Groopman, Jerome. “Robots That Care—Advances in technological therapy.”
The New Yorker. Nov. 2, 2009.
Read this article
Writing in The New Yorker, Jerome Groopman discusses the use of robots in physical therapy. In an article entitled “Robots That Care—Advances in technological therapy,” Groopman tells of a professor of computer science, Maja Mataric’, who is working with Alzheimer’s patients, stroke victims and autistic children using robots. She has set out to build a robot that could assist a stroke victim at home, encouraging her to use a weakened arm or leg. The patients would be instructed by sounds rather than touch. In a pilot trial, they found that the patient is more likely to perform therapy when the robot is there. For patients who are introverted, the robots speak softly, and for those who are extroverted, the robot speaks more forcefully. Mataric’ has been given funding to do a study comparing socially assistive robots with computers in therapy that help learning. Groopman’s point of view is that robots are tools that can help a physical therapist in working with someone who has had a stroke or accident that causes him to lose some motor control. Mataric’ is trying to create robots that can serve as caregivers and can serve as companions to the patients.
However, some believe that using robots as physical therapists can be dangerous. Sherry Turkle, a professor at M.I.T. thinks it is harmful for the children and elderly to become attached to something as inhuman as a robot. She says, “We were wired through evolution to feel that when something looks us in the eye, then someone is at home in it.” Turkle argues that children and the elderly will start to love the robot, and the robot cannot return this emotion. She asks what will happen to the patient when the robot is gone and the patient has gotten emotionally dependent on it. She questions whether robots are even necessary for working with the elderly in nursing homes, and she questions their use with autistic children. She says there is no data on the long-term effects. She believes that the cultural effect of using robots in these instances is a “giant social experiment with real risks.” But like all the new technology, robotic therapists will change the way some segments of the population live.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Never-Betters, The Better-Nevers and The Ever Wasers
Gopnik, Adam. “The Information – How the Internet gets inside us.”
The New Yorker. 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.
Read this article
Writing in The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik discusses the impact the internet has had on our culture. In his article, “The Information-How the Internet gets inside us,” Gopnik says books have been written expressing three different viewpoints. He says the Never-Betters think the world is better off since the coming of the internet; they believe “that we’re on the brink of a new utopia, where information will be free and democratic, news will be made from the bottom up, love will reign, and cookies will bake themselves. The Better-Nevers think we were better off in the old days before the internet; “that the world that is coming to an end is superior to the one that is taking its place.” The Ever-Wasers says that there has always been something like this going on and there always will be. For instance, everyone thought that television would be the downfall of society, and now everyone thinks the internet will bring us down. Gopnik’s point of vew in this argument is that these external machines do not make us what we are; that it is “ our consciousness that makes our credos, and we mostly live by those.”
Gopnik begins his article by alluding to the Harry Potter books. Because the setting for these books is in the 1990’s before the days of Google, the wizard is doing research by working in the stacks in the library. The present generation of kids thinks this is terribly old-fashioned; they ask, “Why doesn’t she just Google it?” In addition to Harry Potter, Gopnik uses many historical and literary allusions to show how the gathering of information has evolved over time. Gopnik argues that the feelings that humans once held in check because they would cause embarrassment are now unleashed through the internet. He comments that everything that was once said about television is now being said about the internet. Gopnik believes that the internet can be used for good or for evil; it is up to the user to decide. Gopnik says the impact on our culture will be in the “small changes in mood, life, manners, feelings” that the internet creates.
The New Yorker. 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.
Read this article
Writing in The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik discusses the impact the internet has had on our culture. In his article, “The Information-How the Internet gets inside us,” Gopnik says books have been written expressing three different viewpoints. He says the Never-Betters think the world is better off since the coming of the internet; they believe “that we’re on the brink of a new utopia, where information will be free and democratic, news will be made from the bottom up, love will reign, and cookies will bake themselves. The Better-Nevers think we were better off in the old days before the internet; “that the world that is coming to an end is superior to the one that is taking its place.” The Ever-Wasers says that there has always been something like this going on and there always will be. For instance, everyone thought that television would be the downfall of society, and now everyone thinks the internet will bring us down. Gopnik’s point of vew in this argument is that these external machines do not make us what we are; that it is “ our consciousness that makes our credos, and we mostly live by those.”
