lives.
The second video on pencil sharpeners was just as intriguing. I never would have imagined a tool so critical in my development as a child would be almost obsolete by the time I reached adulthood. When I was in grade school a pencil, a sharpener, and an eraser were a must. Now that I'm in college I only use a pencil about once every five weeks on various exams, even then my instructor encourages the students to use pen because pencil smears. The one thing I've noticed at Fontbonne is that most classes are equipped with smartboards, TV's,  and DVD's but there are no pencil sharpeners. The only pencil sharpener that I've seen in the entire school is located in the computer lab in the library and ironically it doesn't even work.  Nowadays all my writing is done on a computer, I guess if you want to call typing, writing. What does this say about our society? I guess the only certainty in  life is change. The pencil is no longer the tool that it used to be and with its demise the sharpener has since long been forgotten. I only wonder what's next on to join the pencil and the sharpener in the grave yard, if I had to make a guess it would be paper. With the world going "green", advertisements on digital billboards, books being read on ipads/kindles, and homework assignments being submitted through email there may not be use for paper anymore. What has this world come to?      
   

(Week Six) Summary Of CMC Strand 2: Units 3 and 4

Unit 3 is entitled Online Communities: Real or Imagined. The four main objectives of this chapter can be found on page 107 of the text. The first objective is to be able to critique the notion that online communities are either good or bad. Before we can even began to look at this debate, we have to understand what the term community really means. A large portion of the chapter deals directly with  providing definitional clarity on the term community. According to the text, the term community can be interpreted several different ways. These interpretations are based on what the book calls empirical descriptions and normative prescriptions  Empirical descriptions are the ways in which people actually try to describe a community and normative prescriptions are when people present an idea of what a community should or shouldn't be. What's important to remember when seeking objectivity about the the definition of community is not to qualify the term with adjectives such as real, authentic, proper and genuine. Moving forward, the chapter refutes past ideologies that communities are largely defined by the their locality. The text argues that locality alone is not sufficient enough to define a community. There has to be shared social interaction over a period of time,  before a community can be established. With this in mind the internet can be credited with establishing many communities because it is a forum that promotes social interaction; shared interest, shared feelings, and a sense of belonging. However, the chapter does offer insight into the criticism that online communities face. For example, the text states that opponents of online communities believe they lack commitment between members and there is an absence of  moral cohesion. The text counters this argument by recognizing that there are thousands of online communities, some of which lack moral integrity and others which lack in rich relational ties among its members. Nevertheless, evidence suggest that the norms and practices within online communities are greatly influenced by offline communities, the bad practices we see online are not bleeding into our offline lives, it's the other way around.. To generate some optimism about online communities the text suggest that we refer to them as social networks. Social networks don't have defined boundaries, therefore people have an opportunity connect with a substantially higher number of individuals than they would in a traditional offline community. By eliminating the term online community, we also eliminate the perception that online ties and offline ties are two separate entities. In all actuality there shouldn't be separation in our social networks and our offline communities, they should be considered on in the same.
Unit 4 was entitled Language And The Internet. This chapter mainly examined the linguistic concerns of "netlingo" and "netspeak". CMC scholars want to know if how we use language on the internet differs from  how we use language offline. In addition the chapter examines  various speech communities and analyzes the different languages spoken on the net ( English, Chinese, Spanish. etc...). According to the text "netlingo" and "netspeak" should not be depicted as a form of communication that takes place solely in English, it happens across all languages and in all cultures. "Netlingo" and "netspeak" can be defined as a form of online communication that is focused on speed and informality. Some characteristics of  "netlingo" and "netspeak" are abbreviations, acronyms, letter homophones, and emoticons. All of these features blend traditional writing and speech together to generate creative dialogue among internet users. The growing concern with "netlingo" and "netspeak" is that they are eroding our youths ability to properly spell and write. The text calls this linguistic diffusion-when one way of speaking starts to seep into the other. Another topic of concern found in unit 4 examines the status of language online. One important note in reference to this topic is that people organize themselves into communities based on the way they speak, therefore the internet alienates the rather large demographic of those users who are not English-speaking. The chapter concludes by reminding us that language is constantly evolving. The text suggest that we not be overly critical of the changes in language because they are inevitable both online and offline.

