Beast of Technology

  We live in a time that sees constant addition to our technological options. In what seems to be a very short time, we have computers, cell phones, the internet, self-driving cars, new medicines, etc. We are told that we have to use these things for good, or they will be used for evil. It's strange to me that we never discussed the idea of just not using some technology. I think smartphones are great. They're super useful, convenient and powerful. However, I swapped out my smartphone for a flip phone at Christmas and couldn't be happier. Yes, the technology is great, but so much of what is around us isn't necessary. Facebook, Pintrest and Twitter all have potential good uses, but we never seem to discuss the option of not creating accounts, or even deleting our accounts from these services. If technology can dampen our ability to feel the spirit, shouldn't we teach some form of technological abstinence? I do, of course, believe in the righteous uses of these technologies, but I feel that we aren't nearly as cornered into using them as it seems. It's like any pseudo-addiction: go without it for a week or two, and you'll realize how little some of these things actually added to your life.

Study Journal 7

1. Why don't we have some sort of temple attendance class at BYU?
2. People always talk about technology either being used for good or evil; why can't technology "not being used" be a third option?
3. It will be interesting to see what technology will be common-place in the church in the future.

1. Once we crack open India and China to full-scale proselyting missions, membership in the church will explode.
2. What does someone stand to gain doing a DOS attack on General Conference? The message comes out in so many different ways, it's not like they're really stopping anything.
3. Things that work well in a small-scale setting might be entirely unusable in a large-scale setting.

1. Is temple work the greatest desire of those in the spirit world?
2. The advances with regards to family history technology are just unreal.
3. Family history is closing in on being able to do itself, and simply notify us when family members are found.

1. What is the overlap in digital social media usage statistics? How many of the 1+ billion Facebook users are within the one billion YouTube users?
2. The church has gotten a lot better at making videos.
3. Elder Bednar really seems to be pushing good technological uses whenever he can.
4. People can come to rely on visiting sites that have regular updates; if we can consistently post authentic, uplifting things, we could make a difference to that kind of demographic.

Post 4 (Class Discussion Review) Being Lead by the Weakest Among us

    Some people will always be crippled by the freedom. Others will be liberated by it. Unfortunately, there is a third group that takes their freedom and binds themselves with it. This third group has caused a great deal of rules and regulations to come into existence. It could be argued that these rules and regulations will protect others from making the same mistake; maybe this is true. However, there comes a point where we can "protect" ourselves into a situation wherein we are severely lacking in freedom. Some people misuse the internet, but that doesn't mean it should be taken down. Some people use firearms for nefarious purposes, but they should not be made illegal to purchase. A principle purpose for each person on earth is to learn how to use agency in the face of temptation. Do I think the world would be better if pornography and illicit drugs were completely gone? Yes, of course. However, some try to take this to the extreme, where every questionable item is removed from life and we have no choices except good choices. This is the plan of the great adversary: to remove choice and force correct behavior. While I believe in rules for protection, I also believe that people should be left the ability to choose based on those rules, and reap whatever reward or consequence that follows.

Study Journal 6

1. How much should we really guide someone's interest before we are steering them away from their real interest?
2. Does the Asian STEM focus reduce the average creativity in their learning?
3. I don't see many people from the school of family life recruiting CS majors to come over.

1. There sin't an issue with diversity in the workplace so long as they hire the qualified, regardless of other criteria.
2. Is the workforce an indicator of the target demographic? Like, men making ties or women making skirts?
3. It's strange that the CS field pushes programming so hard in learning, but says in 5-10 years of working we won't be coding anymore. Why is programming pushed so hard, then?

1. People can kick most addictive action by removing their capacity to do it. Addicted to social media? Remove smartphone, lock out social sites. Chocolate? Don't buy chocolate.
2. We shouldn't remove valid opportunities because some people will misuse them; that would invalidate the idea of coming into mortality at all.
3. Intent should be the measuring rod of whether or not something is done.

1. People who are having tech issues should reduce their tech usage.
2. Online time should be measured in terms of how much is spent on recreation.
3. How use are surveys, really? People lie; does this justify data mining?
4. You never know how software will be used or adapted.

