I hate it when I get my schwartz twisted.

As "Apple, Google, and Facebook" comes to a close, I must say I did actually enjoy the class. I liked looking at technology in the form of religion, even though it took me a little bit to jump on the official band wagon. I have now officially become a fan of Apple... which is cool, I guess haha. since I wasn't really a fan of anything before..

But in all, this class actually just showed me that a lot of my frustrations with technology and the fact that hardly anybody talks to each other face to face anymore is legitimate. I still have a hard time differentiating between my excitement for new technology that is coming out and my hesitance and disgust with the fact that once again people are being seperated from what's actually real in their lives.

The last few videos we have watched in class of Lanier speaking really speaks to what I generally feel about technology. Not in the original sense that I'm sure he meant it, but more in relating to my own life. I use technology, because it has basically become a necessity in the world today.. or at least modern American culture. But I think that if a person is only expressing themselves through a computer screen, that person is once again, seperating themselves from actually producing something in the real world. People can have the greatest of opinions on the internet, but unless that person can actually stand up in reality and tell that opinion to fellow human beings present in the moment, not behind a computer screen, little impact will be made.

My confession for the class: The other day, I used the term "coding" in a sentence. I don't know if anybody else knew that I had no idea what I was referring to or talking about, but now you do.

So now, I shall leave you with some Mel Brooks Space Balls

iBrain anybody?

All of this recent talk about not being a has really gotten me thinking about the fact that I have absolutely no understanding of technology. None. I use it and that's about as far as my world of technology goes. These conversations also make me realize that I have no ability to actually comprehend how technology works, so how about a new brain for me? There has to be an iBrain by now right?

Those of us that have been blessed with brain fog due to medication, fibromyalgia, chronic illnesses, what-have-you would really do well with an iBrain app. So, here comes my research...

Wait. There is such a thing as an iBrain!?
"The iBrain™ - A device for at-home sleep monitoring and diagnosis"




Even though this started out as a sleep monitoring system, the developers claim that this system will soon be able to read our minds. How awesome is that? Maybe my memory problems will officially be solved... Stephen Hawking will be able to talk and medical mysteries will be solved.

"Corporations are people my friends"...

The way Jaron Lanier's You are not a Gadget: A Manifesto began reminded me of the now infamous phrase by Mitt Romney that "corporations are people my friends", but more in the way of, Lanier would be saying "stop giving money to the corporations" - in which Mittwitt would reply "corporations are people my friends" way.

The idea that culture has changed in order to fit technology into it is an interesting point. As a society, we automatically adapt to what is in front of us, so it would make sense if we are adapting to the environment technology is creating for us (in one example, MIDI).

I can't say that Lanier's fear of people losing their humanness and becoming part of the gadget world is necessarily really all that valid. The fact that "trains, files, and musical notes" have all been changed through the world of technology does not give any clues to the fact that human beings, in turn, are changing as well. We are all still the same exact form of a human being as we were 200 years ago. These web 2.0 people, or the wonderful group of artificial intelligence workers do not have any greater grasp on what makes up a human being than anybody else... I mean, hasn't everybody seen Surrogates by now? That didn't end well. The human brain is what makes a person. The ability to judge instinct, reason, express emotions in unconventional ways, etc. is what makes us human. If human beings have really changed that much since the good old cave days, why do we still create paintings? I mean, I understand that some people do enjoy working digitally for their artwork, but there is something about paint on a canvas that still excites me beyond belief. You can't feel digital artwork, I can feel paintings, literally. I enjoy touching oil paintings. Why? Because I can feel the work involved, I can feel what the artist was creating, the ridges in the paint, the brush strokes, everything that one human being created to be viewed by another.

"Emphasizing the crowd means deemphasizing individual humans in the design of society, and when you ask people not to be people, they revert to bad moblike behaviors. This leads not only to empowered trolls, but to a generally unfriendly and unconstructive online world."

