Fuller, Joseph. “The Terminator Comes to Wall Street.” The American Scholar. The American Scholar, 2009. Web. 4 March. 2010.
In the article “Terminator Comes to Wall Street” Joseph Fuller questions how technology has affected the stock market in its recent problems. He places the blame on one specific factor. That is the use of computer generated models to perceive the stock market as well as using technology to execute trades. He brings up several problems with the use of computer generated models on the stock market. They include: the models are independent of one another, model makers don’t understand the market, executives don’t understand how to use the models, and the models can’t predict abnormal behavior. Fuller uses a metaphor from the terminator movie that the problem “will be back” however he does list several ways to help control future problems with models. The first is that companies must understand the models they are looking at fully so they can realize the rewards and risk involved with a particular investment. Next companies need to manage the model makers and understand the details of their work when producing these models. Lastly there has to be some sort of regulations that hold board members more accountable for actions taken on their watch. Fuller closes by stating that models could help us understand market patterns better in the future but we have to make sure we use better oversight in using them.
With the recent stock market crash Joseph Fuller has written an article describing how computer generated models is one of the reasons behind the recent recession. While some would not agree with his argument he makes an argument and then provides answers to the problem at hand. If Fuller would’ve left the article with only questions his argument would be diminished, but because Fuller tries to solve the problem it gets the reader to think about how we might fix the problem in the future. His goal to get people to understand how and why models have hurt us in the past but can provide a great resource in the future is achieved. His argument is echoed in almost every “new” scientific use that we must use caution and learn from mistakes before finally realizing its potential for good.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Microsoft is like Swiss Cheese
Stephenson, Neal. “In the Beginning was the Command Line.” The Hearst Corporation, 1999. Web. 25 Feb. 2010.
Computers today are vastly different then the first computers as Neal Stephenson points out in his essay “In the Beginning was the Command Line.” He writes about how the computer has changed drastically from when he was introduced to one as well as compares operating systems. At first you had to literally punch holes into a piece of paper to get the computer to compute what you wanted. Then he moved on to how anyone who had used a computer had to know how to write codes in order to bring up certain things on the computer screen. Stephenson then brings up the topic of G.U.I. or graphic user interface which is what we are all now accustom to. G.U.I was invented by Apple computers and first used by a model known as Lisa. With the invention of G.U.I the computer became easily accessible to everyday user. Stephenson then goes on to explain the differences between operating systems created by Apple, Microsoft, Linux, and BeOS. He shows that Apple focuses on hardware as it does not allow third parties to produce the hardware needed to run its operating system. Microsoft is the opposite as it allows third parties to produce hardware to run its software. He focuses on how our culture has driven us to accept either Apple or Microsoft and to ignore other competitors. Both these companies are driven to make a profit but both have faults when it comes to design. Apple is expensive to own while Microsoft’s operating systems are filled with problems. Stephenson then goes on to show that Linux which is a free operating system is on the whole better than Microsoft or Apple however it is not well known to the average person. He closes by stating that it is absurd to think that Microsoft has a monopoly over the computer industry as there are alternatives to it however the preconceived notion is that Microsoft because it is so popular is the only choice when it comes to operating systems.
After reading this essay it’s easy to see what Neal Stephenson is trying to get us to think about as a reader. Microsoft and Apple have had dominated control over the operating system world but each has its flaw. Stephenson has a unique way of using metaphors to describe each system. In particular the car metaphor that Apple is this expensive car that few can afford, while Microsoft is a car deal that will sell you a station wagon that is cheap and effective, and lastly Linux will give you a tank that can get 100 miles to the gallon but no one has heard of the dealership so no one will shop there. It is an interesting metaphor to describe how we view computers. Stephenson accents this point by saying culturally we our taught to want what is popular rather then what’s best. These distinct metaphors help him explain his reasoning behind his essay. While Stephenson does state that Linux is superior to any system he does say that it comes down to people making choices about what they want in a computer. He makes the reader think about how each operating system has its flaws in design but in the end it’s up to the buyer to make an informed decision on a product rather than use a product based on popularity. Ultimately, as Stephenson puts it, it’s up to us to start making our own decisions rather than accept those given to us by society.
