Negroponte: A Complete Genius or Complete Nutter?

Although clearly Photo-shopped, the image says it all; who actually benefits from projects like the ‘One Laptop per Child’ scheme? Brian Winston critiques Nicholas Negroponte’s ‘sophisticated yet affordable laptop’ proposition as he undermines his argument and blatantly names him the Marie Antoinette of the 21^st Century. After having visited their official website I am reminded of gestures that organizations like Trade Aid, who seem genuinely wanting to help others. It seems that the negative hype surrounding the controversial issue is largely based on the idea that the money could be spent otherwise on more proactive ways that would directly benefit these communities in terms of providing them with sufficient basic needs to survive. What critics like Winston easily dismiss are the numerous other organizations like World Vision and Child Fund that are taking place simultaneously that are already collecting donations and funds from people around the world to provide such basic means for survival, although arguably more money could be spent in this area. Negroponte attempts to mitigate the digital divide between first and third world countries, whereby knowledge and education can be seen as an intervention to breaking the poverty cycle in the long-run. If the software and internet access to all kinds of information for example, have the potential to teach those to live off the land, build communities, gain technical skills and eventually have the opportunity to work ‘anytime and anyplace’ as the internet promises, then why not?

Idealistically, it is a generous gesture to help those in need and providing education for third world countries where the poverty cycle may be considered the norm. In terms of what such effects of cheap mass-produced technologies may be doing, as Winston suggests towards the article, is creating increasingly sophisticated and more affordable technology that other corporations can efficiently imitate and distribute to developed countries. In addition to this, even before the economic turmoil and recession hit we have seen many jobs disappearing as corporations attempt to maximize profits and efficiency. Local residents are made redundant as their positions were outsourced to third world countries so that ‘we’ living in developed countries, can have increasingly more affordable access on the behalf of countries living below their means. Will the negative effects of globalization be the outcome of such schemes? If we continue to outsource work to locations with the lowest wages, worker protection, health and safety benefits, are people in developing nations any better off? Perhaps the ‘One Laptop per Child’ scheme is a start to something more revolutionary; whether it is implementing collective intelligence or creating ‘social/smart mobs’ that can potentially overthrow corrupt government officials—only time will tell.

Winstons criticism of Negroponte.

In the Winston’s reading, the idea that Negroponte proposes which argues that by giving third world children a small affordable laptop will help pull them out of poverty, gets completely criticised and shut down. The criticism seems quite harsh to me, when it appears that Negroponte is just trying to find a solution to a tragic global problem. However I can see where Winston is coming from when he argues that technology is not going to bring complete social change. It does seem over ambitious to claim that computers are going to overcome the huge amount of poverty which is evident in these countries, as a computer cannot bring food water and medicines. Also I personally have thought that there may be a process in which we adapt to these certain technologies, there has been a lot of different stages in which western countries have been threw before they have been introduced to computers and the internet. Maybe these third world countries need to go through these stages also before they are introduced to modernization; I mean we have obviously learnt through stages such as industrialisation so they should too. Therefore we should maybe give them the tools to reach the other stages first not just push them to the stage we are at now. Never the less I do not believe that third world countries should be denied access to a computer, the situation they are in is not the individuals fault and if we are able to access such great technology and all the opportunities that come with it, wouldn’t it be fair for us to also give them that same access. Winston’s criticisms of Negroponte have made him out to be almost in it for the money as he argues that he has just found a new market to push his technology on. Negropontes idea to me seems allot more moral than that. There are so many stories that we hear about how people have come from rags to riches because of their access to a computer, people have been able to create websites online to sell their inventions, products, services, ideas etc. This would give people living in a third world country this opportunity also. The internet would essentially bridge the gap between third and first worlds. Concurring alongside Negroponte I argue that the internet would give these people who are struggling to make a living, new opportunities to make money e.g. sell crafts on line, start a business idea, it will also give them so much information that we just take for granted, like information on how to stay healthy etc. At the present moment they have hardly any way to access the amount of knowledge that we have and I think laptops is a great way to share it with them and for them to learn so they can help themselves. Overall, I believe Winston’s criticism of Negroponte actually misses Negropontes main point, Winston fails to see how technology can bridge the gap between first and second world countries and only focuses on how it cannot. Laptops may not solve all the developing world’s problems but it will give them access to and understanding of a way of life that they have been denied for so long.

