Kelly's Blog Hist 323

The Road of Technology

2005-04-29T08:23:00.000-07:00

In the video we watched in class, it talked about the expectations of people in the past, and the future of technology. People had thought that by now we would have robots that do household choirs in every household, perhaps colonization on Mars as well as other things. Not much happened as we thought it would. The same holds true for pre-2000. There was talk of flying cars, alternative fuel sources, but none of it happened by 2000. I think that in general, we tend to be overoptimistic about technology, thinking that we can figure it out quickly and that it will be adapted into our society. Though some ideas, like the alternative fuel source, are a good idea and is still being worked on I believe, others, like the idea of a flying car, are a bit too far fetched. Maybe some time in the future we will have things like that, but I do not believe that would happen any time soon. Technology keeps us looking towards the future, planning and developing new designs to help improve our lifestyle.

Radioactive contamination from Chernobyl – how much danger was there to the public?

2005-04-29T08:21:00.000-07:00

In class on Monday, we had discussed the role of experts as compared to the role of people who have knowledge from experience. Personally, I believe that knowledge from experience is much more valuable than most knowledge experts have gain. My reason for this is the fact that though experts may have a more “technical” knowledge of the area, I do not think that necessarily knows what is good for people in some situations. With knowledge gained from experience, the person might never have gotten any formal training, but because of the fact that they have been working so closely on the subject matter they know what is better for that area, what might work well and what might work poorly.
An example of this is what happened when there was radioactive contamination at Chernobyl. Though the experts were the ones who had all of the technical knowledge, they at first completely misdiagnosed the situation. Though it was partially on purpose – they didn’t want to cause a mass hysteria, which I think is reasonable – but it was partially because their analysis was just oversimplified and made the situation seem not as bad as it really was.

The whole situation could have been averted if they had only listened to the locals of the area. Because the people who lived in the area knew the lay of the land so well – they knew where all the streams began and ended – they knew where the runoff of radioactive contamination was most likely to occur. The scientists could have avoided misdiagnosing the problem had the listened to the people. However, because of the fact that they were the scientists, they were the ones who were supposed to be the experts in that area; they ignored the people and ended up with the misdiagnosis.

Because of the fact that the scientists were unwilling to listen to the workers in the area, because they believe that they were the experts and therefore were the ones with all of the knowledge, they read the situation wrong, which also affected relations the public. People were less willing to believe what the experts said was true, going along with it on blind belief. Because the experts had looked at the situation and gotten it wrong, people began feeling as if experts could not always be trusted, because sometimes they gave wrong information. Though I believe that the experts did have some reason for saying there was no danger, I do not believe they should have. The radioactive contamination, as well as livestock directly affected people, which likely disturbed their lifestyles. Sheep that had been grazing on the grass were sold off, because farmers could not keep them for the reason of overgrazing, and so contaminated sheep ended up also affecting other people, who had no direct involvement with the problem. Because the experts did not want to cause a mass panic, and because they did not want to listen to public opinion about the radioactive contamination, they not only hurt the public, but also hurt the relationship between public and official expert.

New technology used in Disney World

2005-04-13T12:12:00.000-07:00

Over spring break, I went down to Florida with some friends, and saw some interesting new technology used in Disney World. At the entrance gate, they scanned the ticket as usual, but then they did something completely different. With this machine, they asked me to place my index and middle finger in the area, and they took my fingerprint from the machine. Apparently, they match my fingerprint to the fingerprint I left on the ticket, so that no one else would be able to use that ticket besides me.

I thought that this was a good idea and clever, so that now if I were to loose my ticket and someone else picked it up, it would do them no good – since you can go “park hopping” using the ticket to go into other parks. In addition, I think that it would work efficiently, because it is quick. A machine does all of the work. All the gate worker has to do is enter the ticket through the machine, then have the person place their fingers to get them scanned, and then the machine matches the fingerprints.

The only problem I can see occurring with this new technology are the problems that can occur with any machine based technology, being something like if there was a glitch in the machine or if there was a power-outage – in which case people wouldn’t be able to do much in the park anyway.

I’m not quite sure exactly how this new technology works, but I think that was the general idea of why they did that. Thought it was different so I thought I’d write a post on it.

If it were possible, would you eradicate certain insects (mosquitoes)?

2005-04-13T11:00:00.000-07:00

Even if it were possible, I don’t believe that any kind of insect should be completely eliminated. Even thought they may seem to be a nuisance to humans, they still serve some purpose within the eco-system. For example, spiders – though many people despise spiders and wouldn’t mind seeing the end of them – are necessary for keeping insect populations down, and some are even beneficial to humans, killing certain insects that harm crops, for example. If we were to completely eliminate them, then we have no idea how that would affect the eco-system, and could have potentially dangerous affects.

I think that wiping out one complete species – no matter how insignificant it may seem – could mess up the whole system. What we exterminate might be the only food source for one type of animal, and by killing off its food source, we would have indirectly lead to the extinction of that animal. And that animal might be the main food source for some other carnivorous animal, eliminating that animal, or reducing its number so greatly it struggles to survive. And this chain of events could continue, killing all or most of different species.

Also, I don’t believe that we should just exterminate one species completely just because it may not be to our liking. If we started into that habit, I think that we might begin to gain the confidence that we know what is best for the environment, and might take other measure we wouldn’t previously take. I think that people might begin to think that nature can be – and possibly should be – controlled. And if we attempted to control the environment I think that we would unintentionally break the system up, having a devastating affect. Even if we tried to control the environment with good intention, I think that because of the fact that we don’t know enough about the environment we would end up having harmful effects.