A scientific view of the world isn't bad - but it isn't all that needs to be accounted for. I agree with Lanier completely that we are technically losing the individual human through the use of technology; hoewever, some of us are still holding on to that feeling. Social media has corrupted our way of communicating with each other and has seperated us from actual reality. Actually living is being out in the world, interacting with people, living beings, communicating face to face... Once again, the movie Surrogates gives us a great idea of what life would be like if Lanier's fears actually came true. We would literally just be drones, locked in our houses, walking around as artificial beings doing whatever we wanted without any consequences... and we don't have Bruce Willis to save the day.

iDoctor

This is by far the coolest thing I've ever seen.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I think there is little to say about this video other than the fact that I am completely and utterly over-excited for medicine to go in this direction. As someone who spends a lot of time in doctors' offices and hospitals, I cannot wait to be able to monitor my own results and see exactly what my doctor is seeing.

My health is consistently one of the things I am most paranoid about in my life, so to have something at the palm of my hand that allows me to control it and have constant contact with my doctor is one form of technology I cannot wait for.

L.I.F.E.G.O.E.S.O.N.

From Gladwell's article "Small Change" to Zeinobia's blog on her own personal journey living in Egypt, the internet has taken up activism as another part of the mainstream media. Is this surprising? Of course not. Human curiosity is what drives this planet, so of course we all want to know what is going on around the world at any given moment (big or small) and thanks to the internet, we now have that.

Is Zeinobia doing something ground-breaking or surprising with her blog? I don't think so. Maybe my view of what is usually posted online has been tainted - I don't think there's a single thing I haven't seen through blogs or websites these days. She is simply writing and posting about what she sees, what her views are, and standing for what she believes in. Most people, I feel, have moved towards this on the internet these days. As far as what I have seen from her site, she does not go out and shoot the videos herself - she is merely a reporter, collecting the images, videos, and her personal experience on particular situations and expressing them through her blog. I found her writings interesting and to be very eye-opening, since the world news we get here is still generally specified to "Western" culture and the American way of editing everything. However, as someone who watched the uprising in Egypt on youtube, I can't really say she is doing much different than other people around the world who are in the same state of turmoil - all wanting to achieve the goal of a better community to live in.

The internet should be used for activism, as Gladwell even stated, but it is still just a way of interacting indirectly with a situation. True activism is still achieved when the opinions are expressed to the direct source, face to face. I can write all I want online about how I disapprove of the way mentally ill people are treated, how I am all for the banning of assault weapons, and on and on I can go, but unless I actually carry out an action in the real world, all I'm really talking to is a computer screen (plus possibly a select few out in the interweb). The computer screen creates a safety net that allows the usual laid back inactive type to rant and rave all they want, without actually voicing their opinion where it matters.

I'm not saying that Zeinobia's blog is not doing some good. These days, having a basic online journal is pretty normal, but I agree with Gladwell.. unless you're up and partaking it what you stand for, being only in front of a computer screen doesn't really cut it.

The Greater Good

Facebook... does Facebook actually create a sense of the greater good?

In my own arguments. I think it depends on what each person's perspective is on "the greater good" of all people. Bella argued that once you have a sense of community you will ultimately work for the good of that community as a whole. But what if your sense of doing good is not mine?

Facebook does create a sense of community, and there are plenty of organizations that have sites and connect with people around the world to help fight poverty, injustice, animal abuse, etc. These sites usually have a strong following and have created events that people around the world can take part in. What I have noticed is that people generally mean well, but attention spans seem to have gotten smaller in the digital world. Take for instance, the whole movement of stopping Kony. A huge movement over the internet that seemed to fizzle and burn once the event actually took place - at least in the smaller cities. There is still a fight to stop Kony, but I feel like the popularity of the events have dropped dramatically.



Perspective of "the greater good" of the community still depends on what people believe is the greater good. I have the perspective that assault weapons should be banned, but the NRA and the heavily pro-gun activists believe the opposite. I don't understand why they need them, they say they need them for protection. As a daughter of a police officer, the use of protection doesn't make any sense to me. But that's their opinion. So, who's right? Who's idea of creating a safer environment is correct?

There's too many questions for me to try to answer, since it's all going to be a matter of my own opinon. So, does Facebook create a sense of community that will work for the good of all people? That, I think, is still just a sense of perspective.

The Social Network

I saw The Social Network originally in 2010 when it was released. Mostly because I was curious as to who Mark Zuckerberg was and am a fan of the off-beat films that Jesse Eisenberg has been a member of. Although I am assuming that the real Mark Zuckerberg is a little bit more charismatic than the Zuckerberg that was portrayed in the film (since most articles or interviews of Zuckerberg have portrayed him as just a "normal guy"), I still find a connection between him and Steve Jobs.