To friend or not to friend. That is the question

Friends, they are our partners in crime, the people whom we love, support and laugh with. Friends pick you up on a bad day and lend a hand when you need one. Friends are the people we confide in, they lend a shoulder to cry on or offer an ear to listen to your problems. Friends are people who share our likes and interests, offer companionship and are people who we enjoy being around. They are the people we have grown up with, people who we have met from sport teams, schools and youth groups. Traditionally we would interact and communicate with our friends by seeing each other face to face, talking on the phone, writing letters, Christmas and birthday cards.

However, something that really interests me is the idea of online friendships and whether the dynamic of friendship has changed since the invention of the internet. If you think about it, social network sites like facebook allow its users to combine all of their networks and converge them into one space. Take my own page for example; I have 394 friends who include work mates, family and friends from the various schools I attended as well as friends who I have met online. Social network sites make it easy and effortless for individuals to keep in touch. By the click of a mouse I can see how my cousin in Russia is doing by looking at her status updates, or by viewing her pictures. I can send emails, virtual gifts and cards over the internet much like I would in times when these technologies were not available. I can instant-message and Skype my friends, talking to them in real time and be kept in the loop of what goes on in their daily lives.

The internet even allows me the opportunity to meet and become acquainted with people online whom I would otherwise not have the chance to meet outside of the cyberspace world. Can these people then too be classed as friends? Social network sites in general seem to encourage this kind of behaviour amongst its users. I would consider some people whom I have met through various blogs, websites and social network sites to be my friends as I am sure many other people have too.

What do you think? Has the idea of friendship and those who we regard as friends really changed all that much with the invention of the internet? If you think about it, we still do many of the same things to keep in contact with friends that we have always done, except now it is done online. Emails have replaced hand written litters as skyping and text messaging has replaced phone calls. In essence, it is very much the same. On the other hand, many of us today also have friends and contacts from places all around the world whom we have never actually met face to face but talk to regular basis. In this instance the concept of a friendship has changed dramatically as it challenges traditional notions of friendship. Is it the same or different? Looks like friendship is changing with technology too, do you agree?

Negroponte and the Third world

Nicholas Negroponte wishes that every third world child needs to be given a laptop because he believes that without education all other developments are considered as a fail and that computers provide a solution to education which will save the world.

I understand where he is going with one laptop per child policy as nowadays computers are an essential tool for education for all levels of students, but for third world countries, for me I don’t think he quite realizes what is truly important. It has to be taken into account that he is trying to help those third world countries but I think he needs to think not from his own perspective but from the other perspective. The fact is that third world countries need necessities in order to survive. I found out some information and it shows that in Asian, Latin American and African countries over 500 million people are living in absolute poverty and every year 15 million children die of hunger and more than 100 million will die within a decade because of illnesses and starvation. What I’m trying to say is that Negropontes idea of one child per laptop doesn’t apply in the third world country. It needs food, medicine and basic shelter in order to survive. Providing Laptops for education is something that needs to be taken into consideration after these nations have reached a level where people are not dying due to hunger and shortage of medicines.

From the way I look at it, Negroponte needs to live in a third world country even just for a few days and realize that even surviving for a day is a struggle for those people and by providing these people with laptops isn’t going to be of a help. For me I think Negroponte doesn’t have a clue of what life is like in the third world countries. If he knew, he wouldn’t be implementing his policy on how, one child per laptop will help those malnourished third world countries by improving access to education, which will eventually save the world. Negroponte is living in his own dream world as his policy doesn’t help at all with the needs of the third world country.

Indie rock and roll for me

But what is 'indie' music?

In my mind, independent music can be two overlapping things:
1. Independently produced music (in opposition to major record labels)
2. A style of music

What's interesting (and perhaps most relevant to this paper) is how these two aspects of indie music relate.

At a basic level, the style or 'sound' of music is influenced by the way it is recorded. Home recordings sound different to studio recordings, simply because of the equipment used, just as low-budget setups sound different to high-budget setups. Essentially, the music is influenced by the technology used to record it.

Interesting then, how 'indie-rock' has become a catchphrase associated with style, and not so much with production. It's as if independent, often low-budget production had a tonal quality in recordings that became liked enough to be emulated by high-budget, mainstream production labels.

Then again, it is possible to record to a very high standard using relatively inexpensive home-studio equipment (Check out the 'indie-darling' that is Beirut, first album recorded mainly in the bedroom). The price of recording has dropped hugely since digital equipment has become mainstream in recording use. So why the lo-fi aesthetic? Why are artists purposely including hiss and background-noise, using sub-par equipment and procedures? (If you want to hear main-stream recordings hiss, just listen to the White Stripes.)

