Made to Break Part II

In Slade's middle chapters of Made to Break, he discusses certain products that had planned obsolescence installed into them, focusing on the radio. David Sarnoff, a higher up in the RCA, had an AM empire in the early 1900's, when along came Edwin Armstrong who invented FM radio. This invention actually came out of Sarnoff's request to clear static from AM radio. However, the FM radio was not compatible with AM settings, so Sarnoff saw this as a threat to his AM empire. What followed, was a series of lawsuits and bitter feelings, that eventually led to Armstrong's suicide. "Advance capitalism had regularly stifled or swallowed up the individual entrepreneur during those years when the political will to enforce legislation against monopolistic practices was the exception rather than the rule" (pg.97) Even though Saranoff was clearly at an advantage, being part of the RCA, a corporate behemoth, FM radio began getting more and more popular making AM radio somewhat obsolete.
           During this time, TV sets were also making a splash, but the nature of the invention was that they were constantly improving, making older sets obsolete. By the 1950's, "product life spans were no longer left to chance but were created by plan." (pg 113) Electronics were made so that they were generally irreparable if broken, increasing profits for corporations because it forced consumers to go out and buy new ones.
   World War II and the postwar period brought synthetic replacement of silk with the chemical invention nylon, and an intense demand for them was established by 1940.
    Slade continues, with discussing obsolescence in other part of life such as the housing industry. The invention of cheap, affordable housing with self-amortizing mortgages, were built with all nonessentials completely eliminated. Things such as basements become obsolete. Planned obsoloscence continued well into the 50's and 60's and psychological obsolescence had become the norm.
         It is somewhat difficult to deduct what Slade's argument is in this part of the book. It seems like he presents the reader with a sort of time line, that represents America's history and progession of planned obsolescence. This cut across many industries and all types of products. As was seen in Swedin's/Ferro's Computers, the computer is probably a prime example of a type of technology that just constantly kept getting improved because of new demands by the government and businesses. Slade states that the differential analyzer becoming obsolote is really the story of the rise of modern computing. No longer were computations being done mechanically, they were now being performed with energy pulses.
    I think that even if planned obsolescence was never planned, constant upgrades in technological products force the consumer to go out and by the new and improved version, because nobody wants to be left behind. On the other hand, it is important to distinguish between products that are made to break, such as the disposable razor that require the buyer to get another batch of razors, and general re-innovation of a product that deems its precedents as obsolete.  The latter being much harder to forecast. In my opinion, what Slade is attempting to do is lump those two things together, to give an exaggerated picture of the concerns that obsolescence may bring.
  

Solo Current Event Presentation - Google and its not so terrible privacy issues

For my presentation last Monday, I selected an article from the WSJ titled "Google's Privacy Woes extend to Canada." Here is the link for it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562560486919780.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews

The article covers recent allegations by Canada's Privacy commission that says Google has violated the privacy of thousands of Canadians when it "inadvertently" collected infortmation from unsecured wireless networks while it was taking pictures of city streets for its Google Maps services.I briefly explained how the process of street view mapping works; Google hires drivers that prop a camera on top of the car that take 360 degree view pictures. In this process though, it somehow picked up personal info such as email addresses, email usernames, passwords, and even certain individuals' medical conditions. This isn't even the first time that Google has run into trouble, not only with privacy, but more specifically the street mapping service. In Germany, there were reports of residential homeowners wanting to opt out of being in Google's street view.  
          What's interesting though, is that Canada's privacy commission did not have an explosive response. The nation's privacy commissioner has simply asked Google to boost privacy training for all its employeees, and to delete any data that has been collected. No compensation fees had to be paid inside or outside a court of law. This relatively minor response, minimal news coverage, and Google's relatively unaffected share price all point to the fact that people are becoming more tolerant of the manner in which Google collects its information for advertisement purposes. After asking the class for thoughts, people mentioned times when their information was unwillingly collected as well. We then continued to discuss how this era of advertisement is becoming more and more personal. It's very feasible that sometime in the future you can walk past a restaurant and receive a text message that can say "Come in and try our special of the day, John!"
        Advertising is Google's #1 source of revenue, so when they grant companies access to personal individual information regarding tastes,  likes etc.  they can achieve a much more efficient effect in terms of reaching out to their target audience. They can avoid people who don't like their product and bombard those that do with coupons, developments and more. Google is a company's direct path in doing so. And Google has been collecting information for so long, with even its CEO admitting that Google is creepy, that people are basically being more confortable with it.

