Thursday, April 9, 2015
Teaching the Ethics of Media Pirating
Most would agree that illegally distributing copied CDs and DVDs is morally wrong. The principle is often taught to or reinforced in people as they grow up. However, people generally have no scruples about downloading or distributing digital media on the internet. This may be because children are not taught that downloading "free" media is unethical behavior; likely the thought that downloading pirated media is stealing has never crossed the minds of many people. I believe though that the lion's share of illegal downloaders know that their actions are just as wrong as if they'd pirated and distributed physical CDs. Their personal justification lies in the feeling of anonymity that the internet provides. The root cause of their crimes is not ignorance but rather a lack of moral fiber. If we are to truly put an end to online media pirating, we must help people to have more integrity. They must want to uphold the law whether or not somebody is watching and must try to encourage others to obey the law is well. If we can encourage better integrity in our society, online media pirating (as well as many other unethical deeds) would be much less frequent than it would by simply doing a better job of teaching people that illegal downloads are unethical.
Study Journal #7
31 March 2015
1) I agree that too much reliance on computers can smother our ability to feel the spirit, even more so than other things. Because we can view whatever we want with a computer, we can be distracted easily.
2) Just like with the Brother of Jared needing to figure out how to get light, I believe that the Lord expects us to consider our ethics and decide within the gospel frame work.
3) It seems like there is no way to make technology and software that can not be used for evil in some way. There are technologies with the intent for good, but it seems like Satan works to corrupt everything good in some way.
02 April 2015
1) Wow, what if the original 12 had technology as a teaching tool!?! They baptized like crazy as it is, but I wonder if the greater voice would have actually helped.
2) Hearing about how the Brethren are so involved in the direction that church technology is going is really inspiring! The thought takes away any inclination I've had to criticize the way the church is using technology...
3) I bet working for ICS would be an interesting mix of spiritual and temporal. I wonder how they keep the guidance of the Spirit involved while at the same time using tons of technology.
07 April 2015
1) The idea that the Lord didn't inspire smart phones just for fun-that He's not terribly concerned about how much fun we have- is a powerful thought.
2) The church seems like it has done a good job of learning from its mistakes, such as working out sealing issues in the database and product.
3) I'm glad the church is making the effort to do cloud-based stuff. It is more convenient for people in general, but I hope they really lock down the security element. If not, they have to worry about people altering or deleting data through hacking.
09 April 2015
1) I need to shift my mind-set to make sure that the programming I do actually help the Lord's work in some way.
2) All the prophets, both ancient and modern, really have seen the miraculous technologies that we have today.
3) How can I do online missionary work without Facebook, twitter, and other social media apps? Blogs, maybe, but I'm terrible with them in the same way I stink at journal writing. Maybe youtube though?
1) I agree that too much reliance on computers can smother our ability to feel the spirit, even more so than other things. Because we can view whatever we want with a computer, we can be distracted easily.
2) Just like with the Brother of Jared needing to figure out how to get light, I believe that the Lord expects us to consider our ethics and decide within the gospel frame work.
3) It seems like there is no way to make technology and software that can not be used for evil in some way. There are technologies with the intent for good, but it seems like Satan works to corrupt everything good in some way.
02 April 2015
1) Wow, what if the original 12 had technology as a teaching tool!?! They baptized like crazy as it is, but I wonder if the greater voice would have actually helped.
2) Hearing about how the Brethren are so involved in the direction that church technology is going is really inspiring! The thought takes away any inclination I've had to criticize the way the church is using technology...
3) I bet working for ICS would be an interesting mix of spiritual and temporal. I wonder how they keep the guidance of the Spirit involved while at the same time using tons of technology.
07 April 2015
1) The idea that the Lord didn't inspire smart phones just for fun-that He's not terribly concerned about how much fun we have- is a powerful thought.
2) The church seems like it has done a good job of learning from its mistakes, such as working out sealing issues in the database and product.
3) I'm glad the church is making the effort to do cloud-based stuff. It is more convenient for people in general, but I hope they really lock down the security element. If not, they have to worry about people altering or deleting data through hacking.
