Study Journal #6

11/19/2015

*Why do we not receive liahonas in front of our doors today? It’s because the Lord doesn’t need to give us that any more. From a practical stand point. we already have devices that can do the directing that the Liahona did. The things the Lord gives us today are the same as what He gave Lehi: the means of carrying out the Lord’s commandments.

*It is no coincidence that the world wide church has come to pass in the same age as the world wide web. The Lord has provided the means for managing the needs of a world wide church with the technologies of today; needs that wouldn't even have been conceived of in prior dispensations.
*Church leaders are talking to us about the internet in a different way than they've talked about anything in the past. Joseph F.Smith taught that members should not use face cards. It was a complete 'no'. However, now leaders are instructing use to use the internet; with caution, but to use it. The members ourselves are growing up and becoming more responsible. The Lord can trust us to make these individual efforts.

12/1/2015
*The truth about computerization and automation in translation (and indeed in any industry) is not that it will replace jobs, but it will require a different set of skills in order to take advantage of the benefits offered by said automation/computerization. The perfect example of this was that computer aided translation is more about fast editing than fast translation.
*The church is always going to be working on things that the rest of the world is ignorant of, simply because they don't need them to the same degree that the church does. A lot of people don't recognize the amount of work the church does in different areas. I'm sure that the day will come that people will suddenly realize that they need a translation software that meets their capacitance needs, and will discover that the church has been building it for years.
*The video showing the estimation that complete machine translation would be possible within 5 years is a great example of the hubris of man. And yet, it sets up a great contrast to the power of God, who has been able to cause so much to come about in His church. Similar to the tower of Babel, the men who set too lofty of goals inevitably end up not reaching them, while those who follow God's direction are those who gain the greatest heights.

12/3/2015
*A question of responsibility: we're in a time of such rapid discovery and creation that we lose track of the ethical foundations that should be underpinning our discovery and creations. This is a good thing to remember, even when I'm in my future job(s): just because it's part of my job responsibilities, does that mean it's the right thing to do? This kind of introspection will not only help me feel good about my work, but also help me to stay focused on it.
*Given that "Communication is the sinew that binds the Church as one great family" (Pres. Hinckley), it is paramount that our communications reflect that. How many times do I think of a facebook post or tweet as being an archetype of my communication with the other members of the church?
*The sheer variety of ways in which we can spread the gospel is another proof of the increased trust the Lord puts in us today. The brethren advise us not only on why we must share the gospel, but also how. 100 years ago it consisted of "go here and preach to the people." Now there are so many ways and that also opens the opportunity up to so many more people.

12/8/2015

*All the things that needed to be in place for the current state of family history to be able to take place is simply astounding. Even thinking about monks in the middle ages who were “compelled to preserve records.” Up until now that drive might not seem so relevant. It makes me think about how much else has happened in the past that with more context we’d realize was really inspired/driven by the spirit

*Given the speed of the databases and the sheer amount of records, we’re getting to the point where you can automagically populate the list of ancestors who need ordinances. The question that arises is whether that is something that we should let happen, because half of the blessings of genealogy is doing the work to find that information. So do those blessings go away if it’s automagically applied? Do they get applied to the blessings of doing temple work then, because a machine did all the work?
*I love hearing the little witnesses of the spirit. Hearing the story of the engineer who came up with the method to scan the microfilm strips is a great reminder that the Lord is in all the small details, and that he will guide me in my life as much as he guides the greater work of the church.

Current Event 6

Though light on content, this article highlights an important part of a continuing effort by the church to adopt and utilize technology to effect the greatest good possible. This demonstrates the church's resourcefulness, regarding both the talent and the technology. By collaborating with well known artists who have made a name for themselves (separate from their membership in the church), the church shows that it is able to entrust its message to the interpretation of others. By utilizing the technologies of social media, the church displays that it is comfortable with technologies that it had no hand in creating. In this way, the church is showing to the world not only enthusiasm about Christmas (the surface message), but that it will confidently use the same technologies abused by many to do so. This is instructive both to members of the church as well as to the world; showing the potential for good that such technologies possess. There's certainly opportunity for the brethren to have shied away from using these new technologies, but it is evidence of the guiding hand of the Lord that the church is instead embracing them.

