High Tech

A blog about genetic engineering and technological breakthroughs. Enjoy...

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

First came up the iPod, then the iPad, what’s next?

The Apple brand is very well known to all of us, either for its clean and modern design or for its high prices. Either way is amazing how the company founded by Steve Jobs (1955-2011) has been able to stay on top of innovation and high-tech production and has proven that it is possible to personalize (i) almost anything. First the iPod came up, a small music device that, although very expensive, completely revolutionized the way in which we listen to music, then came iTunes and a whole new series of improvements and applications for the iPod, currently we have the iPad the most-wanted device in the planet which has proven that nothing is impossible but the real question here is: what’s next? Will Apple surprise us soon with an iCook? or an iWash? What else can be done?

 The Apple Company was the first to go for a new hardware which main advantage was the absolute protection against computer viruses; learning how to use a Mac computer was a whole new technological experience as well as being able to buy music online through the iTunes website. Their products are also quite innovative in their design and at the time the Mac computer was released to the market there was a huge boom coming from the people that were willing to pay for a white laptop proving that something so simple like the color in a personal device could increment the sales tremendously. No one can deny that the Apple brand alone is a synonym of quality and social status, no matter how hard the other companies had tried none of them has achieved in making their product so desirable that not only the young and fashionable people have one, but also executives and business man can’t live without one of these “resolutionary” products.

 While it is true that these days everyone would do anything for an Apple device there are also many people emphasizing the disadvantages of these products. According to recent surveys any Apple product is at least 25 percent more expensive than other even if it has the same characteristics and functions which mean that only a very small sector of the population can afford it. There is also the problem of compatibility, since Apple has its own hardware, its own operating system and its own interface their products don’t get along very well with other brands, you need to buy a special device in order to connect your Mac to a TV or your iPod to the current. Apple also has its own applications (only available in iTunes) which also cost a small fortune that you spend slowly through an iTunes card and that in its vast majority are not compatible with Android devices. 

 In conclusion Apple is the most beautiful contradiction in the world of technological devices. There is no doubt that there will always be people willing to pay for the brand status and people whom will stay with a more practical and less fashionable product, yet, Apple continues being at the top of the mountain. Who knows what comes next? iFridge? iCar? It doesn’t matter because you will want it.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

HOW TO WRITE A SMS

Turn on your cell phone.

Select/Press the button with the little envelope (“Write a new message” will always be on screen)

Select/Press “New message”.

Write the words using the keyboard (if it is in T9 mode it will write words but if this function is not activated it will write only letters).

Select the person you want to send the message to from the “Contacts” list.

Select/Press “Send” button.

When you got a message back:

“You have a new message” will be the first notification on your screen.

You chose whether to select “Read” or “Ignore”.

If you want to replay that message you select the “Replay” button to create a new one.

*This may varied depending on the cell phone. 

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

"Improving" humans

Recently, a very interesting article about genetic engineering has been published; “A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles –Hold the Colic”. The article is about how it is possible to get more frivolous and expensive benefits from science. A procedure called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is being used since the 1990’s to detect and avoid genetic disease in children. Thanks to this procedure, parents all over the world can test their babies in order to know if they are sick or in danger to have some complication during labor. However, since “improving” is in the bill, why not use this technological advance to create “designer babies?

Who wouldn’t want a baby who looks like Paul Newman? Or what about a baby girl that turns into Audrey Hepburn? Some laboratories are looking forward to offering PGD’s as a new way of cosmetic medicine. If this becomes possible you will be able to choose the gender, eye and hair color, height and coming soon the bargain will also include intelligence and athletic ability! Just like in the movie Gattaca (1997), the mothers of the future will give birth to Jude Law’s looking babies with a seventh finger to play the piano like a virtuoso or maybe travel around space. There are already some couples excited and willing to pay for this new “service”.

Nevertheless, things are not as simple as the sound. Even if this kind of genetic engineering is technically feasible there are still some moral issues to talk about. Is this procedure ethical? Should there be limits? The answer is yes. Some science men like Dr. William Keans, director of the Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., can still show some nerve when facing the decision of using this power for physical trait selection. Babies cannot be “designed” just because, soon we will try to model their souls too and in the future we may need a “Gallery” to prove if they have souls at all, like it is shown in the movie Never Let Me Go (2010). The fact that now babies can be “engineered” doesn’t give us the power to decide what are they going to be when they grow up or their likes and dislikes.