Computers today are vastly different then the first computers as Neal Stephenson points out in his essay “In the Beginning was the Command Line.” He writes about how the computer has changed drastically from when he was introduced to one as well as compares operating systems. At first you had to literally punch holes into a piece of paper to get the computer to compute what you wanted. Then he moved on to how anyone who had used a computer had to know how to write codes in order to bring up certain things on the computer screen. Stephenson then brings up the topic of G.U.I. or graphic user interface which is what we are all now accustom to. G.U.I was invented by Apple computers and first used by a model known as Lisa. With the invention of G.U.I the computer became easily accessible to everyday user. Stephenson then goes on to explain the differences between operating systems created by Apple, Microsoft, Linux, and BeOS. He shows that Apple focuses on hardware as it does not allow third parties to produce the hardware needed to run its operating system. Microsoft is the opposite as it allows third parties to produce hardware to run its software. He focuses on how our culture has driven us to accept either Apple or Microsoft and to ignore other competitors. Both these companies are driven to make a profit but both have faults when it comes to design. Apple is expensive to own while Microsoft’s operating systems are filled with problems. Stephenson then goes on to show that Linux which is a free operating system is on the whole better than Microsoft or Apple however it is not well known to the average person. He closes by stating that it is absurd to think that Microsoft has a monopoly over the computer industry as there are alternatives to it however the preconceived notion is that Microsoft because it is so popular is the only choice when it comes to operating systems.
After reading this essay it’s easy to see what Neal Stephenson is trying to get us to think about as a reader. Microsoft and Apple have had dominated control over the operating system world but each has its flaw. Stephenson has a unique way of using metaphors to describe each system. In particular the car metaphor that Apple is this expensive car that few can afford, while Microsoft is a car deal that will sell you a station wagon that is cheap and effective, and lastly Linux will give you a tank that can get 100 miles to the gallon but no one has heard of the dealership so no one will shop there. It is an interesting metaphor to describe how we view computers. Stephenson accents this point by saying culturally we our taught to want what is popular rather then what’s best. These distinct metaphors help him explain his reasoning behind his essay. While Stephenson does state that Linux is superior to any system he does say that it comes down to people making choices about what they want in a computer. He makes the reader think about how each operating system has its flaws in design but in the end it’s up to the buyer to make an informed decision on a product rather than use a product based on popularity. Ultimately, as Stephenson puts it, it’s up to us to start making our own decisions rather than accept those given to us by society.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Gamevolution
Robertson, Margaret. "The Creation Simulation." Seed Magazine. Seed Media Group, September 2008. Web. 18 Feb. 2010.
In the article The Creation Simulation Margaret Robertson writes about how a video game named Spore to show we might one day be able to genetically create organisms, as well as use this game to teach scientific thought. She first starts off the article by introducing Will Wright, the creator of the “Sims” games. He came up with the idea of Spore, a game where a human player starts off with a small single cell organism that evolves into a complex organism throughout the life of the game. Robertson then points out how Wright wanted to make the game as scientifically accurate as possible and had game designers research scientific principle. However, they had to compromise in order to create a game that would appeal to the masses. While scientist who played the game noted that the game broke more scientific laws then it obeyed, Robertson points out that the game can teach fundamental principles such as survival of the fittest. Another aspect of the game as she points out is that they will be able to see how individual players react. For instance in a study she says that female players are more likely to create a peaceful character while males create a more violent character. The ability for a game to tell us about social effects is a new way to look at how we as humans think. Robertson closes by leaving the idea of how we as humans might one day be a true creator in nature and not just on a computer screen.
After reading this article I found that Robertson is trying to get us to think about how a simple video game can help teach not only evolution but about how human nature as a whole. It is important to understand the concept of evolution so that future generations understand how it has effected human development. It also might make teaching such a complex subject more elementary for students. Robertson also pointed to how a game can make us understand human nature. Human nature in itself is as complex evolution in that every individual will react differently to certain situations. Understanding this complex subject would allow us to advance in fields such as psychology and anthropology. Lastly Robertson closes with the idea that we might one day play the role of a true creator. Genetically engineered animals such as sheep have occurred and it is not out of the realm of possibility that one day we might create life as readily as in the game Spore.
