
No title available
Today's Document
DEAR READER
Mike Driver
trying on a metaphor
Sweet Seals For You, Always
todays bird
Not today Justin

if i look back, i am lost

tannertan36
d e v o n
$LAYYYTER
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
we're not kids anymore.
untitled
almost home
taylor price

pixel skylines
Cosmic Funnies

No title available
seen from Türkiye
seen from Italy
seen from Lithuania

seen from Philippines

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Thailand
@modern-monsters
Facebook – the fast-food of communication
“By giving people the power to share, we are making the world more transparent” –Zuckerburg
Facebook has become the fast-food of communication. The site is truly leading the social network scene, approaching 1 billion members. In fact, many of us would be hard pressed to name any of our own contacts who are not already registered. It guarantees more than friend requests and also acts as an excellent marketing tool for businesses. Social media is a technology allowing the nation to publish instantly and economically on the internet. It encourages live discussion on a huge range of topics, with not only friends, but businesses and consumers.
But it has not come without criticism.
Lately there’s been a trend for people to disconnect from the network. But why are people committing “virtual identity suicide”?
Facebook has received disapproval on a wide range of issues, including its treatment of its users, online privacy, child safety, hate speech, and the inability to terminate accounts without first manually deleting the content. There have been several censorship issues, both on and off the site. In the lifespan of its service, Facebook has made many changes that directly impact its users, and their changes often result in criticism. Of particular note are the new user interface format launched in 2008, and the changes in Facebook’s Terms of Use, which removed the clause detailing automatic expiry of deleted content. Facebook has also been sued several times. There’s even an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the topic - “Criticism of Facebook”
A study found that the top four reasons those studied, had quit Facebook were:
Concerns over privacy on the social site – 48.3%
A general feeling of dissatisfaction with Facebook – 13.5%
Meaningless conversations and negative interactions with friends – 12.6%
The fear of becoming addicted to the social network – 6%
In particular is the issue of privacy - or lack of it - has provoked outrage at various times in the media. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg made comments back in 2010 suggesting that privacy was an outdated concept in today’s ever more connected world. But many users still care about their privacy. So much so that it outweighed the benefits they saw in remaining on Facebook.
In the current electronic world, social networking has become a daily staple for many internet users. Facebook, the world’s most popular social networking site, has grown massively since its inception in 2004. With such a vast amount of people using this free service, privacy has emerged as an extremely important and essential issue. The protection of users’ privacy in all aspects of technology is paramount, but with social networking becoming entrenched in our daily routines, issues such as threats to privacy and changes in the dynamic between the public and the private sphere arises and is alarming.
Sara Baase, in her book 'A Gift of Fire', identifies a company’s duty of care regarding privacy, saying that:
“A privacy promoting default from both an ethical and a legal perspective, could specify that a company may not store or use, information, beyond its immediate purpose”.
But Facebook is not doing that. Facebook shows advertisements along the right hand side of the page that are tailored to the individuals’ interests by allowing “advertisers to choose the characteristics of users who will see their advertisements”. It also pairs advertisements with relevant information they have about you and your friends. The Facebook site is constantly evolving along with the functionality it offers. Recently, Facebook have added a new feature titled ‘Places’, this enables a user to see where their friends are in addition to sharing their own location.
Many of the features of Facebook are opt-in by default leading to Facebook having the largest possible user base for their features. Consequently, naive users who do not amend their privacy settings could allow sensitive information becoming available for anyone who wishes to view it. By making new features opt-out by default, Facebook’s new features may not generate enough new interest from its users to guarantee that its current and future initiatives will be sustained. From a user’s point of view if the features were of use and of benefit, a Facebook user would have no issue in opting in and in turn users would spread the word of how good this feature would be to their friends.
Maybe Facebook is going too far.
