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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)