In the article The Creation Simulation Margaret Robertson writes about how a video game named Spore to show we might one day be able to genetically create organisms, as well as use this game to teach scientific thought. She first starts off the article by introducing Will Wright, the creator of the “Sims” games. He came up with the idea of Spore, a game where a human player starts off with a small single cell organism that evolves into a complex organism throughout the life of the game. Robertson then points out how Wright wanted to make the game as scientifically accurate as possible and had game designers research scientific principle. However, they had to compromise in order to create a game that would appeal to the masses. While scientist who played the game noted that the game broke more scientific laws then it obeyed, Robertson points out that the game can teach fundamental principles such as survival of the fittest. Another aspect of the game as she points out is that they will be able to see how individual players react. For instance in a study she says that female players are more likely to create a peaceful character while males create a more violent character. The ability for a game to tell us about social effects is a new way to look at how we as humans think. Robertson closes by leaving the idea of how we as humans might one day be a true creator in nature and not just on a computer screen.
After reading this article I found that Robertson is trying to get us to think about how a simple video game can help teach not only evolution but about how human nature as a whole. It is important to understand the concept of evolution so that future generations understand how it has effected human development. It also might make teaching such a complex subject more elementary for students. Robertson also pointed to how a game can make us understand human nature. Human nature in itself is as complex evolution in that every individual will react differently to certain situations. Understanding this complex subject would allow us to advance in fields such as psychology and anthropology. Lastly Robertson closes with the idea that we might one day play the role of a true creator. Genetically engineered animals such as sheep have occurred and it is not out of the realm of possibility that one day we might create life as readily as in the game Spore.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Fear and Footprints
Zax,David. "The Last Experiment." Seed Magazine. Seed Media Group LLC, 22 April. 2009. Web. 4 Feb. 2010.
Read this article
The article I choose this week to write about addresses the topic of global climate change and how we can get people to change their habits regarding climate change. In this article author David Zax chooses to look at one topic that is not usually connected with climate change this being the social sciences. He states that the real scientist who are going to get people to change their habits are social scientists. The reasoning behind this is that in order to get a large mass of people to change their habits we have to understand these people as a whole which is where social scientist come into play. Zax uses a book called Nudge and its experiment that was used to show the correlation between social science and change. In this experiment it shows that if on a community level we show the whole community that they are leaving too big a carbon footprint that the next month it will decrease. On the other hand if they are under they create a bigger carbon footprint. He also brings up anther social scientist view who say that if a person views climate change as a non important matter then our goal must be to scare that person into believing so in turn enacting change. While most would agree that these are two ways to cause this change. Zax's brings up one final point made by Anthony Leiserowitz who feels that we have to focus on individual people rather than as the earth or the United States. If we can get people on an individual level to understand the importance its more likely to change rather then on such a large scale.
David Zax's brings up an interesting response to how to fix the global climate issue. While most articles I have read involve how we can change as a whole this address how we can advance that change. In other words how we can cause the change to occur quicker. He points toward social scientist because these are the people who study human interaction and in order for us to change we have to focus on individual action. He brings up relevant sources including those of people who have worked in the Bush administration, as well as a psychologist, and a Yale university professor. The author's view is that, while we care about the climate change and would agree it is going to happen, we view change on a whole level rather than an individual and as such make little progress towards easing our own carbon footprint. Zax's is trying to get the audience of this particular article to understand that we have to view global change on an individual level and that we need social scientists to help us effectively change our habits.
Read this article
The article I choose this week to write about addresses the topic of global climate change and how we can get people to change their habits regarding climate change. In this article author David Zax chooses to look at one topic that is not usually connected with climate change this being the social sciences. He states that the real scientist who are going to get people to change their habits are social scientists. The reasoning behind this is that in order to get a large mass of people to change their habits we have to understand these people as a whole which is where social scientist come into play. Zax uses a book called Nudge and its experiment that was used to show the correlation between social science and change. In this experiment it shows that if on a community level we show the whole community that they are leaving too big a carbon footprint that the next month it will decrease. On the other hand if they are under they create a bigger carbon footprint. He also brings up anther social scientist view who say that if a person views climate change as a non important matter then our goal must be to scare that person into believing so in turn enacting change. While most would agree that these are two ways to cause this change. Zax's brings up one final point made by Anthony Leiserowitz who feels that we have to focus on individual people rather than as the earth or the United States. If we can get people on an individual level to understand the importance its more likely to change rather then on such a large scale.
