“Why the future doesn’t need us.”
The author discloses some of the future potential crisises that we need to consider. However, these concerns seem to lack a full consideration of different aspects of human society. There is never a threat that can match humans themselves.
The Human race has a long way to go before the scenario and concern like machines as a substitute for human race described in the article can happen. We have environmental pollution, social movement and other issues than technological catastrophe to consider. It is possible that all crises might happen, but the article does not point out clearly what are we going to do. In addition, in the example of robots, I found it was too ideal like a movie scene when robot has a human’s complexity of emotion and intelligence. It is true that technological development definitely going to change human life in every aspect like a revolution. We can surely expect great benefits as well as huge problems lying ahead. Physically, machines can have a higher performance, but not mentally. Technology lacks the ultimate characteristic—to err and learn from the mistake. It cannot evolve by itself. It is humans themselves who decide where the direction of development of technology will go. If we rethink the purpose of technology that is to benefit mankind, the answer will be clear. Technology is a two-sided blade that depends on who uses it.
Still, technological crisis seems like a consequence that future generations and our own are going to suffer and that’s why moral value is involved in. If we stick to the original purpose, humans should have the ultimate control no matter what have been through. Although this statement is too optimistic, it will give us a direction to go. Being concerned with these possible crises will not help in solving problems such as questionable artificial food. While we are thinking of technology, we must never forget humanity. I believe only when we truly understand the priceless value of life can we find the balance between technology and human race.
Ends of forgetting
Years ago, I found a false trial in the newspaper. It proved the man was actually innocent, but I still found the old entry of the cases because it involves sensational topics. Nothing has been corrected or updated. This is a time when we need to think through how we use social network and broadcasting of our life.
Social networks affect people’s judgments. As asserted before, like technology, whether they can be good or bad depends on the way users and managers use it. From the example of the liberation of Egypt, we can clearly see how social communicate media change our life tremendously.
There are also private issues. We need to first understand whether it is a trust worthy information from social networks. Like it described in the article, people tend to maintain a good reputation on the digital world. From the example that employer decided not to hire a employee based on their Facebook page, we have the tendency to believe that users put their real identity on social networks. Is this true? Some truth is only partially revealed in the web post and can cause serious misunderstandings if interpreted in a different manner. In the world of media, who is feeding the viewer? Are we, the users, really control the cyberspace in the way we believe?
Vanish-style app is a good solution to protect a personal file, although they may cause some problems like accidententally lost data and may lose the meaning of post it online. Data is supposed to remind record and erasing data may only happen if the necessity demands. The problem is people have a different view in the word “necessity.” If data are not going to linger, it probably happened only on personal privacy. In that case, we really need to think through what temporary info means to us. Is it for fun? A liberty that anyone has a voice to share? Or it merely is a consequence record of social interaction? If we use consequence-driven manner to decide what we are doing, will we still post every detail of daily life on the web?
Facebook changes the way people communicate and interact; change company’s market decision and operation; changing the way government and public access.
It is, however, an influential tool, not a replacement of real communication. Nothing can replace a simple hug.
Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural
Pranav Mistry, from the MIT media Lab
The article point out several difficulties we have in developing gesture based interface. It does not discourage me of the amazing effect that I found in gesture-based interaction.
The reading materials do point out gesture user interface has certain weakness. For instance, it is true that learning gesture required a certain time to learn and get used to it. However, we should never underestimate the potential of how GUI going to change the history of technology. Its potential qualities amaze us how we can use simple things to achieve abundance order. The rest of detail problem can be solvable throughout in long run. For example, if the gesture is actually upset to ergonomics, like the article said, adding conventional interface can still make the system works.
Like I described in the expectation of the class, Pranav’s (Pranav Mistry, from the MIT media Lab) invention “sixthsense” is incredibly amazing. The demo show is a prototype, there are too many details required to fix. Those gestures are too many for user to remember, image on screen is not very clear and it is possible to make your arm sore based on my observation. In other words, it may not easy to use. However, after I see how it can be applied in different way like playing games, surfing website, sending data, checking selling information on the product itself, I am astonished that a simple gadget with gesture can do more than I first imagine. It may not be a replacement of iphone or computer in recent years but it can be applied in certain place like helping minority to live a better life.
The most valuable lesson I learned form sixthsense is that it opens a new aspect for me to consider the interaction between physical world and digital world. Why constrain myself only thinking of computer. Don Norman’s arguments seems lack of the confidence in future development. To further develop GUI will take a while but in long term, it will benefits us.
We should understand how GUI going to change the habit we are using. We can focus on is its future development. Imagine a scenario: when we no longer sit in front of the computer but using cyber glove dealing data and folder with spaces and can interact with each other. Isn’t it better if we do not need to stick our eye to our Mac and can do facial contacts in the classroom?
Great Wall of Facebook
When Social network websites like twitter or facebook dominate the reign of internet, It is highly possible that everyone is closely connected in future generation than ever. The way that user, using their true identity, to communicate with each other is already changing the way people communicate. This is quite true. Politician, celebrity, even a teacher have to be cautious on what they said before and picture that they post before Instead of focusing of the how the facebook compete with google, I believe we should think more about how this going to change users reaction.
I believe that these two websites are totally different. I never have the experience using facebook as a platform to do research. It means I do not how to? Google has a dumbest way to turn to a computer for an answer. And we need to spend lots of time to find the information required. On the other hand, behind the social networks sits a person. It can be anyone and any type of information whether it is useful or trifle personal matters. We still need to find someone to ask and wait for reponse. Communication still takes time. The problem is the overwhelming information we do not need and we can not find the most updated information. If facebook do not change the way we search for information, it will become a google-liked social website. Personally, I would love to see if they can truly cooperate with each together. It will be tremendously difficult but provide a way for user to search and exchange information at the same time.
Turning to friend for answer is not the only way to search info. The articles in social networks are normally shorter for viewers’ convenient. It means we are actually feeding the viewer in a fast food manner. There is also another issue—who has the control of cyberspace? User? facebook owner? When everyone has a voice, do we truly understand media moral and law on this cyberspace? Is there any discipline to control moral value decided by the majority social value? Or consensus of self-discipline? Is the society encourages us to continuously stay on-line and keep broadcasting trifle things like where I am and what I eat? These examples merely remind us do we really want to know what do every body is now doing?