Post 3 (Class Discussion Review)

    We spoke heavily for two days about women in computing, the huge disparity in numbers between men and women in CS, and whether or not it needs to be "corrected." I did a little research, and discovered that currently, less than 20% of CS bachelors degrees are earned by women. That being said, trends discussed in class are showing that 30% of the CS jobs are going to women. All other things being equal, I feel that means the system is treating women just as fairly as men in terms of opportunity. I also feel that the market as a whole should be examined in respect to gender numbers. If men and women are equally targeted with a software product, then I feel it's appropriate to have equal input from both genders in the software's creation. However, if the target demographic is predominately one gender (for example, certain genres of video games), I believe it is more sensible so have it produced predominately by that gender. Guys know what guys like. Women know what women enjoy. If people were being denied opportunities based on gender, and whenever that is the case, it is wholly unacceptable. In the case of women in the technical field, current employment trends with the percentage of bachelor degrees. If we want to see a larger female presence in the tech world, the push will have to be made much earlier than the hiring floor.

Study Journal 5

1. If you have to be insanely careful of your word choice when you answer a question in order to not sound like a scumbag...you probably did something wrong.
2. I don't understand why companies were mad when someone sold stock after a one-day gain of 500%. You have to understand that growth on that scale isn't sustainable, and people will jump ship when it's profitable.
3. It's a shame that more venture capitalists won't admit that the dot-com era was all about fast money for them.

1. We can't ask people to explore things that we ourselves are unwilling to explore.
2. Bringing order to chaos is valuable.
3. Are there moral/ethical shortcomings to charging someone 20x the production cost in order to receive a product?

1. The internet isn't the problem, it's a people-problem.
2. Sacred things have a sacred time and place wherein they are appropriate.
3. Is oxytocin release the reason that people will develop a "type" over time after dating similar people?

Current Event 3

This post is in response to classroom discussion and the article found at http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/14/video-game-violence-a-scientific-consens


    For years people have been debating the affect of violent videogames with regards to real-life violence. Ronald Bailey, among many others, is now saying that the correlation that was previously believed to exist is false. This ties back to the ideas of internet ethics and accountability. Just as the internet is neither good or bad, videogames are neither good nor bad. They are a thing, and like almost all things, can be used for good or nefarious purposes. Loving parents play the same games as psychopaths. In our discussion, Dr Knutson discussed that we have a responsibility to make good choices with regards to our use of the internet, and I believe that charge extends to all facets of life. I find it revolting that technology is blamed or used as a scapegoat for human behavior. A person is in charge of how they act, with very few and rare exceptions. For recreation, we are given a near limitless array of options. If we notice that something affects us negatively, it's our responsibility as people to either 1) change our response or 2) change the situation. Frankly, Abby Miller from Dance Moms makes me more angry than any violent game.

Study Journal 4

1. Why is it easier/more legal to read digital communication than physical mail? Their level of privacy and sensitivity ought to be regarded as equal.
2. It's interesting that people who are regarded as nerds growing up end up with the highest capacity to do digital damage to people.
3. It's hard to keep in mind that behind digital attacks are actual people with their own lives, likes, dislikes, etc.

1. The main difference between a hacker and a digital security tech is not necessarily their capacity, but their intent.
2. I like door locks and computer passwords.
3. The "present" bias is an interesting one, always thinking that who we are in our current situation is who we were growing to be, rather than regarding where we are as a stepping stone to what we want to become.
4. Whether or not we want it to, it seems we'll be shaped by our work environment.

1. How bad would it really be if the internet went down in a non-repairable way? If it was suddenly, that would suck, but if we had a few months to get things squared away...I honestly think it wouldn't be that bad.
2. Our patent system is horrible and needs to be overhauled.
3. Is patenting something and not enforcing the patent the only way to keep something free and usable to the public?