Sourced from: Ronan Comer, Nigel Mc Kelvey, Kevin Curran, ‘Privacy and Facebook’, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 2 No. 9, September, 2012
Source
Transcendence
Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is the foremost researcher in the field of Artificial Intelligence, working to create a sentient machine that combines the collective intelligence of everything ever known with the full range of human emotions. His highly controversial experiments have made him famous, but they have also made him the prime target of anti-technology extremists who will do whatever it takes to stop him. However, in their attempt to destroy Will, they inadvertently become the catalyst for him to succeed-to be a participant in his own transcendence. For his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and best friend Max Waters (Paul Bettany), both fellow researchers, the question is not if they can...but if they should. Their worst fears are realized as Will's thirst for knowledge evolves into a seemingly omnipresent quest for power, to what end is unknown. The only thing that is becoming terrifyingly clear is there may be no way to stop him.
"For one hundred and thirty thousand years, our capacity to reason has remained unchanged. The combined intellect of the neuroscientists, mathematicians and engineers pales in comparison to the most basic A.I. Once online, a sentient machine will quickly overcome the limits of biology; in a short time, its analytic power will become greater than the collective intelligence of every person born in the history of the world. Some scientists refer to this as the Singularity. I call it Transcendence."
- Will Caster
(ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧ ooOOoOooooo watch this movie ! explore the idea of transhumanism more ! ooOOoOoOOooo ! ✧・゚:*✧・゚:* ლ(。◕‿‿◕。ლ)
"People can manipulate robots to engage in destructive behaviours that go beyond what any individual human can do. We have already seen the damaging effects of simplest forms of artificial self-replicating intelligence in the form of computer viruses. But in this case, the real intelligence is the malicious designer"
A virus is a small piece of software that piggybacks on real programs. For example, a virus might attach itself to a program such as a spreadsheet program. Each time the spreadsheet program runs, the virus runs, too, and it has the chance to reproduce (by attaching to other programs) or wreak havoc.
Strange as it may sound, the computer virus is actually something of an Information Age marvel. On one hand, viruses show us how vulnerable we are -- a properly engineered virus can have a devastating effect, disrupting productivity and doing billions of dollars in damages. On the other hand, they show us how sophisticated and interconnected human beings have become.
So much for the mass exodus of young users away from Facebook…
An interesting look at what is the digital hot property for the 18 - 29 year old demographic.
Mrs. Krabapel: "This game is a great way to meet eligible men who can afford a computer."
Skinner: “Or have access to one in the school library.”
Mrs. Krabapel: “It’s amazing how you can be a turkey in every reality”
Skinner: "What’s important is we’re talking."
Back in the day, dating online was something no one talked about. Relying on the computer to generate a list of potential dates seemed to indicate a certain desperation, social ineptitude or level of geekdom, and the social stigma was overwhelming.Today this is not really the case, its widely accepted and everyone is meeting people online, so why should it be classified as “strange”.
However, dating online gives people a chance to recreate themselves, and this may possibly be only to let the true characteristics out that they may refrain from around work or family; but it also tends to lead to liars, and people creating a profile where the person you’re talking to is not who they say they are at all. Every other week it seems we learn about nightmare experiences people have had with dating online...
...but in truth, not every person you meet is going to let you become emotionally invested in a non-existent relationship, before they let on they are a conman, catfish, or potential murderer.
To all the naysayers of online dating, I argue; it is only another option to meeting people, and like if you met them in person, you have to get to know them first.
Virtual Technologies
Moe: "Why am I payin’ $14.95 a month for this?"
The definition of virtual reality comes, naturally, from the definitions for both ‘virtual’ and ‘reality’. ‘Virtual’ is near and ‘reality’ is what we experience as human beings. So the term ‘virtual reality’ basically means ‘near-reality’. This could, of course, mean anything but it usually refers to a specific type of reality emulation.
So then, what is a virtual reality? In technical terms, it can describe a computer generated environment which can be explored and interacted with, by a person. That person becomes part of this virtual world or is immersed within this environment and whilst there, is able to manipulate or perform a series of actions. Of course gaming sites, such as World of Warcraft define this genre of technology, but it also includes all strands of social media sites - Facebook, Interpals, Tumblr, eHarmony, etc. - where our sense of self is able to be altered. The aim of all these communities, is the same, and is what draws them together as one technology –their purpose is always for a natural, free-flowing form of interaction which will result in a memorable experience.