David Zax's brings up an interesting response to how to fix the global climate issue. While most articles I have read involve how we can change as a whole this address how we can advance that change. In other words how we can cause the change to occur quicker. He points toward social scientist because these are the people who study human interaction and in order for us to change we have to focus on individual action. He brings up relevant sources including those of people who have worked in the Bush administration, as well as a psychologist, and a Yale university professor. The author's view is that, while we care about the climate change and would agree it is going to happen, we view change on a whole level rather than an individual and as such make little progress towards easing our own carbon footprint. Zax's is trying to get the audience of this particular article to understand that we have to view global change on an individual level and that we need social scientists to help us effectively change our habits.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Life Support: HR 676
Mitchell,Luke. “Sick in the Head: Why America won't get the health-care system it needs.” Harpers Magazine. The Harpers Magazine Foundation, Feb 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.
Read this article
As my topic deals with technology and the advancement on medicine I decided to start off my reading responses with the primary debate that is currently happening in congress over the HR 676 which is the universal health care system. Luke Mitchell the author is trying to understand why this bill has yet to be passed in congress and has come up with a few main ideas as to why. The first of these involves how this new health care bill will effect the market based system of economics that America has immersed herself into over the years. Mitchell points to president Obama saying that in order to transform America to a single-payer health care system, meaning that the government would foot the bill, that it would be a difficult transition to for us to undertake. He then points to Montana senator Max Baucus would said that those who are not covered should pay into a private cooperation and subsidize those who could not afford to do so. This would be the closet thing to universal health care that we could achieve without changing the markets completely. The second idea is how much coverage should be given to those under universal health care. The problem Mitchell says is that medicine and technology is growing so fast that we can not possible cover all new technological advances. We just cant afford to provide the latest health scan to every person there has to be a “budget” as to what gets covered and what doesn't. The final problem is the idea that Americans look to technology to repair any problems that their life may present them with. Mitchell points to the IDN or integrated network delivery where every persons DNA is placed into that any doctor or specialist can access and recommend a course of action. He also points to new nano technologies that will be able to fix any problems using microscope robots. These are the main points to which Mitchell is trying to focus us on.
What I took away from this particular article is the amount of problems that we face as Americans towards HR 676. This bill is proposed as a universal health care system but it ultimately will still be run by the markets that the economy has created. More people will be covered, pre existing conditions will not matter but we still have to rationalize this health care coverage. Mitchell's most valid point in why Americans wont get the health care system they need is simply rationalizing. Now days we can not afford to help those who are poor and cannot afford health care however under universal health care will we be able to cover them but to what degree. This fraction of a degree is why no health care system will be perfect. Certain people will all be left out the question is do we give good coverage to most or little to all? In a way I think Mitchell is trying to get people to realize that no system is perfect but which is the lesser of evils. I think the last thing Mitchell is trying to get the reader to understand is that while many feel that we will eventually be able to solve all of our medical problems through technology hence there will be no need to leave any out as we can cure all diseases at birth is that how soon will this be a reality. Sure over the past hundred years we've progressed from flying a simple plane to landing on the moon but how feasible is landing on the moon been since then let alone every human being. Technology may ultimately cure all illness but when that becomes a feasible option for the over 6 billion and growing humans on earth is another problem all together.
