Sunday, November 30, 2008
Is Technology Really Advancing Mankind?
Just recently, the world’s oldest living person was Edna Parker. Sadly, she passed away on Nov. 26, 2008 at the age of 115. Seeing this in the news I started thinking about what this woman has seen in her lifetime. She was born on April 20, 1893 at a time when horse drawn carriages were the most common form of transportation. She survived to see mankind fly on supersonic jets, men walk on the moon, cars, television, telephones, the internet, and thousands of other commodities we enjoy today that weren’t available in the 1890’s. I mean she got to see the evolution of cameras from being a large booth with a one time use flashbulb and pictures that took hours to develop to a hand held accessory for a telephone that takes high quality pictures instantly! With technological advances happening so quickly, you don’t even have to leave home to find entertainment anymore. Is this really a good thing for humankind? For example, this website with obesity statistics http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/statistics-obesity.htm> reports that 8 out of 10 adults over 25 years of age are overweight with 78% of Americans not getting enough physical activity each day. Why is it that humans worldwide are gaining weight? If you were to look at humans as though we were classified like animals, we would be considered a lazy species. I know others of you can agree with me that sitting for long periods of time is much more comfortable and preferable to standing for long periods. So assuming that humans have always been a lazy species our technological evolution has simply made it easier for us to remain lazy. The Apache Indians for instance used to walk 60 miles a day when traveling while nowadays we can drive hundreds of miles while we remain seated. It seems that the more advanced we become the less active we are. This seems very counterproductive and even though we are advancing in medicine and human life expectancy continues to increase, at what point in our evolution will this turn around? There are approximately 10 million people worldwide that are subscribers to a popular computer game called World of Warcraft. Now I don’t know how many of you are familiar with this game but it requires hours of non-physical computer playing time. Online games have even caused deaths as this article points out about a 28 year old man who died of heart failure after a 50 hour Starcraft gaming session. Dying of heart failure at only 28 years of age is almost unheard of in this day and age and lowers human life expectancy statistics a bit. Now I don’t have anything against technology or online games, but I do think it is a bit ridiculous that people can even look for lifelong mates through chat rooms and dating services like “eharmony.” I mean, what is there today that you can’t do online? Now I can’t imagine my life without technology but at the same time I’ve seen technological advances become increasingly influential in my daily life to the point of taking over. Can there be a balance between technology and leading a healthy lifestyle? Or in this era have we become so dependent on technology that it would be impossible to phase it out of our daily activities?
E-bomb E-nation
http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/09/arthur-clarke-emp-tech-future07-cx_ac_1112bomb.html
As we have looked back in history to highlight the inventions and failures our time, Arthur C. Clarke of Forbes.com attempts to analyze our day and time from the forward future of 2500. Although we have yet to experience the disastrous electronic meltdowns of the Y2K bug and other hyped up internet attacks, one that we should be cautious of is the E-bomb (not full functional yet, I think). Clarke shares that this electromagnetic pulse bomb could disable a nation’s entire electronic infrastructure. This means that everything from water, food, to computers, and communication systems could theoretically be immobilized and unavailable instantaneously. This event is probable due to the primitive technology of the E-bomb and the world’s dependence on electronic devices.
If you take a second and think about our lives today, everything important to us is operated by or is affected by electronics. Think about the economic downturn ever since the World Trade Center crumbled. Our hopes to rebound from recession and bring about stability could easily be shattered by one detonation of from an E-bomb. Imagine the chaos and the panicking of our nation. Surely, our fear of Mother Nature destabilizing must also be shared with our fear of this E-bomb.
What I’m trying to say is that technology and our information system driven world makes us and breaks us. Our fear of going back to the olden days and the old ways drives us to invent and protect the invented. Hear me out. Imagine the impact if an E-bomb was to be detonated all across America. The bomb is harmless in that it doesn’t attempt to annihilate people. It doesn't aim to kill. It wholly distracts us from our daily routine and privileges. Our precious hybrid cars, ipods, laptops, internet, and cell phones are taken away from us. This is our threat. No more YouTube, no more Facebook, and no more magic buttons. It’s not a laughing matter. Obviously, we will lose our entire informational based, archived, and proliferated society. There are no paper and pen backups to what the 21st century has accomplished.
What is particularly interesting is the defense mechanism that Clarke discusses in the article. How do you create a new technology or electronic device that will protect us from an E-bomb? Clarke poses that a psychological probe would harmlessly and accurately interrogate people through questioning. This worldwide psychological survey would reveal potentially dangerous people. Linking this information from millions of people electronically would provide a “supermind.” Maybe this will help prevent the E-bomb from exploding. Really?
I know that this concept is very unlikely and unfathomable, but be reminded that this is Clarke’s retrospect of our near future from the year 2500. I share this thought in that our future might not be driven by the items and devices we make, but by the ideologies and information that move us. Clarke proposes that religion is “the most malevolent mind virus that had ever infected human minds.” In terms of informational protection and progression this is very thought provoking. There is a little truth in that our old ideologies prevent people from moving forward. If religion interjects into our every day thinking and processing of information, it can be associated as a virus in computer jargon or as an infection to the human hard drive. This is totally subjective, yet interesting. Anything that stops us from advancing is a threat, like the E-bomb. Really, it's a considerable threat.
As we have looked back in history to highlight the inventions and failures our time, Arthur C. Clarke of Forbes.com attempts to analyze our day and time from the forward future of 2500. Although we have yet to experience the disastrous electronic meltdowns of the Y2K bug and other hyped up internet attacks, one that we should be cautious of is the E-bomb (not full functional yet, I think). Clarke shares that this electromagnetic pulse bomb could disable a nation’s entire electronic infrastructure. This means that everything from water, food, to computers, and communication systems could theoretically be immobilized and unavailable instantaneously. This event is probable due to the primitive technology of the E-bomb and the world’s dependence on electronic devices.
If you take a second and think about our lives today, everything important to us is operated by or is affected by electronics. Think about the economic downturn ever since the World Trade Center crumbled. Our hopes to rebound from recession and bring about stability could easily be shattered by one detonation of from an E-bomb. Imagine the chaos and the panicking of our nation. Surely, our fear of Mother Nature destabilizing must also be shared with our fear of this E-bomb.
What I’m trying to say is that technology and our information system driven world makes us and breaks us. Our fear of going back to the olden days and the old ways drives us to invent and protect the invented. Hear me out. Imagine the impact if an E-bomb was to be detonated all across America. The bomb is harmless in that it doesn’t attempt to annihilate people. It doesn't aim to kill. It wholly distracts us from our daily routine and privileges. Our precious hybrid cars, ipods, laptops, internet, and cell phones are taken away from us. This is our threat. No more YouTube, no more Facebook, and no more magic buttons. It’s not a laughing matter. Obviously, we will lose our entire informational based, archived, and proliferated society. There are no paper and pen backups to what the 21st century has accomplished.
What is particularly interesting is the defense mechanism that Clarke discusses in the article. How do you create a new technology or electronic device that will protect us from an E-bomb? Clarke poses that a psychological probe would harmlessly and accurately interrogate people through questioning. This worldwide psychological survey would reveal potentially dangerous people. Linking this information from millions of people electronically would provide a “supermind.” Maybe this will help prevent the E-bomb from exploding. Really?
I know that this concept is very unlikely and unfathomable, but be reminded that this is Clarke’s retrospect of our near future from the year 2500. I share this thought in that our future might not be driven by the items and devices we make, but by the ideologies and information that move us. Clarke proposes that religion is “the most malevolent mind virus that had ever infected human minds.” In terms of informational protection and progression this is very thought provoking. There is a little truth in that our old ideologies prevent people from moving forward. If religion interjects into our every day thinking and processing of information, it can be associated as a virus in computer jargon or as an infection to the human hard drive. This is totally subjective, yet interesting. Anything that stops us from advancing is a threat, like the E-bomb. Really, it's a considerable threat.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Refusing Refuse
Engineers have finally found out how to "recycle" garbage so to speak on a large scale with a new power plant of the future. The Atlanta-based company Geoplasma will make St. Lucie County in Florida home of the new refuse plant in the United States. The new plant, able to process 1500 tons of garbage in a single day and manufacture up to 60 megawatts, will be up and running by 2011. Such a large amount of wattage is equivalent to the amount of energy needed to power 50,000 homes.