MADE TO BREAK, PART 1

       Slade's  Made To Break discusses the purposeful manufacturing of obsolete products in the US. we have fostered a culture  where  disposable consumer goods are the norm. The thought process of many business owners starting in the early 20 th century, was " How can I manage my business...so that i can be sure of a permanent and growing body of consumers?" The biggest reason for this need of a higher demand was overproduction and manufacturing, and  this problem was  solved simply by selling more. Slade goes on to discuss the different approaches of disposable products for  men and women, such as paper  collars for men. Style and temporary usefulness superseded  long term reliability: " With mechanical quality now more or less a given, people became interested in sophisticated design and presentation..." What began as a mentality of disposability toward physical goods and  products had now began spilling over to ideas, and had become a staple principle of the American people. This new state of mind allowed for tossing away things before their usefulness was completed. In a way, this largely contributed to the market crash in 1929. People were buying more and more goods on credit, even if it was pinching their savings.
      Slade speaks through a relatively neutral tone, and gives a general overview and history of technological obsolescence, but he does bring up a some good points. While our worship of novelty can be viewed as a good thing, the flip side is the tremendous amount of wasted that is created as a result. Most of this waste is is not recycled but just fills landfills.
     While there is a large environmental effect of electronic waste being neglectfully disposed of, Slade notes that is is both manufacturer's marketing  ploys, and American consumers' love of the new that leads to obsolescence. However i don't think it prevents us from having attachments to our possessions. People still love their ipod, even if it breaks after  a few years. The culture of our country is to rave about new features on gadgets being released  next month; whereas  the fact that these gadgets are not so reliable sort of takes the back seat, unless it's blatant. Furthermore, it is more important for us to have a "cool" image with the new iphone as opposed to a paperweight samsung from 1999. Just like the manufacturers package and brand  their products, we too, brand ourselves to everyone around us using these  products.

World and wikipedia Part II

The second half Dalby's book focuses on why we as internet users, love wikipedia. It seems to me that the reason we love it is the same reason that it is unreliable: The fact that anyone can edit any entry. Once an article is saved, it is impossible to do a background check on the credibility of the user. We are hidden behind our monitors and keyboards, so as long as the reuputation of wikipedia remains credible, that will cement the credibility of all their articles online, unless they are obviously flawed. While Wikipedia may have some inconsistincies within it about scholarly topics, such as the structure of an atom, I think Wikipedia has a lot going for it in terms of its culture referincing. For instance, no real encyclopedia will comment about Lonelygirl's fake video blogs and the whole controversy that ensued there. But wikipedia will, and for the most part it will be accurate. It goes beyond the culture that exists in our everyday life and physical history. We have created a virtual culture and the timeline of that will be recorded online, so to rid of wikipedia is to tear out a giant chunk of our online culture. Dalby also speaks about why we don't trust wikipedia. Sometimes what occurs is Wikipedia will reference itself in the footnotes, a kind of circular reference. However it is still a giant in terms of internet traffic. I believe this is largely due to the fact that google posts Wikipedia's articles in the top 5, if not the first or second, of its search results. Internet users trust Google's algorithm enough to insist that the top search results are the best, rendering Wikipedia a great source of information.