In conclusion, God help us try to stop all this laboratory techniques to go any further until we reach the point of no return. If we cannot establish some moral limits in our day-to-day life, someday, we will wake up to make breakfast for our baby and for his or her clone living in the attic. There is no way that this new Paris-Hilton-issue of science would be a good idea, why not? Well, because we always “imperfect” humans will be in charge. 

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Is technology only available for the privileged?

In the last decade, all people care about is having the latest gadgets and most politicians are really concerned about making new technology available for everyone in their country. However, is technology available for everyone nowadays? If it is not, what would happen if it was? Would we live in a better society?

It does not come to us as a surprise that not everybody has access to technology. In developing countries, only the privileged have access to it, while in developed countries, only a small percentage of their population does not have this access. Besides, the reasons for not having this access could be of two types, they could be involuntary (such is the case in developing countries, where people cannot afford technology) and voluntarily (the person does not have an interest in technology, e.g. elder people).

Firstly, we will talk about what effects little access to technology has on a country. When this is the situation, there is a lack of education, health, and other public and private services, furthermore, there is a strong discrimination between social classes. For example, in Mexico, teenagers who have technology at hand tend to relate with others who also have it; also, in many occasions, they avoid those who do not have a cell phone or a computer because it may seem they do not have a thing in common.

Secondly, in a society where most of its members have technology at hand, they receive better health services because they can be subject to the newest studies and medicines; they receive a better education, because they can learn about the newest discoveries through the newest education methods; and life as a community is much better, because they do not feel that there is a wide gap between social classes. For example, in Sweden, life expectancy is of approximately 80 years, most of their universities are prestigious and people try their best to be humble and considerate toward others.

In conclusion, I do believe technology is only available for the privileged (be it countries or people). Governments are fully aware of this and they remark it is one of their priorities to change this situation in order to create a more equalitarian country with a better quality of life. Nevertheless, most governments are not putting all their efforts toward this because it is a double-edged sword; if a society is well informed and educated, it would start to demand a more democratic system where their voice would have bigger effects. E.g., in Egypt people did not sympathize with their dictator; it was thanks to the Internet that they discovered that most Egyptians wanted to overthrow him, so they organized and, eventually, achieved this. Notwithstanding, little by little, technology is available to wider audiences getting us closer to what seems like a better society. 

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Analysis of four articles about the so-called Facebook language

Since the last few years, technology has revolutionized our lives in so many ways that we do not recognize some of these new “customs” anymore. Some of the most important changes are so common we do not consider them an innovation any longer. 

In this text we are going to compare two texts about one of this mentioned innovations. The famous social networking website, Facebook, has had such a big impact on modern culture that our language has been affected by it. You can easily recognize somebody who uses Facebook because they know what you are talking about when you use certain words such as like or requested me, even when people talk about news, you know they must have read that on Facebook.

Many newspapers, magazines and essays have discussed about the impact of Facebook on language. The Atlantic is an american monthly publication that discusses relevant affairs in actuality with a smart perspective and analysis. Last year, they published an article called “The Rise of the Zuckerverb: the New Language of Facebook”. In this article they expose the phenomena of how a social network can change the way people communicate their experiences and they pose the question, what’s the future of this relationship (language & Facebook)? The text has a high register with a journalistic tone and it is aimed for adults and young adults with an advanced education.

Moving towards a different direction, blogs have also talked about this phenomenon. One of this blogs is mangolanguages.com who talk exactly about the same subject but with a low register in an informal tone and aimed for teenagers and young adults who are studying and have an easy access to Internet.

Marc Zuckerbeg, CEO of Facebook, stated that the Company believes the vocabulary is really limited and you can not express many things that happen on Facebook. Through the time, Facebook has been adding nouns to its vocabulary, in order to make it easier for people to “like” different things. In the following years, the Company will start adding verbs, that is, to pursue the building of a language, the language of communication.

Another important aspect mentioned in the articles, is the change this new language has created on relationships. The Atlantic exposes in detail how people have change the way the use the word friend. Many complain that the true meaning has faded away, they believe that nowadays a friend is somebody you have in your facebook account, it does not matter if you know him or not, he is your friend. The relevance of mentioning this, is not really a complaint, but an example of how language is changing, because we all know the word friend, it is just that the meaning has changed. Sadly, the mangolanguages.com blog entry does not even mention this issue, which is really important, since it talks specifically about what Facebook is all about, relationships.