NASA's Rovers on Mars

2005-02-11T12:46:00.000-08:00

Because of technology, we have been able to explore new areas, which we would never have been able to without. One example is being able to go into space. Because of our technology, people have been able to walk on the moon - millions of miles away – and have been able to explore different planets, finding different traits we otherwise would never have known.

Looking around on the web, I decided to go to NASA’s webpage to see what is new. On the link webpage, there was information on the Mars Exploration Rovers, and a little of the progress they have made. Because of them, we have been able to find information on Mars, some of which people knew, some which no one would have even guessed. In 2004, the Rovers confirmed what some scientists have believed. That there was once water on Mars. Because of this fact, that leads people to the question: If there was water once, was there life? The more technology is improved, the more people can learn about not only their environment, but also the universe in which we live. Hopefully, with better technology in the future, we will be able to find out whether there was once life on Mars or not, and find out more about our universe in general.

Thoughts on the history of technology

2005-02-11T12:09:00.000-08:00

Thinking on how much not only the United States but people in general have improved our daily lives by developing new technologies astounds me. I don’t see how we could have done so much. How did people figure out what was needed to measure the circumference of the world? How was the mathematical system developed? It amazes me what the human mind can come up with, making our lives better and easier.

For example, before people had to travel on horseback. Then came the invention of motor vehicles, making travel easier, more efficient and a lot quicker. What I wonder is what our form of transportation will be down the road. Before the year 2000, most people had the idea – how much merit they placed into this idea I don’t know – that by the year 2000 we will have progressed from regular cars to some kind of flying vehicles. This sounds fairly absurd to me right now; there’s just no way to make that work and make it affordable, but down the road? I think that could happen. Or, perhaps we’ll come up with something completely different.

Now, the question is: Is developing technology a good or a bad thing? Generally, I think it’s a good thing, seeing how it improves our lives. There are bad factors to technology, like the creation of the atom bomb, but there’s a flip side to anything. Technology can be bad though, if used improperly. It’s not good or bad by itself, it’s the people who use it that make it one or the other.

Transoceanic Telegraphy

2005-02-11T12:00:00.000-08:00

In the book, starting on page 105, it explains one of the effects of the growing world economy: the need for a more effecting way to communicate. Driven by this need, in the early 1850’s several American’s proposed the idea of an underwater telegraph cable, like they use to connect the railroads.

One person, Cyrus W. Field, got the support of Morse and got investors, and tried to run a cable along the ocean’s floor from Newfoundland to Ireland. Two times after the cable was laid it snapped. More attempts were made – though the idea was temporarily stalled at the start of the American Civil War – in 1866, the cable connection finally succeeded.

I find this interesting that, given the technology of the time, people found a way to create an underwater cable connecting the two distant continents. Not only did they have to create a long enough wire, and they had to coat it to be able to stay underwater, but they had to try this process several times

Reply to Will Crosswell’s blog “Immigrants to the Future"

2005-01-30T19:40:00.000-08:00

http://wcrossw.blogspot.com/

Personally, I don’t like the idea of everything being internet based in the future. I think that if that were to happen, we would lose something of our society. Though the internet is nice – for example – it’s easy to find information when you need it quickly, I don’t believe it to be a good idea to completely replace books. Yes, its easier to find information on the internet than it is to physically go to a library and look for a book you need, but on the other hand it is also a lot easier to find incorrect information. There are many legitimacy problems with the internet; its very easy to find information that may look legit which really isn’t. With books this problem can’t happen as easily, because they have to go through the proper channels, thus ensuring creditability. I’m not saying that wrong information is never put into a book – if the editor and publisher like it, then it gets published – but its a lot harder to do than it is on the internet and incorrect information is a lot easier to sift through.

I also dislike the classes being taught completely online. Using the internet – as we are for this course, for example – I don’t disagree with. What I disagree with is classes where you never see you professor, never see your classmate; never have any interaction that occurs in the classroom. Yes, it’s true that if you have a question you can e-mail the teacher, but, what if you still don’t understand it? From my personal experience I found it to be a lot easier to understand what a teacher is talking about if I’m there. That way if I don’t understand a certain part I can ask right then. And even if you can get an immediate response via internet it isn’t the same. Whereas in person a teacher can draw diagrams to help explain, on the internet you wouldn’t be able to see those diagrams drawn; you’d have to fix the text of how to do it to the already done diagram. I also find it harder to pay attention to reading assignments when they’re online than when they’re in a book. In a book there it’s easier to eliminate any distractions; online, it’s not. Even if you only have that one webpage you’re supposed to be reading up, the distraction’s always there. It’s just as easy to look online for something you want, check e-mail, anything that would keep you from working on that dreaded assignment a moment longer.

I agree with Will’s view on online voting. It’s too risky, and there’s not enough of a benefit to make it worthwhile. With our way of voting now there’s always some problems of frauds and miscounts, ect. Online, it would be ten times worse. It’s a lot easier to hack into someone’s account from the computer than it is to steal the necessary information to go to a voting box and use their ID. Also, I don’t think if we did switch to an online voting system it would make a huge difference in the voting population. People who truly want to vote make the effort and take the time to go to the voting polls. Last year, I went from a 3 hour drive from Clemson to my home straight to the voting polls, where I waited for about 3 more hours. This was the first time I had voted – though I could have voted earlier – and it wasn’t because I didn’t have the time to go vote. It was because until last year, I didn’t care and saw no reason for my voting. I’m sure more people would use the online voting system – if we went to that – but I don’t think I’d be enough to risk the dangers involved. It’s apathy that keeps most people from voting.