09 April 2015
1) I need to shift my mind-set to make sure that the programming I do actually help the Lord's work in some way.
2) All the prophets, both ancient and modern, really have seen the miraculous technologies that we have today.
3) How can I do online missionary work without Facebook, twitter, and other social media apps? Blogs, maybe, but I'm terrible with them in the same way I stink at journal writing. Maybe youtube though?
Thursday, April 2, 2015
The Numbing Effect of Technology
Digital technology in all its forms has many positive effects on society. Many gadgets save time and perform tedious tasks that people would otherwise do by hand. However, strong digital dependency is becoming more and more common, especially in the younger generations. This is undesirable for many reasons, but I believe that one of the worst effects of too much technology is that it numbs the mind, body and spirit. This is clear when you interact with somebody who has just finished a long session at a computer. His eyes are dull, his mind usually fuzzy or aching, and his mood taciturn. After some time, he will come out of his reverie and a cloud will seem to lift off him. These post-computer-usage effects are undesirable. Once the spell has been lifted, a person becomes more pleasant, more engaged, and most importantly, more receptive to the Spirit. Youth are particularly effected by the technology stupor; observe any scout troop on a long camping trip. Somewhere along the way, all the gamers will wake up and become the more lively boys that they ought to be. Because of the numbing effects of too much technology, we must all discipline ourselves and limit our time in the digital world so that we may vigorously take advantage of the time-saving benefits that technology provides.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Study Journal #6
17 March 2015
1) Why do we need to make a concerted effort to forcibly add women to the computer science industry? That's not to be sexist. It;s a legitimate question in my opinion.
2) CS is all about creativity, so women in CS would bring a different kind of creativity. That's a good reason to me!
3) It's interesting that the majority of women are introduced through male role models.
4) She talks about uneven balance of male and female teachers at different ages, but that wasn't my experience. I had a pretty even balance through all of grade school.
19 March 2015
1) Microsoft's website mentions that it's most important to get a variety of creativity and ideas, rather than focus on gender/ethnicity. That makes sense to me...
2) The stats that he's showing should be put in perspective be seeing tech college grad stats and other contextual data.
3) I hate pie charts.
4) Sometimes the church doctrine and culture send conflicting messages about gender roles, especially with whether or not women should strive for high-paying jobs.
24 March 2015
1) I don't think addiction is ever a good thing. His examples of "good addictions" are life sustaining dependencies, like food. That's not the same thing as an addiction.
2) Addiction is a tricky word because it's unclear what it includes. Does it include all dependencies? Anything habit forming? Anything that alters brain chemistry? Anything that makes a chemical dependency? Our vagueness sort of makes us argue about different things all at once.
3) I think he did the right thing blowing the whistle. The scriptures say that we'll suffer for our good choices sometimes but that we'll be compensated for it eternally if we endure it well.
1) Why do we need to make a concerted effort to forcibly add women to the computer science industry? That's not to be sexist. It;s a legitimate question in my opinion.
2) CS is all about creativity, so women in CS would bring a different kind of creativity. That's a good reason to me!
3) It's interesting that the majority of women are introduced through male role models.
4) She talks about uneven balance of male and female teachers at different ages, but that wasn't my experience. I had a pretty even balance through all of grade school.
19 March 2015
1) Microsoft's website mentions that it's most important to get a variety of creativity and ideas, rather than focus on gender/ethnicity. That makes sense to me...
2) The stats that he's showing should be put in perspective be seeing tech college grad stats and other contextual data.
3) I hate pie charts.
4) Sometimes the church doctrine and culture send conflicting messages about gender roles, especially with whether or not women should strive for high-paying jobs.
24 March 2015
1) I don't think addiction is ever a good thing. His examples of "good addictions" are life sustaining dependencies, like food. That's not the same thing as an addiction.
2) Addiction is a tricky word because it's unclear what it includes. Does it include all dependencies? Anything habit forming? Anything that alters brain chemistry? Anything that makes a chemical dependency? Our vagueness sort of makes us argue about different things all at once.