The World and Wikipedia Part 1

To me, wikipedia is a truly wonderful tool, both from a learning perspective as well as its general interface. My typical use of the website involves me genuinely trying to find a basic explanation/definiton of an entry, followed by hopping around through links in the website. While this can waste a lot of time, it most certainly feeds an inner hunger for information.
In "The World and Wikipedia," Andrew Dalby takes his readers through a historical timeline of wikipedia, explaining how the website came into existence, through its birth and growth. He compares wikipedia to a traditional encyclopedia, with wikipdia's main difference is that non-expert laymen can freely contribute to any entriy of their choice. The problem arises with reliability, naturally, but also the collaborative project exposes the website to vandalism by contributors who aren't even attempting to sincerely populate an entry. In my opinion though, the former is a bigger issue, because it is much harder to discern between, an ordinary person's real attempt of explanation and that of an expert's, and a shot at humor or strong personal bias and an expert's contribution.
Wikipedia tends to have an emphasis to popular culture. However these inappropriate entries, along with unverified information are usually straightened out over time by other people. Dalby states: "Disproportionate emphasis on popular culture does happen, but that over time substance is added and entries are extended." Basically, as more people began to use the site, the site corrects itself. This concept is a bit like the law of large numbers; if you take a small sample of the population you are unlikely to see a normal curve, but the closer the sample size gets to the population the more the curve looks normal.
While there has been a astronomical rise in articles, Wikipedia has seen a fall in contributors too. This can be blamed on the fact that the website is much more structured now, with rules governing what can or can't be edited. Dalby outside of his book states, "It’s definitely a worrying trend...One question is, is there any new stuff to do on the site? When Wikipedia reaches 3 million articles, how many new articles can there be?" He believes that the main reason wikipedia grew was because of the lack of rules it had in its infant stages. But as its popularity grew, so does its publicity, so that when an article incorrectly claimed that Senator Edward Kennedy had died, the administrators of the website had no choice but to buckle down on editing rules. To Neil Postman, the author of Technopoly, this would be a prime example of how technology can harm us. But once again, I stick to the belief that it is not technology, but technology in the hands of the wrong people (ie. pranksters) that can mislead its users. Wikipedia works on the principle that people want accurate and timely information; of course a few bad apples can fall in there, but one cannot deny that it is a valuable resource.

Technopoly Part 2

Technology has now become not only a part of culture, but also a state  of mind. Anybody who is an expert in the use of technology in preexisting fields, is given "priestly status. " In a way, i can see that there is some truth to this. The really intelligent people from high school, who we viewed as "nerds" were always technologically advanced yet they were also noted as those who will be most successful in life. Clearly, there was a correlation between how good someone is with technology and whether they are successful or not. This does parallel to "Computers" where Bill Gates, the creator of Microsoft, turned out to to be one of the richest men on the planet.
Postman continues to address other aspects of technology like Scientism, which sits on three main ideas: First of all, the methodology of classic science can be adopted and used in the study of human behavior. Second, social science fundamental principles can be utilized to create a productive society. Lastly, and most discerningly, faith in science becomes a comprehensive belief system “that gives meaning to life, as well as a sense of well-being, morality, and even immortality” (147)
Postman's remedy for the takeover  of technology is to try to look at technology with a wary eye. He suggests you “maintain an epistemological and psychic distance from any technology, so that it always appears somewhat strange, never inevitable, never natural” (185) In order for this  to become a reality, Postman wants an idea-centered and coherence-centered education to be in place. Although, I agree that much of technology has a  powerful effect on our live, I don't think that it goes hand-in hand at all with the deterioration of moral in American culture. If anything, today, we live in a country that is more tolerant, has a smaller gap between the rich and the  poor, lower crime rates in cities such as New York and Los Angeles, more than 50% of the population believes in a God, etc. His idea that Technology changes the practice of medicine by redefining what doctors are, redirecting where they focus their attention, and reconceptualizing how they view their patients and illness” (105) is simply ridiculous.
 Doctors always have and will always be Doctors. Their purpose has not  changed. They are there to help patients overcome their illnesses, and  we are on the cusp of a technological revolution in medicine that helps us target and cure diseases almost regularly. There  is nothing wrong with technology. Just like there is nothing wrong with the pen in Hitler's hand used to write Mein Kampf. Technology is all about how it is used, and the general direction we are headed in with technology is to better the man.