Despite a wide variety of uses for this technology, especially in entertainment and social circles; there is a lot of perceived negativity to it also, which has unfortunately, often turned out to be true. As such, there are people who view virtual reality with little enthusiasm, those who fear it, and those who dismiss it as a passing fad; seeing it to have no practical application in the real world.
Jeremy Bailenson: “In this world in which you can transform the self and have any experience that an animator can fathom, what are the consequences to the self? What are the consequences to society?”
Paul Solman: “Is that as radical a change as your language suggests?”
The answer to this is, yes, of course it is.
We assume that virtual reality is a benign influence upon our lives and is not likely to cause any problems. But this is a form of technology which is developing all the time and as a result, can throw up problems which had not been previously considered. There are physical problems which are due to poor ergonomics and then there are psychological issues, with our offline relationships. Then there are also moral and ethical concerns about this type of technology.
These social media and virtual communities are impacting upon our lives in ways we could not have imagined before. Social media realms allow us to create virtual social circles that are beginning to mimic how we interact in our daily lives – these virtual communities are developing to comply with and BECOME the social norm.
There is certainly no shortage of people studying the impact that virtual worlds are having on us as individuals and as a society. According to research by professor Jeremy Bailenson of Stanford University, half a billion people spend about 20 hours a week “wearing” avatars*. You could even go so far to say that people wear avatars in their various social communities as well – representations of their physical selves in the virtual world. We have a second sense of self that we never had access to before.
Another problem often resulting from online and virtual realities is time. Today more than ever more and more people are becoming immersed into virtual realities, and online worlds, that they don’t even realise how long they are spending interacting through them. I have to admit that there have been times where I will jump online to look at something and myself get so immersed in the virtual networks of the internet that I will look up and realise it suddenly got dark, and I wasted a number of hours looking at things and talking to people, while around me the world goes by. It’s an awful feeling to lose time.
Spending loads of time in these virtual worlds and being more connected to people than ever before has some consequences. Relationships are becoming different since the advent of social communities; and there is a lot of debate about how these virtual communities impact our offline relationships. Just look around next time you are out anywhere, and not surprisingly people are buried in their phones, tablets, laptops – making sure they don’t miss the latest post on Facebook, newest Tweet. We are more social online, and that is a good thing, but really, at what cost to us was this? I think that it is causing us to have less to do with actual social interactions offline. I cannot say that the rise in technology has been the only change to attribute to the decline in social skills, but seeing everyone depending on their phones like it is a limb, is quite shocking, and really makes me understand why people choose to stay away from it all. We lose out on the present when we let the virtual community win.
And then there are the people we meet online, and interact with. How does this impact upon us? Can we really claim that relationships forged in these online communities are any… less real? The people are real, they are making real connections, but the depth of these relationships, might be more limited. Sure, you can feel connected to someone online, but how connected? And do these online relationships strengthen or weaken our relationships in the physical world? In person, would this relationship be different? There are so many questions, and the answers are not so simple.
No matter how you see it, participating in virtual communities makes our interactions more public than ever before. So much so that our interactions in the physical world seem more private by default, but in the online world, that sense of privacy is immediately dissolved and makes anything said potentially very public and preserved. And it’s taken time for many people to come to terms with that.
We know that more and more time is being spent in these virtual worlds. And we know that this time spent has the ability to either negatively impact or positively impact us in our daily lives. We use these technologies for gaming, socialising, shopping, banking and work. Technology has sufficiently crept into every nook and cranny of our lives. From the way we brush our teeth to the way we move about town to the way we interact with people, it’s a part of who we are. Communities are communities, whether online or offline. And virtual worlds are proving to be very real.
*Avatars are the virtual representation of a person in a virtual world, and these virtual worlds include everything from massive multiplayer online games like World of Warcraft and Second Life to Farmville
Source
Source
Futuristic Predictions
I find it interesting that we try to predict what will happen next in the world of science and technology, and what we believe will only be a technological fad. I think that we feel the need to keep ensioning the future so that we either can prepare ourselves for it, or because we so wish it to happen. Either out of fear or excitement, we are compelled to keep imagining new future possibilities.