3) I think he did the right thing blowing the whistle. The scriptures say that we'll suffer for our good choices sometimes but that we'll be compensated for it eternally if we endure it well.
26 March 2015
1) We do become a representative of the company for which we work, but at the same time they reflect on our character. We may represent our company well by our behavior, but if the company's purpose is not good, that will reflect on our character in the eyes of others.
2) It's depressing, but unfortunately true that many people are more interested in sensationalism than they are with truth. That seems to put those people in a different category than those who "seek the truth but know not where to find it"
3) Having the distraction of technology gone is really a blessing sometimes. I think that's one reason why people like the temple, though they don't realize it. Getting rid of my facebook account a few years ago was one of the best things I've ever done because it freed up so much time and mental resources.
1) We do become a representative of the company for which we work, but at the same time they reflect on our character. We may represent our company well by our behavior, but if the company's purpose is not good, that will reflect on our character in the eyes of others.
2) It's depressing, but unfortunately true that many people are more interested in sensationalism than they are with truth. That seems to put those people in a different category than those who "seek the truth but know not where to find it"
3) Having the distraction of technology gone is really a blessing sometimes. I think that's one reason why people like the temple, though they don't realize it. Getting rid of my facebook account a few years ago was one of the best things I've ever done because it freed up so much time and mental resources.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Why Strive For Women In The Tech Industry?
The distribution of the sexes in the technology industry is heavily skewed towards men. Many believe that it is important to encourage more women to enter technology fields because of the unique perspective and qualities that women bring to the industry. While gender differences alone may be of some benefit, I believe that a more important reason to actively work to include women in computing is that they are a massive subset of our population that does not enter the industry's talent pool. Women in general do think differently than men, but any given woman will think differently than many other women. A single woman will think like some men as well, so there is not necessarily a drastically unique, gender-specific skill set that men or women in general bring to the industry. The real value of striving to encourage women in computing is the sheer number of potentially outstanding individuals that may now contribute to the technology field as a whole. Therefore, we must actively foster a culture which will entice women to pursue tech education and add to the set of exceptional individuals in the industry.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Study Journal #5
5 March 2015
1) It seems sooo foolish to invest in a company that hasn't shown that they could possibly be profitable. All the investment seems like jumping on the band wagon.
2) The frenzied attitude during the bubble forced people to make fast choices, which either made them poor or unethical or both.
3) Flipping companies is like a get-rich-quick strategy, which is never a good call.
10 March 2015
1) He says to dare to follow your ideas and stuff, but it's so risky when you don't know if the ideas will even work or be marketable. Going all in on such a project is really a gamble.
2) Wow that's so frustrating that the legal junk got in the way of the light device. Sometimes the law can hinder much more than it helps. I hope the light thing does end up on the market though because it sounds awesome.
3) I'm surprised that such recent graduates have been able to create such epic inventions. I wonder if he's really just exaggerating the importance or intensity of their inventions.
12 March 2015
1) Even though we wouldn't be responsible for the fornication in the first example, it would still be good to do what you could to help your brother and sister.
2) Heavenly Father has done a really great job doing things physically to help faithful spouses resist divorce.
3) This open level of conversation is really important to have with our kids!
1) It seems sooo foolish to invest in a company that hasn't shown that they could possibly be profitable. All the investment seems like jumping on the band wagon.
2) The frenzied attitude during the bubble forced people to make fast choices, which either made them poor or unethical or both.
3) Flipping companies is like a get-rich-quick strategy, which is never a good call.
10 March 2015
1) He says to dare to follow your ideas and stuff, but it's so risky when you don't know if the ideas will even work or be marketable. Going all in on such a project is really a gamble.
2) Wow that's so frustrating that the legal junk got in the way of the light device. Sometimes the law can hinder much more than it helps. I hope the light thing does end up on the market though because it sounds awesome.
3) I'm surprised that such recent graduates have been able to create such epic inventions. I wonder if he's really just exaggerating the importance or intensity of their inventions.