The whole idea of both of them being geniuses is just the tip of the iceberg. First off, the idea of bringing people together, technology being for the masses. Jobs saw Apple as a way to connect people to the digital world and expanding his inventions to massive amounts of people. Zuckerberg really ended up doing the same thing, just with social networking... Technically, they both feed into each other. Jobs gave us the facility to connect and Zuckerberg gave us the ability. I feel like Zuckerberg is also just as cut-throat as Jobs is, just maybe in a more charismatic way, which almost makes it worse. He did, after all, technically steal the idea of Facebook from "The Facebook" and has had quite a few lawsuits against him and his business tactics (maybe it's all just a learning curve). Jobs did run a more mature company, but that could also be attributed to his anal personality and OCD.

I understand that Hollywood probably made the movie a bit more dramatic than Zuckerberg's life actually was when he was in college and creating Facebook, but from what I understand, Zuckerberg did enjoy the movie and the portrayal of himself as an extremely focused and driven young man. After all, the movie did fit an entire six years into a two hour movie. So, possibly, the next genius that Hollywood should take on and make into a blockbuster would be a movie about Steve Jobs... oh wait, isn't that already in the works? I believe Ashton Kutcher has been cast... which doesn't make any sense to me, after reading the biography of Jobs.. but that, I'm afraid, is for another post.

The Information

Shannon's model for communication is not only a good model for the Mathematical Theory of Communication, but can also be seen as a model for religion itself. My experience with religion is limited to Christianity, specifically Lutheranism; however, in order to keep this relevant and a little less monotonous, I'm going to take on Christianity as a whole, and how it is, I think, changing.

 

Shannon's model spoke of the information source being the person/machine generating the message. In the case of Christianity, I will say the information source is God, Jesus, Holy Spirit... Triune Self.

The transmitter in this model is the encoder of the message.. let's say for religion it would be the individuals who wrote the Bible - the prophets, deciples, etc.

The channel is the way the signal is transmitted: religiously - by the Bible.

The receiver decodes the message from the original signal. In this instance, the receiver would be the religious leaders - pastors, fathers, pope, etc.

And finally, the destination is the person or thing at the other end: us.

With this series of information, the concept seems pretty straight forward, with little room for error (besides the fact that human beings tend to misinterpret and confuse actual meanings of Biblical teachings). But for this case - we're going to pretend that what God means when he spoke the words of the Bible are actually what are being told through this pathway. The problem occurs with the noise source. This noise source as seen as a signal interference, which can actually be considered the incapability of man to understand the Biblical teachings, inaccurate translations, as well as the complete lack of understanding for what the Bible is actually teaching.

For example. The biggest deal in the news these days with the "crazy right-winged Christians" is not only the fact that clearly because I'm a democrat and believe all people were created equal am going to Hell, but also that the Boyscouts CANNOT have gay boys and men involved in their program. Apparently, the Bible talks somewhere about the Boyscouts of America and gay people being an abomination so tisk tsk no can do. Well, I can't tell you this for sure, but I'm pretty positive that the Bible does not say anything about the Boyscouts OR gay people being an abomination to God's earth. Now, before I go on a complete tangent about where Christianity has been going in this country, I would like to request that people stop using these "noise sources" as truth. If we're all sticking to the New Testament here, and I'm pretty sure in this blog we are, since I'm talking about Christianity, all of this hate, maltreatment, judgements, and bigotry (ehem Fox News) should actually be absolete, yes? I mean, my goodness, didn't Jesus feed the poor, heal the sick, disapprove of the rich tax collectors, and actually have all of the basic attributes of a liberal?  

 

What really brought up this analogy of the noise source for me is that as I was watching the news about the boyscouts story, a woman came on the screen and stated "I speak for all Christians in saying that no gay people should be allowed in the boyscouts". I was not only horrified by lack of acknowledgement to the basic human principle of everybody being created equal, but also to the fact that my religion is now being seen as a negative term. Do I even want to tell people I'm a Christian anymore? I don't want to be seen as a crazy lady that wants to picket clean air or stop the poorer individuals in my community from having a place to live.