Of course it comes down to artistic taste. The 'imperfections' that are a part of the indie aesthetic are not imperfections at all, but part of what makes the music. The way in which a song is recorded becomes embedded in the song itself, it becomes part of the message the artist is conveying.

Anyway, it's still (mainstream) indie rock and roll for me.

Facebook, Privacy and Control.

Danah Boyd's article "Facebooks Privacy Trainwreck" alerts readers to many things we may not of noticed before...
Before everything is stated lets breakdown what Privacy actually means... Privacy can mean a lot of things to many different people it can mean personal space, secutirty, having control over the information shared with others or as Boyd describes it privacy or the concept of "private" is simply a single bit that is either 0 or 1 meaning the data is either exposed or not....
now lets examine the role of privacy in social networks...when we are on Facebook we dont stop and think who will read our posts, view our pictures, post on our wall...Why?? well we have the right to make our page as private as we can right?? meaning only our friends can view our pictures or our posts however we dont stop to think about other people who may also have indirect access to our pages...for instance your friend accidently leaves her Facebook open in a private setting and your page happens to be open..everyone as a result can view the page (without permission) but can do so anyways..so no matter how "private" we make our information on social networks such as Facebook we are left with little control on how much privacy we actually have...
A discussion was bought up in Tutorial about an instance in which a person posted pictures up on Facebook of himself on a trip the same day he called in sick at work?? so if the manager happens to stumble across those pictures do they have a right to give that person a warning?..fire them?... in my personal opinion individuals have to be really careful about what they choose to post on public social websites...at the end of the day what we share was our choice..no one forces us to share things we would rather not share to the public therefore we all make rational decisions which sometimes have repercussions.
so in social networks such as Facebook what is the barrier we cross in order to decide whether we are willing to give-up some of our most private moments to other individuals?
one can simply reply with friends and family...however how many people can actually go on their Facebook and declare that every person on their friends list is worthy of knowing all the details they wish to share...to be honest this may be a mere handful of people.
So at the end of the day we as individuals have to take a step back and examine how much Privacy we actually control...yes it is true that you can always deactivate your Facebook, delete all your information and pictures but your account still lives on in the vast world of cyberspace waiting patiently to be reactivated with the push of a button.
Therefore whether we like it or not our information lives on long after we are gone.

Social Networking has gone to the dogs!?

Has social networking really gone to the dogs? Well, it actually has not, because what the title intends is completely different from the actual meaning of the phrase.

As all of us know, facebook has changed things around us in many ways. It has changed the way we interact with our friends, family and maybe strangers, it has changed the boundaries of what 'friendship' might actually mean to a lot of people, it has made people look differently at how gender is portrayed online and some might say it has changed communication all together.
However, what I want to bring up is that facebook has gone beyond all of this, and now tapped in to a new dimension - helping animals communicate! - and no, I am not making this up!

This brings me back to the title of this blog. I got this title from the title of an article in today's Sunday Herald. So what this article talks about is that facebook or a third party through facebook has developed applications for dogs, cats, birds, fish, horses and the like called DogBook, CatBook etc. What this app does is let the dog owners make profiles for their pets on facebook - and these profiles function in the same way as the ones for humans! - and helps them connect with other such users who also have pets for their pets. At first it comes across as pretty ridiculous - why would someone want to give their pet a profile?! But then as I went on to read the article, I realized that those users were actually quiet serious about this.

As this one user said, "Animals are in your life for enjoyment and Dogbook is an extension of that. It's a way to share information and connect with like minded people who are passionate about their pets." Yet this article didn't seem to make any sense to me. Why a social networking site would want to extend their to animals, is beyond my understanding. Because, those animals, who the application is meant for, cannot themselves make their profiles and use them or update them. It has to be doe by their owners. So isn't this just an extension the actual purpose of facebook then? Humans / people who 'connect' with like minded people through this SNS can also use it to 'connect' with other pet owners? What then is the purpose of creating an application which supposedly lets pets connect with other pets?

Another such pet owner who has made a Dogbook profile for her dog says that her dog "Deserves a Doogbook page," Why she feels so, well is only known to her. But for the rest of us, it might just be some food for thought. Do online communication technology developers actually feel / think they can extend its reach to animals now?