Basically, the plant takes garbage and "blasts" it with plasma which is a superheated gas. The garbage then itself turns into a gas which powers a nearby turbine, thus generating electricity. Even things that can't be turned into gas can be reused.
With Barack Obama (hopefully) going to strongly push green technology as part of his plan to create jobs and rebuild the struggling economy, this refuse plant should really be at the forefront. Not only does it take something that causes great ecological harm into a benefit for a society, but it does so at very little consumer cost. The article states that rates for the plant are about the same as those for electricity. I think this will help curb any strong opposition from consumers because most of the opposition against green technology seems to be that it would cost too much. With virtually similar pricing, there are no real reasons to abstain, although i could see electric companies creating some small technicality of why consumers should not buy in to the technology.
Even though this will greatly help the environment and even our growing energy concerns, I don't believe this is the final solution. The article says that Americans produce over 130 million tons of garbage every year. Even if cities across the country adopt these refuse plants, they will not teach Americans humility or resource conservation. In fact, these plants may have the opposite effect. They might show consumers that everything will be ok, so in response consumers will go out and consume more things in the future.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Cell Phone Future
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/06/25/the-cell-phone-of-the-future-could-be-controlled-with-your-eye/
Today society seems to be about connections and communication. The future, society looks towards, seems to be furthering those connections and communication. The best example would be cell phones. Ten years ago, cell phones were created to help make communication easier, but today it seems cell phones are no longer used for just communicating. I look at my current phone and there are so many options such as voice recorder, instant messaging, stereo widening, and more. To be honest, I’m pretty sure I still don’t know how to use all the options on my phone like the translator… I find myself actually liking my older phone more, which only had the option of a phonebook and camera. Also, phones today aim for looks, trying to be slimmer and smaller. However, by trying to make phones more appealing, their durability seems to be sacrificed. My first phone lasted me three years, while now it seems I need to replace my new phone after less than a year. With the help of advancement in technology, phones are getting stuffed with more and more options. It is very rare to find someone with a phone that was made only to make calls and send messages. Because technology has perfected portable communication, what will the future of cell phones hold?
Having achieved the ability to communicate from almost anywhere, the advancement in cell phones no longer can be found in the area of communication. The cell phone industry has focused its attention more towards options, entertainment, and a chance to further the use of technology even if it is unnecessary. This article is on the invention of a cell phone that can be controlled by the simple movement of the eye. The ability to control different options such as volume with the simple motion of your eyes seems extremely impressive a sign of advancement in technology; however, like many options on my phone, is this necessary? Even though it may be convenient to not need to use your hands, even the article addressed “how many different eye movements are you going to have to remember to use your phone?” or what if you had the tendency to roll your eyes, would this affect the phone options? The phone works by using sensors and chips to read the electrical current produced by your brain. It might become popular because this phone explores an option that no phone has gained before if the inventors are able to make the phone’s body more appealing since it has the brick shape of a phone from ten years ago with wires protruding from it. Today phones seem to target consumers by a simplistic, yet colorful outside shell while offering many options available on the phone. If the creators can successfully make the phone more outwardly appealing, the phone may have a chance on the market since the article mentions how the phone will have other options such as a “music player.” The creativity and technology behind this phone is new and innovative, but it seems like this option will only be a gimmick to show off to your friends.
Today society seems to be about connections and communication. The future, society looks towards, seems to be furthering those connections and communication. The best example would be cell phones. Ten years ago, cell phones were created to help make communication easier, but today it seems cell phones are no longer used for just communicating. I look at my current phone and there are so many options such as voice recorder, instant messaging, stereo widening, and more. To be honest, I’m pretty sure I still don’t know how to use all the options on my phone like the translator… I find myself actually liking my older phone more, which only had the option of a phonebook and camera. Also, phones today aim for looks, trying to be slimmer and smaller. However, by trying to make phones more appealing, their durability seems to be sacrificed. My first phone lasted me three years, while now it seems I need to replace my new phone after less than a year. With the help of advancement in technology, phones are getting stuffed with more and more options. It is very rare to find someone with a phone that was made only to make calls and send messages. Because technology has perfected portable communication, what will the future of cell phones hold?
Having achieved the ability to communicate from almost anywhere, the advancement in cell phones no longer can be found in the area of communication. The cell phone industry has focused its attention more towards options, entertainment, and a chance to further the use of technology even if it is unnecessary. This article is on the invention of a cell phone that can be controlled by the simple movement of the eye. The ability to control different options such as volume with the simple motion of your eyes seems extremely impressive a sign of advancement in technology; however, like many options on my phone, is this necessary? Even though it may be convenient to not need to use your hands, even the article addressed “how many different eye movements are you going to have to remember to use your phone?” or what if you had the tendency to roll your eyes, would this affect the phone options? The phone works by using sensors and chips to read the electrical current produced by your brain. It might become popular because this phone explores an option that no phone has gained before if the inventors are able to make the phone’s body more appealing since it has the brick shape of a phone from ten years ago with wires protruding from it. Today phones seem to target consumers by a simplistic, yet colorful outside shell while offering many options available on the phone. If the creators can successfully make the phone more outwardly appealing, the phone may have a chance on the market since the article mentions how the phone will have other options such as a “music player.” The creativity and technology behind this phone is new and innovative, but it seems like this option will only be a gimmick to show off to your friends.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Forget auditioning, fire up your camcorder and webcam!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/BAT614AE79.DTL
Can you imagine becoming an internet star and performing in front of thousands of viewers after posting videos of yourself as a joke?
Believe it, it's becoming reality.
Yesterday marked a landmark event in the ever changing world of internet and social relations. YouTube hosted it's first ever YouTube live event in the Fort Mason Center in my hometown, San Francisco yesterday. The event was streamed live over YouTube.com for anyone and everyone who was interested. This wasn't just any old block party/music concert, it was something truly revolutionary. The celebration for the monumental website included streaming video of three different areas of the venue (front stage, back stage, and off stage) of musical performances, comedic acts all integrated with previously recorded videos of YouTube, the signature of the online video site. Sure, they had such mainstream entertainment acts as Akon, Katy Perry, and Will.I.Am, but have you heard of such celebrities as Chad Vader, Kevin Wu, and Tay Zonday? Chances are, if you haven't been doing regular YouTube surfing, you haven't.
They represent a growing stable of internet celebrities who are starting to share "celebrity" status with household names from traditional media markets. Also, they symbolize the future of how we classify stars. Kevin Wu, also known by his YouTube alias Kevjumba, has slowly become the 3rd most subscribed "blogger" on YouTube by audiences with his comedic sketches, celebrity challenges, and other YouTube videos. Today, he is part of a series, Hooking Up, on HBO's online channel, HBOLabs. He is a growing representation of what the streaming media giant is doing for "nobodys" all across the world: giving the chance at stardom. For example, after posting videos of themselves playing instruments and singing, numerous individuals have been offered record deals with major labels to compete with the likes of other music industry bigwigs. Imagine one day recording and performing in front of your webcam out of sheer boredom, and the next being offered a contract for the real thing.
The internet is giving life to a new future and a changing social landscape. I know this may sound like another "the Internet is the future" rant, but you cannot deny how impressive such a feat is. YouTube live shows a change from traditional forms of media to a growing focus on the internet. We aren't just living in a time of movies, music, and sports. This is our generation's addition to these classic forms of entertainment. And the fact that it is giving any average Joe or Jane the chance to live lives that so many of us dream of through the use of any old camcorder or recording device to share their lives with whoever wants to watch is awe-inspiring. Such streaming video sites are breaking down the barriers to stardom, allowing us to infiltrate the homes of any random YouTubers, and integrating individuals from all over the globe. YouTube is just providing another window to the future.
So start making those YouTube videos, you could wake up an internet sensation tomorrow. And when you become that next YouTube star, don't forget to hook it up.