In conclusion, I highly recommend reading the article of The Atlantic, not because I do not believe blogs can do a good research (actually, this article is a blog entry in The Atlantic’s website), but because The Atlantic shows you why language has changed and how is it and it will change.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

The Role of Technology in Modern Life

The concept of technology as a necessity does not come to us as a surprise, since we have been depending on technology for decades. But what are we really using it for? How is it changing the way we live? What are we looking for when we buy a new devise? We will discuss this topics in order to achieve a clear idea of the role technology has in our lives.

Nowadays, we are far away from the days when people complained about technology’s omnipresence, it is a reality. There is technology involved in everything we do and everywhere we go, therefore, it feels like a basic need. We depend on it so much, its absence makes us feel isolated from the rest of the World and we judge people and countries depending on their technology or its lack. 

This omnipresence is also partly due to the latest trends in current technology: communication and interconnection. Since the arrival of the Internet, people consider communication on of the most important things and this aspect has become a behemoth. A result of this need for Internet is Wifi; nowadays, if a device does not have wifi signal it is useless because people need to tell everyone what they had for breakfast, lunch and dinner. A great example of this would be the new televisions with wifi signal, a few years ago –maybe even two years ago– this idea would have sounded stupid, but today it seems fundamental because now the whole family will be able to video chat with a relative that lives abroad from the comfort of their living room and principally because the video chat service is for free.

When we talk about interconnection, we mean that companies are trying to allow a complete transfer of documents, files, and programs between devices of the same brand. Apple is one of the companies that started this, that is why now everybody is using something with the apple logo on. If you have an iPhone then you decide to get an iMac in order to be able to share and store everything, but in a few months you will start to consider getting an iPad because the screen is bigger and easier to use, and that is exactly what Apple wants you to think and eventually do.

However, it seems as if one of the latest trends is the complete opposite, trying to make technology go unnoticed. The latest devices are greener than the previous ones, they emit less sound and they are smaller. All of this works greatly for the companies because it makes us feel as if the devices are not affecting our lives that much: if our car pollutes less, then we can drive more; if our laptop is lighter, we can carry it anywhere, and if our cellphones are thinner, then we can use them all day long. 

Conclusively, we could say modern life depends on technology. The role of technology is so big that we use it as an excuse to judge others or to befriend and connect with others, even if we could do it in person. This collides with the idea that new technology tries to go unnoticed when it comes to the product; when we talk about the brand it is the other way around. In the end, technology is an option, it has the role you want it to have; it can be your source of income or it can be what you use when you are bored.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

REPORT ON COMPUTER USAGE AMONG TRANSLATION STUDENTS

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this report is to demonstrate how computer usage changes as translation students change grades. We are going to answer this question based on the results of a survey made to 40 students in three different grades of translation students (3rd, 6th, and 9th) from the Instituto Superior de Intérpretes y Traductores (ISIT).

ANALYSIS

The results from the first question, “do you believe there is something you need to learn in order to do it more efficiently?”, showed that 35% of youngest students feel satisfied with their knowledge, whereas all of the oldest students believe they still have to learn more in order to improve their academic and professional performance. Approximately 60 % of young students feel they do not need to learn something new because they are aware of computing basics and so far they have not needed more than that; however, the more students advance in their major, they realize that they need to know specific aspects of computing and translation software, and that their basic knowledge is not enough.

                The next question, “is a computer with Internet access a basic need?”, proved the general assumption that most people feel Internet is a must. Nevertheless, 24% of the older students answered they do not feel having Internet access is a basic need which was a surprising result, since they depend on the Internet for their daily academic work. A possible explanation for this result is that most of the students relate Internet usage to social networking and so, the oldest students are the ones who have less time for that.

                The last question, “how satisfied are you with the computers at school?”, referred specifically to the computing lab of the Institution and it showed that the higher the grade students are in, the less satisfied they are with the computers (60% of the youngest students was satisfied enough with the computers). An evident reason for this is that the youngest students still do not have the need for using the computers, 10% of 3rd and 6th graders does not even use them, while the oldest students spend most of their time there.

