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.