Can you imagine becoming an internet star and performing in front of thousands of viewers after posting videos of yourself as a joke?
Believe it, it's becoming reality.
Yesterday marked a landmark event in the ever changing world of internet and social relations. YouTube hosted it's first ever YouTube live event in the Fort Mason Center in my hometown, San Francisco yesterday. The event was streamed live over YouTube.com for anyone and everyone who was interested. This wasn't just any old block party/music concert, it was something truly revolutionary. The celebration for the monumental website included streaming video of three different areas of the venue (front stage, back stage, and off stage) of musical performances, comedic acts all integrated with previously recorded videos of YouTube, the signature of the online video site. Sure, they had such mainstream entertainment acts as Akon, Katy Perry, and Will.I.Am, but have you heard of such celebrities as Chad Vader, Kevin Wu, and Tay Zonday? Chances are, if you haven't been doing regular YouTube surfing, you haven't.
They represent a growing stable of internet celebrities who are starting to share "celebrity" status with household names from traditional media markets. Also, they symbolize the future of how we classify stars. Kevin Wu, also known by his YouTube alias Kevjumba, has slowly become the 3rd most subscribed "blogger" on YouTube by audiences with his comedic sketches, celebrity challenges, and other YouTube videos. Today, he is part of a series, Hooking Up, on HBO's online channel, HBOLabs. He is a growing representation of what the streaming media giant is doing for "nobodys" all across the world: giving the chance at stardom. For example, after posting videos of themselves playing instruments and singing, numerous individuals have been offered record deals with major labels to compete with the likes of other music industry bigwigs. Imagine one day recording and performing in front of your webcam out of sheer boredom, and the next being offered a contract for the real thing.
The internet is giving life to a new future and a changing social landscape. I know this may sound like another "the Internet is the future" rant, but you cannot deny how impressive such a feat is. YouTube live shows a change from traditional forms of media to a growing focus on the internet. We aren't just living in a time of movies, music, and sports. This is our generation's addition to these classic forms of entertainment. And the fact that it is giving any average Joe or Jane the chance to live lives that so many of us dream of through the use of any old camcorder or recording device to share their lives with whoever wants to watch is awe-inspiring. Such streaming video sites are breaking down the barriers to stardom, allowing us to infiltrate the homes of any random YouTubers, and integrating individuals from all over the globe. YouTube is just providing another window to the future.
So start making those YouTube videos, you could wake up an internet sensation tomorrow. And when you become that next YouTube star, don't forget to hook it up.
Overpopulation? No problem!
With the ever-growing human population, we will eventually run out of space for humans to live. Throughout history humans has always expanded outward, but no one has thought to expand vertically into the skies. Japan has taken the initiative to deal with urban crowding by building taller structure. Currently Japan is ranked as the most populated urban area in the world and it is expect to remain the highest in 2025. To counter this problem, engineers drew up the designs for the Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/pyramidcity/interactive/interactive.html
This massive pyramid, if approved, would be constructed over Tokyo Bay in Japan. The structure itself would be 12 times higher than the Great Pyramid at Giza. I believe this is what the cities of the future would look like. It would be built largely by robots and house over 750,000 people in skyscrapers dangling from the jungle-gym-like structure. If built, it will be the largest man-made structure on Earth, standing at over 6,575 feet high. The proposed project is so massive, that current technology has not produced the necessary materials needed to build the pyramid. Due to the weight of the building, it would require a futuristic material that is strong and lightweight; something like carbon nano-tubes.
To give you a better sense of how large this pyramid would be, it is equivalent to 55 pyramids about the size of the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas stacked upon each other. The skyscrapers inside the Shimizu pyramid would be 30-story-high and would be supported from above as well as below, connected to the pyramids nano-tubing. The nano-tubes also serve as the pyramid’s transportation system. There would be no need for cars, residents would actually move through the city with accelerated walkways, trams, elevators…etc. Much of the travel will be done through personal rapid transit pods, which are non-polluting, computer-driven vehicles that could travel throughout the hollowed, interconnecting trusses. To deal with power, the entire structure is coated with a photovoltaic film to absorb sunlight for electricity. The self-sustaining city could also get electricity by harnessing the oceans currents and even from fuel cells powered by algae. Since Japan sits on the world’s seismically hyper “Ring of Fire,” the pyramid would also have to be built to withstand earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. In various small scale tests, the pyramid shows early indication that it could withstand the forces of nature. Surprisingly this idea is not new; it originated in 1979 entitled Sea City 2000 to address urban crowding.
http://www.paleofuture.com/2007/03/sea-city-2000-1979.html
I really hope I can see the Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid during my life-time. It would be a major feat of human engineering and it would be a beauty to see. I believe these types of structures will be essential in the near-future to deal with the population boom. However, building larger and larger buildings is not the answer for overcrowding. Personally I believe the government really needs to step in and enforce some rules to regulate the human population, much like what China did with the single-child policy. I know if America enforces this similar policy, there would be a massive uproar since it might go against the constitution. All I’m saying is that America should place a rule that if a family exceeds over 2 children, they will get a higher tax. Therefore, a family could still choose to have over 2 children, but that family would have to pay the price. I believe this would lower the population growth rate which should cause a chain reaction that could benefit society as a whole. If the family size gets reduced to a typical 4 person family, a child will get the attention he or she deserves as oppose to a child in a large family. The child would grow up to have a better lifestyle with correct morals which would hopefully reduce crime rate and poverty level. With less crime and poverty, we may very well see a utopian society. What steps would you take to inch towards a utopian society?
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/pyramidcity/interactive/interactive.html
This massive pyramid, if approved, would be constructed over Tokyo Bay in Japan. The structure itself would be 12 times higher than the Great Pyramid at Giza. I believe this is what the cities of the future would look like. It would be built largely by robots and house over 750,000 people in skyscrapers dangling from the jungle-gym-like structure. If built, it will be the largest man-made structure on Earth, standing at over 6,575 feet high. The proposed project is so massive, that current technology has not produced the necessary materials needed to build the pyramid. Due to the weight of the building, it would require a futuristic material that is strong and lightweight; something like carbon nano-tubes.
To give you a better sense of how large this pyramid would be, it is equivalent to 55 pyramids about the size of the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas stacked upon each other. The skyscrapers inside the Shimizu pyramid would be 30-story-high and would be supported from above as well as below, connected to the pyramids nano-tubing. The nano-tubes also serve as the pyramid’s transportation system. There would be no need for cars, residents would actually move through the city with accelerated walkways, trams, elevators…etc. Much of the travel will be done through personal rapid transit pods, which are non-polluting, computer-driven vehicles that could travel throughout the hollowed, interconnecting trusses. To deal with power, the entire structure is coated with a photovoltaic film to absorb sunlight for electricity. The self-sustaining city could also get electricity by harnessing the oceans currents and even from fuel cells powered by algae. Since Japan sits on the world’s seismically hyper “Ring of Fire,” the pyramid would also have to be built to withstand earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. In various small scale tests, the pyramid shows early indication that it could withstand the forces of nature. Surprisingly this idea is not new; it originated in 1979 entitled Sea City 2000 to address urban crowding.
http://www.paleofuture.com/2007/03/sea-city-2000-1979.html
I really hope I can see the Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid during my life-time. It would be a major feat of human engineering and it would be a beauty to see. I believe these types of structures will be essential in the near-future to deal with the population boom. However, building larger and larger buildings is not the answer for overcrowding. Personally I believe the government really needs to step in and enforce some rules to regulate the human population, much like what China did with the single-child policy. I know if America enforces this similar policy, there would be a massive uproar since it might go against the constitution. All I’m saying is that America should place a rule that if a family exceeds over 2 children, they will get a higher tax. Therefore, a family could still choose to have over 2 children, but that family would have to pay the price. I believe this would lower the population growth rate which should cause a chain reaction that could benefit society as a whole. If the family size gets reduced to a typical 4 person family, a child will get the attention he or she deserves as oppose to a child in a large family. The child would grow up to have a better lifestyle with correct morals which would hopefully reduce crime rate and poverty level. With less crime and poverty, we may very well see a utopian society. What steps would you take to inch towards a utopian society?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Robots with Brains?!
http://www.livescience.com/technology/080814-robot-brain.html
It is really amazing how science is always in progress. Throughout history, men have created the most innovative tools toward improving levels of convenience, methods of research, and all sorts of wonderful technological changes. I found an article about how scientists have invented a robot with a brain using the neurons of rats and just thought of how far science has brought us today. In the past, this idea would seem insane and unbelievable, but now it doesn’t seem surprising with all the funding that goes towards research and technology in our generation. When I read this article, I was amazed by how far we’ve come in scientific research and very interested in the development of this robot because of it beneficial health purposes.