CONCLUSION

According to the previous information, we concluded that both computer usage and their awareness of how much translation relies on computing increase as students advance in their career. Moreover, the oldest students have become more aware of the need of constant updating and keeping up with technology.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Comparative Commentary

The influence of technology in language is a major theme in several articles nowadays. As an example of this, we are going to analyze two articles referring to this subject. The first one, “How internet is changing language” by Zoe Kleinman was published in BBC News Technology section and it is basically a report on the internet phenomena, such as memes, that are changing language. The second one, “The Rise of the Zuckerverb: The New Language of Facebook” by Ben Zimmer appeared on The Atlantic Technology section and it talks about the incorporation of verbs to the Facebook jargon and how this social network is changing the English language.

Both of these articles have as common theme the changes that technology has brought upon language. Although both articles were published on a Technology section for a newspaper, their target audience is people whose career has to do with language and communication –such as translators, linguistics, language teachers, writers, etc. It is unlikely that someone interested in technology alone will be searching for language-related topics on the news. As for the tone, both articles are written in a very easy-to-understand way: they are informative, clear and simple.

Let us analyze a bit more about these articles content. Kleinman’s article deals with technology influence in language in a more general way. We are given examples of how internet memes, text messages and social networks have been causing an interesting effect on the way people write. On this article, we can even see examples of such changes in Ukrainian. On the other hand, in Zimmer’s article, the main focus in Facebook on English language only. The examples given to illustrate how language has been changing are from English only and it is not clear how would that affect other languages in which Facebook is also available; moreover, the main concern on this article is not writing in general but grammar and a bit of semantics.

Another aspect of Kleinman’s article is its focus on slang and word play. From the perspective of this article, the changes on language caused by technology are very complex, creative and meaningful, and thus, the article is pretty optimist about such changes. On the contrary, the changes that Facebook is causing in English are considered as simplistic. Zimmer’s article draws attention to the fact that the structure of English sentences are becoming really simple –Subject-Verb-Object- and thus it may be a drawback to the development of a more complex and structured writing. However, Zimmer is also optimistic about this change and claims it would become more complex with time.

In conclusion, Kleinman’s article is a good way to have a first approach to the technology-language issue, as Zimmer’s article is a good example of how exactly is language changing because of technology. Apart from that, it is interesting the fact that both articles show the bright side of having technology changing our world in such ways that we will never express ourselves as we used to do before technology took over our lives.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Checklist for Academic Writing

Avoid Idioms and Phrasal verbs

 Avoid conversational languange

Vary connectors

  Pay attention to this/these

Ways to avoid them:

>For idioms and conversational language, I should try to think of the correct verbs instead of jumping into the first phrasal that pops into my head. I should also remember not to write prepositions at the end of setences.

>>For the connectors, I should try to look up for some more conjunctions or force myself to use synonyms.

>>>I should always make sure this/these have an antecedent and that such antecedent is the one I meant.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

How to write an email on a Hotmail account

1. Go to Hotmail.com 2. On the website, under the “Sign in” title, you will see two boxes: one says, “Windows Live ID” and the other one, “Password” 3. Write your email account on the first box. 4. Write your password on the second box. 5. Click on Sign In. 6. You will see your inbox. This is where you can read/send messages. 7. Up on the left, you will see a little label that says “New.” 8. Click on “New” 9. You will see a page with two boxes and a big blank box. 10. The first box has a label that says “To” 11. Write the email of the person you want to send an email to on the “To” box. 12. The second box has a label that says “Subject” 13. Write a short description of what your message is about on the “Subject” box. 14. You can leave “Subject” blank 15. Write your message on the big blank box under “Subject” 16. Once you are done, go to the up left part of the page and look for the “Send” label –it is located on the same spot “New” was. 17. Click on the “Send” label. 18. The message: “Your message has been sent” will be display on the page.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Should all people try to keep up with technology?

Hard as some people may try, we can no longer ignore technology. This tendency to try to stick to a more old-fashioned way of living –with no internet, no smart phones- is common among older generations. Although they may have a point in trying to live a healthy life free from the potential damages of technology, they are also missing the thousands of advantages of keeping up with technological advances that only make our lives better.  

Communication is the most commonly used example of why technology makes our lives easier. New technologies in communication help people to stay close: we just need to learn to use them –keeping up- in order to be able to use this argument in our favor. People who oppose social networks, cellphones and the internet claim that the lack of privacy and the risk of meeting “dangerous” people are sufficiently strong arguments to not to use them. However, what about the growing number of families or couples living apart and not being able to see each other often? Back in time, they would have to say goodbye, nowadays and thanks to technology, they are a call/message away.