Gopnik begins his article by alluding to the Harry Potter books. Because the setting for these books is in the 1990’s before the days of Google, the wizard is doing research by working in the stacks in the library. The present generation of kids thinks this is terribly old-fashioned; they ask, “Why doesn’t she just Google it?” In addition to Harry Potter, Gopnik uses many historical and literary allusions to show how the gathering of information has evolved over time. Gopnik argues that the feelings that humans once held in check because they would cause embarrassment are now unleashed through the internet. He comments that everything that was once said about television is now being said about the internet. Gopnik believes that the internet can be used for good or for evil; it is up to the user to decide. Gopnik says the impact on our culture will be in the “small changes in mood, life, manners, feelings” that the internet creates.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Bookies and Brokers
Kaplan, Mark. “Wall Street Firm Uses Algorithms to Make Sports Betting Like Stock Trading.” Wired Magazine. Nov. 1, 2010. Web. 25 February 2011
Read this article
Can the technology designed to help gamblers bet on football and other sporting events also help Wall Street firms bet on the rise and fall of stocks? Mark Kaplan, writing for Wired Magazine states in his article, “Wall Street Firm Uses Algorithms to Make Sports Betting Like Stock Trading,” that in the future stockholders will be able to bet on the performance of stocks without actually owning them. The technology that Kaplan refers to is software called Midas. Lee Amaitis, CEO of Cantor Gaming, and Andrew Garrood, a mathematician, came up with the idea as they were discussing brokers and bookies. Garrood made the comment, “You don’t know if the market will go up or down any more than you know who will win the next horse race. This software uses mathematical patterns to predict the odds in football and other games. This same software could be used to predict the rise and fall of the stock market. Cantor Fitzgerald made a trial run with Hollywood futures by letting people trade on movie box-office results, but the Motion Picture Association of America objected. Amaitis says, “We are not building a sports-betting operation; we are building a trading operation.” Kaplan’s point of view is “What could possibly go wrong?”
What could go wrong is the cultural impact on society. Kaplan says, “To many people on Wall Street gambling is a dirty word.” John Bogle, founder of the risk-averse index-fund titan Vanguard Group said “Wall Street hates being thought of as a gambling operation, but that’s how it makes its money.” The Wall Street Brokers want people to feel that their companies are well-respected and serious without the suggestion that they are gamblers. Companies such as Goldman Sachs would be concerned about the publicity such a move toward betting on the market would generate. Amaitis says he isn’t worried about reputation; he is only concerned about making money. His firm, Cantor, was “the first to do fully electronic US bond market trades with customers.” However Cantor is a private company and therefore it does not have to worry about bad press. Cantor has never borrowed government money, so it can be more flexible. A reporter for The New York Times condemned Goldman Sach’s debt as “no different than betting on the New York Yankees vs. the Oakland Athletics and at Senate hearings Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri told Goldman Sachs, “you had less oversight than a pit boss in Las Vegas.” If this software were used to make bets on the Stock Market, it would have a tremendous impact on our culture.
Read this article
Can the technology designed to help gamblers bet on football and other sporting events also help Wall Street firms bet on the rise and fall of stocks? Mark Kaplan, writing for Wired Magazine states in his article, “Wall Street Firm Uses Algorithms to Make Sports Betting Like Stock Trading,” that in the future stockholders will be able to bet on the performance of stocks without actually owning them. The technology that Kaplan refers to is software called Midas. Lee Amaitis, CEO of Cantor Gaming, and Andrew Garrood, a mathematician, came up with the idea as they were discussing brokers and bookies. Garrood made the comment, “You don’t know if the market will go up or down any more than you know who will win the next horse race. This software uses mathematical patterns to predict the odds in football and other games. This same software could be used to predict the rise and fall of the stock market. Cantor Fitzgerald made a trial run with Hollywood futures by letting people trade on movie box-office results, but the Motion Picture Association of America objected. Amaitis says, “We are not building a sports-betting operation; we are building a trading operation.” Kaplan’s point of view is “What could possibly go wrong?”