Summary and Response to Artifact 3

The central issue in Nicholas Carr's book, The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains, questions whether we are sacrificing our ability to read and think deeply while online. Carr argues that intellectual technologies such as the internet have dramatically affected what information flows from our short term memory to the distinctive depths of our long term memory. Carr emphasizes that being focused on one singular act is a very unnatural thing for people in today's society, however the book is one tool that still promotes deep processing, reflection, introspection, and critical thinking. It is the simplicity of the book, the rather static nature of the paperback that does not diminish our ability to concentrate on the text in front of us. On the contrary the internet is rather dynamic in nature and this is evident in its overall structure as a hypertech system. On any given page internet users are subjected to various advertisements, multimedia, and hyperlinks; therefore increasing the chances of its users to be interrupted or distracted. Carr acknowledges that the internet has fostered great creativity as well as productivity but in doing so it has also generated a nation of multitaskers.  Due to the popularity of the internet,  millions of people across the world now suffer from the restless energy of a haunted mind  People are always looking ahead to the next task/assignment, checking their emails, blogging, and tweeting. Carr doesn't refute the power of the internet and its ability to keep people connected but he does complain that dialogue between individuals has become much shorter.  For example, Carr critiques Twitter and the 140 character limit it allows for its posts. Carr claims that the constraints that social network sites put on texts in addition to the growing norm/perception that CMC must be diminutive, adds to his growing concerns that the internet can be fingered as the main culprit as to why so many people lack quality reading comprehension skills. Carr concludes by reminding us that although the internet may appear to have a hold over us, we still have the power to break free and become untangled from its web. Most of us cannot escape the internet because of work and school related obligations but we are not forced
into shifting the emphasis of how we read, write, or think. When we are online we can maintain a singular focus. We don't have to click on that pop-up or watch the most uploaded video on Youtube. According to Carr we must maintain a certain balance between our connected existence and the time we spend in solitude (contemplation). Carr believes that when we are disconnected we are more likely to be calmer and more attentive, therefore allowing us not only think rationally but act in that manner as well.
For the most Nicholas Carr made a strong logical argument. I agreed largely in part on his theory about the shrinking size of the text we post either through CMC. On the other hand I don't credit the internet and its various distractions with diminishing my ability to process information and store it in my long term memory bank. If anything I credit the internet for generating a curiosity/buzz about books that will make me go out and read them. I can honestly say that every book that  I've read outside the classroom, I heard about it on the internet through various blogs or articles. In that sense the internet aided me in the process of sitting down and focusing my attention on one singular purpose, instead of otherwise being on the phone or in front of the television.   
 

Summary and Response to Artifact 2

It's ironic that in my introduction to philosophy class that I just learned about Aristotle's golden mean. Essentially the golden mean is a way of living life. It is the battle between two extremes; excess at one end of the scale and deficiency at the other. Aristotle suggest that we live a life in the middle, the most widely used example of this would be exercise. To much physical activity and one can exhaust themselves to the point were they aren't effective at doing any other tasks in life. Too little exercise and one will be weak and not have the energy/stamina to take on life's obstacles. This seems to be the conundrum in William Powers book, Hamlet's blackberry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life in the Digital Age. With advances in technology our society has learned to connect better but we've since become entangled in our devices. The evidence that our society is too connected can be observed at work, at school, at home, behind the wheel, or during a walk in the park. In all of these instances the probability that you'll witness someone on the phone or surfing the web is extremely high in comparison to witnessing people not connected to a device. However, Powers argues that we also need those empty moments. Moments of peace and tranquility, a time when we can just sit down an unplug from our devices. I believe that the answer to the conundrum of connectedness falls right in the middle. The most compelling thing stated in Powers interview is that conversation is the great path to wisdom. If we truly “disconnect” than we are putting ourselves at risk of being left behind because we'll be unaware of what's happening around us . As illustrated in Powers story about his family's traditional weekend and their plans to go to a movie, they were unaware of the start-time because they were not connected. Conversely if we are always plugged in, our off-line relationships with family and friends can suffer because we're too busy trying to keep up with all the information being funneled through our devices. There has to be a balancing act between the time we spend connected and the time we don't. For me personally I try not to spend more than three hours at any given time connected to a device. I would consider my self an introvert, and I appreciate the time that I have away from being connected online, so it's relatively easy for me to disconnect. For those who struggle with unplugging I suggest that they take small steps and like cutting off their phone during meal times or not checking there emails during the hours of 12 am and 6am. If someone's willing to take those small steps, then I believe it will go a long way in the process of solving the conundrum of connectedness.

Reflections On Strand One: Units Three and Four

The main objective in unit three, Theorizing CMC: Technology and Social Interaction, was to inform the readers to the myths and falsehoods associated with computer mediated communication. It appears that most of the fallacies about CMC come from the notion that face-to-face (FtF) communication is the best and sometimes only way to effectively communicate. To give us a better understanding as to  why a large number of  people hold such pessimistic views towards CMC, the text first explains the stages of technology.   Usually new technologies can only be experienced by those with money and people who work in specialized fields such as  medical/pharmaceutical , law, and entertainment industry. This leads to a rather large percentage of people who can't afford to invest in theses technologies nor do they have any work-related obligations that would give them incentive to use these technologies. Although the use of CMC is gaining in popularity, it is still foreign  to those who don't own a computer, a netbook, or a smart phone. The reality that CMC is not apart of everyday life and the perception that it is widely used by the "well-to-do" has created in the minds of many people that CMC is an inferior way of communicating because it can alienate those who are illiterate, those who don't have the financial means to purchase said devices, or  those who have a disability (lost of sight). Moving on to unit four, Describing CMC: Interpersonal Dynamics, the theme of CMC being bad was transitioned over into unit four but throughout this chapter the text highlighted  the advantages that CMC offers. The text states that our basic needs for social bonding are the same in CMC as they are in FtF communication. Essentially CMC is as equally important, if not more important than FtF communication as it relates to building and maintaining personal/professional relationships . CMC offers anonymity which can lead to boost in self-confidence. More importantly CMC offers it users an opportunity to slow down and think things through. In FtF communication words can often be spoken without thought but in CMC users have to take time to compose their messages and it's in those moments before they press send that they can read their words and be sure that what they are sending  is correct. In summary units three and four opened my eyes up to the debate of CMC vs FtF communication. Both forms of communication have their positives and negatives but attempting to live life using only one will be a slippery slope to climb. Honestly I think that the two forms compliment each other. In today's world people have to maintain a certain online presence while still having the wits to be able to communicate with others offline; when on the job, in school, or at home.