 

The idea of Christianity seems to be known now as more of an intollerant group of people than what it originally was suppose to be about... Maybe it's good that I'm going into the field of psychology.. a lot of people these days seem to need a good psychiatrist or heavy dose of meds to regain a goodness of heart.

The Google Doctors

I have had my fair share of experiences with an abundance of doctors, both good and bad. The good ones have never let me down *knock on wood* and are above par on my standards. But the bad, ohhhh the bad. My biggest question for this group of lazy, uneducated people: Is Google really necessary for you to run your practice?

The answer to this question should actually be a no-brainer. Why would a doctor use Google to diagnose somebody? Isn't Google's unlimited access to medical facts and fictions the reason why so many people have become hypochondriacs? So - no. Google should not be necessary for a doctor to diagnose and treat a patient. I have had my fair share of experiences of Google Doctors both inside and outside of the examination room. "Why do you think my back hurts?" "I don't know... let's Google your symptoms". If I had known we were just going to "Google" my symptoms I would've done this on my own. But she's just my primary doctor - no big deal. ...

Once we get past the whole, "okay maybe it was just that one time thing" (which it turned out not to be), what happens when we get a specialist who is sick of patients Googling their symptoms and telling him what they think they have. I believe it is just human nature to try and figure out what could be wrong with you, even though WebMD always says you're going to die a horrible violent death.. Anyways. This doctor became a catch-22 for me. He not only yelled at me for looking up what could possibly be wrong, because "how is a doctor suppose to do their job when they have patients coming in and telling him what they have"? but then before I left his office he told me to "Google my diagnosis and do some reading". OKAY. Don't get me wrong, but if so called Google Doctors don't want me on the internet and then tell me to go on the internet I find myself a little bit confused. I understand where the "don't look things up online" comes from. Google gives people a very very diverse range of websites that can be both helpful and extremely harmful. Wikipedia for instance.. not always the best website to go to for factual answers, since every day Joe-blows can write whatever they want on that website and basically say their word is holy. Also, Google Answers.. not the best place to go.. sometimes highly entertaining, but nowhere to look for facts. But then we once again come to WebMD which really is a fine website, if you'd like to be scared out of your mind and then reassured by a doctor that your throat isn't going to fall out of your face after your leg falls off.

So. I say. Let's get rid of the Google Doctors and bring in the good ones. Return some sensible knowledge to the medical community and maybe people won't be half as quick to look up their symptoms on the good old Google.

Focus on the user and all else will follow.

Since this post is discussing if religion was to be influenced by one of the "Ten things we know to be true" on google, the easiest number to pick would be the last: Great just isn’t good enough. However, since that is the policy of most western religions these days, I would like to focus more on what flaws I see in the western religions, specifically my own experience in the Lutheran church/WELS congregation.

Google's first "thing we know to be true" is Focus on the user and all else will follow.

 

Since the beginning, we’ve focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line. Our homepage interface is clear and simple, and pages load instantly. Placement in search results is never sold to anyone, and advertising is not only clearly marked as such, it offers relevant content and is not distracting. And when we build new tools and applications, we believe they should work so well you don’t have to consider how they might have been designed differently.

 

I have mixed feelings about this idea within the context of religion. If religion is to focus solely on the user, then everybody would basically have their own ideas of what religion should be. Which, of course, isn't bad at all. There is a very fine line between where religion is now with this and where it should never go, in my opinion. I feel like every individual has his or her own take on religious practices and what the Bible says; however, this understanding can be taken to do a great deal of harm. Take, for instance, The Westboro Baptist Church. They are undoubtedly the most hated group of people in this country at this moment - using religion as their way to become a hate group. There needs to always be a sense of human dignity that is given to each individual... and for anybody who says that the Bible does not state this respect, maybe you've only read specific parts of the Old Testament. If we actually look throughout history, when religion becomes solely about the user, violence breaks out.