In a way the idea of having men create a new species can be controversial. People can argue that this idea goes against religious values. The fact that humans are creating a new species can be viewed as man’s attempt to exceed God’s power. There are so many reasons why people would be against this idea or at least be afraid of the concept. Even though the purpose of this robot is to be more effective in researching incurable diseases, our society is still skeptical of extreme innovation. No matter how good the intentions are of this new invention, people will always consider their morality, ethics, and virtues that will hinder their social acceptance. Ideas are streaming everywhere in this world, but we do not see all these inventions being mass produced. Society needs to accept these products, and in order to be accepted, these products have to benefit them somehow following society’s values. Innovation will continue to exist, but new inventions will flourish only by social acceptance. That only makes sense that society would be careful with the products they decide to endorse because the ideas and new inventions they accept are ultimately what will characterize social ideals, values, and standards of living. People want the best, both in quality and measure of convenience, but they consider public safety to be their main priority. If a new idea or invention threatens the level of stability and safety in a society, there will be a hindrance to change or improve.
Some people might believe that by creating an artificial species is crazy and unethical; hence, the controversial issue of human cloning or stem cell research. These methods, ideas, inventions that may stir up controversy in our morally and ethically attributed society can alternatively be the cure to so many incurable diseases, of which modern medicine have limited healing powers. People are afraid of the extremity in new science and technologies because of the consequences they can bring to their society, rather than the innumerous benefits these discoveries would bring about. Accepting innovation is difficult because the new and unfamiliar, whether it’s beneficial to the society or not, is a threat to social stability. Invention brings on change and people, who feel safe and comfortable with today’s society, feel an unnecessary measure of effort to support that change that could further benefit the world.
Planning Your Financial Future
Planning Your Financial Future
As I browse through the internet, articles concerning how we manage our money are constantly popping up. It is all too true that many Americans spend money like there is no tomorrow from Gucci purses to hundred dollar haircuts for your chihuahua—credit debt is piling up. As debts rise investments decrease because people lose faith in the market. I have a solution for you.
Managing your money is key to achieving your long term financial goals. Whether it be saving for a special vacation, a retirement fund, funding your kids college tuition, or medical emergencies—knowing what to do with your money early is essential in fulfilling promises for yourself and your loved ones. Nowadays, the credit crunch is a perfect example of how Americans spend their money. Majority of Americans spend money they don't have, its no secret. Statistics state that the average total debt for young Americans twenty to thirty years old is increasing from 14,000 in 2001 to about 16,500 (USA Today). People need to understand managing money starts early. Paying off credit card bills on time is crucial because credit score is based off whether you pay your bills on time. And good credit score is needed to purchase loans. Budgeting is also necessary—individuals have fixed incomes and fixed expenses every month. But it is important to set aside money for investments. Investments begin early so that over time, say forty to fifty years money that you invest in a savings account can accumulate interest over time. Ok, say, some smart individuals who invest their money into stocks and mutual funds understand how to manage their finances. But there is one thing they cannot escape—taxes. Even though you may make large sums of money over a short period of time in stocks or what not, a good amount if you make a lot goes to taxes. Wouldn't you want to invest in a savings account without paying taxes for your cash earnings? Look into Index Universal Life. Index Universal Life is relatively new, developed a couple years ago gives you Life Insurance and an account for potential cash value. In addition, life insurance is necessary, anything can happen to you, you never know. All I know is that I don't want to die for free. At least with life insurance, you are worth something.
Now, what's that saying, there is nothing certain in life but death and taxes? Besides being a famous proverb and a proverb that was restated several times to Brad Pitt during a conference meeting in Meet Joe Black, this proverb is certainly true. Cheesy, yes, but when it comes to death in a family, money automatically becomes an issue, whether it be funeral costs, medical bills, or serious income loss. We may not escape death but we can escape taxes. Index Universal Life is a life insurance policy that gives you life insurance whether it be 300,000 or 500,000 depending on your income. And aside from that, the money that you put in your premium every month goes to a separate cash account that is recession proof and had high potential in accumulating cash over a long term period. That cash value that accumulates over time is NOT taxed by the government, it is tax free. More specifically, the cash account moves up and down relative to the S&P 500 which is the top 500 Fortuna Industries. It's not stocks, but an average of how well the top 500 companies are doing. Granted it is much less aggressive than stocks, but investment in IUL is meant for long term. Young teens need to realize that planning for the future is very important. Everybody wants money and wants to become rich someday. So stay in and cook dinner for a week rather than eating out everyday, I promise you'll save at least one-hundred dollars. And that one-hundred dollars can be spent every month IUL. The minimum amount is one-hundred dollars. In the future, the market will go up and down and recently evidence shows that stock market has plummeted big time and is slowly recovering. But with this plan, if the market goes under there is what you call a “floor,” meaning your cash account will stay at +1%. However, if the market does very well say it goes up to 18.5% there is a cap at 12.5%. You never know how to market fluctuates, thus it is important that we establish financial investments that protect us while the market goes under. Let me tell you, this is future and every young adult should purchase this product. Contact your nearest financial planner and consider this option. Only downside to this is that its long-term, don't even think about pulling out money until thirty years from now. If you decide to increase your premium, your cash value will increase. This I promise you is a smart investment. Invest in your future. Invest in your kids. Invest in Index Universal Life.
https://www.westernreserve.com/wps/portal/wrl
The AIDS dilemma
A professor told me that in some tribes in
AIDS was finally recognized in 1981. Far in the past are the days where people thought that you could “catch” AIDS by being sneezed on. But are those times really our distant past or are do we still carry the same preconceptions? What about all the people who died from the disease before thirty years ago, before it was officially labeled a disease that could be studied. Researchers know more now so that they can develop more effective drugs to prolong lives, but what about the general public? There seems to be a disconnect here and things are brushed under the rug. It’s true male-to-male sexual contact is a common transmission pathway, but so is having different partners or giving birth if you already have the disease. I think people have a sort of mentality where they think they could never get HIV because they are not a gay male. They also think it was a thing of the past. There are hardly any campaigns that encourage people to go get tested for HIV or any educational pamphlets. At the doctor’s office, I’m swarmed with information about how to check for breast cancer, the difference between a cold and flu, and what my cholesterol numbers mean. But what about information about safe sexual practices and how to get tested for different STDs (which are now referred to as STIs, or sexually transmitted infections, in order to relieve some of our preconceived notions). I guess the general issue that gets avoided is sexuality. Yes, people have different views about it and it’s a touchy subject. But there are facts that need to be laid on the table.
I remember my Sex Ed class in the 9th grade. I walked away learning nothing because the teacher was horrible and the issues deemed too sensitive. Do you think that Sex Ed works and do you think it’s required? Are schools implementing it too early or too late?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Air Car
After watching "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I searched the Internets for articles about cars that run on alternative sources of fuel. One of Obama’s main talking points during his run for the presidency is the U.S.’s need to reduce its dependence on oil, thereby creating a significant number of job openings as new technology is developed and produced for the market. I found a car powered by compressed air though a small amount of gasoline, ethanol, or vegetable oil is also needed to fuel the engine.
Some automotive manufacturers might argue that the compressed air car is not a “suburban” vehicle, as in the case of the electric car. The current prototypes appear to be diminutive two-seaters that stand no chance of surviving in a showdown with a Hummer. The article also shares my point of view by mentioning the manufacturer’s concern that the current generation of compressed air cars will be unable to pass federal crash tests because of its design. Evidently, in America, size does matter. As a tradeoff for its fuel efficiency, the air car is a rather small vehicle that must undergo a makeover before it will be allowed to share the road with SUVs, 18 wheelers, and the assortment of impatient drivers caught in the frenzied grip of road rage.