Study Journal 5

11/5/2015

*Granted, equality != quotas. However, big companies such as Google or Microsoft cannot ensure that their hiring process is equal on all fronts; just with the huge mass of people that have to go through, and the amount of people that that have to interview them. Their quotas are a necessary implement when they don’t have the fine control over every situation to ensure “equality.”

*Our discussion makes me think about this point: how do we ensure that everyone has the opportunity and ability to pursue what they want? Opportunity - experience with everything to see what they would like. Ability - lack of pressure to choose something different than what they want. There are so many competing cultural and professional values that press people towards certain directions that it becomes impossible to have unlimited ability, which prematurely shuts down the opportunity.

*I find it interesting how much of a hot-button issue this (women in tech) is. Even though it (women in the workplace) has been in the public forum for decades, it's clearly still an issue, which is why we're still talking about it. I believe that it will continue to remain in the public discourse because it is such a personal issue. The rising generation learns about it from the old, and carries on the banner until the next generation.

11/10/2015
*Even though our conversation surrounds violent video games, I'm intrigued by the number of people commenting who immediately tie it to video games at all. Several people have already stated that they don't like playing video games.

*This issue seems to have become somewhat polarized, which I believe to be a latent reaction to the furor against video games. Enough people enjoy it that, when threatened, start to retaliate back against the anti-video gamers in order to protect what they love. Because of this, the anti- side is always going to be louder, because they have the original passion, where as the other side is just trying to protect a status quo.

*I love that this is still such an issue. Weren't video games first targeted back in the 1990s? You can point to all the 'evidence' in the world, but it's clear no one will listen once they have their mind made up about the morality of the thing. And that's what it comes down to; people have come to moral decisions regarding video games, which infuses the issue into their own perception of right and wrong.

11/12/2015

*How much of the problems we see in gender issues in technology are just because we don’t stop to think? That we don’t stop to question the cultural values we’ve grown up surrounded by?

*The interesting thing about this presentation is that it’s clear that Cydni has experienced a specific culture related to male-female relationships. I’ve never experienced the idea that I shouldn’t go to to lunch with a woman, until just this past summer, and it was such a strange idea to me. On a meta level, Cydni has grown up with these specific biases so strongly that she assumes we have all experienced those same issues.

*We’ve discussed how women’s lives in the tech industry are fundamentally different from men’s lives in the tech industry, because women are still the ones who drive the family (taken from Cydni’s own words). I value the time I get to spend with my family, and so I too dislike early morning or late night meetings.. yet I am not in a position to advocate for that change because I am a man in technology. I recognize that her presentation wasn't about equality in the workplace, but about women in the workplace. It strikes me that as long as there are differences between men and women (which there will be forever) then there can never truly be 'equality' in the way it is currently touted today.

Current Event 5

The event that springs to mind when talking about social issues in computing is not the most current, but it's a story that impacted me strongly. The twitter frat party hit the news during the summer and was spread around my office at the time. This party was an effort by a single team within the organization, and yet because it was a part of the company it caused the company to be on the receiving end of lots of retaliation. The current state of social issues in computing is really due to the industry. The fact that there are big companies that drive the industry is where the attention of the industry lies. This leads to there being a necessary connect between the individual/team level of the company and the company itself. This is why quotas are set, and a team is attacked in an implicit poor representation of their company. This unity of all levels of the company are to protect the company. Ideally, those measures are in place out of a good heart, but as is seen from the article they also result from external pressure. The current state of social awareness in the computer industry is as much based on good will as it is on the artificiality that comes from being a large and influential company.