12 March 2015
1) Even though we wouldn't be responsible for the fornication in the first example, it would still be good to do what you could to help your brother and sister.
2) Heavenly Father has done a really great job doing things physically to help faithful spouses resist divorce.
3) This open level of conversation is really important to have with our kids!
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Digital Transparency in the Workplace
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/technology/slack-the-office-messaging-app-that-may-finally-sink-email.html?ref=technology
My personal thoughts:
When I send an email at work, I specify the recipients and thereby enjoy a high level of privacy with my coworkers. However, new business communication applications would make all messages (or at least the default for all messages) public to the whole company or team. The hope of transparency is that it will increase unity and productivity among employees; I share that hope, but I do so for different reasons than others usually cite. For example, I believe that with access to all office communication, a new employee would more easily understand the state of his new workplace and his role in the company which would enable him to meaningfully contribute sooner. Full transparency would also improve collaboration on projects because people with questions may find ready answers from an unexpected team member or be guided by another's work on his facet of the project. Most importantly, public office communication would encourage civil conversation from bosses or between coworkers who might otherwise speak more harshly than they should. I strongly believe that transparency is the best digital communication practice in the workplace and that all companies should seek to incorporate technologies into their offices that enable such transparency.
My personal thoughts:
When I send an email at work, I specify the recipients and thereby enjoy a high level of privacy with my coworkers. However, new business communication applications would make all messages (or at least the default for all messages) public to the whole company or team. The hope of transparency is that it will increase unity and productivity among employees; I share that hope, but I do so for different reasons than others usually cite. For example, I believe that with access to all office communication, a new employee would more easily understand the state of his new workplace and his role in the company which would enable him to meaningfully contribute sooner. Full transparency would also improve collaboration on projects because people with questions may find ready answers from an unexpected team member or be guided by another's work on his facet of the project. Most importantly, public office communication would encourage civil conversation from bosses or between coworkers who might otherwise speak more harshly than they should. I strongly believe that transparency is the best digital communication practice in the workplace and that all companies should seek to incorporate technologies into their offices that enable such transparency.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Study Journal #4
19 February 2015
1) Having data is powerful, but it does little good unless you can either sensor it or analyze it. Data is not sufficient for power.
2) It seems like people can accidentally wander into their own ethical dilemmas just as much as they come upon them.
3) Cliff really does transform a lot. The most drastic and interesting change for me comes in the way his passion for chasing the hacker builds and how he starts to feel connections between ethics and this kind of hacking.
24 February 2015
1) Having the Holy Ghost and the Gospel of Jesus Christ makes decisions about when to speak out over ethical issues easier because we understand many universal truths.
2) Open door communities are always small. therefore, the Internet can't be open door.
3) As far as making dangerous knowledge public, I don't know what's right, but I have no desire to know such things personally.
26 February 2015
1) Non-compete classes are a good idea, I think, because they prevent especially dishonest/unethical behavior. Stealing clients to a side business is really messed up.
2) People being dishonest and inflexible are really the root of all this IP hassle. I can't wait til the millennium when we can put aside this legal baggage. It weighs down progress so much.
3) I can't see myself ever having to worry about IP stuff. I don't have an extremely inventive mind, so patents and copyrights are out, and I'm not into marketing, so that's trademarks off the list.
03 March 2015
1) I bet it was pretty nerve racking to know a hacker's attacking but not know how to protect yourself from them. Those early net admins had a weird situation to deal with.
2) The old theft definition, depriving somebody of their property, is an unfortunate definition for the kind of theft that technology allows.
3) In terms of physical spies, you have to have a traitor for the best espionage. You don't necessarily need that for computer stuff-weak security (aka stupid people) are a better door to classified information in the cyber realm.
1) Having data is powerful, but it does little good unless you can either sensor it or analyze it. Data is not sufficient for power.
2) It seems like people can accidentally wander into their own ethical dilemmas just as much as they come upon them.
3) Cliff really does transform a lot. The most drastic and interesting change for me comes in the way his passion for chasing the hacker builds and how he starts to feel connections between ethics and this kind of hacking.