 

However; within the WELS congregation, or specifically the church I attend, there is the opposite problem. Relgion in this instance is not at all about the user; it has nothing to do with who we are as individuals and what we need. My own take on the Bible and Jesus' teachings tends to be quite a bit different than my current pastor's - mostly because I believe gay people have just as many rights as everybody else... and I'm a democrat. But I digress. In my experience, this particular church has become more about money and preaching a political opinion rather than the experience of individualized teachings of the Bible. Afterall, I've always felt that since the Bible was written by man for man, there must be some difference in interpretation... and I also think most religions are the same, just different terms and ways of expressing beliefs... which is also against my current church's doctrine. If this congregation is solely about the user, they would not ex-communicate members for a lack of attending church services.. I would not be receiving condescending letters in the mail asking me if I just "forgot Jesus was my Savior" or if I'm just "too lazy to respect God".

 

An open discussion of religion without this ridiculous sense of "we're right and you're wrong" attitude should, in a perfect world, fix these problems between extremisms. Why can't the Bible be up for indivual interpretation? I don't believe any religion is more right than any other, I just particularly like the teachings of Martin Luther. The true sense of what Luther found was wrong with the Catholic Church has basically resurfaced within the Lutheran Church. There needs to be a return to the balance of the "user" and the doctrine. If not, then I suppose I will just make my appearance at church every so often so I am not ex-communicated and then study what I believe to be the true teachings of the Bible... without taking it out on anybody else. So, what do I think about the context of religion being solely about the user? To each his own.. as long as those particular ideologies do not interfere with another's human rights.

Opinion of the iPad

Sometimes I wonder what I would use an iPad for.

During the last couple of class periods, I have enjoyed using the iPad, but I still see it as mainly a large iPhone... Of course the screen is bigger, making it easier to read e-mails as well as type, but I've never actually had the desire to purchase an iPad. I'm perfectly content with my iPhone, iPod, and laptop. Who needs one more thing to carry around? I can see it being useful for schools... since having all of your text books and documents at one touch is pretty impressive, but I'm still attached to books and the "old-fashioned" way of writing notes in a notebook. I think it's the physicality of being able to hold a book and write notes. Plus, typing is mindless to me. I think when I hand-write, I pay more attention to what is being said by the professor or what I am reading.

For the "techy" I can see the appeal. I must admit, the iPad is cool; it's fun to use and personalize, and easy to carry around. The design asthetics are wonderful, and for any Apple fan it's most likely a must have. If one can afford it and is interested, why not purchase one? I, on the other hand, tend to be one of the cheapest people I know; spending money kills me. I scoff at a t-shirt marked down to $5.. who needs to spend that much on a simple t-shirt? So, spending $300 on a piece of technology I don't even consider necessary is a "no can do" situation for me. Most of my technology I have received as a gift or out of necessity for college. I had to put my foot down for Christmas though when my father said he was thinking of buying us all iPads... nobody needs to spend $300 to make me happy - I'd rather just have pfeffernusse cookies.

I wonder if the need for an iPad or desire to own one deals with both, of course, the interest and fascination with the newest technology, but also with income. I know Steve Jobs wanted Apple products to be for the everyday man, but I can tell you, the "everyday man" cannot afford Apple products... or at least the newest ones. This country is built off of branding and consumers, but I wonder if the middle and lower classes are getting left behind - especially in technology. We all know much of the upper class, or more specifically, conservatives in general, do not really understand the plight of a middle and lower class family - so maybe the disconnecct in consumerism is coming from a gap in social economic status. I can honestly say, I do not know many middle and lower clas people who own iPads.

The iPad: Something Fresh and New

Steve Jobs has spunk.

His invention of the iPad is mind boggling to me. I never understood the hype behind new technology; I was never one to stand outside in a line for a million hours just to get the latest gadget. But the more I read about Steve Jobs, I get it. I still don't understand why someone would stand outside in the middle of the night, but I do finally get the excitement.

In terms of the iPad: his design is impeccable. It's simplistic and genuine, just as he wanted and designed with the iPhone. In terms of artistic expression, the simpler the better. Anybody who takes an advanced art class or is an artist will tell you, the simpler the better. Keep simplifying. When this process is occurring, the ideas become clearer, the point you want to make to the viewer is easier to understand. People get it. This is was Steve Jobs has done with the iPad. People understood it. The fact that an "illiterate six year old" could pick up the iPad and use it even though he's never seen this sense of technology before captures the spirit of what Jobs was creating. The rounded edges make the instrument friendlier to the viewer - nobody wants to pick up a boxy piece of technology - rounded edges seem more huggable. I've always had a great draw to the color of the iPad as well (iPhone also); the color is not ivory, but it's not quite white. It really is perfect. The logo on the back of the iPad is also striking. Simple, clean, and tells the consumer exactly where the product came from. Jobs is very good at that - branding. There is no possible way for a consumer to walk in to an electronic store and get confused over whether the product is from Apple or not. The design is thin, easy to carry and transport from place to place and also extremely easy to use as well as personalize.