Study Journal 4

10/27/2015

*What is the role that trust plays in financial interactions? If you know and trust someone, what about that makes you more likely to give them your money? Is it because you assume they are less likely to rip you off? Is it because you assume you have some ability to seek recompense if they do? In reality, there is no more guarantee (objectively) that a person you know will protect your money than that a person you don’t know will protect your money. I believe that trust only makes a difference because the allure of increase is so strong that people essentially use trust as an excuse to give their money out and hope it multiplies

*In a similar vein, it seems that when money is on the line it brings out the basest instincts of everyone involved. This whole video is seeming to point out certain groups as being at fault for the dot com burst. However, the reason those stocks had such meteoric rises and plummets was also due to normal investors betting their money against those stock fortunes. I would posit that both the success and failure (but especially failure) of one’s money in the stock market are as much a fault of the investor as they are of the “big money groups.” I’m sure I would feel differently if I were in that situation, but looking at it from the outside it seems clear to me that no one was thinking rationally about their decisions.

*In a sense, it’s not simply the fact that people lost money that ire was raised. That is to say, it’s not the simple act of losing personal property (or the symbolic representation of potential holdings, which is the function of money). Rather, it’s an issue of pride. People lost money and they reacted strongly because they had made a decision to invest in that particular company, and so were reacting in that way in order to not have to acknowledge that they made a mistake. The humble thing to do would be to learn from that experience and say “I won’t make that mistake again.” Clearly, those on wallstreet are not inclined to be humble.

10/29/2015

*”The human dilemma is as it has always been.” Here’s the funny thing about the past--it happened before we were born. I’m not saying I disagree with Postman, but it seems interesting to me that he hangs the introduction to his whole talk on this flimsy statement. It seems to me that the technology of today has in fact changed the human dilemma, or at least the way we approach the “human dilemma.” Centuries ago humankind struggled to find enough food to last until tomorrow. Today, we look much further ahead and on a much more abstract than mere subsistence. While there is some element of similarity here, I would argue that it is fundamentally different than the past, and it is technology which has effected that result.

*Postman talks about the tradeoffs of new technologies. He reminds us of the negative effects that technologies can have. However, these are almost always recognized in hindsight. The reason our culture keeps growing is that when new technologies are introduced, those technologies are pretty unanimously accepted. Our technological advance kind of depends on our inability to avoid thinking about any negative effects.

*”Every new technology benefits some and harms others.” I also take issue with this statement. The only true example of this pattern Postman gives are from the printing press. His example of the television doesn’t really hold up. I feel like this statement applies less to technology in specific, and more accurately to social/cultural events in general. It wasn’t really the printing press that created that dichotomy of benefit and harm. It was the preexisting differences between Catholicism and protestants that had been going on for years. Did the printing press help? Certainly. But the harm and benefits can’t be assigned to the domain of the technology only.

11/3/2015

*I would say that the philosophy inherent in computers persuades the “computer person” to discriminate less amongst kinds of information. When all information is equally available, then cat memes become as valuable as rocket science. The “computer person” values information by quantity, rather than applicability or usefulness. The utility of knowledge is increased y the more random a fact is.

*What Postman labels as “radical” is very different from the typical “radicality” that is held by the day-to-day society. Most people consider conservatism/radicalism as being ethically related -- conservatives hold to old traditions and values, radicals break out of the molds created by the old values. When Postman talks about radicals, what he means is someone who latches onto an emerging technology and whose influence ends up shaping the way culture forms around the new technology. His rhetoric is confusing and conflicting

*While I understand his cautions, I also look at the state of our culture, especially since the time which he gave that talk, and think that no one is really going to pay attention to his admonitions of viewing technology as a "strange intruder." I understand the points he makes, but if he really understands culture, he understands the you can't simply tell people to "think about whether the thing that everyone around you is doing might not have some negative effects." There is definitely a lemming-like aspect to technological adaptation, and that's going to be much stronger that a few people who dip their toe in the water and decide that it's too deep for them.

Current Event 4

Over the course of the semester, we've learned much about the character and ethics of the software industry. In this module we are considering the impact of said industry on business and finance. Thus, upon reading this article, I sensed a connection to the content of our current discussion. One of the things that the article so aptly demonstrates is the range of outreach that the software industry has. The business model of my grandfather's generation was very local - it was a feat to expand one's business prospects into another state, let alone another country. However, we see our world rapidly becoming a global community. Certainly, Apple's decision to open stores in the Arab world demonstrates the new business models that are being considered. Having built its fortune on computers, Apple is not only expanding geographically, but also in its branding. By opening up next to stores such as Armani and Burberry, the company is stylizing itself as a fashion company as much as a computer company.

