Do you think Google will A) Have to change the way they do business? or B) Keep business as usual? In reference to New York Times article "Sure its Big, but is that Bad?" by Brad Stone: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/technology/23goog.html
I have to admit, I had a hard time understanding this article, perhaps it may have something to do with an ever-present headache of mine. Basically, Google's job is to supply information, in order of which websites have the most hits, to the public. We all know that. Google also owns several companies and likes to showcase their companies first in searches pertaining to their companies' subject matter. It even goes as far as Google scooting other related or rival companies further down the line of searches to keep viewers focused on Google's companies and not anyone else's.
This discrepancy has placed Google under keen watch for fear of violating the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which "protects journalists and newsrooms from search by government officials" (wikipedia). Many of the companies affected by Google's actions have filed motions against the search engine powerhouse.
Now, I completely understand Google's motives... anyone would... as long as they were at the benefiting end. But seeing that Google's selfishness is prohibiting other businesses from becoming known or accessible, I'd say they really need to check the way they do business. Lots of people look to Google for information. It has become a household name. To think Google isn't as pure and just as we might have thought is a real letdown. Perhaps they became too power-hungry, seeing that they are capable of doing such things as hiding other businesses. (Here comes my hippie speech) Why can't businesses, big or small, just be proud of good, honest work?! It makes no sense to me to try and cheat when you've already have the upper hand. Stuff like this sickens me. If everyone were honest and cared an ounce for their business, they'd have a business people would rely on. Its a chain reaction. Good leads to good, dishonesty and distrust leads to the same.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Technology of Today
Do you believe, as President Obama does, that technology in 2010 is a distraction? If so, be specific and explain why. If not, be specific and explain why not. (In reference to CNET article "Obama: iPod, iPad don't empower" by Chris Matysczcyk >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20004516-71.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 )
I agree and disagree at the same time. I know that sounds like a Michael Scott contradiction, but there is truth and exaggeration in both views. To say that technology of our current day is a distraction to the people's ambitions, goals, purpose, etc. is a very deffinate statement. Perhaps Obama is reffering to the mindless, jello-headed individuals who would rather play the lastest Modern Warefare than further themselves past a high school education.
I'd say most people are not as absorbed as one not-so-technologically-advanced president would think. Technology has a great advantage to our lives in ways we can't really comprehend unless it were suddenly taken from us. Business moves faster. People communicate with one another in no time at all. Now adays, technology is perhaps one of the leading ways to network with individuals, find a date, work, go to school, or be entertained if so desired. I mean, would President Obama rather take the time in writing a letter and delivering it on foot to whomever in order to descuss the next steps for the "War on Terrorism?" Basically, technology offers us a faster way of doing things we have already been doing for the past existance of human-kind.
On the flip side, technology, just like any good thing, can have a darker side to it. People forget the effort that comes into doing things by hand or in a more natural way. They get lazy and become accustomed to shorter, intstantly satisfying routs. For instance, renting a movie. Typically one would take the time to go to the video store, puruse their selection, find a movie and bring it home. Why bother even getting up from your lazyboy when with a couple click of your remote, the movies appears right in front of you? A lot of it is pure laziness that fat-cat companies figured out how to market. I can't help but think of the book by Ray Bradbury "Farenheit 451," where the main character's wife sits in the livingroom all day talking to people through her three, wall-sized televisions... instead of going out and visiting them in person (which, now I think about it, is what websites like facebook do to us).
Ah... anyways. No I do not agree with Obama. Technology is most definately infused to our lives as water to a fish, however there has to be a balance that can only be made by the individual. How lazy do you want to become? Yes, you can have everything at the click of a button, but do you want that lifestyle? Balance is key to any circumstance.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I know that sounds like a Michael Scott contradiction, but there is truth and exaggeration in both views. To say that technology of our current day is a distraction to the people's ambitions, goals, purpose, etc. is a very deffinate statement. Perhaps Obama is reffering to the mindless, jello-headed individuals who would rather play the lastest Modern Warefare than further themselves past a high school education.
I'd say most people are not as absorbed as one not-so-technologically-advanced president would think. Technology has a great advantage to our lives in ways we can't really comprehend unless it were suddenly taken from us. Business moves faster. People communicate with one another in no time at all. Now adays, technology is perhaps one of the leading ways to network with individuals, find a date, work, go to school, or be entertained if so desired. I mean, would President Obama rather take the time in writing a letter and delivering it on foot to whomever in order to descuss the next steps for the "War on Terrorism?" Basically, technology offers us a faster way of doing things we have already been doing for the past existance of human-kind.
On the flip side, technology, just like any good thing, can have a darker side to it. People forget the effort that comes into doing things by hand or in a more natural way. They get lazy and become accustomed to shorter, intstantly satisfying routs. For instance, renting a movie. Typically one would take the time to go to the video store, puruse their selection, find a movie and bring it home. Why bother even getting up from your lazyboy when with a couple click of your remote, the movies appears right in front of you? A lot of it is pure laziness that fat-cat companies figured out how to market. I can't help but think of the book by Ray Bradbury "Farenheit 451," where the main character's wife sits in the livingroom all day talking to people through her three, wall-sized televisions... instead of going out and visiting them in person (which, now I think about it, is what websites like facebook do to us).