What could go wrong is the cultural impact on society. Kaplan says, “To many people on Wall Street gambling is a dirty word.” John Bogle, founder of the risk-averse index-fund titan Vanguard Group said “Wall Street hates being thought of as a gambling operation, but that’s how it makes its money.” The Wall Street Brokers want people to feel that their companies are well-respected and serious without the suggestion that they are gamblers. Companies such as Goldman Sachs would be concerned about the publicity such a move toward betting on the market would generate. Amaitis says he isn’t worried about reputation; he is only concerned about making money. His firm, Cantor, was “the first to do fully electronic US bond market trades with customers.” However Cantor is a private company and therefore it does not have to worry about bad press. Cantor has never borrowed government money, so it can be more flexible. A reporter for The New York Times condemned Goldman Sach’s debt as “no different than betting on the New York Yankees vs. the Oakland Athletics and at Senate hearings Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri told Goldman Sachs, “you had less oversight than a pit boss in Las Vegas.” If this software were used to make bets on the Stock Market, it would have a tremendous impact on our culture.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Are Search Engines Making Our Lives Easier or Hurting Us?
Lev, Grossman."How Computers Know What We Want-Before We Do." Time Magazine. 27 May 2010. Web. 28 January 2011
Read this article
In the magazine article “How Computers Know What We Want Before We Do,” author Lev Grossman discusses how recommendation search engines are taking over our social lives. He goes into telling how when people use these search engines to make a decision it is actually just giving the person results from the previous users. Also it takes out the communication with others, for instance back in the day a video store clerk referred movies to people and now Netflix and a variety of other recommendation search engines basically tell people what to watch not based on their personnel preference, but by other peoples votes of what they have liked in the past. Over the last ten years recommendation engines have become abundant over the web. According to a report by industry analyst Forrester, one-third of the people who notice a recommendation engine on the Internet end up buying something based on the recommendation engines results. These search engines process outstanding quantities of data and use very high-level math. They are trying to second-guess a human form of behavior.
The author Lev Grossman’s point of view is that these recommendation engines are not as reliable as they may seem. They are recommending things that other people want and like instead of letting a person actually make a genuine decision about something based on there preferences. The author mentions that recommendation engines are a world of making choices, and the world usually cant get enough of that. He goes to say that recommendation engines are the worst enemy of the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way. The recommendation engines keep people from experiencing new things because they are designed to keep people in a comfy rut, and keep people in the same category instead of allowing people to experience new things that could also bring happiness. These search engines have the reputation of making people end up right where they stated. Even though some people may see this as making their life easier, the author seems to feel as if they are trapping people and not allowing people to use their own brain to the best of their ability.
Read this article
In the magazine article “How Computers Know What We Want Before We Do,” author Lev Grossman discusses how recommendation search engines are taking over our social lives. He goes into telling how when people use these search engines to make a decision it is actually just giving the person results from the previous users. Also it takes out the communication with others, for instance back in the day a video store clerk referred movies to people and now Netflix and a variety of other recommendation search engines basically tell people what to watch not based on their personnel preference, but by other peoples votes of what they have liked in the past. Over the last ten years recommendation engines have become abundant over the web. According to a report by industry analyst Forrester, one-third of the people who notice a recommendation engine on the Internet end up buying something based on the recommendation engines results. These search engines process outstanding quantities of data and use very high-level math. They are trying to second-guess a human form of behavior.