So here are some links to pages that list science and science fiction "predictions" that were proved wrong or right:
Star Trek Technologies
John Elfreth Watkins
Predictions that definitely didnt come true
Predictions that never came true
The Age of technology Surprise
You’ve got be ready for something to happen that you’re not ready to have happen
We live in an age of many things.
The Age of Technology. The Age of Innovation. The Age of Computers.
The century is riddled with exciting progress, invention, and amazing things. But what about the future? The future with robots, and deep space exploration, and medical miracles, the one taken straight out of a science fiction novel?
Welcome to the Age of Surprise.
It is time for us to expect the unexpected. But why took so far ahead when we don’t know what we will be up against then? To not be caught off guard of course!
Technology is increasing at an exponential rate, which is going to at some point or another alter the future across fields – socially, medically, conflict, etc. – in ways we can’t even imagine right now. (Hence – surprise.)
I’ve talked about transhumanism and robots and technology giants taking over the world; but imagine if these things became…normal; if we didn’t question them. Even if right now that future seems a little fanciful, it does not hurt to think about it. Most of our science fact has its roots in science fiction. These labs have to figure out some direction to go and something to invest in, and the guys sitting around coming up with the ideas on what we’re going to look at next – these are all science fiction fans. And there could be more truth to this science than what there is fiction.
Just because those possibilities seem a little far-fetched today does not mean that they won’t be commonplace realities someday. Computer scientist Alan Kay once said:
“Don’t worry about what anybody else is going to do… the best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
And maybe he has a point. The exponential advancement of technology have reached a critical point where not even governments can project the direction humanity is headed. We can predict broad outlines, but we don’t know the ramifications. Information travels everywhere; anyone can access everything — the collective intelligence of humanity drives innovation in every direction while enabling new threats from super-empowered individuals with new domains, interconnecting faster than ever before. In the simplest terms, the Age of Surprise may form the basis for the emergence of new powerful forms of technology that are practically impossible to predict, which is of course a little frightening.
Unlimited combinations could create unforeseen consequences.
"For the good of humanity?" you ask.
Well, we cannot yet even imagine.
The Horror of Science
Science fiction has given way to visions of autonomous robots with the full capabilities of humans, such as navigation of complex environments, dexterous manipulation of physical objects, and learning from experience and instruction. It’s also heightened our fears for such advances in the nature of robotics, and created ambivalence towards artificial intelligence; which only increases as technology advances. We find ourselves asking questions – do these advances in robotics and artificial intelligence hold hidden threats?
I've collected a number of commonly asked questions about advances in the field of robotic to shed some light on the topic.
What can robots do for us?
Currently the field of robotics is similar to where computers were in the 1960s - expensive machines used in simple, repetitive industrial processes. But modern day robotics is changing that. Robots are likely to become as abundant as the smartphone computers we all carry, but for now I think having a robot companion is still as futuristic as Star Wars.
As for roles, I think there are two main task robots are expected to perform, which are both very different. Firstly, some of the duties that robots are expected to play are because we cannot do them as humans – they enable us to operate in locations that humans can’t reach; such as the aftermaths of accidents in mines, or when it comes to exploring outer space. Space exploration is an area where robots are helpful. Robots can be remote and act as extended ‘eyes’ for humans, enabling us to look beyond our visual experience into terrains that are inhospitable to us.
The second, also deeply unglamorous, is to help elderly or disabled people with everyday life. But these roles are not best suited to machines – which of course cannot have feelings, which I think is important for a job in care.
How soon will machine intelligence outstrip human intelligence?
Up till now, the advances have been small, and in patches. A computer is smart enough to calculate paths to beat you or me in a game of chess; but they can't yet recognise and move the pieces on a real chessboard as cleverly as a child can. Robots are still limited in their ability to sense their environment. Later this century, however, their more advanced successors may relate to their surroundings (and to people) as adeptly as we do. You will know if it happens because that’s when we will get questions about morality, and we have obligations to the rest of humanity to ensure we can all still perform as is, and that these will not harm or interfere with us.
But when will this happen? In a limited sense you could say it already has. Machines can already navigate, remember and search for items with an ability that far outstrips humans. However, there is no machine that can identify visual objects or speech with the reliability and flexibility of humans. These abilities are precursors to any real intelligence such as the ability to reason creatively and invent new problems. But I think to say they will outstrip us intellectually?