Ah... anyways. No I do not agree with Obama. Technology is most definately infused to our lives as water to a fish, however there has to be a balance that can only be made by the individual. How lazy do you want to become? Yes, you can have everything at the click of a button, but do you want that lifestyle? Balance is key to any circumstance.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Creating New Body Parts with the Click of a Button
"How does this technology change our future?" In reference to cnet news article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20002741-52.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
Imagine, if you will, a world where the wounded are healed with a sample of skin and the press of a button. Where war vets, scarred from battle, can have new skin reproduced from a device much similar to a computer's printer. Where a kidney can be copied to replace its failing predecessor. No, you have not just entered an episode from Rod Serling's TV series "the Twilight Zone;" this is the present and near future science fiction of our time.
A company called "Organovo" in San Diego, California has created what is known as a commercial bioprinter. This machine takes samples from a patient's fatty skin cells or bone marrow to print off a new slab of skin in order to replace the patient's injuries or impurities. There is no worry for the body to reject the new skin, as it is comprised of the patient's own body.
Despite this great feat, the company is still years away from being able to reproduce entire organs, such as a liver or kidney, but that future is drawing nearer. This technology could mean the extent of lifetime for many individuals, the reconstruction of a injured body part, or perhaps even extend the wild possibilities of cosmetic plastic surgery.
Personally, I find it very interesting, but rather disturbing to be able to reproduce the complex organs of the human body. Scientists are only limited to what the current technology allows. But years from now, after many technological advances have been made, will there be a moral limit to what can be done? Who's to stop scientists from recreating an entire human being? What moral dilemmas may occur from such advances is at the present incomprehensible. Would the recreated organs preform as well as our natural ones? Many speculations and intrigue surround the bioprinting world, but perhaps one day all of this will be common place and socially understood and accepted.
Imagine, if you will, a world where the wounded are healed with a sample of skin and the press of a button. Where war vets, scarred from battle, can have new skin reproduced from a device much similar to a computer's printer. Where a kidney can be copied to replace its failing predecessor. No, you have not just entered an episode from Rod Serling's TV series "the Twilight Zone;" this is the present and near future science fiction of our time.
A company called "Organovo" in San Diego, California has created what is known as a commercial bioprinter. This machine takes samples from a patient's fatty skin cells or bone marrow to print off a new slab of skin in order to replace the patient's injuries or impurities. There is no worry for the body to reject the new skin, as it is comprised of the patient's own body.
Despite this great feat, the company is still years away from being able to reproduce entire organs, such as a liver or kidney, but that future is drawing nearer. This technology could mean the extent of lifetime for many individuals, the reconstruction of a injured body part, or perhaps even extend the wild possibilities of cosmetic plastic surgery.
Personally, I find it very interesting, but rather disturbing to be able to reproduce the complex organs of the human body. Scientists are only limited to what the current technology allows. But years from now, after many technological advances have been made, will there be a moral limit to what can be done? Who's to stop scientists from recreating an entire human being? What moral dilemmas may occur from such advances is at the present incomprehensible. Would the recreated organs preform as well as our natural ones? Many speculations and intrigue surround the bioprinting world, but perhaps one day all of this will be common place and socially understood and accepted.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Real Time Searching
How does real time search change the way you work and play? In reference to an article from CNET news: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20001715-265.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
The major names of Internet searching are extending their capabilities when it comes to speed of news and information. Search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing and others are looking to pull information from sites that are very frequently updated, sites like Twitter and Facebook, among others, to improve upon the recentness of their Internet searches. These search engines look for an overuse of key phrases or hot topics in these social networks so in the event a person Googles a recent event, like "earthquake" for example, they have a fast and recent information at their finger tips on an event that may have happened just minutes ago.
In an interesting turn of events, these social networking sites, in this case Twitter (typically free to the public), are now being paid by Google to supply them with such breaking information. Some fear the possibility of a rivelry for information from major search engines. One may claim one site for info, while another claims another site.
The only problem is that these social networking sites have so much information that is practically impossible to navigate through, as they are not search engines themselves, unless a search engine were to have some sort of partnership with them. "And unless social-media networks are able to make their content discoverable, they won't turn into the types of content-discovery engines that their public-relations people like to imagine are already here." ~Making the Real-Time Web Relevant by Tom Krazit
The major names of Internet searching are extending their capabilities when it comes to speed of news and information. Search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing and others are looking to pull information from sites that are very frequently updated, sites like Twitter and Facebook, among others, to improve upon the recentness of their Internet searches. These search engines look for an overuse of key phrases or hot topics in these social networks so in the event a person Googles a recent event, like "earthquake" for example, they have a fast and recent information at their finger tips on an event that may have happened just minutes ago.
In an interesting turn of events, these social networking sites, in this case Twitter (typically free to the public), are now being paid by Google to supply them with such breaking information. Some fear the possibility of a rivelry for information from major search engines. One may claim one site for info, while another claims another site.
The only problem is that these social networking sites have so much information that is practically impossible to navigate through, as they are not search engines themselves, unless a search engine were to have some sort of partnership with them. "And unless social-media networks are able to make their content discoverable, they won't turn into the types of content-discovery engines that their public-relations people like to imagine are already here." ~Making the Real-Time Web Relevant by Tom Krazit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)