Live with People not Computers

Today it is possible for a person to live at their computer.  A person can do everything from ordering food, reading books, shopping, and making "friends" on the internet.  The internet has made it so a person does not need to interact with other people face to face on a daily basis if they do not wish do.  When a person chooses to live their life in the virtual world rather than the real world they can end up losing more than social interactions.  A person who lives in the virtual world can forget how things in the real world really are.  They can lose anything from their job to their family.  People can keep touch in the real world by setting bounds on their usage of the internet or by setting rules for a minimum amount of time spent with people face to face per day.  A person must not forget to keep touch with others in the real world in order to keep their own life in the real world.

Internet Captures People

The internet can catch people just like any other net can capture its victims.  However, getting caught in the internet is more difficult to recognize because the internet's snare cannot be physically felt.  One who starts to become captivated by online material cannot feel the internet start to tangle around their legs.  As the person finally starts to notice the internet pulling them in, they believe they can still get out anytime they want.  While the person continues to deny that they are trapped by the internet they return to it, often becoming more tangled in its snare than before.  It is not until the person is completely caught and cannot get out on their own that they realize they have been captured.  Now the only way out is for the person to admit defeat to the internet's grasp and ask for help.  One must be wary of the addictive nature of the internet and realize that its ability to ensnare people is as real as a physical net.

Integration not Invention Revolutionizes the World

There is a misconception that the invention new technology revolutionizes the world by the mere fact of being invented.  This idea is wrong. A new invention that has the potential to revolutionize the world may never change people's lives if the invention is not accepted and used by society.  Similarly, a new, frivolous invention can revolutionize the world because that product is accepted by people and adapted into their lives.  It takes a change by people for a new piece of technology to change the world.

An example of this is society's acceptance of the Ipod as opposed to augmented reality. The Ipod does not really improve the everyday lives of people, but it has revolutionized the way people listen to music.  An Ipod can be seen everywhere from kids, to joggers, to businessmen.  This widespread use and acceptance of the Ipod is what allowed it to change the way society listens to music.  Contrast this to augmented reality which has the potential to improve people's lives and significantly change the way people live.  However, most people have never heard of this technology.  While others may have only seen a video of it on Youtube.  Augmented reality will change the world if people incorporate it into their lives.

This is one example of how the invention of new technology alone will never be revolutionary.  It takes people's use of that new technology to change the world.

Internet Censorship Bill

The Tycoon Who Cried Thief

The tycoons of today's media chose lawyers rather than innovators to further their business interests.  This decision has led to a decrease in innovation by creative individuals because the fear of being sued for copyright infringement by the media tycoons.  This is ironic since the tycoons have been using their power to steal the ownership rights of artists for years.  While these greedy businessmen cry thief so the government will protect their profits, the artist who is truly being robbed is ignored.  If this injustice is not corrected, today's media tycoons will continue to cry thief until innovation is extinct in both technology and artistry.

Computer Science Not a Profession!?

Professor Paul De Palma in his article "Women, Mathematics, and Computing" stated, "[Computer Science] is not a real profession."  His argument for such a statement is that there are no licensing requirements for entering the field.  There are no licensing reqirements for the men and women who wish to become business executives, journalists, and even university professors.  By Professor Palma's definition of profession, none of the previously listed positions are professions.  This makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, computer science is a better profession for not having licensing requirements for entry.  It allows for more competition in the industry, which would not be the case if there were licensing requirements.  Open entry to this profession facilitates the continual advancement of computer science.

Historical Information Made More Useful

Past generations have painstakingly kept records by hand. However, the information that they spent so much time and effort to preserve is often difficult to sort and organize.  It is even harder to take the information recorded by multiple people and compile it into a single, cohesive record.  This is where computer technology can improve the use of these handwritten records.   Computer technology can take the information that was collected by any number of people during any time period and create a digital record of the information.  Then this information can easily be searched and linked together.  This information that was difficult to search and link together can now be manipulated through several strokes of the keyboard because of the miracle of computer technology.