However, the air car has an advantage over the electric car when it comes to recharging the motor. The electric car requires special stations where it can be plugged in and recharged. “Who Killed the Electric Car?” pointed out that the oil companies formed shadowy consumer rights groups and notified national businesses, such as Trader Joe’s, that they would be unfairly taxed for the construction of the electric recharging stations. The businesses, in turn, filed petitions hindering the marketing of the electric car resulting in a diminished consumer demand. The air car, on the other hand, simply needs to be plugged into a wall socket for the motor to be able to compress air and refill the tank. This is not to say that the air car is safe from the schemes of the oil industry. Because the air car does not utilize a combustion engine, manufacturers of the vehicle may come to the conclusion that they will not see the large profits associated with traditional cars whose greased engines require expensive part replacements and constant maintenance. Creating environmentally friendly cars may not pay off in the long run for the automobile industry.
The top speed the compressed air car can reach will also factor into the determination of consumer demand. Normally, the car has a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour at which it can travel for a distance of 60 miles on compressed air. But an additional motor that also compresses air from outside the car can be fueled with gasoline or some other type of fuel allowing for a higher traveling speed to be attained. Perhaps the oil companies will not assassinate the air car since it is not an entirely gasoline independent vehicle. Furthermore, based on the article’s observations, the air car is the cheapest and easiest to manufacture “green” vehicle currently in development. Will the vehicles of the future run on compressed air or will combustion engines continue to reign?
Some automotive manufacturers might argue that the compressed air car is not a “suburban” vehicle, as in the case of the electric car. The current prototypes appear to be diminutive two-seaters that stand no chance of surviving in a showdown with a Hummer. The article also shares my point of view by mentioning the manufacturer’s concern that the current generation of compressed air cars will be unable to pass federal crash tests because of its design. Evidently, in America, size does matter. As a tradeoff for its fuel efficiency, the air car is a rather small vehicle that must undergo a makeover before it will be allowed to share the road with SUVs, 18 wheelers, and the assortment of impatient drivers caught in the frenzied grip of road rage.
However, the air car has an advantage over the electric car when it comes to recharging the motor. The electric car requires special stations where it can be plugged in and recharged. “Who Killed the Electric Car?” pointed out that the oil companies formed shadowy consumer rights groups and notified national businesses, such as Trader Joe’s, that they would be unfairly taxed for the construction of the electric recharging stations. The businesses, in turn, filed petitions hindering the marketing of the electric car resulting in a diminished consumer demand. The air car, on the other hand, simply needs to be plugged into a wall socket for the motor to be able to compress air and refill the tank. This is not to say that the air car is safe from the schemes of the oil industry. Because the air car does not utilize a combustion engine, manufacturers of the vehicle may come to the conclusion that they will not see the large profits associated with traditional cars whose greased engines require expensive part replacements and constant maintenance. Creating environmentally friendly cars may not pay off in the long run for the automobile industry.
The top speed the compressed air car can reach will also factor into the determination of consumer demand. Normally, the car has a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour at which it can travel for a distance of 60 miles on compressed air. But an additional motor that also compresses air from outside the car can be fueled with gasoline or some other type of fuel allowing for a higher traveling speed to be attained. Perhaps the oil companies will not assassinate the air car since it is not an entirely gasoline independent vehicle. Furthermore, based on the article’s observations, the air car is the cheapest and easiest to manufacture “green” vehicle currently in development. Will the vehicles of the future run on compressed air or will combustion engines continue to reign?
Monday, November 10, 2008
10 Reasons Products Fail
Since we’re talking about failed inventions now, I started researching on the internet all of the failed inventions that there have been in the past. In order to find some good inventions or products that failed, I thought it would be useful to know why products fail in the first place. After looking around for a bit, I came across this website that listed the top ten reasons why new products fail. http://www.markitecture.com/10_reasons_products_fail.html
After reading all of these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that a majority of the reasons that products fail aren’t because they are bad reasons, but have to do more with the marketing aspect of producing a new product. Although some of the reasons listed as to why products fail seem to be common sense, I think it would be easy to get carried away in the excitement of producing a new product, even at the corporate level.
Some of the more interesting points that I found in this list are the ones that seem very obvious when looking at it from the outside, but could be easily overlooked while competing for the market share for a particular product.
The first one that I would like to discuss is number 9: Science run-a-muck. It seems like a pretty obvious first step would be to find out what your customers are interested in buying, and then making a product that would appeal to them but I can easily see that especially now-a days, with the economy the way it is, companies are looking to save as much money as possible. If a company is good at producing bakes goods, it would be a easy leap to assume that a new chocolate product that they produced would be a big hit! Who doesn’t like chocolate? But without marketing research, and a group of people to test the product on, it would be very easy to produce a product (sometimes in mass quantities) that simply won’t sell.
I next want to talk about number 8: The lemming Effect. The site claims that ““The competition just introduced an X, so we need an X, too.” That’s just silly. If all you’re offering is a me-too product you can only gain market share by cutting price, and who wants to go that route?” I completely agree with this and have seen this happen time and time again. Corporations see a product that is doing very well in the market and decide to make their own version of it in order to take some of the market share away. They try to undercut the other vendors and steal their customers. The problem with this is that many times the quality is not the same, and also the other brand may have a loyal customer base. This is the perfect recipe for disaster.
After reviewing the main reasons why products fail, I can understand why it is so difficult to create a product that people like and are willing to buy. It takes a lot of research, time, money and effort to come up with something marketable, and even then there may be forces beyond your control that prevent you from successfully selling a product.
After reading all of these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that a majority of the reasons that products fail aren’t because they are bad reasons, but have to do more with the marketing aspect of producing a new product. Although some of the reasons listed as to why products fail seem to be common sense, I think it would be easy to get carried away in the excitement of producing a new product, even at the corporate level.
Some of the more interesting points that I found in this list are the ones that seem very obvious when looking at it from the outside, but could be easily overlooked while competing for the market share for a particular product.
The first one that I would like to discuss is number 9: Science run-a-muck. It seems like a pretty obvious first step would be to find out what your customers are interested in buying, and then making a product that would appeal to them but I can easily see that especially now-a days, with the economy the way it is, companies are looking to save as much money as possible. If a company is good at producing bakes goods, it would be a easy leap to assume that a new chocolate product that they produced would be a big hit! Who doesn’t like chocolate? But without marketing research, and a group of people to test the product on, it would be very easy to produce a product (sometimes in mass quantities) that simply won’t sell.
I next want to talk about number 8: The lemming Effect. The site claims that ““The competition just introduced an X, so we need an X, too.” That’s just silly. If all you’re offering is a me-too product you can only gain market share by cutting price, and who wants to go that route?” I completely agree with this and have seen this happen time and time again. Corporations see a product that is doing very well in the market and decide to make their own version of it in order to take some of the market share away. They try to undercut the other vendors and steal their customers. The problem with this is that many times the quality is not the same, and also the other brand may have a loyal customer base. This is the perfect recipe for disaster.