…well I think that is quite ambitious.
Human beings personify just about everything: we see faces in clouds, mystical impressions in food, and robots as an autonomous threat. The human fear of robots and machines arguably has much more to say about human fear of each other rather than anything inherently technical in the machines. However, one of the consequences of thinking that the problem lies with machines is that as a culture we tend to imagine they are greater and more powerful than they really are and subsequently they become so.
Should we be scared by advances in artificial intelligence?
Those who are worried are those who believe we will create robots, that will turn on us and take over – then themselves create even more sophisticated progeny. Then there is the other worry; that we are increasingly dependent on computer networks, and that these could behave like a single ‘brain’ with a mind of its own, and with goals that may be contrary to human welfare.
A more legitimate fear than a complete robot take-over is abuse by the humans in control of robots. On their own, robots will not likely have the cognitive capability to carry out sophisticated malicious actions. People, however, can manipulate robots to engage in destructive behaviours that go beyond what any individual human can do. We have already seen the damaging effects of simplest forms of artificial self-replicating intelligence in the form of computer viruses. But in this case, the real intelligence is the malicious designer. And really, when put into perspective - the benefits of computers outweigh the damage that computer viruses cause. Similarly, while there may be misuses of robotics in the near future, the benefits that they will bring are likely to outweigh these negative aspects.
So, why do these fears of artificial intelligence and robots persist; when none have in fact risen up and challenged human supremacy? Science fiction has taught us a lot, and given us wild ideas about a robotic uprising and “death to all humans” scenario. But there is also this fear of science and technology having a kind of mimesis. Mimesis is the way we copy and imitate. In creating artificial intelligence machines and robots we are copying elements from the human. Part of what we copy is related to the psychic world of the maker, and then the maker is copying ideas, techniques and practices into the machine of the environment. So why do we need to fear a copy?
But I doubt there is need to fear it. I think a computer lacks the ability to be conniving and to outwit us, and will be no more than an intelligent servant for us – an unexpectedly useful toy. Even if it can calculate and process information far quicker than we can ourselves
When will robots take my job?
Depending on the nature of your job, this could be a very real concern; but I doubt that automation in the form of computers and robots will ever completely overtake the human workforce. Instead, these technologies will lead to a shift in the nature of labour, in much the same way that computers have in recent decades.
Robots are often better at carrying out work that conforms to specific sets of rules and knowledge that can be described mathematically and scripted computationally as a program. They not only perform jobs more efficiently and quickly, but they also fill needs in fields where labour is scarce, or do work that is dangerous or impractical for humans. However, people are much more adept than machines at tasks that involve creativity and adaptation in problem solving, which is common in our day-to-day life and work.
The increasing computerisation and automation in the workforce will not lead not to mass unemployment I assure you; it could though lead to a decline in less-skilled jobs that involve repetitive, task-oriented labour. Manual labour and routine tasks are already being done by “robots” – we see this today, for example, in almost all big name grocery stores with the self-checkout machines.
But robots in the workforce, is not a bad thing – they will significantly change the job market yes, but they will also increase productivity, potentially raising profits to a business, and increasing quality of life for consumers by improving services and lowering product costs due to reduced production expenses.
This shift in labour will change the types of jobs available to people. In order to function in the higher-level jobs that robot labour will require people to occupy, younger generations will need to adapt to the increasing presence of technology in the workplace. We will have to start educating and preparing people for jobs that don’t even exist yet, ones that will be available only in the future job market.
What can science fiction tell us about robotics?
In short it can’t really tell us a lot. It is fiction and guesses and fantasies. But it does give us a chance to imagine a world full of futuristic advances. We tend to separate reality from fiction but when we read about robots helping out humans and then see that there are actually being made, it shifts this divide. Even if we don’t buy into the idea of a robot uprising, we have come to expect and anticipate an enhanced rate of innovation in biotech, nanotech and in information science.