Read this article
As my topic deals with technology and the advancement on medicine I decided to start off my reading responses with the primary debate that is currently happening in congress over the HR 676 which is the universal health care system. Luke Mitchell the author is trying to understand why this bill has yet to be passed in congress and has come up with a few main ideas as to why. The first of these involves how this new health care bill will effect the market based system of economics that America has immersed herself into over the years. Mitchell points to president Obama saying that in order to transform America to a single-payer health care system, meaning that the government would foot the bill, that it would be a difficult transition to for us to undertake. He then points to Montana senator Max Baucus would said that those who are not covered should pay into a private cooperation and subsidize those who could not afford to do so. This would be the closet thing to universal health care that we could achieve without changing the markets completely. The second idea is how much coverage should be given to those under universal health care. The problem Mitchell says is that medicine and technology is growing so fast that we can not possible cover all new technological advances. We just cant afford to provide the latest health scan to every person there has to be a “budget” as to what gets covered and what doesn't. The final problem is the idea that Americans look to technology to repair any problems that their life may present them with. Mitchell points to the IDN or integrated network delivery where every persons DNA is placed into that any doctor or specialist can access and recommend a course of action. He also points to new nano technologies that will be able to fix any problems using microscope robots. These are the main points to which Mitchell is trying to focus us on.
What I took away from this particular article is the amount of problems that we face as Americans towards HR 676. This bill is proposed as a universal health care system but it ultimately will still be run by the markets that the economy has created. More people will be covered, pre existing conditions will not matter but we still have to rationalize this health care coverage. Mitchell's most valid point in why Americans wont get the health care system they need is simply rationalizing. Now days we can not afford to help those who are poor and cannot afford health care however under universal health care will we be able to cover them but to what degree. This fraction of a degree is why no health care system will be perfect. Certain people will all be left out the question is do we give good coverage to most or little to all? In a way I think Mitchell is trying to get people to realize that no system is perfect but which is the lesser of evils. I think the last thing Mitchell is trying to get the reader to understand is that while many feel that we will eventually be able to solve all of our medical problems through technology hence there will be no need to leave any out as we can cure all diseases at birth is that how soon will this be a reality. Sure over the past hundred years we've progressed from flying a simple plane to landing on the moon but how feasible is landing on the moon been since then let alone every human being. Technology may ultimately cure all illness but when that becomes a feasible option for the over 6 billion and growing humans on earth is another problem all together.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
"There's always more"
Berry, Wendell. “Faustian Economics: Hell Hath No Limits.” Harper’s Magazine. The Harper's Magazine Foundation, May 2008. Web. 31 Dec. 2009.
In "Faustian Economics: Hell Hath No Limits" Wendell Berry tries to show how technology has become an integrated part of our society and how this could be a problem in the future. He starts with the idea that we as humans have the idea that the natural resources of the earth are basically limitless. That we as humans believe that we will be able to get more despite the resource being nonrenewable. He bases this idea on the fact that we as humans have a hard time understanding our limits in the natural world. This could be due to our perceived notion that God has intended us to be the superior animal who can use resources as we please. He downplays this thought by saying that even animals are limited by their natural surroundings. He then brings up two distinct examples of how we can change our thought process that earth's natural resources will last forever. The first example being that of a community based economy. This might appear to be a socialist idea but Berry is simply pointing that we must make rational decisions as a community not as a single individual. The second example being that we must slow down and look out we have. He uses a comparison between scientist and artist. While a scientist builds upon past experiments creating more advance technology, the artist is confined to a single piece of paper. He says that we must start viewing the earth as that single piece of paper meaning that we only have once chance to make it work right.
Wendell Berry's view on how we as humans view earth's natural resources is very important because it challenges us to look at our current situation and look at it whole heartedly. The idea that we still have 100 years worth of coal left at double the rate provides us as humans the idea that we should continue to burn coal at our current rate. Berry is getting at the idea that we feel since we wont be here in 100 or 200 years that this notion of conserving has little appeal to us now. Berry also brings in the topic of religion to make the audience think about how we can justify our behavior. As he states that some will say that we are given this power by God who has ordained us the superior animal on the kingdom of earth. How we change this cultural idea of being superior animals is another topic Berry tries to answer. His comparison between an artist who is limited to a piece of paper and a scientist who is allowed to build upon prior experiments is an excellent metaphor for the earth and human interaction. The reader can easily make a connection between the earth being a single piece of paper that we our only allowed one shot at while scientist can experiment and then build upon the past failures. He challenges us to not assume that science will be the ultimate answer and to rather go forth with caution.