After reviewing the main reasons why products fail, I can understand why it is so difficult to create a product that people like and are willing to buy. It takes a lot of research, time, money and effort to come up with something marketable, and even then there may be forces beyond your control that prevent you from successfully selling a product.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Future of Breast Cancer
It’s always hard to talk about the future with a subject like breast cancer because there’s no real cure yet and the future seems uncertain. However, it is least to say that many people are very hopeful in finding ways to cope with this disease and the likelihood of finding a cure has gone from futuristic to a reality. According to the article written by Tara Parker-Pope, new research as made great contributions to the prevention of the disease that it has made people comfortable to even talk about the sensitive word – cure. There are talks of change; better ways to detect and treat the disease carefully and maybe even prevent. Like the New Atlantis, it takes a lot of discovery and experimentation to bring about such change but the upcoming of two new drugs (Heceptin and Avastin) are hopeful, researchers feel that “the scientific theory behind the drugs will unlock the secrets of breast cancer.” (Parker-Pope, 1)
Breast cancer is not exactly what it sounds like. The main problem with this is that it seems as if there is one type of tumor in a part of the body. In actuality, cancer is a compilation of many different diseases. This can be due to different hormones and variety of forms or copies of genes. If researchers can figure out and distinguish between these, than there is a strong chance in finding the drugs to work with them, thus improving life. For example, one of the new drugs that are used in therapies is Heceptin which “binds to certain proteins, blocking tumor growth and harnessing the body's own immune system to heal itself.” (Parker-Pope, 2) A study has shown that this drug with chemotherapy has reduced reoccurrences by half! So instead of fighting off cancer with one solution there is going to be many different ways to handle individual parts of the disease. It sound tedious but this outlook gives a pathway to the cure.
“A National Cancer Institute study showed that among women with advanced breast cancer, Avastin plus chemo slowed cancer progression by half.” (Porter-Pope, 3) Avastin is an anti-angiogenesis drug that ultimately blocks the signals that cause proteins to create new blood vessels that feed tumors. Nanotechnology is also helping with the future of experimentation because it “involves devices 80100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair.” (3) This allows for better detection, prevention and treatment to breast cancer. Instead of doctors having to remove one or more lymph nodes to see how much the cancer has spread, Nanotech can be able to detect it without surgery. This type of technology seems far-fetching to most doctors right now but its slow practice has proved to be not as futuristic and radical as they may think. A new invention called the iFind modernizes how women can do self-breast examinations by finding high levels of hemoglobin (found in cancer).“The device was 96 percent reliable in detecting cancer” (3). Inventions in technology and discovery of new drugs bring up a lot of hope for doctors and for victims of breast cancer, but it are always hard to say when there will be a cure. No one will ever really know because the future is so unknown but these talks are stepping stones to lead to that solution that we’re looking for.
http://www.more.com/health/conditions/breast-cancer/the-future-of-breast-cancer/;jsessionid=F3FZXAV2S2HTNQFIBQNR42Q?page=1
Thoughts on Obama. Our New Leader.
Many Obama fans celebrate in pure joy and good comfort knowing that Obama has now taken over the White house. Americans are now hopeful to see a progress in racial issues in America. However, does Obama have the meat to handle the heat? Forums and critics believe that Yes, Obama is a great, inspiring individual; however, his lack of experience questions his ability to first lead us out of financial turmoil and of course lead our country.
Obama possesses the qualities of a leader—confidence, vision, and intelligence. He is not only well-spoken in front of crowds, his tone and attitude of his speech prove his compassion for this country and commitment. Obama is a universal man—with a diverse background to prove it, he grew up with various mentors and parental figures. His involvement in many small to large scale community programs illustrate his diverse contribution to all people. He holds a successful educational background and spent several years in Senate. Can he really carry out his lofty proposals that he promised us during his campaign?
More specifically, can he put America back on its feet with the current economic meltdown. On November 17th, Obama will sit down with Congress to discuss economic solutions—and he states that he will be playing a direct role in this meeting instead of waiting until he is sworn into office. Obama is wasting no time and jumping right in, because he's got a big role to fill and now is the time to prove that he's not all talk.
Although, Obama's policies on raising taxes for the rich may seem very appealing for the middle class and distasteful for the rich, many overlook the possible negative consequences for such actions. Yes, taxing the rich seems fair, because most families have such high income paying taxes isn't much of a problem. But where that money goes is what is most concerning. A high percentage of taxpayers money go to welfare. And much of welfare is given to people who abuse their lives and don't have any means of making money but wasting taxpayers dollars. At first, Obama's proposals to raise taxes for the rich and those who make more than a quarter million are taxed heavily doesn't concern me because my family doesn't make anywhere close to six figures. However, in the long run it is somewhat concerning because if Obama enacts on his policy of raising taxes, chances of it continuing down history is highly possible. Personally, this tax raise I think is a great policy; and will slowly heal the financial recession by giving more money to the government to spend—in hopes that they will spend it wisely.
Off Topic: I am truly amazed with the reactions of Obama's campaign success all over the world.
http://www.time.com/time/picturesoftheweek In this article, supporters from all over the world from Paris to Australia celebrate with joyful tears and aspiring hope. I myself, was moved by his overwhelming success over McCain. Never have I seen America so united and have come together as one to celebrate growth and progress towards positive change. And as I was working the other day, Wednesday night, there was an overall positive and enlightening vibe that came from my customers. And I thought to myself, now the wheels are spinning, its about time we get back on our feet and start moving forward. It's going to take time, but now I can finally say that I'm proud to be a citizen of the United States and have that national pride that I had eight years ago before it had gone missing.
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1856660_1793503,00.html
Continue scrolling through, there are some good pictures.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
NUCLEAR WAR? NO PROBLEM!
Ever since the start of the Cold War, there has always been a constant fear of a nuclear strike. Even with the collapse of the Soviet Union, this threat still remains imminent among other nuclear nations. The fundamental problem was once the enemy launched their intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM); there was nothing we could do to stop the attack…until today. Meet Boeing’s YAL-1 Airborne Laser (ABL).
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U
The idea was first proposed in the mid 80s under the Ronald Reagan administration. The project was ironically named the “Star Wars” Project. Only recently the technology has become available to build a working prototype. At first glance it looks like a regular Boeing 747, a commercial airplane we all possibly flew in once during our lifetime. However, the nose of the aircraft is something straight out of science fiction. The 747 is mounted with a high-energy chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) on the nose of the aircraft. The Airborne Laser will locate and track missiles in the boost phase of their flight, then accurately point and fire the powerful laser destroying the missiles near their launch areas. ABL will change the face of the defense industry by ensuring freedom and protecting America and her interests around the globe.
If you are wondering if the term “laser” is used properly here, yes it is. If a bird flew into the firing beam, well let’s just say there won’t be a bird left. Fortunately the weapon will fire for only a few seconds at a time, minimizing collateral damage but enough to destroy any incoming threat. However, unlike popular Hollywood films, the laser fired by ABL would be virtually invisible to the naked eye. So sorry Star Wars fans, you won’t be able to see the fancy blue/green lasers like in the movies.
Although this idea seems radical and there’s growing skepticisms whether it would work or not, the idea itself is not new. During the mid 1980s, when this program was first initiated, a less-powerful laser was installed on a Boeing NKC-135A which successfully shot down several missiles. The purpose of Boeing’s new YAL-1 is to shoot down ballistic missile that carries nuclear weapons. As of July 2008, the COIL system was successfully installed in the 747 and is now undergoing ground testing. By this time next year, the United States Air Force hopes to test the laser against a real in-flight ballistic missile.
The problem I foresee with this program (if successful) is that it will usher in a new type of warfare. With every new piece of technology that gives one nation an advantage, the opposing nations would quickly follow a suit. We have seen this in the past, for example the bow and arrow was once the pinnacle of weapons technology which allowed Genghis Khan to rule from the Pacific to the Ukraine. That technology was quickly adapted by other nations once they realized its power. When the United States first developed the atom bomb in 1945, the Soviet Union was able to build their bomb in 1949. So as you can see, if this laser becomes successful, it would protect us from a nuclear missile strike. However, the day when other nations are able to duplicate the laser technology, we may very well see a real Star Wars in the nearfuture.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
election thoughts
As excited as I am about Barack Obama winning the Presidential election, I am a little bit more annoyed with some voting patterns I have heard about. For instance, everyone who is jumping up and down now that Barack has won is a bit silly, yes I do believe he is the right candidate for president, but I do not like hearing people rejoice over his victory as the first black president. It truly is a monumental feat, but the reason for voting should be more on leadership and focusing on the betterment of the United States instead of young misinformed voters doing what they think is right without the proper foundation of research and study on a person. To me, voting is such an honor in this country that it should not be taken for granted. The mere hearing about “I voted for McCain just because I know Barack is going to win” has to be the dumbest thing ever. Although California is a Democratic state that awards the democratic elect with 55 points, does not mean someone should vote like that. To me, its just a form of someone abusing the power that they have.