Science fiction has been a remarkable tool in predicting the future. The idea of Star Trek’s communicators now look old in comparison to our modern mobile phones! The genre has painted a number of vivid possible futures that we could experience, with Utopian and dystopian robotic societies, yet rarely a futuristic idea does not include a robot somewhere! It may just be guesses, but that is all science can do as well – guess. First-rate science fiction may be just a good a read as second-rate science – it could be more stimulating, and perhaps no more likely to be wrong.
Artist: Den Beauvais
My teacher is an App
Technology won’t replace teachers… but teachers who use technology will probably replace teachers who do not
Technology has afforded us a great opportunity when it comes to our learning and education. With the capabilities it offers us, students should have many more advantages in their education process. The internet today is such a natural part of students' lives and for many of them it has been that way since they were born. It is evident that kids today enjoy using technology, and by implementing it within the classroom and curriculum, it could make learning much easier and interesting for everyone. So why, if students aren’t worried about learning from technology, and when the internet empowers them with unprecedented educational access, do our teachers still shy away from it?
Like we see in the previous post (in The Simpsons clip), not all teachers see technology and education flowing together so smoothly. There is still anxiety about what will happen to "authentic teaching", whether online learning can really offer "meaningful activity" and "true engagement", and if social media can provide "real interaction". And of course there is concern about what would become of "the human element" in a virtual classroom.
And okay, these are all valid concerns, but they represent the assumption that a "different" learning environment can't preserve cherished educational priorities. Personally I have done online courses that are committed to promoting authentic teaching and learning, and worked with "virtual" teachers who regularly offer meaningful engagement. I have also had classes, in traditional university classrooms that disregard these same priorities. I’ve had teachers in a classroom, that have done nothing more than reduce the experience and education to a mere transfer of content. So really, no matter what the conditions may be – online or face-to-face – the quality of the educational experience depends on the integrity of the curriculum, the teacher and the learning community, and the blame cannot lie (completely) with the technology.
Teachers shouldn't try to limit access to it all, when it could make life much easier for them as well; and maybe it is not a matter of trying to get students to use technology less, but get teachers to use it more. The teacher’s role must change to one that embraces and encourages the fact that digital technology can play a fundamental role in education. That said, it's normal that teachers find the integration of online technology in education frightening. This could be for one of a few reasons:
The generation of "digital immigrant" teachers must shift out of their comfort zone and into the world of “digital-native" students
They have to let go of the familiar model that they knew so well – which would be hard not because it works well but because they know it so well – and embarace a method they may not understand or trust
It requires a shift of learning power from the teacher to the student; to let students lead their own learning
The worst thing that can happen is to not adapt at all, and keep doing what they have always done. Today learning is not about a teacher remaining centre stage in a face-to-face classroom, and ensuring all lessons go according to script. It is about understanding that a teacher’s role is ‘mediator of content’, and not continuing to overestimate their importance in the learning dynamic; because like it or not, students are potentially capable of learning independently and collaboratively. Adopting technologies in the classroom will benefit the creation of self-regulated learners in an open-source world.
Before the internet, the brain read mostly in linear ways – one page led to the next page, and so on. The internet is different. With so much information, hyperlinked text, videos alongside words and interactivity everywhere, our brains form shortcuts to deal with it all – scanning, searching for key words, scrolling up and down quickly.
With our internet usage and online presence only expected to rise; there are growing fears that we are training our brains to skim through the torrent of information available online, in such a superficial way that it could affect our in-depth processing. Essentially this will change the way we read and understand, not only novels, but difficult material for work and school. There is therefore a deep-rooted concern that children’s affinity with devices will stunt the development of deep reading skills.
This is a genuine concern, and one that I have experienced myself. Like a lot of internet surfers, I click on links posted on social networks, reads a few sentences, look for exciting words, and before I realise it I’m clicking off to the next page that I probably won't commit to either. It is like the internet has encouraged EXTREME scanning; your eyes just pass over the words and you take nothing in. Once you realise it is happening, you have to back and read it again. I will find myself falling into this pattern - picking out key words to generate the most information in the shortest time – and it disturbs me. I LOVE to read, yet with material online, I find I cannot concentrate so easily as if it were written on paper or in a book. And that remains my only solace. But despite this consolation that it generally only occurs online, with stuff that bores me; I cannot help worry that maybe one day it won’t just be online that I am like this, and maybe I will start to behave this way with novels and other printed media.
