What Comes After PC....Perhaps UB?

It was only weeks ago that we were discussing the end of simple technologies. Libraries. Newspapers. All ceasing to exist as we know them thanks to the rise in the Internet. And what led to the rise in the Internet? The rise in the Personal Computer. Yes, the PC. Both loved and loathed on several different levels. Now that we are at the end of the PC, what’s next? We already have the portable pads (iPad, Kindle Fire). Is there anything that we have yet to acquire?

As a matter of fact, yes. Introducing the new Ultrabook. It seems only right that, since Apple led to the fall of the PC, they also lead to the promoting of it during the second go-round. Ultimately, what started as Apple’s engineering led to a sudden invention that none expected. According to Kerdick (2011), the Ultrabook is simply a laptop with a couple modifications:

• is less than 20mm (0.8 inches) thick
• has no optical drive
• uses a solid-state drive (SSD) for all storage
• uses a Core i5, i7 processor
• weighs less than 1.4 kg (3.1 lbs.)
• yields 5 - 8+ hours of battery life
• priced around $1,000

Not only is the Ultrabook the next line in technological advancement, but Goldman (2011) expects that “the rise of the Ultrabook will happen quickly.” Just as the PC started, then the iPad, the Ultrabook is forecasted to account for a huge proportion of netbook sales by 2015.

Now, as always, we have the so what? The Ultrabook may be the next step in PC technology, but where does that leave the personal computer? Obviously, we cannot simply forget the PC just because something better comes along. It is nice to know that we are growing as a society and that each year we get a step closer to superb innovations, but when do we say stop. Like I have said multiple times this semester, I am all for “what’s next”, but only so long as we don’t forget “what’s now.”

The PC may be outdated, but it’s not dead. If we move in this new direction, it will only be a matter of years before the Ultrabook is outdated as well. These are necessary updates and we need to learn to advance our technology, but we also need to know when to leave well enough alone. Movies like iRobot and Eagle Eye predict that technology will one day rule us, not the other way around. We can only hope that is at least a decade off still.

To End That Movie Magic

For any of you in Valley City, you are most likely aware of the auction currently taking place to find a new owner for Theater I & II. The building has stood on Main Street for as long as several can remember (i.e. the 1970s) and long provided movie-goers fun and entertainment. Now, with the economy the way it is, Wayne Loberg, owner and operator, wants to sell the property. In an article done by the Times Record (which is not available online), Loberg mentions that it’s time for him to move on and…

All this is fine and dandy. However, we must not bypass a major cornerstone to the movie theater industry; the projectors. In this case, the projectors and equipment at Theater I & II makes it rather difficult to keep up with the demands of the time. In Valley City, the movies are still shown through a series of pulleys and gears (I can remember the process of preparing a movie well) and the actual film is still just that: film. This may not seem such a big deal, except when the rest of the theaters have moved on to digital projectors and digital picture.

So here’s where we ask the so what? What does it matter if Theater I & II in Valley City, ND, cannot afford to update to the digital films? So what if they must shut down? So what if this is happening nationally in smaller theaters that can only show a couple films at a time? We are in a thriving technological society; progress, simply for the sake of progress, is our top priority. To accomplish this, we are willing to let go of the simple pleasures to make room for shiny and ravishing toys.

Okay, so beyond rambling about Valley City potentially losing its movie theater, what is the purpose of this post? I started thinking when I read about this topic about how much we want technology to change how we live. In this case, the technology does not change anything personal for movie goers (except perhaps providing a better picture). Instead, people like Wayne Loberg must suffer as they try to stay operational in a changing world. Think of it as asking if we should “turn off the internet just to keep the libraries open” (iRobot, 2005). While I am all for progress, I do not want to see us destroy what we already have, take for granted where we came from, and find ourselves at the mercy of the technology we so sought over.

Perhaps this is the end to an era. The movie magic we all came to know and love has switched to ultrasound and iMax screens. Yes, they’re good, but they’re not the same. And they never will be. And that’s what we need to remember.

“…White, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford…”

Stereotypes can destroy a work environment, classroom, or any other public venue. The stereotype could be harmless (i.e. assuming the man in the business suit and carrying the briefcase is a big-wig business associate) or harmful (i.e. assuming the man in jeans and t-shirt is the pizza delivery boy). Either way, our society is designed to create stereotypes based on all situations. Technology is no different. What’s the stereotype, you may ask. Well, in an article by Laurie Segall (2011), the claim is made that “’the world’s greatest entrepreneurs’ are almost all “white, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford.’”

Shall we examine the validity of this claim?

Mark Zuckerberg:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Facebook
• Male
• Leave of Absence from Harvard
• The Social Network leads us to believe he is, for all intents and purposes, a nerd

Mark Zuckerberg fits the stereotype.

Steve Jobs:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Apple
• Male
• Attended Reed College for a semester
• Designed first computer, consisting of only a circuit board

Steve Jobs fits two of the three stereotypical claims. However, the fact that he did drop out of college after a single semester leads to the same philosophy as a Harvard or Stanford dropout. Jobs is a match.