On another note, the overall race was very interesting. From the beginning, Barack seemed to have a lead, but as the election came closer and closer, more reports had McCain closing the gap. Then all of a sudden, Barack annihilates McCain in the real election. That just goes to show how much America is ready for change. Bush, coming off one of the worst post presidency ratings in history, is a definite sign that America is in need of some man to fix the many messes for before.
Hopefully with our newly elected president, many changes in the government, from war and affairs, to economics, to every other problem here can be solved or at least slowly fixed to a better tomorrow. Obama nation :D
Prop Eight, and what this means for us.
As of last night, November 4, 2008, the proposition to ban gay marriages in the state of California has almost have 98% of passing, so what does that mean for us?
Currently, under the California Constitution, same-sex marriage is protected under the law, which passed through the California Supreme Court in May of 2008. If Proposition 8 passes, the constitution will be altered to “only marriage between a man and woman will be considered valid or recognized in California” (wikipedia). Recognition is defined as “identification of a thing or person from previous encounters or knowledge.” A gay couple will no longer be IDENTIFIED, RECOGNIZED; their love not acknowledged. There’s so much sadness in this, because this proposition allows people to merely erase that little stint of time when marriage for everyone was legal. This proposition means that in the future, equality is jeopardized. A gay couple can never marry, can never create that special union with the one they choose to marry.
Slogans like “save marriage” wreak hypocrisy so severely. In the state of California, divorce rates are so high, making it a very high possibility in every home. I don’t believe that homosexuals have anything to do with the divorce rate. Rather than focus on gay couples marrying, why don’t we first focus on fixing the marriages between man and woman? If anything, ban divorces. I’m sure that will bring down the divorce rate.
I apologize for maybe seeming irrational or bias. I admit, I am bias. I am bias towards the love that one human being can feel for another human being. I see no difference in sex, color, and nationality, whatever it may be!
If you’re arguing from a religious point of view, please regard this: does God want you to force some one into loving Him? What you are essentially doing is trying to create a kingdom without a king. You can no more make a person believe in the truth of the Bible than to make them believe in God. A friend of mine wrote, “A vote for “yes”, if voted on Christian grounds, is a vote that betrays God, and shows that your faith has been deeply corrupted. And I am absolutely serious about that. It betrays God because it betrays the sacrificial logic behind the cross. It says, “I know that Jesus sacrificed himself to show us the truth, but I will not sacrifice myself to show others the truth.” In that sense it is much like the wicked servant who won’t forgive his servant’s debt even though his master had already forgiven his. In Romans 2 Paul asks, “why don’t you extend grace to these other sinners? Or do you hold contempt for God’s grace?” The gospel of grace was preached to us through grace. To deny this grace is to deny the gospel. If your vote is yes, be prepared to be judged as you are judging.” I completely agree with him. God has extended his grace upon us. Please show yours.
Thanks everyone.
Currently, under the California Constitution, same-sex marriage is protected under the law, which passed through the California Supreme Court in May of 2008. If Proposition 8 passes, the constitution will be altered to “only marriage between a man and woman will be considered valid or recognized in California” (wikipedia). Recognition is defined as “identification of a thing or person from previous encounters or knowledge.” A gay couple will no longer be IDENTIFIED, RECOGNIZED; their love not acknowledged. There’s so much sadness in this, because this proposition allows people to merely erase that little stint of time when marriage for everyone was legal. This proposition means that in the future, equality is jeopardized. A gay couple can never marry, can never create that special union with the one they choose to marry.
Slogans like “save marriage” wreak hypocrisy so severely. In the state of California, divorce rates are so high, making it a very high possibility in every home. I don’t believe that homosexuals have anything to do with the divorce rate. Rather than focus on gay couples marrying, why don’t we first focus on fixing the marriages between man and woman? If anything, ban divorces. I’m sure that will bring down the divorce rate.
I apologize for maybe seeming irrational or bias. I admit, I am bias. I am bias towards the love that one human being can feel for another human being. I see no difference in sex, color, and nationality, whatever it may be!
If you’re arguing from a religious point of view, please regard this: does God want you to force some one into loving Him? What you are essentially doing is trying to create a kingdom without a king. You can no more make a person believe in the truth of the Bible than to make them believe in God. A friend of mine wrote, “A vote for “yes”, if voted on Christian grounds, is a vote that betrays God, and shows that your faith has been deeply corrupted. And I am absolutely serious about that. It betrays God because it betrays the sacrificial logic behind the cross. It says, “I know that Jesus sacrificed himself to show us the truth, but I will not sacrifice myself to show others the truth.” In that sense it is much like the wicked servant who won’t forgive his servant’s debt even though his master had already forgiven his. In Romans 2 Paul asks, “why don’t you extend grace to these other sinners? Or do you hold contempt for God’s grace?” The gospel of grace was preached to us through grace. To deny this grace is to deny the gospel. If your vote is yes, be prepared to be judged as you are judging.” I completely agree with him. God has extended his grace upon us. Please show yours.
Thanks everyone.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Back to the Future
So at first I had no idea what I was going to write for this blog, but I typed future into the search window on youtube and then I came across the Back to the Future movies. So I thought I could discuss what is used to depict that the movie is based in the future and I could compare these movies to the commercials that we watch in class. If you have not seen Back to the Future, here is a link to the trailer for the second one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRrSp6Pqlz4
After viewing the trailer the first thing I realized was that the director Spielberg depicted everything in the future as being shiny. In the movie trailer the characters’ clothing were made to look futuristic by making them shinny and plain colored. Some of the characters were given hats that were made out of metal to make them look futuristic. I also noticed that the hair styles were made futuristic by making them look slick with gel for guys and put up for girls. The cars in the trailer looked very aerodynamic and small. The windows in the cars were tinted black and there were no bright colors. Most of the cars were silver and black. The cars were also very fast and able to fly. There were highways in the sky for this new type of car. The skateboards were made out of a different material than wood and they were able to fly. They were called hover boards because they flew a foot over the ground and the speed increased and you pedaled with your foot.
In comparison to the commercials in class this movie is very similar. The movies show what they think what it will be like in the future, but keep some things from that time the same. For example, the buildings in the movie remained the same to give some comfort level to the audience that not everything will change in the future. Also, the homes were still family oriented and based upon the average family. This is the same as the commercial when they show that only the product that they were advertising would be changing and not the everyday life. In the commercial the family still has lunch together and the roles in the house are the same, it just shows that the product would improve their everyday lives. Back to the Future also does this by keeping the skateboards as a form of transportation, but making them easier to use and less of a work out. In the movie the skateboards fly, making them easier to use and less energy costly. This is the same as the commercial when they show that their product can make shopping easier, so that you don’t even have to leave the comfort of your home. This product also showed that everything would be made paperless.
It was nice to be able to recognize these things after being in this class. I now see Back to the Future differently than if I would have never been in this class. I am now able to recognize how these ideas could be made convincing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRrSp6Pqlz4
After viewing the trailer the first thing I realized was that the director Spielberg depicted everything in the future as being shiny. In the movie trailer the characters’ clothing were made to look futuristic by making them shinny and plain colored. Some of the characters were given hats that were made out of metal to make them look futuristic. I also noticed that the hair styles were made futuristic by making them look slick with gel for guys and put up for girls. The cars in the trailer looked very aerodynamic and small. The windows in the cars were tinted black and there were no bright colors. Most of the cars were silver and black. The cars were also very fast and able to fly. There were highways in the sky for this new type of car. The skateboards were made out of a different material than wood and they were able to fly. They were called hover boards because they flew a foot over the ground and the speed increased and you pedaled with your foot.
In comparison to the commercials in class this movie is very similar. The movies show what they think what it will be like in the future, but keep some things from that time the same. For example, the buildings in the movie remained the same to give some comfort level to the audience that not everything will change in the future. Also, the homes were still family oriented and based upon the average family. This is the same as the commercial when they show that only the product that they were advertising would be changing and not the everyday life. In the commercial the family still has lunch together and the roles in the house are the same, it just shows that the product would improve their everyday lives. Back to the Future also does this by keeping the skateboards as a form of transportation, but making them easier to use and less of a work out. In the movie the skateboards fly, making them easier to use and less energy costly. This is the same as the commercial when they show that their product can make shopping easier, so that you don’t even have to leave the comfort of your home. This product also showed that everything would be made paperless.