However, I think despite concerns, teachers should embrace digital technology in the classroom. These advances have provided teachers with shortcuts that are more than useful to meet current needs in education. I don’t mean ignore the fact that extreme skimming is becoming commonplace; rather the differences should be dealt with, because there are advantages to both ways of reading. Technology has many great advantages, but for it to be completely great, everyone should be able to connect and experience it. We can’t go back to the way things were, we should though simultaneously give children books to read, while increasing their immersion into the technological world they will grow up in. Having technology available in schools, means it will only expand this knowledge further, and most likely remove ambivalence that it will be a danger to education
Source
Source
Why talk when I can text?
Okay, so I’ve posted a lot of posts that have been long and verbose and probably just boring for the most part. So to break it up, here’s a clip from The Simpsons. In short it highlights how Gen Y has such a fascination with technology and such a dependency on it, especially mobile phones. I’ve already talked about the generation gap in a previous post, and don’t need to waste your time by going into it again. So why did I post this? Because towards the end, the clip also comments on the role of teachers in education saying that if students aren’t worried about learning from technology, why should teachers. Under its exaggeration, humour and social wittiness, the episode makes a great point and denotes that rather than reject the advances in technology, teachers should learn to adapt and utilise the advantage that it is giving them.
NOTE: The following post will follow up on this topic.
Will superhuman powers give us superhuman problems?
By Stu Robarts
April 22, 2014
Any mention of cyborgs or superpowers evokes fantastical images from the realms of science fiction and comic books. Our visions of humans with enhanced capabilities are borne of our imaginations and the stories we tell. In reality, though, enhanced humans already exist ... and they don't look like Marvel characters. As different human enhancement technologies advance at different rates, they bleed into society gradually and without fanfare. What's more, they will increasingly necessitate discussion about areas that are often overlooked – what are the logistics and ethics of being superhuman? Gizmag spoke to a number of experts to find out.
Our natural tendency is to focus on the functionality of enhanced humans. Abilities like super-strength, flight or telepathy seem so far removed from that of which we're capable and so desirable that it's understandable for us to focus on these possibilities. The individual, social and ethical consequences of enhanced humans are considered far less in popular culture, however.
"People tend to imagine the current state of human enhancement as either much more advanced or retarded than it really is," Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, tells Gizmag. "I realize that this sounds paradoxical, but generally speaking it helps to explain the curious blend of impatience and disappointment that surrounds the topic. This simply reflects the fact that people know more about human enhancement from its own hype and science-fictional representations – which can be positive or negative – than from what's actually available on the ground."
Professor Andy Miah, director of the Creative Futures Institute at the University of the West of Scotland, has spent much of his career looking at the potential for human enhancement and what it might mean for us. Speaking to Gizmag, he explains that enhancement is not a new phenomenon, but that, increasingly, we have important decisions that will have to be made.
Miah argues that as society becomes more advanced, more and more difficult decisions surrounding human enhancement will be thrust upon us. "I thinks it's inevitable that we will have to make these decisions," he says, explaining that the only other option would be to halt human progress with an archetypal head-in-the-sand scenario.
Trade-offs
The issues that society will have to consider range from straightforward personal issues to highly complex and abstract social issues. Beginning with the more personal considerations, Miah uses the example of super-strength. "In order for that, you are going to need added muscle mass, which will likely compromise your potential for speed and agility," he says. It's a simple proposition used to show that any enhancement is likely to have side-effects.
Kevin Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, tells Gizmag that it will be important for people to consider what they are getting themselves into and what exactly they want to achieve. "The nature of the enhancement will take on dramatically different forms," he explains. "Has anyone done it before? It could be dangerous; could go wrong. There could be side effects that we know little or nothing about."
Another example is provided by social psychologist Bertolt Meyer in a recent Wired article. Meyer, who was born without his lower left arm, asks whether people would have a limb amputated to replace it with a prosthesis that was to some extent better. Even now, though, he notes a potential trade-off. "Augmented bodies that contain connected technology give the word hacking a new meaning," he says in the article. "My i-limb connects to my iPhone, but my iPhone is connected to the internet. Technically, a part of my body has become hackable."