In "Faustian Economics: Hell Hath No Limits" Wendell Berry tries to show how technology has become an integrated part of our society and how this could be a problem in the future. He starts with the idea that we as humans have the idea that the natural resources of the earth are basically limitless. That we as humans believe that we will be able to get more despite the resource being nonrenewable. He bases this idea on the fact that we as humans have a hard time understanding our limits in the natural world. This could be due to our perceived notion that God has intended us to be the superior animal who can use resources as we please. He downplays this thought by saying that even animals are limited by their natural surroundings. He then brings up two distinct examples of how we can change our thought process that earth's natural resources will last forever. The first example being that of a community based economy. This might appear to be a socialist idea but Berry is simply pointing that we must make rational decisions as a community not as a single individual. The second example being that we must slow down and look out we have. He uses a comparison between scientist and artist. While a scientist builds upon past experiments creating more advance technology, the artist is confined to a single piece of paper. He says that we must start viewing the earth as that single piece of paper meaning that we only have once chance to make it work right.
Wendell Berry's view on how we as humans view earth's natural resources is very important because it challenges us to look at our current situation and look at it whole heartedly. The idea that we still have 100 years worth of coal left at double the rate provides us as humans the idea that we should continue to burn coal at our current rate. Berry is getting at the idea that we feel since we wont be here in 100 or 200 years that this notion of conserving has little appeal to us now. Berry also brings in the topic of religion to make the audience think about how we can justify our behavior. As he states that some will say that we are given this power by God who has ordained us the superior animal on the kingdom of earth. How we change this cultural idea of being superior animals is another topic Berry tries to answer. His comparison between an artist who is limited to a piece of paper and a scientist who is allowed to build upon prior experiments is an excellent metaphor for the earth and human interaction. The reader can easily make a connection between the earth being a single piece of paper that we our only allowed one shot at while scientist can experiment and then build upon the past failures. He challenges us to not assume that science will be the ultimate answer and to rather go forth with caution.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Introduction to Technology and Society
In just a little over a hundred years we have gone from the first manned flight by the Wright brothers, to walking on the moon, to establishing a international space station. The advancement of technology has brought about modern medicine, personal communication, and knowledge to people around the world. While technology has obviously done wonderful things for society it has also created many problems that people often protest to. There are two major issues that deal with technology that interest me. These include cloning or stem cell research, and the miniaturization of technology. The first, cloning, interesting me because of the spiritual and moral issues that come about when dealing with artificially creating another being. The second issue is the miniaturization of technology which is how technology has gone from huge computers to computers that can fit in your hand or backpack. How these have changed society or could change society in the future are points in technology that interest me.
The technology of cloning or stem cell research has interest with me because its possible use for medical advancement, food development, and its moral dilemma in society. With the advancement of cloning we could in the future be able to artificially grow limbs, heal diseases that were once incurable, and increase longevity of life. While these all sound great on paper the idea that we as humans are only meant to live for so long brings up a moral dilemma. Whether you believe in God or not humans simply are not meant to live as long as it could be possible with these future technology. While the goal of this type of research would help many people the idea that we could ultimately live for as long as we desired is a question that we as a society must decide. The idea though that this technology could end starvation by creating artificial food would help a great many people on the world as well as limit the amount of land we need to produce food and save more land for the future. The miniaturization of technology will continue to make technology smaller and more compact eventually replacing more and more items that we use everyday. The fact that todays cell phones have more computing power than the first space shuttle to the moon is evidence that technology is going to eventually be miniaturized to an unbelievable level.
The technology of cloning or stem cell research has interest with me because its possible use for medical advancement, food development, and its moral dilemma in society. With the advancement of cloning we could in the future be able to artificially grow limbs, heal diseases that were once incurable, and increase longevity of life. While these all sound great on paper the idea that we as humans are only meant to live for so long brings up a moral dilemma. Whether you believe in God or not humans simply are not meant to live as long as it could be possible with these future technology. While the goal of this type of research would help many people the idea that we could ultimately live for as long as we desired is a question that we as a society must decide. The idea though that this technology could end starvation by creating artificial food would help a great many people on the world as well as limit the amount of land we need to produce food and save more land for the future. The miniaturization of technology will continue to make technology smaller and more compact eventually replacing more and more items that we use everyday. The fact that todays cell phones have more computing power than the first space shuttle to the moon is evidence that technology is going to eventually be miniaturized to an unbelievable level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)