Bill Gates:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Microsoft
• Male
• 1975 Harvard dropout
• Began studying computers in 7^th grade, which lends toward the title of nerd

Gates is a perfect match.

Larry Page:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Google
• Male
• Stanford PhD student
• Author of an algorithm (with Co-Founder Sergy Brin)

Larry Page is another match to the stereotype.

Four of the biggest names in technology fit the stereotypical claim almost to the letter. Should this be startling? Of course not. Seagull states that, with the pattern, investors have no trouble believing the company will take off, despite its construct or usefulness. She goes on to say that, in the technology world, diversity is just not a main focus. However, many are trying to rectify this situation. Some companies/programs are aiming specifically at female students. The problem, however real it may be, needs to be fixed. In a society where the dominant culture is shifting to the minority, companies must look toward new types of entrepreneurs. The stereotype, however accurate it may be, has met its end.

The Next Step...uh, Click...In Democracy?

We can do awesome things on the internet: check our bank account, shop, create digital memory books, etc. Often, we take for granted all the amazing tasks we can complete in the click of a button, simply because we have come to expect it. I have noticed a strange theme throughout my blogs this semester—unintentional as it may be—and that is the idea of easy communication. With technology, people think everything should be one, two, three and done. Obviously, then, it should come as no surprise when I introduce my next topic. Elections…online?!

Think about it. What could easier than conducting your vote for president, governor, mayor in the comfort of your own home, on your personal computer, on your own time. The reasoning behind such a proclamation is valid. Right?

Well, as Doug Gross (2011) states, it depends on who you ask. Some advocate that, in this new digital age, we need to change our methods and embrace the technology before us. And it makes sense. How many votes cannot make it to the polls because of time conflicts? Lack of transportation? As Rob Weber (2011) points out, “The digital revolution has the ability to revolutionize our entire political system by revolutionizing our voting system.” Yet, we have steered clear of this, a method that could make the voting process swift, easy, and efficient.

However, not all are as supportive. Avi Rubin does not feel online voting is a safe alternative to the method we currently have. There is a reason we stick to paper polls: they work. His fear is the hackers. Would hackers find it difficult to invade an online poll and switch the tallies? One quality online voting does not possess is accuracy. Especially in a presidential election, accuracy is a key component. Remember the Presidential Election of 2000: one state with skewed counts set the entire election in jeopardy. Online voting could potentially open the doors for more issues of this nature.

Each side presents a strong argument. However, we must ask ourselves, just because the technology is there, must we utilize it? It’s like saying that a student has to use his personal answer sheet because it’s there. Ultimately, he’s cheating. Does placing the voting process online cheat us out of a true democratic system? The possible arguments are endless, and we could never reach a full consensus. Online voting software exists and is currently operational. Perhaps they need to be implemented on a trial basis. Like I said, people want easy, but when does easy go too far? Elections…online?! You be the judge…

Trust Me: Your Number's Up!

Trust: A word that, although small, carries a large impact. We, as a society, collectively trust certain people or things. For instance, we trust that each day, the sun will rise. We trust that each year, Black Friday will dominate in overall sales. We trust the counselor will not divulge information of a personal nature. And, of all people or organizations, we trust that companies who have acquired identify driven information (addresses, social security number, credit card number, etc.) will keep it private. However, according to David Goldman, we may be placing our trust on them in vain. In an article released November 1, 2011, Goldman states:

“In mid-October, Verizon Wireless changed its privacy policy to allow the company to record customers’ location data and Web browsing history, combine it with other personal information like age and gender, aggregate it with millions of other customers’ data, and sell it on an anonymous basis.”

Verizon Wireless is using our information to pull a profit. After conducting some research, it would appear Verizon Wireless is in violation of its own Privacy Policy, which reads. “Specific laws govern our sharing and use of certain customer information known as Customer Proprietary Network Information.” Think about it: Verizon Wireless in violation of its privacy policy which in violation of this second law. Apparently that is acceptable in today’s society when selling private information comes as a type of sport. I mean, who doesn’t want their identity stolen, right?

A story of this magnitude blew up the newspapers, website, and televisions. We are supposed to be able to trust these companies. Especially today, when our lives are so heavily revolved around cell-phones and communication, we need to believe that companies aren’t going to betray our trust and sell what basically encompasses our personalities. I shouldn’t believe that my information is safe when suddenly, and without warning, these companies decide to make some extra money.

Don’t think Verizon Wireless is alone in this: At&T, Spring, and T-Mobile have jumped on this endeavor in attempts to make some “extra cash.” It is important to note that these companies do not hand the information over; rather, they provide opportunities for other corporations to target us with ads. (Because that’s what we all want with our days!) It’s still against all the policies that we have come to recognize. Apparently, we must come to terms with this. You know what they say, “An ad a day keeps the money at bay.”