Reading Assignment #7--Slade's Made To Break pgs. 1-81

Hello dear followers. This week Professor Ferguson asked us to read a book by Giles Slade entitled, "Made To Break". After reading the first 3 chapters, I have decided that we as a people highly contribute to technological waste. In our world every day people throw away lots of valuable technology waste. We create a lot of waste and turn our world into a dirty place. According to Slade, we are always in search of the latest model; we in turn participate in what he calls, "the annual model change" (29). In 2004, 315 million working PCs were thrown out in North America alone, and in the following year over 100 million cell phones joined them on the trashheap. That's tons of electronic equipment with non-biogradable components and toxic waste-filling up garbage dumps around the world.

What drives this rush to trash? According to Slade, it obsolescence, rather than failure. Your last computer likely didn't wear out-you junked it because a faster, lighter, and spiffier one came out. We don’t repair things, we throw things away. It appears that a throw-away society. We throw away household appliances, cell phones, computers and yes, even cars rather than repair the broken item. Even when we want to repair or recycle an item we learn we can’t do it.

While American history is often portrayed as the history of innovation, it is also the history of waste. Made to Break is the history of an industrial strategy that has come to define this country; a strategy that has taught us to buy, throw away and buy again, and that now must change because we have run out of room to safely dump all our unwanted, used-up or obsolete possessions. This book examines the issue of "planned obsolescence" and its role in causing Americans to buy more products than what they could have done if companies were more committed to quality. Planned obsolescence leads to a product having a "death date." Slade's book also looks at how such developments as annual models of cars led to consumers getting rid of good vehicles for more trendy replacements. Both company advertising and consumer's love of the new have helped lead to an explosion in both sales of new products and also the amount of garbage that is disposed of every year. 

Reading Assignment #6--Dalby's The World And Wikipedia pgs. 114-225

Good evening dear followers. So this week's assignment for my Technology & Culture In America class was to finish reading Andrew Dalby's book: The World And Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality. While I was finishing reading this rather dull book I must say I began to become focused on the main title more and more; "how we are editing reality". In my opinion we edit reality everyday; whether it be websites such as Wikipedia, magazine cover shots such as Elle or Cosmo, or reality tv program footage such as The Jersey Shore or The Housewives Of New Jersey.

In regards to website editing like Wikipedia I found an interesting article online. Back in August of 2006 Stephen Colbert on an episode of The Colbert Report, "praised Wikipedia for "wikiality," the reality that exists if you make something up and enough people agree with you - it becomes reality" (newsvine.com). Colbert's subsequent examples to prove "wikiality" would cause chaos on the site, and lead an administrator to subsequently block his account. In his segment Colbert goes on to declare that he doesn't believe George Washington had slaves. "If I want to say he didn't that's my right, and now, thanks to Wikipedia *taps keyboard* it's also a fact"--says Stephen Colbert. By Colbert addressing this on his show I agree with him in the sense that he is saying people are too lazy to take the time to verify things, they just go with the first search engine hit that pops up. The point is that uncritical minds believe everything they read.

In regards to magazine advertising, it’s no surprise that advertisers, and marketers use the “art” of airbrushing photographs to alter what reality looks like and to convey a certain type of image. Covers of magazines show flawless actors, actresses, singers, and models. We’re all aware of this as consumers. We know these models don’t really look the way they are portrayed on the glossy pages, but for some reason we’re okay with it. We still go ahead and buy the products being advertised or the clothes being modeled. Then we get upset when the bathroom cabinet piles up with a collection of face washes that never really worked, cover –ups that advertise miracles and provide none and mascara that claims to never clump and does so after the first use. Still surprised that Vanessa Hudgens appears to have no zits as she advertises for Neutrogena’s skin clearing cleansers? Don’t be. Two words: Adobe Photoshop. This is how magazines edit reality.

One of the attractions of reality television is the supposed "reality" of it; unscripted and unplanned situations and reactions. One of the ethical problems of reality television is the fact that it isn't nearly as "real" as it pretends to be. At least in dramatic shows one can expect the audience to understand that what they see on the screen doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the actors' lives; the same, however, cannot be said for heavily edited and contrived scenes on sees on reality shows. Why are we so intrigued by it; why do we have to watch? I suspect that people's ability and willingness to take pleasure in the suffering and humilitation of others may stem from the increasing separation we experience from others around us. The more distant we are from each other as individuals, the more readily we can objectify each other and fail to experience sympathy and empathy when others around us suffer. The fact that we are witnessing events not in front of us but rather on television, where everything is has an unreal and fictional air about it, probably aids in this process as well.

Whether it's Wikipedia, magazine covers, or reality tv shows--we edit reality everyday. Editing reality is a lot easier then you have been led to believe, anyone can do it, and that's the problem.

Solo Current Event Presentation-October 13, 2010

I presented a very interesting article for discussion for my solo current event presentation. I discussed the topic of "Should students, teachers be Facebook friends"? Facebook and other social networking sites are more popular than ever. Whether students and teachers should be "friends" on these sites has become a controversial topic. As Facebook, Twitter and others have grown in popularity, more and more U.S. teachers have reportedly being disciplined--even fired--for sharing photos and messages deemed inappropriate by their school system. I've been reading several cases of teachers having to resign or being suspended for writing inappropriate things on Facebook. A Massachusetts teacher was asked in August to resign after posting comments on her Facebook wall describing students as "germ bags" and parents as "snobby" and "arrogant". Although the teacher said she intended the comments for her close friends only, her privacy settings were open enough that others in her town could see what she had to say.