Education is as important as communication. This is the information age: being able to follow the main happenings in places as remote as China by just clicking on a few websites was unthinkable for our grandparents. Once again it is all about knowing how to use these tools. If we only know how to log in in our Facebook account, it is obvious we will not have any educational profit. Knowing how, where and what to look for on the internet is a skill all of us should try to acquire.

A third aspect of the importance of keeping up with technology will be our professional lives. Thirty years ago, depending on the type of job you had, having knowledge about computers was not important; nevertheless, nowadays, not knowing how to use a computer is equivalent to not to know how to read. Almost everything in a professional environment is computerized and since almost all machines have similar operational principles, if we reject learning to use a simple personal computer or a laptop, we will be lost in a training course for learning to use a new machine or software to make our job easier. This is why falling behind this aspect may represent losing a promotion or even our job.

There is nothing wrong in trying to keep the good aspects of previous decades, however, we should not live in the past and fall behind. When we heard all the disadvantages of living in a computerized world, we may feel tempted to reject technology; nonetheless, this latter has so many improvements to offer that it will not be wise to sit comfortably at home and let those advances to pass us by. We must take these new opportunities and live the present. The more information and skills we have on technology, the better lives we can have.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Technology and Education

Not so long ago, having a computer in a classroom was inconceivable. Nowadays, however, we can have not only a computer but also a whole new variety of technological gadgets; this is the most recent trend in education: the incorporation of technology to improve the learning process.

Although it is a new trend, we still have a lot to do in order to fully implement technology in schools. Technology should be considered a priority; along with  reading or science fairs in schools, we should also have technology fairs, where the use of new devices or software can be promoted among children –just as books and research are encourage in the fairs mentioned above. In this modern world, we all need to adjust to technological developments, and thus, we must teach our children the main role technology plays in our lives for them to easily keep pace with it.

Moving to another aspect, children are well aware of technological advances.

For example, an interesting video about some kids teaching their grandparents to use computers and some other devices, like cellphones, was posted online some time ago as part of an electrical appliances store’s advertisement; apart from the popularity the video got in YouTube, we could learn that unlike older people, kids are not afraid of technology but curious and willing to learn more. This is why we should take advantage of their natural disposition towards technology and make their school environment a place where computers and knowledge meet making their learning easier as well as more amusing.

The reality is children are more interested in their gadgets and internet than in physical books. Moreover, they may even feel more comfortable typing on their laptops than grabbing a pencil and writing on a sheet. Here is where fears about paper books disappearing come. Some people –from older generations, mostly- may think this preference towards electronic devices is a threat, but instead of fighting against this new behavior, we should encourage children to continue using technology and –this is essential- to teach them to use it properly.

For all of these reasons, technology should have a stronger presence in schools. In order to improve learning, we need to attune ourselves to this changing world. We must teach our children the benefits that technology has to offer for their education and personal growth. Education must be modernized.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

How far should we go in “improving” our race?

“Never Let me Go” and “Gattaca” are two examples of what most people think when they hear the words “cloning” or “gene therapy”: they think of a world in which humanity is lessen by technological advances (killing people –clones- for the sake of others) and the value of people is measured in terms of good genes (making DNA the definer of our fate).

Are we heading towards this fate? Are we going to be able to manipulate genes in such a way that our kids will be healthy, beautiful and just “perfect”? According to recent research, this is already possible. A clinic in LA, Fertility Institutes, claims being able to “design children” using the existing technology for detecting serious diseases in embryos.

What does this “children design” mean for us? It basically means you can choose your unborn baby’s physical traits, such as eye and hair color, height, weight, complexion, etc. As shocking as this may sound to many of us, there are many people willing to go for it and “create” a beautiful, perfect kid. Just as the statistics of this Fertility Institute show, some of them would even like to improve their kid’s ability to play sports or learn stuff in school.

Here is where we should start asking ourselves how much is too much? We know people would do anything to be “beautiful” –plastic surgery in the 21st century is a great example of that, so then what can we do to avoid this gene therapy from becoming a new method of discrimination and social segregation? (Now, it is a good moment to recall Gattaca’s plot about people being classified according to the quality of their genes).

The answer to this question should be to impose limits to these new technologies. We cannot be narrow-minded and just condemn all kinds of gene therapies. Would you be against preventing a kid to inherit diabetes? Many people believe that gene therapy is just useful for making children beautiful, but in reality, there are so many applications for real medical purposes. Now, for those people who think it is against nature to try to prevent diseases before birth, what about all the medicines and vaccinations humans have invented over the centuries?  Gene therapy is the next step in health care. This is just another way to assure the preservation of humanity.

