The study of the material offered in this class was rather enjoyable for me. “The World is Flat” was an excellent book to read, it re-invented new thoughts in my mind that up to this point, really never entered it, or thoughts that I never took time to stop and think about. Although the title of the book left something to be desired in my opinion, it offered up plenty of material that allowed me to view the world economies in a different manner. World economies are defiantly very much intertwined whether you like it or not. We live in an age where communication is very complicated or simple, depending on your perspective, and if you fall behind in technology, you are simply missing the boat. Technology is an essential part of most everyone's lives, not only are we connected in on a local or national platform, it virtually encompasses the entire world, and as the title of the book suggest, minimizes the shear size, and makes us all feel we can simply reach out and touch anyone or anything at the touch of our fingers.
The Netscape story was an interesting read for me, this, is some fashion is where it all began. As I look back at what was then Netscape, and where we are today, it's simply overwhelming to think about. Back when Netscape was developed, sure computers were around, and they were a nice convenience, today they are simply essential, and what I once had sitting in my computer room, that sold for close to $2000 before the turn of the century, now I hold in my hand in the form of a smart phone, which is also mobile.
The concept of outsourcing, offshoring, and free trade were one's that I always approached with mixed emotions. Friedman went into great detail and explained the cons as well as the pros of all concepts, and he gave real world examples of how each operated. I appreciated his devotion and time he has spent on this book, and his research. I felt for the most part, it was well written and very beneficial to anyone who choose to study his work. The one thing that I did find very interesting about Mr. Friedman, is he always knew the right people in the right course of study.
Id have to say my favorite part of this class is the papers we had the opportunity to write on research with computer networks and how computers have effected our education. It's always enjoyable when your able to take a subject that you really enjoy, and expand on it.
Another very interesting part of this class was the study of why are some countries or regions are better at doing some things than other countries or regions. This was fascinating to me, the reasons Friedman points out have really never occurred to me, nor had I really ever stop to think about them. After giving them some thought they made perfect sense, they changed my view on
developing oil rich countries, and to the reason they really never can get out of there own way. Really it is very sad that the people of those countries must suffer at the hands of these dictatorships, where they could have so much more to offer and develop for themselves.
The movie review was wonderful, I really enjoyed taking the opportunity to watch the film “War Games” again, this was a childhood favorite of mine, but as I stated in my paper, one I really never fully grasped at that age. This class afforded me the opportunity to watch it again and really think about how realistic the movie presented itself, and what was purely science fiction.
Having the opportunity to read others post about the same material I had study was a great benefit, it offered a different perspective which I believe is always a good idea. In closing, I'd have to state that this class has certainly offered new perspectives on the world economy as a whole, and just how small the world has become with all the technology that we enjoy today. It has taught me that I am not only competing with people in my area, I am also competing with people potentially all around the world, and as such I need to fine tune my skills to continually keep up with this ever demanding, and changing world.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Module 12
As I began reading this article, I couldn't help to think that this is going to dive into another science fiction story, like all the movies that Hollywood has come out with depicting computers, robots, and technologies in general taking over the world. The author of this article, Bill Joy, appears to be a very intelligent individual. He claims he was already reading by the age of 3, which is something very hard to imagine given that I myself have a 4 year old who is just beginning to learn her letters. Not only did he begin to read early, he skipped a grade and immersed himself into books. While growing up, he was very interested in science and technologies, and excelled in mathematics. While attending the University of Michigan as an undergraduate student, he discovered computers and found something that was much more interesting. He described computers as “a machine into which you could put a program that attempted to solve a problem, after which the machine quickly checked the solution. The computer had a clear notion of correct and incorrect, true and false”.
Mr. Joy defines GNR, which stands for genetic, nanotechnology, and robotics, and is claimed to be potentially so powerful that it can spawn entire new classes of abuse and accidents. He theorizes that robots could conceivably, one day, be an upgrade to the human body, and that humans could begin to resemble robots. This is a little far fetched in my opinion. Yes, prosthetics could conceivably play a larger part in medicine, giving the opportunity to some individuals of a better standard of life, but to suggest that we may all one day become part robots is a quite improbable.