Where does the line between professional and personal life lie? In my opinion if you wouldn't say it in the classroom don't use it in some other media that may get out to students and parents. You can say those things privately all you want, but if it gets out to the wrong people or students and parents, then it becomes the school's business. Facebook can be a valuable tool for classrooms...but remember if teachers extend the classroom to cyberspace, the rules go with them. Having a school or class-related Facebook page (for clubs, sports, fundraising) could be a way for teachers to use the site professionally to cancel practice or send out reminders. It seems as if younger teachers in particular seem to have a hard time limiting Facebook correspondence. For teachers fresh out of college, social networking is a natural part of their world. In the end Facebook is not going away and it is a great way to communicate, teachers just need to know how to use it appropriately.

Reading Assignment #5--Dalby's The World And Wikipedia pgs. 7-113

Good evening dear followers. This week we were asked to start reading the book, "The World And Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality". Dalby begins Chapter 1 by giving us some insight to wikipedia by showing us the "wikipedians" at work. I did not know that an internet guru named Jimmy Wales co-founded Wikipedia. Jimmy seems to take an everyday interest in Wikipedia by actively deleting pages, banning users and unfortunately receiving tons of email of people writing to him. Moving on, I especially liked the wiki-article that Dalby addressed on "Bacon Mania"; bacon seems like a huge American staple to me. I mean afterall who doesn't like a nice bacon, egg and cheese breakfast sandwich in the morning; or a nice bacon and eggs breakfast platter.

In Chapter 2, Dalby explains to us exactly were Wikipedia came from; he mentions three types books that helped them to come up with the Wikipedia idea. The encyclopedia, the dictionary and finally the sourcebook. Starting us out Dalby talks to us about "Pliny the Elder". Pliny was a Roman author, personal friend of the Emperor, and an obsessive collector of knowledge. I was interested to learn that Wikipedia has a "three-revert-rule, which does allow someone to revert the same page three times in a 24 hour period" (p.20). It also looks like that Pliny was the first known author to use the word encyclopaedia; which we spell encyclopedia in this day and age. In describing the dictionary he tells us that a dictionary is just a list of alphabetical words; whereas an encyclopedia enhances that list of words adding facts and ideas. The last item is the sourcebook. A sourcebook according to Dalby is a collection of books or articles all bound together.

In Chapter 3, "Nicholas Carr, a critic of excessive claims regarding the benefits of IT" (p.54), states that Wikipedia is basically useful for a quick search or response but is indeed "factually unreliable and shoddily written" (p. 55). This chapter seemed to go over alot of people and there distaste for Wikipedia. in my opinion people seem to "hate" Wikipedia because they assume anyone can edit it or that it is just hearsay and not factual information.

In Chapter 4, Dalby talks about "why we use Wikipedia"? I personally use Wikipedia all the time and I love it. Do I use it to write papers, NO. Do I use to to find out facts about a subject I knew nothing about? YES. I can't remember the last time it failed to quickly and correctly answer my question. So who should I trust? The academics who tell me not to trust Wikipedia, or my positive personal experiences with it? I guess as I read further into this book I may come up with an answer to my question. Until next time.

Cyber Bullying

Since our discussion in class last Wednesday (October 6th) I have been giving this cyberbullying topic alot of thought. I wanted to take some time and share it here on my blog. It's difficult to find a student in 2010 who doesn't text, tweet or go on Facebook every day. The basic definition of cyberbullying is this: willfull and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones and other electronic devices. In this day and age everyone gets involved in everything but it's not face-to-face. It use to be that if you were being bullied once you got home you escaped it; nowadays kids seems to be experiencing it 24/7. When bullying is happening to your face you can confront them, but in this case you can't really stop a bully if you don't even know who that bully is. I wonder this, does cyberbullying start because the bully feels he or she wouldn't be able to take on their victim in a physical fight? In my opinion parents need to monitor what's going on with their kids; parents talk to their kids about sex, drugs, and drinking but what they need to do is stay active in their child's life. By staying active and listening to your kids you make them feel like they can talk to you about anything that is happening with them.

Reading Assignment #4--Postman's Technopoly pgs. 92-199

Good evening dear followers. Now that I have finished reading this book, "Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology", I feel as though Postman made some very good points. Unfortunately getting to those points seemed a bit of a chore; it was sometimes so much information to read that it would take every bit of motivation I had to just finish a page. In Chapter 6, he roasts the medical industry's infatuation with new technology while the doctors neglect their patients. Patients invariably are reduced to slabs of meat on a assembly line. He makes the salient point that information is not understanding, which is usually ignored by most promoters of technopoly. I especially found this quote surprising, "Although the U.S. and England have equivalent life-expectancy rates, American doctors perform six times as many cardiac bypass operations per capita as English doctors do".

In Chapter 9, he discusses "scientism". Scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. To me this chapter is the most humorous as he disects scientists, or in his meaning the "masters of the obvious". These scientists think they have discovered something new and unique meanwhile it is what most people on the street already know. He basically asks the question as to whether or not social science is really a science.

In Chapter 11, the last chapter, Postman talks about the "resistance fighter". Resistance fighters are those that "understand technology must never be accepted as part of the natural order of things" (p.184). Resistance fighters believe that every piece of technology carries with it some sort of plot or agenda which may ultimately end up being life-enhancing or life-threatening.

In the end, Neil Postman leaves no stone unturned in his attack on how technology's ideology is undermining our own values and our very way of life. This is not an inspirational book but rather a book filled with the knowledge as to how technology manipulates us and uses us. So in conclusion this book doesn't ask us if technology is good or bad but rather what role technology should be confined to.