24 February 2015
1) Having the Holy Ghost and the Gospel of Jesus Christ makes decisions about when to speak out over ethical issues easier because we understand many universal truths.
2) Open door communities are always small. therefore, the Internet can't be open door.
3) As far as making dangerous knowledge public, I don't know what's right, but I have no desire to know such things personally.
26 February 2015
1) Non-compete classes are a good idea, I think, because they prevent especially dishonest/unethical behavior. Stealing clients to a side business is really messed up.
2) People being dishonest and inflexible are really the root of all this IP hassle. I can't wait til the millennium when we can put aside this legal baggage. It weighs down progress so much.
3) I can't see myself ever having to worry about IP stuff. I don't have an extremely inventive mind, so patents and copyrights are out, and I'm not into marketing, so that's trademarks off the list.
03 March 2015
1) I bet it was pretty nerve racking to know a hacker's attacking but not know how to protect yourself from them. Those early net admins had a weird situation to deal with.
2) The old theft definition, depriving somebody of their property, is an unfortunate definition for the kind of theft that technology allows.
3) In terms of physical spies, you have to have a traitor for the best espionage. You don't necessarily need that for computer stuff-weak security (aka stupid people) are a better door to classified information in the cyber realm.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Hacking Hindsight
Recently, I had several family members come to me with expressions like, "My computer is acting strangely," and, "I've been having a ton of adds pop up when I'm on the internet." I investigated and found that each computer had been infected by a virus through social engineering. Few hackers today have the technical skill to brute force their way through a firewall, but they have become adept at fooling people into inviting viruses in through the front door. I believe that much of the money that we invest in developing secure systems should be used to educate users on basic computer safety skills. Training people how to check links before clicking them and recognize phony emails or security warnings before responding to them would ruin the profession of social engineers. Hackers target people more than computers; therefore it is the user, not the software, that merits our greatest effort reinforce. We must remedy our pervasive computer security ignorance. If we do not, our computers will continue to easily fall victim to cyber attacks.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Current Event #2
Article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/20/lenovo_caves_in_face_of_public_firestorm_release_superfish_killer/
My personal thoughts:
Lenovo's decision to include this major security flaw in their recent computers is a perfect example of a company giving up ethics for money. Lenovo is among the most prominent PC manufacturers in the consumer market; in general, companies do not achieve such success unless they are driven and focused on profit. Most often the role of a business is to make money, but in order to make money they need customers, which means they need to be considered trustworthy. I believe that once trusted, a company is obligated to stay worthy of that trust. I also believe that companies who violate that trust, even in secret, will come to regret their mistake. Lenovo is only one of many instances of a company that has damaged or ruined its business through unethical practices. In each instance, the dishonesty began in secret, but guilty secrets are all eventually discovered. I hope that more people will begin to see that sacrificing ethics to gain an extra buck is a pattern that will not lead to ultimate success.
My personal thoughts:
Lenovo's decision to include this major security flaw in their recent computers is a perfect example of a company giving up ethics for money. Lenovo is among the most prominent PC manufacturers in the consumer market; in general, companies do not achieve such success unless they are driven and focused on profit. Most often the role of a business is to make money, but in order to make money they need customers, which means they need to be considered trustworthy. I believe that once trusted, a company is obligated to stay worthy of that trust. I also believe that companies who violate that trust, even in secret, will come to regret their mistake. Lenovo is only one of many instances of a company that has damaged or ruined its business through unethical practices. In each instance, the dishonesty began in secret, but guilty secrets are all eventually discovered. I hope that more people will begin to see that sacrificing ethics to gain an extra buck is a pattern that will not lead to ultimate success.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Study Journal #3
10 February 2015
1) Intellectual property laws seem like they could cut both ways. Like if somebody can legally hide a good idea, then progression in general is sort of stunted.
2) I can't decide if intellectual property would stimulate progress in technology and society or if it would hinder development. The incentive I could see is that people might take and idea and extensively improve/change/adapt it in order to circumvent intellectual property laws.
