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