Genetic engineering is also on his road-map for what the future may hold. Crop engineering increases crop yield, and by the same token, reduces harmful pesticides. This could bring about the creation of new plants, animals, bacteria, and viruses. These changes in biological science are immense, and could bring about real change to what we consider to be life. We must determine to what extent we should explore such innovations. To me, this is a very valid concern; who knows what the limits of genetic engineering may be, or to what extent they may change life as we know it. Where is the line in the sand drawn to conclude science has gone far enough, and what governing body will govern this revolution?
The nuclear, biological, and chemical agents created in the 20th century have produced weapons of mass destruction and have primarily been the product of government and military laboratory deployment. Now that we have arrived in the 21st century, this has become commercialized as science has shown clear commercial use. Anyone can appreciate its potential for destruction. Even in today's world, the thought of such technology falling into the wrong hands is a terrifying prospect, and one that is very real.
The numerous concerns that Mr. Joy lays out are well founded. As technology marches on, and new inventions streamline our modern world, concerns as to where they may take us, and what dangers might await us are real issues that will, and must, be addressed. In the article, it referred to President Reagan's missile defense system called Star Wars, which was conjured up to protect us from our own destructive inventions. This was a shield that would reflect away any attempt by the Soviet Union to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. As we all know, this was never actually implemented, but is serves as a stern reminder of how destructive our own inventions could be, and the steps that may be necessary in the future to protect us from our own inventions.
The world and technology will continue to march on, and for each new invention, or the progression of existing technologies, there will inevitably be good and bad that arrive from both. What mankind chooses to do with those technologies is totally up to us. In my view, there is real concern for what the future may hold, and how governments will meet the challenges of these problems. But, as in anything, the hope for a better tomorrow and an improved world will, hopefully, be the outcome as we move into the future.
Mr. Joy defines GNR, which stands for genetic, nanotechnology, and robotics, and is claimed to be potentially so powerful that it can spawn entire new classes of abuse and accidents. He theorizes that robots could conceivably, one day, be an upgrade to the human body, and that humans could begin to resemble robots. This is a little far fetched in my opinion. Yes, prosthetics could conceivably play a larger part in medicine, giving the opportunity to some individuals of a better standard of life, but to suggest that we may all one day become part robots is a quite improbable.
Genetic engineering is also on his road-map for what the future may hold. Crop engineering increases crop yield, and by the same token, reduces harmful pesticides. This could bring about the creation of new plants, animals, bacteria, and viruses. These changes in biological science are immense, and could bring about real change to what we consider to be life. We must determine to what extent we should explore such innovations. To me, this is a very valid concern; who knows what the limits of genetic engineering may be, or to what extent they may change life as we know it. Where is the line in the sand drawn to conclude science has gone far enough, and what governing body will govern this revolution?
The nuclear, biological, and chemical agents created in the 20th century have produced weapons of mass destruction and have primarily been the product of government and military laboratory deployment. Now that we have arrived in the 21st century, this has become commercialized as science has shown clear commercial use. Anyone can appreciate its potential for destruction. Even in today's world, the thought of such technology falling into the wrong hands is a terrifying prospect, and one that is very real.
The numerous concerns that Mr. Joy lays out are well founded. As technology marches on, and new inventions streamline our modern world, concerns as to where they may take us, and what dangers might await us are real issues that will, and must, be addressed. In the article, it referred to President Reagan's missile defense system called Star Wars, which was conjured up to protect us from our own destructive inventions. This was a shield that would reflect away any attempt by the Soviet Union to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. As we all know, this was never actually implemented, but is serves as a stern reminder of how destructive our own inventions could be, and the steps that may be necessary in the future to protect us from our own inventions.
The world and technology will continue to march on, and for each new invention, or the progression of existing technologies, there will inevitably be good and bad that arrive from both. What mankind chooses to do with those technologies is totally up to us. In my view, there is real concern for what the future may hold, and how governments will meet the challenges of these problems. But, as in anything, the hope for a better tomorrow and an improved world will, hopefully, be the outcome as we move into the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)