Journal Entry #3

10/6/2015

*Freedom is a word that, like love, can mean vastly different things to many different people. In our consumerist society we’re so quick to say that free=good, free=optimum. However, in software, the definition of free doesn’t imply the same benefits that free means at the grocery store. A linux distro is very different from a cookie; the latter is pre-packaged and easily consumable. The former is like giving you ingredients with no recipe or oven. Sure, those components are free but it still takes effort to take advantage of them and package them yourselves. Microsoft provides the cookie.

*The most interesting thing to me is that the free software movement is about more than just providing software, but allowing for a software community. This is starting to sound less like an industry report and more like the american revolution. It really is a lot of people rebelling against the current practices based on what seems to be strong moral objection. In other words, a revolution

*Looking back on this revolution from today’s perspective, when free software is so prevalent, it’s hard to visualize the struggles that Stallman and others were facing, pioneering this new idea of content distribution. And yet the landscape of today’s software is fundamentally based on that.

10/82015

*Cliff Stoll goes through a big change of perspective, especially with regards to the government. Though his latter beliefs line up with mine, I don't think that his experience necessarily made him learn the 'truth', rather, his experience merely opened his eyes and made him question previously held assumptions. Were I to go through the same experience, my outlook would definitely change.

*Some things about Stoll are consistent throughout the book -- for example, his mistrust of authority which impels him to take things into his own hands. Because he doesn't wait for someone else to 'take charge', he ended up spearheading this whole campaign to find the hacker. I like to think that he was uniquely placed, both in position but also in personality, to find this issue and track it down. I suspect that him ending up in that position was far from coincidental. There was probably sizable inspiration that resulted in him being in the location he was in

*I'm intrigued that today's discussion is so different from Tuesday's. On Tuesday we talked about free software, and today we're talking about all the ways to legally protect software. Clearly the software world is divided on the best strategy for software development. I kind of expect that commercial software will overtake opensource, in spite of how well open source has done. This I expect because of how much appeal commercial software development has to the rising generation of engineers.

10/13/2015

*Privacy issues are a big deal, obviously, but I kind of feel like they're generational. I see a lot more outcry about privacy from people who are closer to my parents' generation than from my own peers. We've grown up in a world where tons of information is easily accessible, so the idea that our own information might be viewable by the government doesn't turn as many heads.

*When people make comments about the proper way that a government should be run (thinking on the wikileaks article), the first thing I think of is the past. The origin of the US government happened under extremely different circumstances and needs than today. I find it interesting that so many people discuss the 'right' way that a government should be run, though it's never sourced to anything historical or traditional. It has the flavor of a naturalistic logical fallacy.

*What interests me about the NSA email collection article is the acknowledgement that this has been happening since the Bush administration and into the Obama administration. It is examples like this that make me reflect on presidential administrations and realize that there's so much more that goes into them an individual president. You can't assign any result of a campaign to an individual president, as there may be other things in progress from previous administrations.

10/15/2015

*I'm really fascinated that President Benson is so plain in his condemnation of communism. I think the culture of today is so focused on not offending anyone that we tend to think of communism and communist societies in a friendly light. But he is very straight forward. I need to remember that communism is directly against the principles of the gospel.

*The way the public found out about the email collection was by a leak from a former attorney in the Justice Department. It just goes to show that a government or agency can make as many policies as they want, but actions still come down to the choices of individuals. Reminds me of the line from the Cuckoo's Egg when Dennis tells Stoll that the whole network is a community based on trust. Clearly, the community the attorney had been in was not strongly based on trust, because he felt driven to reveal their information (break their policy), rather than keep it a secret (keep the policy)

*I understand the point the hacktivists are trying to make, but I don't think they realize the value of actually having the point be understood. They seem to be so caught up in this struggle with 'authority' that they don't realize that their methods are what's decreasing the chance for understanding. That being said, the fault rests squarely with both parties. The figures of authority are doing no favors by being so reactionary, either.