1. If the law lags far enough behind criminals, can citizens take the law into their own hands?
2. Why hasn't their been better surveillance of classified documents historically? If they're really that important, shouldn't we be safeguarding them better?
3. Laws are made by whoever we determine has the power, and power is held by whomever we perceive holds power, whether or not the perception is justified.
4. The ethics of an action are based deeply in where you are during the action. Us losing the military code machine in WWII was a treasonous act to America, but a noble and heroic act to Russia. Same action. Different views.

Post 2 (Class Discussion Review): An Over-Copyrighted World

    We spoke in class about various types of copyrights, trademarks, patents and other forms of R&D protection. While I strongly believe that inventors should be able to protect their work and ideas against infringements, the laws have become restrictive to the point of detriment. Mark Twain said, "Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Early in the semester, we saw that technology and ideas were heavily "borrowed" by major tech companies in order to push hardware and software into the next generation. Now companies hold extensive patent portfolios. Copyright lawyers are ready to jump at anything resembling their company's work. Because of this, I feel innovation that builds on established ideas has slowed. Apple and Windows operating systems don't change much anymore. Sun is suing Google over technology that has been in use for years. Companies are having to reinvent the wheel or pay out the nose in order to attempt any new innovations. I stated in a previous post that I feel the Free Software movement to be fundamentally unethical, but this seems to be extreme in the opposite direction. When a person can be denied the pursuit of an idea or invention because someone else thought about it first, the system is broken. What if Edison has put a patent on electricity which forbade Tesla from doing his own work? Tesla's work was better, but we could have been denied his results. Copyrights/patents need to be altered so they protect established ideas without squelching new ideas

Current Event 2

This post is in response to class discussion and information found at the following site: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/lenovo_superfish_scandal_why_it_s_one_of_the_worst_consumer_computing_screw.html



    Lenovo, a multinational computer tech company, released computers and tablets for several months which included the software Superfish. At a glance, this is not a problem, except for the fact that Superfish has a substantial security issue in its code. This hearkens back to similar issues in The Cuckoo's Egg, except that book took place thirty years in the past. Clearly, software isn't always going to be perfect. People make mistakes, but those who are making or perpetuating them still won't own up to the issue. In Cuckoo's Egg, Stoll told many people about the issue and received almost no help or concern. In like manner, Lenovo was made aware of this security problem and drug their feet until the issue exploded. Had someone exposed a massive hole in the mail system, where anyone could read or make copies of our mail, bank cards or identification documents, there would be alarm. There would be action taken. Yet when the same thing happens on the digital front, it seems like nobody cares. Nobody with authority to act cared about Stoll's concern, and nobody cared now. Our way of life is stored online: bank transactions, medical history, music, mail and more; people should care when someone threatens to pirate this information.

Journal 3: One-day Post

1. Patents are horrible in that they can stop someone from marketing their own creation if someone else made something similar enough, even if that was completely unknown.
2. Patents should expire sooner than they do, people can sit on ideas they own for far too long, and it can deprive people from enjoying their own versions.
3. Trade secrets seem like such an unsecured means of security. All it takes is one leak and your whole corner on the market can be destroyed.
4.  If Oracle really had an issue with people using their API, they should have spoken up sooner; there should be a window of time when these suits can be brought against companies. Some sort of "you snooze you lose" policy.

Post 1 (Class Discussion Review): Free Software VS Paid-for Results

A goodly portion of time was given in lecture to people's views on Free Software, with the Unix crowd in favor while Microsoft/Apple opposed. While I understand the stance of Free Software being more than just cost of product delivery, the fact remains that their statutes include freedom to distribute any possessed software openly. For any appreciable software, I find this unethical. Good software is hard to create. In Mythical Man-Month, Brooks says a programmer is "creating by exertion of the imagination." Why should an individual or group's work of imagination, refinement and time be free to the masses? We pay to see or own movies and books, which are the "exertion of the imagination" of authors, actors and producers. Why should software be any different? Think of the chaos that would have ensued had Harry Potter been free, open to public modification and redistribution. We would drown in fan-fiction. Yet this is the very concept that the Free Software movement wants software engineers to embrace. They claim you make your money from supporting the software, but many of use want to write software well enough that it is intuitive to use and doesn't need maintenance. For us, the Free Software movement strips everything away and leaves us unable to fulfill the simple command to eat our bread “by the sweat of our brow.” Creating software is work, and if the result is desired, the software should be purchased.