The key point about this step we are taking is to learn to get a real benefit. We need to see the difference between saving a kid’s life and making him pretty enough for society. Since we know this is not so clear for us as a society who cares too much for physical appearance, we must start drawing the line between these two aspects. Just as getting a boob job is not a life and death situation, having a blue-eyed baby won’t make our lives –or this baby’s life- any better.

To sum up, I think we are just in time to prevent gene therapy to become humanity’s new enemy. We need to raise awareness and stay informed about technological advances. Technology can be our enemy only if we allow it.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Setting some boundaries

By Gabriela Arévalo

How far are we willing to go when it comes to genetic engineering and cloning?  Throughout the years we have experience many revolutions and apparently, the one we are about to participate in is the “genetic revolution”. Nowadays people are really interested in technological breakthroughs, thus, their involvement in making technological innovations a reality has increased dramatically.

Genetic engineering and cloning are two of the main topics in the “genetic revolution”, and they are also two of the main concerns of society. People now have the possibility of “designing “the baby of their dreams or of having two identical babies, so one gets to save the other in case this baby suffers from a serious medical condition. But, what are the implications of this scenario?

There is no doubt that we are capable enough to turn what once was thought as mere science fiction into a reality; however, as attainable as our dreams can be, we are perhaps taking it too far. For example, two of the movies I consider portray the setting where we might be living in the future are “Never let me go” and “Gattaca”. These movies have captured the essence of the situation expecting us down the road.

“Never let me go” shows a new “society” built as a storage place for healthy organs. People living there were set apart as if they had no voice, no rights whatsoever. Nevertheless, when someone was in need for a new healthy organ, those people were the first to be there. In “Gattaca”, there is an actual division where people with bad DNA were considered to be to be “invalid”. People were unhappy, even if they were “valid” human beings, so they were prone to other diseases, like depression.

There has been some discussion about these movies and it always ends in moral issues, and maybe that is where the answer to all the controversy is. People undergoing a fertility treatment are there because they want to have a baby, but is it too much to ask for a blue-eyed baby? Or an athletic baby? I think it is. PGD or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which is the procedure used to avert life-threatening diseases in children, although it is a ground breaking procedure, should hot constitute a tool for people to leave morality aside and start defying the laws of nature.

Genetic engineering and cloning are great inventions; do not get me wrong, but that does not justify our underestimating nature. 

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Is today’s technology making face-to-face social interaction disposable?

By Gabriela Arévalo

Throughout the years we have experienced a variety of important changes thanks to technology: basic commodities such as frozen food or microwaves are now available and it would be really hard for us to break away from them. But what happens when one of these commodities becomes a potential danger to us? A good example for this would be computers. They have been by our side for quite some time and we have built our world around them; however, we do not realize they have originated a predicament in which we do not know whether to talk to each other by means of a machine or face to face.

Our increasing unwillingness to go back to the old days where we had more human contact, because we have gotten used to do everything the easy way is making us lose our personalities and become more and more sedentary and lazy as our use of technology grows bigger (machines do our job, softwares overlook our schedules and we cannot stop playing with our gadgets). Our belief that it is healthier and, thus, better to talk to a computer than to talk to a real person proves that we are still naive on the inside and that we do not want to have better social relationships or even make the effort to have them (healthier in the sense of it being trouble free, convenient or even everybody’s preference). The fact that the Internet is not fully safe (there have been many cases in which young people have been molested by people they met online) makes us wonder if it really was a good idea to put that thing called screen in front of us. These are just some of the disadvantages technology has carried with it.

Now, the benefits are clear to some extent. Computers and, thus, the Internet have transformed our world into a place where we can get a lot of activities done from a remote location (like buying groceries from the supermarket by just ordering them on their web page); they are practical (you do not have to travel long distances if you require information from a governmental office, for example), time saving (searches online are really fast) and easy to use (little children can operate iPads, for example, and they even teach their parents how to use them). Globalization also comes, to a certain degree, from these kinds of technologies; nowadays we have access to bigger loads of information than we did in the past.

To conclude, I personally think technology has provided us with many opportunities. Nonetheless we should be cautious, aware of the consequences of modernization, choose according to what is best for us in the long run, and realize that we as human beings will always have the need of interacting with other people. Technology is great, but it will never replace many of the feelings we get when we do things by ourselves. Therefore I do not consider technology will ever make social interaction disposable, but it will continue to serve us as an instrument a tool to do things our way.