3) I'm glad they've trained people on the whole legal side of technology so that nerds don't have to. I don't think I'd have the same draw to programming that I do now if I had to know the legal side.
1) Intellectual property laws seem like they could cut both ways. Like if somebody can legally hide a good idea, then progression in general is sort of stunted.
2) I can't decide if intellectual property would stimulate progress in technology and society or if it would hinder development. The incentive I could see is that people might take and idea and extensively improve/change/adapt it in order to circumvent intellectual property laws.
3) I'm glad they've trained people on the whole legal side of technology so that nerds don't have to. I don't think I'd have the same draw to programming that I do now if I had to know the legal side.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Intellectual Property Laws: Controversial & Subtly Sinister
Opponents of intellectual property (IP) laws cite two main arguments against IP legislation: IP laws discourage creativity because potential innovators may be legally hindered in their work and IP laws allow individuals or companies to monopolize on a discovery that could benefit science and the public if shared. I see merit in their views; however, I do not think these reasons would damage general creativity as much as IP law opponents assert. The counter-forces that result from IP laws can either force greater depth in research by requiring scientists to reverse-engineer products or encourage quick expansion of existing technologies to patent a new feature. In a way, patent laws can force the pace of discovery. Whether or not IP legislation increases progression, I believe IP laws cause great damage by shifting the motivation for creativity. Prior to IP laws, innovators and inventors were commonly driven by passion and personal interest. Today, IP laws subtly change a creator's goal to protecting his idea from others or inventing to defeat his competition. These forces, driven by money and greed, have always existed, but IP laws augment them. I am saddened by this outcome. Some fundamental, pure part of the path of progress has been tainted by greed, and one day society will feel the corruption derivative of this moral decay.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Study Journal #2
22 January 2015
1) Everybody talks about being in computer development for the love of computers rather than for the money. I, however, believe that some, like Steve Jobs, were mostly ambition.
2) It's a shame that some major players end up with nothing and other major players lose their nerdy passion because of the business.
3) I am impressed that Wozniak was able to hold on to his love of technology. I think he struck the happy medium between getting financially recognized and being able to stick to what he liked best. The spreadsheet guys retained their tech love, at least, but are only recognized conceptually rather than monetarily.
27 January 2015
1) If that dress code at IBM was enforced today, many programmers would be discouraged from working there when there are other places that have more laid back rules. Maybe that's the point though--it weeds out the applicants to only those that are serious enough for a dress code.
2) All of the most lucrative developments seem to be front end/user interface stuff such as GUI's, more compact machines, more intuitive software, and especially improved operating systems. For the most part the market doesn't care if back-end software improves unless they can see a physical result.
3) Many open source people have radical ideas about open source software, but that passion drives them to create some pretty amazing things! People are motivated to build software to make money, but they are also motivated, maybe just as effectively, by the belief in making a difference and expanding the software that they are personally invested in.
29 January 2015
1) Pretty ridiculous to say 5 seconds laves 50 lives... But maybe a logical fallacy can give people a boost sometimes.
2) Steve Jobs was pissed about getting booted, but he'd ousted tons of people already... Karma.
3) Jobs says they mercilessly stole good ideas, but he's ticked about Microsoft having "no taste" and stealing Apple type-facing.
4) Good ideas are only good if you can implement, sell, and be willing to adjust the business plan/vision to match the public mood.
3 February 2015
1) The Free Software Definition article asserts that nonfree programs are an instrument of unjust power, which I think is pretty extreme. If a product is copyrighted and only controlled by the owner/creator who sells it, that doesn't make them an unjust tyrant for keeping it private and using it to make money...
2) It is clear that this article was created by programmers or computer engineers. The focus is on having open source software so knowledge can grow and spread and so peoples lives can be improved. Business is a more important factor to many other people who care nothing for the programming knowledge, which discourages open source stuff.
3) The situation with Microsoft, IBM, and the QDOS operating system is another example how luck plays a major factor in success. Who knew that that specific operating system would be the successful one?