10/20/2015

*This discussion is a perfect example of the laws of a society evolving to meet the needs and the culture of the society. Before cameras, no one really conceived of so readily copying information in such a way that can be done with cameras. The law, in order to properly react to the needs of the people, needs to properly predict from the cultural trends what will be possible to exploit and protect the people from it.

*John Anthony Walker -- his story reminds me of the example of the attorney who leaked the email collection operation. They're not similar by intent, but by action. Both were part of communities that required trust, and both broke that trust of their own volition. Yes, John Walker's was built on a desire to profit personally, and hurt the US, but it was still his own decision that sent him down that path. Ultimately, every community is still composed of individual human beings.

*"Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical" -- we're living in a world where what is right is increasingly separated from what is allowed. This means that it is more important than ever to fix upon a personal moral code (by whatever standards you set yourself; mine are religious) and hold to it. Personal morality is going to become rarer, and therefore more viewed and more respected.

Current Event 3

Given our current class topic of Law and Computing, I was pleased to come across this article. In light of our conversations this week regarding freedom and use of software, this issue brought to light another ethical issue related to the law, namely moral uses of software. Even though next week we will start talking about espionage and cybersecurity, I feel that this issue presses at another legal concern, which is the use of computers to aid in crime and/or evading the law. Now, I find this unique because the crime isn't in the software itself, but in the use of the software. There's concern not for the originality or rights of the software, but for the ones responsible for installing in the first place. To me, this shows that legal concerns over software are a higher order legal concern, meaning that in situations where safety or health is involved, questions about the software itself are inconsequential. I don't disagree with the importance of establishing software rights and/or sharing. I just find it beneficial to recognize the priorities of the law in protecting us, and that they do prioritize our safety over our intellectual property concerns.

Study Journal 2

For those interested, all the reflections from this post come from these videos.

9/22/2015

*”Eating, sleeping, having a girlfriend, or even a social life, all that is incidental to coding time” -- I feel like this documentary is very time-locked, meaning that many of the ideas that were expressed in the video are no longer held by the majority of people in the industry. I know, at least with respect to this idea, that many tech companies now highly advocate a good work-life balance. Another idea similar to this was the idea that computers are a “boy thing”, which again is an idea that is seeing great turnaround in this decade

*”We shared our lives...so when someone solved a problem that everyone had been working on it was everyone’s victory” -- I see this still very much present in today’s open source activities. There are tons of people who contribute to projects who look for no recognition, they only work to improve the software used by everyone. It’s cool to see that, even though a lot of the personal experiences and ideas in the documentary are very time-locked, it’s clear that the movement that was barely starting in the documentary would only continue

*I love the idea of “We didn’t know we couldn’t do it.” I feel like too often (and especially as a student) my first thought when confronted with a project is to say the equivalent of “I can’t do that.” But these people were really in a completely new field, and they really had no idea what was or wasn’t possible. And they accomplished amazing things. I’m going to try to put this perspective into place in my own life

9/24/2015

*Just like in the Cuckoo’s egg, all of the intrigue and personal interaction happens in person or over the phone. This is obvious, given the technology of the time, but it’s still fascinating to me, as someone in a digital age, where most interaction happens through computers, through our devices. I guess it’s just interesting to look at the beginning of this industry, but still so rooted in the past

*”As usual in the PC business, the prize didn’t go to the inventor, but the  exploiter of the technology” -- There were many examples of this pattern in the section of the video we watched today. The most vital thing that stood out to me was the fat that in the moment, when these deals were made, the person who ended up being worse off really had no reason to not act as they did. It’s only in retrospect that it’s clear that the exploiter made a good decision, and the original creator didn’t recognize the import of what they had made.

*I love this quote about the Apple 2s: “People who had gotten them became kind of religious fanatics” -- It’s interesting to me to see that Apple started out like that. I’m loving seeing how the modern rivalry between apple and microsoft (and not just corporate rivalry, but also ideological rivalry among the layperson) started and developed.