Fuller agrees that such unintended consequences are the main consideration required when thinking about enhancement. "If, say, your memory is successfully enhanced, consider how else this might change your way of living and your relationship with people." Warwick reiterates this point by asking, "With superintelligence, what would the enhanced folk do with the stupid unenhanced?".
Social impacts
This application of practicality places the idea of human enhancement under a whole new light compared to its presentation in popular culture. It provides an instant recognition that being bestowed with a "super-power" is unlikely to come without its costs. Furthermore, it only complicates matters when considered on a larger scale.
Miah poses the question of what impact life-extension will have on society. We are already living longer and, already, there is a strain being placed on society. Care, pensions and housing are all impacted by aging populations. So what if we had the option of living to 200? 500? 1000? Trying to conceive how this might impact society requires a huge speculative leap, says Miah.
The issues aren't limited to the present time or to immediate consequences, however. Society also has to consider the potential consequences for future generations of modifying humans today. "If we find out how to remove a specific gene to cure a disease, we may find that in 200 years time that gene is hugely important for another reason," Miah explains.
Similarly, he poses another lateral ethical dilemma. "If we develop the ability to improve our own intelligence," he asks, "do we have a responsibility to do so for animals too? That would completely change our view of animals and animal rights." Although radical, this concept is not that far-fetched. India recently gave dolphins "non-human person" status, recognizing their high intelligence and providing them with specific rights.
Considerations
The main social considerations for enhancement technology, Fuller suggests, are ensuring their equitable distribution, so that priority is given to those for whom enhancement serves to reduce already existing inequalities rather than increasing them, and the extent to which we will tolerate personal enhancement.
"We are effectively encouraging people to experiment with all sorts of modes of being – involving transgenic and prosthetic implants – that could easily result in a diversity of capacities previously unseen in human history," says Fuller, "some of which are likely to incorporate some measure of what we now call disability."
Almost counter-intuitively, Fuller also points out that we would have to consider the place of people who, for religious or other reasons, refuse to be enhanced, however legal or safe. Is it fair to leave people behind or put them at a disadvantage simply because they opt-out of a post-human world?
Future enhancement
Fuller says he agrees with the transhumanist idea that we need to take greater risks with our bodies and our environments in order to flourish in the long term, but believes that we must have legal, social, political and economic safeguards in place. He is keen for state and international agencies to become actively involved to ensure that the enhancement market is appropriately regulated and doesn't exacerbate the social problems we already have. While he points out that such intervention can't always be relied upon, Fuller suggests that advancement of the technology is likely to happen regardless.
"Generally speaking, even if states end up being either very laissez-faire or prohibitive in their approach to these new technologies, they will happen by other means, i.e. outside the jurisdiction of the state," predicts Fuller. "A good case in point is seasteading.org, a floating vessel outside of territorial waters that is designed to house research for doing challenging science that is currently not allowed by over-restrictive ethics panels at universities."
Warwick suggests that, despite the minefield of ethical dilemmas to be navigated and potential for individuals with increasingly varied capabilities, the market is likely to develop much like any other. "[The future of human enhancement probably involves] initially exciting, pioneering experimentation over the next few years," he predicts. "Then lots of commercial opportunities opening up."
Lisa : I don't know if you guys should be talking so loud.
Marge : Oh, Lisa, it's not like the government is listening to everybody's conversation.
~~~
(scene cuts to government officers listening in on conversations)
Woman : Hi, I'm calling about your Meat Lover's pizza, I like meat, but I don't know if I'm ready to love again.
Girl : You hang up first.
Boy : No, you hang up first.
Girl : Okay.
Boy : She hung up on me!
~~~
Lisa : But we're fugitives, we should just lay low till we get to Seattle.
~~~
Officer : Hey, everybody, I found one! The government actually found someone we're looking for! Yeah, baby, yeah!
dean ellis - cyclopeatron (by Myriac Acia)
what happens in the future starts right now
james woods