5 February 2015
1) Many of these big players were accidental (at least partially). How do you predict big success like this? Or is it possible?
2) Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a pioneer, especially when people don't see your vision... Even if you find something good.
3) Dogmatism is never a good idea, or almost never. You can blind yourself everywhere, not just in technology.
1) Everybody talks about being in computer development for the love of computers rather than for the money. I, however, believe that some, like Steve Jobs, were mostly ambition.
2) It's a shame that some major players end up with nothing and other major players lose their nerdy passion because of the business.
3) I am impressed that Wozniak was able to hold on to his love of technology. I think he struck the happy medium between getting financially recognized and being able to stick to what he liked best. The spreadsheet guys retained their tech love, at least, but are only recognized conceptually rather than monetarily.
27 January 2015
1) If that dress code at IBM was enforced today, many programmers would be discouraged from working there when there are other places that have more laid back rules. Maybe that's the point though--it weeds out the applicants to only those that are serious enough for a dress code.
2) All of the most lucrative developments seem to be front end/user interface stuff such as GUI's, more compact machines, more intuitive software, and especially improved operating systems. For the most part the market doesn't care if back-end software improves unless they can see a physical result.
3) Many open source people have radical ideas about open source software, but that passion drives them to create some pretty amazing things! People are motivated to build software to make money, but they are also motivated, maybe just as effectively, by the belief in making a difference and expanding the software that they are personally invested in.
29 January 2015
1) Pretty ridiculous to say 5 seconds laves 50 lives... But maybe a logical fallacy can give people a boost sometimes.
2) Steve Jobs was pissed about getting booted, but he'd ousted tons of people already... Karma.
3) Jobs says they mercilessly stole good ideas, but he's ticked about Microsoft having "no taste" and stealing Apple type-facing.
4) Good ideas are only good if you can implement, sell, and be willing to adjust the business plan/vision to match the public mood.
3 February 2015
1) The Free Software Definition article asserts that nonfree programs are an instrument of unjust power, which I think is pretty extreme. If a product is copyrighted and only controlled by the owner/creator who sells it, that doesn't make them an unjust tyrant for keeping it private and using it to make money...
2) It is clear that this article was created by programmers or computer engineers. The focus is on having open source software so knowledge can grow and spread and so peoples lives can be improved. Business is a more important factor to many other people who care nothing for the programming knowledge, which discourages open source stuff.
3) The situation with Microsoft, IBM, and the QDOS operating system is another example how luck plays a major factor in success. Who knew that that specific operating system would be the successful one?
5 February 2015
1) Many of these big players were accidental (at least partially). How do you predict big success like this? Or is it possible?
2) Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a pioneer, especially when people don't see your vision... Even if you find something good.
3) Dogmatism is never a good idea, or almost never. You can blind yourself everywhere, not just in technology.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Current Event #1
Article: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/01/28/weeks-after-zuckerberg-vowed-for-free-speech-on-facebook-company-begins/
My personal thoughts:
After reading this article, I began thinking for the first time about the degree to which internet censorship is ethical. I realized that the way I might behave as the owner of an international website towards censorship in other countries is similar to the way I personally behave around those whose religious or moral values are different than mine. If I am spending time with an individual or group who morally disapproves of something that I do, I am generally willing to conform to their standards to be courteous. My website owner persona would reflect this by being willing to censor content for a country that finds such content offensive morally (like Facebook did for Turkey). On the other hand, I am unwilling to adjust my behavior for somebody else when that behavior conflicts with my own standards. For example, I will not see or stay in an inappropriate movie regardless of who might be offended. In the international website scenario, I would be wrong to censor my website for a country with bad ulterior motives simply to please that country. With respect to censoring Facebook in Turkey, the article says, "If [Facebook] does not comply, it could be blacked out in [Turkey]." My hypothetical website company's (probably unique) position would be to accept a black out. Standing strong against negative pressure is vital in every realm of life, and that includes the realm of censorship and international technology.