9/29/2015

*The Xerox PARC research center developed really the first personal computer with a GUI. However, they never were able to get that off the ground because their management had no idea what it had the potential of becoming. I find it interesting that it was Steve Jobs and Apple that took off with this idea, not because they stole it, but because they were set up to succeed with it. We’ve discussed in previous installments about how all these companies form after the same pattern, with one technical genius, and one business/visionary type. This is the pattern that allowed for such dynamic change, having the business married to the technical from the beginning.

*It’s great looking back at this documentary from 20 years later, when the internet is fully established and very different from what anyone could have thought of. I would consider Google the Microsoft of the internet, the company that makes the internet the most accessible

*Many things about Apple have not changed. They way overpriced the Macintosh. Steve Jobs, and Apple, were seen as religious crusaders. They lashed out to people that copied them, suing them for copying look and feel. They may have been innovative and new when they first were organized. However, they seem to have settled into a pattern in their innovation, and they just follow that pattern, even until today.

Current Event 2

When I came across this article, I immediately reflected on the video we watched today. My mind was drawn to the idea of new technologies that could go viral, similar to the way the personal computer industry did. I don't know whether VR will be that next explosion of hardware and software. Certainly, more of the infrastructure is there, in the sense the the public is definitely used to this type of sensational device. Certainly VR has a chance to captivate the minds and hearts of consumers. But it also has a chance to fail dramatically. The reason for my uncertainty is due to the history of new super-devices that have come out in the time since the Apple II. Certainly, Apple has continued to be a leader, with the iPod and iPhone. These were both new leaps forward in the consumerist 'must have' mindset. However, other devices have seen almost no popularity despite their hype. I hold as examples the segway, and google glass. I give these examples because each of the items I have listed have represented not only a new device but a new field. Before the iPod there was no concept of the ".mp3 player." That has since become a staple of our culture and society. Before the segway there was no concept of effortless personal transportation. However, that never erupted as a common device. For this reason I cannot forecast the success of VR, but I eagerly await its release.

Study Journal 1

9/8/2015

*I’m reminded of a talk Elder Oaks gave in the october conference of 2000 about the process of being converted. He emphasize the importance of learning to do, and doing to become. Relating this to Aristotle’s ideas on (practical) ethics, it’s amazing to see how interrelated the two thoughts are.

*The note about the distinction between ethics and morality strikes me. It seems that today’s culture is even further gone, as we have delved into the realm of relative morality. I see a general trend to disestablish the validity of morality, so as to even further invalidate the hold of ethical standards on society.

*I feel like there’s another way you can distinguish between ethics and morality than those discussed in class. Ethics is something that can be taught or instructed in a very straightforward manner. Morality, however, is more usually rooted in someone’s core self perception, and not something that can be taught directly. The way to teach morality is to instruct by principle and guide the student to ponder on application. Which, I guess, takes us back to Aristotle and application.
*Conceptually, the implementation of Situational Ethics is not dissimilar to the way a faithful Latter Day Saint may live their day. The difference is that the LDSaint has a standard of principle that his actions are decided upon, consistent from one situation to the next. The Situational Ethicist’s standard is variable. Though the process of deciding to act goes through the same hoops, it is the standard that process is based on that makes the difference. Over the course of 500 situations, we will see consistent behavior from the LD Saint, but varying behavior from the Situational Ethicist.

9/10/2015

*Given that there is a “great difference between ethics and religion,” how much does it matter that there is lots of gray area? Obviously, we as latter day saints believe in consistent behavior no matter the situation. But can we really fault someone without that knowledge who believes it is okay to behave a certain way in one situation, and a different way in another situation?

*Ethics (at least insofar as Traditional Ethics and Situational Ethics) has an implied component which is that there is always a 3rd party to judge the actions and determine them right or wrong (“an action someone makes should be judged”). That’s what gets me about all these man-made ethical systems, is that they are subconsciously approaching a gospel standard but being man-made they never quite get there. But we can see those elements of truth there.