The author Lev Grossman’s point of view is that these recommendation engines are not as reliable as they may seem. They are recommending things that other people want and like instead of letting a person actually make a genuine decision about something based on there preferences. The author mentions that recommendation engines are a world of making choices, and the world usually cant get enough of that. He goes to say that recommendation engines are the worst enemy of the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way. The recommendation engines keep people from experiencing new things because they are designed to keep people in a comfy rut, and keep people in the same category instead of allowing people to experience new things that could also bring happiness. These search engines have the reputation of making people end up right where they stated. Even though some people may see this as making their life easier, the author seems to feel as if they are trapping people and not allowing people to use their own brain to the best of their ability.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Helping Made Easier
Microsoft is a monopoly and only they have the codes and ability to help people with problems on their computers, and that reminds me of Charter cable in athens. It really gets annoying when my cable has a problem, and I have to call Charter and they take their sweet time to come fix it. unlike linux that is a free software thats anyone that is familiar with its system is capable of fixing problems. Linux made a copyleft in their software so that people could change or add to their software, but when they passed it on to someone they had to give it for free. In the film they mentioned that 10 million people use GNU/Linux and don't even know it.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Quote Response for In the Beginning . . . Was the Command Line, pp. [type page numbers here]
New Idea:
[type quote here followed by page number in parentheses]
This idea helped me realize that . . .
Interpretation:
[type quote here followed by page number in parentheses]
In writing this statement, the author seems to imply that . . .
Tie-In:
[type quote here followed by page number in parentheses]
Tell a detailed story from your personal experience to explain the TIE-IN:
New Idea:
[type quote here followed by page number in parentheses]
This idea helped me realize that . . .
Interpretation:
[type quote here followed by page number in parentheses]
In writing this statement, the author seems to imply that . . .
Tie-In:
[type quote here followed by page number in parentheses]
Tell a detailed story from your personal experience to explain the TIE-IN:
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
What Google Could Lead To
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, Jul/August 2008. Web. 18 January 2011.
Read this article
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, believes that the Internet is remapping and changing the way we think. Nicholas tells us that the deep reading that used to come naturally has become a great effort. He starts to get fidgety, and begins to look for something else to occupy his time when he reads long passages. He feels as if he is always dragging his willful brain back to the text. Research that once required days in the stacks or review rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes on the Internet. The author states that “Once he was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now he zips along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University, states that the style of reading on the Internet may be weakening our mental connection that forms when we read deeply and without distraction. Nicholas also feels that a computers ability of storing information causes people not to use their memory to its full potential. Nicholas feels that he can get more out of reading a book in a quiet room, than reading online and having millions of distractions just a click away on the internet.
In this article Nicholas appears to believe that the Internets easy accessibility to answers has and will continue to make people lazy and not use their brain to its full potential. In a interview with Newsweek Sergey Brin, a gifted young man who founded Google said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Nicholas feels that in the online world there is little place of contemplation and uncertainty that is needed to make people interact with one another. Socrates states that people are “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” The author feels that the Internet only seems to be chipping away his capacity for concentration and contemplation. Many of the author’s buddies have said the more they use the Internet, the more they have to battle to pay attention on long pieces of writing because Google search engine makes people not have to use their brain as much as they would in a world without Google.
Read this article
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, believes that the Internet is remapping and changing the way we think. Nicholas tells us that the deep reading that used to come naturally has become a great effort. He starts to get fidgety, and begins to look for something else to occupy his time when he reads long passages. He feels as if he is always dragging his willful brain back to the text. Research that once required days in the stacks or review rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes on the Internet. The author states that “Once he was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now he zips along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University, states that the style of reading on the Internet may be weakening our mental connection that forms when we read deeply and without distraction. Nicholas also feels that a computers ability of storing information causes people not to use their memory to its full potential. Nicholas feels that he can get more out of reading a book in a quiet room, than reading online and having millions of distractions just a click away on the internet.
In this article Nicholas appears to believe that the Internets easy accessibility to answers has and will continue to make people lazy and not use their brain to its full potential. In a interview with Newsweek Sergey Brin, a gifted young man who founded Google said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Nicholas feels that in the online world there is little place of contemplation and uncertainty that is needed to make people interact with one another. Socrates states that people are “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” The author feels that the Internet only seems to be chipping away his capacity for concentration and contemplation. Many of the author’s buddies have said the more they use the Internet, the more they have to battle to pay attention on long pieces of writing because Google search engine makes people not have to use their brain as much as they would in a world without Google.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)