Module 2 in Review

1. The announcer said that people can work "...any 80 hours a week" they wanted in the software industry, but this flies in the face of Demarco's Peopleware, where he states that overtime is a myth, and productivity plummets after 40 hours.
2. People took years and waited patiently for such large breakthroughs when the computer industry was young. Does society have the patience for such things now? As a people, we are so geared towards immediate gratification now.
3. It's interesting the hype around early computers, even before they did anything.
4. Most of the early innovaters weren't chasing money, they just had an idea that they wanted to see come to life.

1. IBM's dress code seems kind of stuffy in hindsight.
2. Once again, software (the first OS) was written for personal use, not as a market goal.
3. People say that Microsoft ripped the guy off at $50k for his OS, but that seems like pretty good money for four months of work.
4. KLocks is a horrible metric for measuring code progress.

1. How could Xerox not see that a GUI based computer would be what everyone wanted?
1. Steve Jobs got it. Sorry, Xerox.
2. Steve Jobs readily admitted they they stole ideas, but seemed so put-off when other people would take from his ideas or steal their things.
3. People would justify a multi-thousand dollar purchase for a single piece of software. I cannot think of anything like that anymore. People spending a thousand dollars on a nice computer that does almost everything is a hard sell at times.
4. Microsoft really played both sides of the OS war for a while, which seemed really financially smart.

1. Why would you password-protect a closed-house computer? I don't think that people had accounts yet, so wasn't it essentially like a glorified screensaver password?
2. Bill Gates had every right to want payment for his company's work. People aren't just entitled to the capacity of others at no charge.
3. With Linux, the writers of the software are almost never those who offer support. There's no obligation to help you with it, which can make Linux a really unsettling OS for people.

1. Nothing in life seems to function under the "Free Software" principle; people don't generally dedicate their lives and time to giving away everything they think of for free.
2. If hardware was standardized, would it create a monopoly-based vacuum or free companies up to pursue newer ideas?
3. With people trying to limit or throttle the capacity of others in order to give the "little guys" a chance, are we moving towards a society like that depicted in Atlas Shrugged?

Current Event Post 1

A post in response to classroom discussion and content found at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2015/01/28/bill-gates-also-worries-artificial-intelligence-is-a-threat/

    The title of the article spells out its content nicely: Bill Gates is concerned about overdeveloping artificial intelligence. It seems strange, though, that one of the front-runners in computer and software development would be opposed to the next logical step. Gates stands to make another fortune by trying to push into the AI world, and there seems to be a substantial team at Microsoft that is moving in that direction. In our class lecture we observed Steve Jobs mention he would "rather be successful than right," and in this case, it seems Gates is moving in the opposite direction. Promoting AI seems to be the "successful" idea. It's interesting that Gates seems to be more focused on what he feels is right now that his empire is so large. His fledgling company seemed to play both sides of the early PC wars just to make money, but now Gates seems to be asking himself the question that Jurassic Park's Dr Ian Malcom accused park owner John Hammond of ignoring: "...but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Module One Review

1. I can see the value in learning the art of observation, but at a university level, I would have thought the instructor would have given some kind of guidance. Except for a professor telling you to keep looking, anyone could buy a fish and stare at it. What was his tuition going towards?
2. The last order of ignorance has to be a joke. There's no way that's actually part of a hierarchy of problem solving.
3. Donald Rumsfeld caught a lot of flack for essentially restating the Orders of Ignorance. He called them "known knowns," "known unknowns," and "unknown unknowns." I feel like that is a lot more clear of a summation.

1. Information without proper interpretation is essentially useless. 
2. It seems that a lot of the ethical "dilemmas" we discuss are only dilemmas if you don't know where you already stand on an issue. They aren't really problems if your moral compass is already finely attuned.
3. Is it unethical to disobey an unethical rule? Is inaction the best course when your are compelled by law or force to do something that is unethical?