Its nice to finally be back on a subject that doesn't involve me getting frustrated with the program (lexia). Idhe is a little easier to get your hands around. My main thought on his classifications between hermeneutic and embodiment is that almost everything I can come up with can be in both categories. I understand how to classify them, but it seems that some technology can even transition from one to the other as you use it. Take the cane for the blind man. While we said it was an embodiment example, I'd challenge it to say it started off as hermeneutic. He had to adapt to the cane at first before it became part of hime, so to speak. Somewhere along the line it became less of an object and more an extension of the arm. Any other items you can think of that fit under both categories, or transitioned from one to the other as they were used?

Perplexed?

Is anyone else thinking that Lexia to Perplexia is completely useless? I sure am. I've clicked around on that site for a while and still don't see any usefulness to it. I hate to say it, but I think that the creator wasted his time. Seriously, what benefit does it give anyone? Even if I wanted to read all the text/writing on the site I couldn't. Most of the time the words are obscured by other images or being overlapped by other words from different columns. I don't know, this is just my opinion. Just to be safe though, no more perplexing by lexia for me...

Hmmmm...

I'm not really sure what to write about this week in here. I've been spending my class time working on a video in iMovie for our projects. Its kind of addicting and I find myself spending way too much time tinkering around with little transitions, effects, and other functions.

We've been spending a lot of time reading texts around a main idea that technology is making life better, more streamlined, or more efficient in some way. While I totally agree with this, I'd also also rebut back by saying that technology also takes up a lot more of my time. So much so, I'd actually say I'm wasting time. Playing with iMovie for a while, before I realize that hours have passed is a perfect example of this. I also wonder how much time I'd save if I wasn't watching so many YouTube clips. Maybe I'd learn a lot more if I didn't bring my laptop to my lectures just to stalk friends on facebook. The list of examples continues, my point exactly. How do you choose to waste your day with technology?

The Soup

We started talking about The Soup last week and I just could resist. Willard Scott is hilarious.

Slippery Slope

Clark opens his last chapter with "The human brain is nature's great mental chameleon." This started me thinking and questioning. Do we really need all this technology and cyborg stuff to advance our daily lives, our society, and our relationships with such speed and efficiency? If we simply concentrate on applying more mental and cognitive power towards all of our tasks, could we achieve similar results without all the computers? Granted, we will never be able to make a cell phone call just by thinking without having it implanted into our heads. I'm arguing that we can to better without the use of implanted, or interactive technologies. We've all heard the line, "people only use 20% of their brain" or whatever the going statistic is now. But what if that is seriously true. Instead of becoming these great natural-born cyborgs, should we be sharpening our own saw. By spending all the resources and energy used in creating advanced machines and technology to instead develop our own god given minds, I think we could make a serious difference in the way people think/act/problem solve. This slippery slope of technology could be a very dangerous path to follow. Without close surveillance, society could easily become more and more dependent on computers to do daily tasks for them. I know we will never be able to escape technology anymore, but I strongly caution you to be aware of how much of your thinking you let something else do for you. The ability to think and relate with others is something that separates people from other "non-cyborg" animals, hopefully we don't lose this ability to a machine that we created.

iAvoid People

There is no debate the iPod has benefited our daily lives. Who would have thought I'd be able to carry thousands of CD's, hundreds of pictures, and even full length movies in my pocket wherever. My walks to class, car rides with parents, and waiting line impatience have all been improved by having a few gigs of "stuff" on a little mp3 player. I can also study by listening to a podcast of a lecture that was given 4 weeks ago. We all know about the benefits, we've seen the commercials, but its not all good.
One of my biggest pet peeves:
Everyone of you that turns their head or completely disappears as soon as those little white earbuds go in needs to take a break for a while. Where have all the people gone? When I walk down State St I either hear nothing (because everyone is in their own iWorld) or I'll catch a 5 second clip of Jock Jams as someone walks past. Seriously, turn it down! If you need to drown out the world around you that much then just stay home. I like to listen on my walk to class as much as anyone else, but I also like to hear if a friend shouts my name (or that bus coming down University). Maybe this rant is in vain, as I'll soon be the owner of another iPod myself. I guess everything is only ok in moderation, and you can get too much of a good thing.

eScientific Method

I’d like to continue the discussion we started picking at in Wednesday’s class about science and the impact writing technology has had on it. It seemed like some of us believed we needed a concrete scientific process/method to ensure the integrity of new findings. Others thought having the ability to adapt and (paradigm) shift is a valuable capability. This aptitude to change would allow for the most efficient and productive way to discover new things, or even correct previous findings that were thought to be true. Writing technology can and will play a big part in this battle between strict science fundamentals and more flowing science ideas. For example, the common practice for spreading scientific ideas is through journals. These take a long time to produce, publish, and have reviewed. Having quicker, more streamlined information avenues such as blogs, wikis, RSS, etc could give new scientific knowledge the power to reach more people, faster. This new paradigm could leap frog scientific ideas out into the world at a rate we never imagined. The potential benefits could be huge, or could this be the beginning of the demise good science?