It was nice to be able to recognize these things after being in this class. I now see Back to the Future differently than if I would have never been in this class. I am now able to recognize how these ideas could be made convincing.
1984
Last week we talked about the idea of pop culture embracing/rejecting the idea of the future advancing technologically. This reminded me of a pretty famous Apple ad that aired during Super Bowl XVIII in 1984. The ad, directed by Ridley Scott, was a direct reference to George Orwell’s 1984, and was used to unveil the new Apple line of computers, the Macintosh. The ad can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8
The role of Big Brother is played by David Graham in this ad, and has a long speech appropriate of
Big Brother’s speech gives the impression of a hive-mind society where “unifying thoughts” is the primary goal. In dystopian stories, this is often the main fear of the connection between technological advancement- that the government will hold the most advanced technology and use it to control the masses. In 1984, Orwell shows that the creation and installation of “telescreens” was the primary destroyer of privacy and creative thought. Though exaggerated, many people are often fearful of new technology in this way. Instead of ignoring this issue, the Apple ad uses it in order to connect it with their competitors. In the ad, the woman who hurls the sledgehammer into the screen represents Apple as liberators from dangerous technology. After freeing the mind-slaves, the commercial ends with the words “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."” This ad certainly had an impact on people, as it has won numerous awards over the years (
It is interesting to see the effect that this kind of fear-invoking advertisement had in 1984, but the fact that it still has left an impact on people's mind 24 years later is pretty amazing. When Orwell wrote 1984 in the late 1940s, technological advancements were definitely still a scare after World War II, and it seems like that has never really gone away.
Education and the Future
Awhile ago, there was an article about a campaign that is aiming to raise lots and lots of money ($1 billion, to be specific) for UCI on the school homepage.
Wow. I know UCI gets a lot of money and throwing around a million dollars for research is probably like spare change for UCI. But a billion dollars? After reading the article, I am a little more school spirited. UCI is well known for their research in the biological sciences, but who knew we were so proactive in so many areas. UCI is climbing the ranks and I think its largely because of our innovation and leadership.
In the 1960s and 1970s, things must have been very different. With war and social disillusionment, people were focused on the future, but not in the ways we are today. Things are changing fast, and if you aren't one step ahead, you're going to fall and fall hard. Chancellor Drake makes a good point that there are real challenges ahead of us that need to be tackled now. Universities are perfect places to lead the way. We have the resources, the funds, the brains. Carpe Diem.
All of you in our class have got to pat yourselves on the back. We are smarter and more educated than 95% of America. I do not want to sound elitist, but heck, maybe I am. I'm proud to be an educated young person, and so should you. It's sad that higher education is not more accessible. Even public ones are not accessible. How do you prepare for the SATs if you've been put on the Hi-can-I-take-your-order route since you were in the 3rd grade. How do you expect to be ambitious when nobody gave you a reason to be? I am a believer that people all have different intellects, some are born with bigger brains than others. That's just how it is. But potential? That's another thing. Education is the avenue where individual potential can blossom, or sadly, wilt away...
I suppose there is no one to blame, or on the other hand, lots of people to blame. It's easy to point fingers but that does not really get things done. All I know is that things really need to change. We need to make education a priority. My old elementary school now holds class in the auditorium because there was not enough room to accommodate everyone. What's up with that?
The saying goes something like, "the more you know the more you know that you don't know". Isn't that the point? That's what's great about education--it's a continuing process that incites great ideas and innovation. That's why I am so passionate and enthralled with higher education and the places that foster it. These places that encourage thinking and the exchange of knowledge are the future in more ways than one. We must care for, nurture, and safeguard them.
Feel free to let me know what you think; I'd love to read it.
Wow. I know UCI gets a lot of money and throwing around a million dollars for research is probably like spare change for UCI. But a billion dollars? After reading the article, I am a little more school spirited. UCI is well known for their research in the biological sciences, but who knew we were so proactive in so many areas. UCI is climbing the ranks and I think its largely because of our innovation and leadership.
In the 1960s and 1970s, things must have been very different. With war and social disillusionment, people were focused on the future, but not in the ways we are today. Things are changing fast, and if you aren't one step ahead, you're going to fall and fall hard. Chancellor Drake makes a good point that there are real challenges ahead of us that need to be tackled now. Universities are perfect places to lead the way. We have the resources, the funds, the brains. Carpe Diem.
All of you in our class have got to pat yourselves on the back. We are smarter and more educated than 95% of America. I do not want to sound elitist, but heck, maybe I am. I'm proud to be an educated young person, and so should you. It's sad that higher education is not more accessible. Even public ones are not accessible. How do you prepare for the SATs if you've been put on the Hi-can-I-take-your-order route since you were in the 3rd grade. How do you expect to be ambitious when nobody gave you a reason to be? I am a believer that people all have different intellects, some are born with bigger brains than others. That's just how it is. But potential? That's another thing. Education is the avenue where individual potential can blossom, or sadly, wilt away...
I suppose there is no one to blame, or on the other hand, lots of people to blame. It's easy to point fingers but that does not really get things done. All I know is that things really need to change. We need to make education a priority. My old elementary school now holds class in the auditorium because there was not enough room to accommodate everyone. What's up with that?
The saying goes something like, "the more you know the more you know that you don't know". Isn't that the point? That's what's great about education--it's a continuing process that incites great ideas and innovation. That's why I am so passionate and enthralled with higher education and the places that foster it. These places that encourage thinking and the exchange of knowledge are the future in more ways than one. We must care for, nurture, and safeguard them.
Feel free to let me know what you think; I'd love to read it.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Luxury Over Necessity?
It is incredible how quickly we are improving our lifestyle with the help of technology. Before, technology was used to make living more convenient. However, today it seems technology must not only be convenient, but also appealing in design. With the technology we have today, people are reaching even farther into their imaginations to create something new and innovative to stand out. In the past, people invented to make life easier, and then when life got easier there was free time which led to progress in entertainment, and today we have moved on to heighten the quality everyday tools. Cars are modeled to look elegant and chic. Buildings today are no longer rectangular, but built with a certain style in mind. In the past, objects and buildings had designs, but were very simplistic because inventions were created for use not looks. Objects more appealing to the senses, especially to the eye are revered as more luxurious. Today it seems flair is as equally important as function. We now live in an age where we do not create for only improvement, but also luxury. Inventions are no longer for necessity. An example would be the construction of a “moving” skyscraper in Dublai (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=85195). Designed by David Fisher, his idea was apartments with a 360 degree view of the city at all times. The construction costs about 700 million dollars and is supposed to be finished in 2010 (Wikipedia). The apartments themselves are “expected to cost about 3.7 million dollars to 36 million dollars” (Wikipedia). It is not necessary to live in a revolving apartment especially with such a high price attached to it. This building is innovative and a great step towards the future, but in the end when so many countries have been rocked by natural disasters or civil war does the construction of a moving skyscraper necessary? There are plans to construct other moving skyscrapers in other cities such as New York if the one in Dublai is successful. The design is beautiful and definitely a monument of man’s progress, but again, the costs of the construction and the living costs is just so over the top that it makes you wonder what improvements that 700 million dollars could amount to. The idea of constructing one of these great structures in New York is bothersome to me especially since cities such as New Orleans is still recovering from devastating natural disasters. The 700 million dollars could easily be used to fund those who have lost their homes or even be used to help rebuild the city itself with jobs and new homes. Even with the completion of the moving skyscraper, I feel that it will be a trend for the rich to spend their money on. Even though, the building uses a wind turbine system to create energy allowing the building to spin at all times, the construction of the building is not efficient unless architects find a way for the building to save energy to save money in order to even out the construction costs. Until then, in time, necessity will prove that such a creation is a waste of time and money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)