9/15/2015

*In reading about the observation of the fish, I’m reminded of times when I’ve kind of slowed down and really just looked at something. Because of the level of abstraction going on in our brains, I don’t often stop to really observe something for its unique qualities. But because of the times I have done this, I can appreciate the great amount of insight able to be gleaned from such a process.

*I’m very intrigued by Armour’s description of people’s processes, with their manuals and their complex methodologies. I’ve seen examples of these, but it never occurred to me that there was a classification that could encompass all those strategies. This Orders of Ignorance really calls to me; I like the areas of classification that it allows for, in software development as well as in other areas.

*I also really like Armour’s perspective of software development being a container of knowledge, and the idea of cleaning up code as an extension of that final goal. I’m definitely going to try and apply that perspective into my own coding forays.

9/17/2015

*As someone who has made a clear decision to never dramatically exceed the speed limit (I am always less than 5 mph over the posted limit), I find it very interesting that so many members of the class have immediate rebuttals to the idea that their going over the speed limit is unethical. It astounds me that people who claim to follow the 12th article of faith are so comfortable breaking these (perceived as ‘lesser’) laws, such as breaking the speed limit. I also see a lot of illegal downloading and contributing to pirating. The ethical system is in place, but even within our own (LDS) society, there are many who operate after their own set of morals.

*(This is something of a continuation of my previous thought) Given that the modern philosophical definition of morality is “religious and immutable,” I find it interesting that people within our class seem to have derived their own moral standards, somewhat departing from what is taught within our religious society. I also see this same ‘personal morality’ present in my peers from high school, which makes me think that the ‘modern philosophy’ definition of morality, as being something immutable, is somewhat out of date.

*Even though there are many relative moralistic ideals, there are still some things that people generally recognize as being moral, and respect such people who observe those standards. One such example is this idea of not allowing ourselves to be offended. Generally, people who are able to brush off offense are respected amongst their peers. This was especially shown in the story Prof. Dougal shared.

Current Event 1

Microsoft is going to court with the Federal Government. Our current area of focus in class, this being the beginning of the semester, is the foundation of ethics. Thus, it is appropriate to analyze this event within the context of basic ethics; where are the lines of right and wrong in this situation? Certainly, each party has their own right to hold their position. The government has long had a history of prioritizing national safety and information over the privacy of individuals. However, there is a valid question raised now as to how those old practices might apply to the digital, and indeed the cloud, age. True, Microsoft is a company based in the United States, but they serve a worldwide consumer base. Does their ultimate allegiance lie with their customers, or with the US law? What is ultimately the most right thing to do in this situation? The most intriguing aspect of this court case is that Microsoft is arguing over the correct process of obtaining information that is stored in other countries. However, the decision will affect much more than just that issue. It's going to set a precedent for the right of data to be protected for any number of reasons, only one of which has to do with physical location. The decision made will be a decision on the subsequent morality of requesting and/or denying requests for information.

久しぶり - It's been too long

So I still have this blog! For some reason, I haven't really touched it since I finished my stint as an RA. I guess having real friends (and not being in charge of 38 immature freshman) really diminishes my need to vent on the world about whatever is on my mind.

To make a long story short, I did a lot more ballroom dance and in doing so met the woman of my dreams and who is now my wife. See more details about that here: http://mcquivey2015.blogspot.com/

But this blog is called Ha-college matata, and I'm still in college so it's still (theoretically) valid. I figured I'd write a little note here because I'm actually enlivening my blog specifically for a class. Now, it's not some creative writing or journalism class that wants me to utilize various media of communication. No, this is actually a core major class about ethics within the world of computing. And most of our assignments are going to be part of this blog.

Why is this important? Well, if you happen to be one of the people who follow my blog (I think I have 8?), don't be surprised when I start posting short random blurbs. I figured that the things I would be posting were of similar enough quality to my previous posts, so why not just keep using it. And who knows? Maybe it will help me to pick back up writing in my blog!

Anyways, that's just my little update. Stay tuned for my thoughts on current events, class lectures, and more! So exciting :)

じゃね