My personal thoughts:
After reading this article, I began thinking for the first time about the degree to which internet censorship is ethical. I realized that the way I might behave as the owner of an international website towards censorship in other countries is similar to the way I personally behave around those whose religious or moral values are different than mine. If I am spending time with an individual or group who morally disapproves of something that I do, I am generally willing to conform to their standards to be courteous. My website owner persona would reflect this by being willing to censor content for a country that finds such content offensive morally (like Facebook did for Turkey). On the other hand, I am unwilling to adjust my behavior for somebody else when that behavior conflicts with my own standards. For example, I will not see or stay in an inappropriate movie regardless of who might be offended. In the international website scenario, I would be wrong to censor my website for a country with bad ulterior motives simply to please that country. With respect to censoring Facebook in Turkey, the article says, "If [Facebook] does not comply, it could be blacked out in [Turkey]." My hypothetical website company's (probably unique) position would be to accept a black out. Standing strong against negative pressure is vital in every realm of life, and that includes the realm of censorship and international technology.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Study Journal #1
15 January 2015
1) The Five Orders of Ignorance repeatedly mentions that there's no purpose in rewriting code that has already been written because it doesn't garner any new knowledge, but as I was reading I reflected on the programs that I have rewritten and realized that my experience has been different. While it is true that I don't always learn something new while rewriting programs, I do benefit from the experience because I can see patterns and flaws in my previous implementations and I understand better why the professors told us to design programs the way we did.
2) In class we spent a decent amount of time talking about logical fallacies that exist in The Five Orders of Ignorance, but I don't think it is as full of logical fallacies is we discussed. Granted I don't agree with several of the conclusions in the article. However, I believe that is more because I disagree with some of the premises (such as in the previous entry), not because I believe the arguments themselves are fallacious.
3) Organisms are so complex and vary so much that I can understand there being many things to observe. However, I don't think there is as much to glean from constantly staring at a piece code. Even the more intense pieces of code are simpler than most organisms. Because of this I have a hard time relating to this paper.
20 January 2015
1) Professor Dougal talked about the light of Christ, personal revelation, prophets, and scriptures being a kind of hierarchy, but I disagree. Each serves a different role in revealing God's will to us and guiding us back to the Father. Each can grow or diminish; and each can be experienced by everybody.
2) We talk about no moral relativity, but that is difficult in practice without a prophet. Only a prophet, who is on the watch tower, can rise about relativity into absolutes. This prophetic guidance is what we should live by.
3) Believing that morality is entirely relative assumes either that God has no opinion on what is right and wrong or that his opinion is less important than each person's own opinion. It seems so silly.
1) The Five Orders of Ignorance repeatedly mentions that there's no purpose in rewriting code that has already been written because it doesn't garner any new knowledge, but as I was reading I reflected on the programs that I have rewritten and realized that my experience has been different. While it is true that I don't always learn something new while rewriting programs, I do benefit from the experience because I can see patterns and flaws in my previous implementations and I understand better why the professors told us to design programs the way we did.
2) In class we spent a decent amount of time talking about logical fallacies that exist in The Five Orders of Ignorance, but I don't think it is as full of logical fallacies is we discussed. Granted I don't agree with several of the conclusions in the article. However, I believe that is more because I disagree with some of the premises (such as in the previous entry), not because I believe the arguments themselves are fallacious.
3) Organisms are so complex and vary so much that I can understand there being many things to observe. However, I don't think there is as much to glean from constantly staring at a piece code. Even the more intense pieces of code are simpler than most organisms. Because of this I have a hard time relating to this paper.
20 January 2015
1) Professor Dougal talked about the light of Christ, personal revelation, prophets, and scriptures being a kind of hierarchy, but I disagree. Each serves a different role in revealing God's will to us and guiding us back to the Father. Each can grow or diminish; and each can be experienced by everybody.
2) We talk about no moral relativity, but that is difficult in practice without a prophet. Only a prophet, who is on the watch tower, can rise about relativity into absolutes. This prophetic guidance is what we should live by.
3) Believing that morality is entirely relative assumes either that God has no opinion on what is right and wrong or that his opinion is less important than each person's own opinion. It seems so silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)