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

E-books, blessing or curse in our modern world?

By Gabriela Arévalo

E-books have been available for over 40 years now, and it seems we have embraced them in every respect. Libraries are now offering free downloadable popular fiction and non-fiction E-books to the public and this has proven to be very practical for both libraries and users. E-books are now as obvious candidates for reading material as the first printed-paper books did in their time, but the fact is that how the public reacts to this technology may determine the future of written literature.

  Although this essay is not meant to discredit E-books, they do have their own set of disadvantages. The tactile loss argument is the most obvious and passionate argument used by readers, but the less serious technologically speaking. In addition to this, there exist several other arguments, which are based on the same principle: the lending argument, which basically states that E-books keep us from sharing books with our friends, re-selling or even buying used books, and the library loss argument, which insists on the fact that we are losing the opportunity to have actual books in our book shelves, are often seen as other obvious disadvantages. Moreover, it is often argued that our appetite for new technological devices has had a major influence on how we judge E-books, and that the various formats they come in make their obtention problematic.

  Nonetheless, the practicality and availability E-books provide make them very hard to reject. The fact that we have more and more reading material available on a screen of a portable device may seem intimidating to those who consider themselves computer illiterate; however, the reasons why people prefer E-books are no ill-founded. E-books are functional and they have been adapting to our society. They offer mobility, convenience, the opportunity to save physical space, money and time, and are easy to use. In essence, they provide us with the right set of circumstances to make our lives a little bit easier and effective because for people who need their reading material to be in hand without having to carry a large bag pack, E-books are the answer.

  My opinion rests on the belief that E-books are made for people who really want and need them. They have evidently become the ultimate reading device, yet this does not mean every person on Earth should start using them. Essentially, both E-books and paper books are competing for exactly the same market, but both are capable of so much more. One will have to change if either is to reach its full potential; we would love to see more visual writing on paper and E-books will have to reach media integration. The truth of the matter is that paper books cannot compete with E-books, but they do not need to, they have enough capacity to be transformed into something totally new and to make us marvel at them. E-books have not killed paper books; they have only given us the opportunity to reinvent them. 

[fuckyeahhightech-blog]

Today, we prevent genetic and medical conditions; tomorrow, we design our own babies. Is there a limit?

In the 1990's science made an advance worth of its own sci-fi movie. A technique called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) was introduced and the world cheered. PGD would help us (through a complex procedure I don't understand) prevent many diseases and medical conditions in the embryo. So far so good. But, of course, we started asking for more, let's be more specific, we started to ask scientists to make our babies beautiful.

I'm going to change the subject for a while, in order to make my way towards the same final point. Since the 80's, people started to consider cloning as a doable way to save lives –that is by taking whatever organ you need from your clone. When this started to get real (with the infamous goat, Dolly) we started to wonder "and what about the clone?" Believe it or not, this dull question created heated debates that stopped all research towards making human cloning viable.

Science fiction helped proving the point that if something talks, fells and want to live, then it deserves that option. For example, the British film Never Let Me Go shows us a group of young clones that have a mind of their own and feeling of their own (because they have never met their "original"), and, still, society sees them as soulless creatures with the sole purpose of giving their organs away.

The concept that unites this argument with the first one is egoism. Trying to lead a healthy life is great but it is not when you put someone else's at risk. If you want to have a healthy child it is okay, take advantage of PGD; however, if you want him/her to be attractive or to be genetically engineered in order to be better at something, then you are doing this for yourself and for society, not for your child. Let me elaborate. Let's take the film Gattaca as an example; in the film, embryos are engineered to be flawless and this creates a society that discredits anyone who is not like this. The main character didn't undergo through a genetic engineering procedure and he has to lie about his identity to fulfill his dreams, which, in the end, he fulfills by himself.

So, we have talked about sci-fi films and the introduction of technologies but what about the actual situation or the main dilemma, when are they okay and when are they wrong?

I believe human cloning is not viable and it will still be limited for research only because it would only create more lives in order to put their health in a risky situation. The real issue is genetic engineering. Like I have said, it is great we are using it to avert diseases, but PGD should not have another use because it would create a more judgemental society, a society where people must be perfect since birth. We have to raise a limit to this so as to not create standards we will never be satisfied with or that we will never be able to fulfill.