We have to give it up to Steve Jobs. He really has revolutionized technology, branded it extremely well and has created a company that is always ahead of the competition. By this point in Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs, if you are not a fan, you will never be. I almost feel like I should now go out and buy an iPad, or to be hip, the iPad Mini.



{Winston especially enjoyed this chapter about the iPad}

Technology of Medicine...

I figured that since I've been sick for about a week, a blog post about medicine would be fitting. I've also spent a remarkable amount of time in both hospitals and doctor's offices over the past five years - so again, fitting. As of the last year, once a month I've been heading over to the ever so wonderful Theda Clark Hospital to get hooked up to a machine that pumps the ever so wonderful medicine, Remicade (aka Inflixamab), into my already very unstable bloodstream. Most people think this sounds terrible, but hey, I actually stand up straight and walk because of it, so bring on the medication!

 

Anyways. As I was thinking about how I couldn't receive my infusion today because of the wonderful flu/cold/whatever I may have at the moment (you need a stable immune system for this stuff) it dawned on me... I'm hooked up monthly to a whole lot of technology. What did people do before a machine literally pumped the IV fluids into the body?? Now, Remicade is an oldie but a goodie (oldie in terms of medicine at least). It was invented around 1998, so this technology has clearly been around longer than that.The specific model I am lucky enough to be hooked up to though is the DRE Avanti M3 Infusion Pump, copyright of 2010. I know this doesn't mean a lot to many of you, but this handy machine allows my nurses to set the pace rate for the infusion at different time incraments, alarm included. For the patients and nurses alike, this is wonderful. Every 15 minutes a nurse comes to my room and raises the rate (for the first hour), second hour I get bumped up every 30 minutes. There's no stress involved for anybody and no increase of pressure or any possible irritation. This lovely machine also keeps air bubbles out of the IV line and keeps me tangle free. :)   I know many people who couldn't imagine their lives without Remicade, but I also couldn't survive without this machine (or any of the like). Technology lets us (both patients and nurses/doctors) administer medications, develop new medications, as well as reduce the stress of having medical procedures done.

"Mommon issai no kyo"...

The fact that Steve Jobs studied Zen Buddhism and, more specifically, the works of Shunryu Suzuki Roshi is not surprising to me at all. From the early pages of Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs, there is a clear desire for Jobs to know where he fits within the universe. Jobs has an overwhelming need to know who his birth parents are, even though he was adopted as an infant and never knew them. Just out of the pure fact that he heard his birth parents graduated from college gave him enough line to hold onto - maybe one day, if he was to meet his biological father and mother, he would be able to know and understand his true inner-self.

This "oneness" is what Jobs had been searching for since he began to realize he was smarter than his adoptive parents. He was lost in his own brilliance, and although he only confided in a select few about this lack of connectedness, he needed to express his desires for a place in this world, just as we all do. From Jobs' studies of Zen Buddhism, he was able to gain control over his environment; he learned to have a calmness and quietness, which proved to be a great advantage to Jobs. Jobs gained confidence in who he was through Zen Buddhism. Suzuki teaches of having value: each individual has value - their own value, which is none-other than their own. This value is then a part of the universe. If a lost child, adolescent, or adult in Jobs' case was to hear that no matter who they are or where they come from, they have value, that is sure to give oneself confidence. Jobs studied immensly under Suzuki's apprentice and even though Jobs left this relationship for his career advantages, under the guidance of this teacher, he remained friends with Kobun. Jobs had begun searching for englightenment throughout his life. Even though his found enlightenment may have not manifested itself in the normative values of a monk, Jobs took his newly found self into his life and embraced it fully. Through this strength and confidence in who he now was, Jobs was able to push people in directions they may or may not have gone originally. This made him into the master-mind or arrogant (as some individuals began to know him as) man that ran his ideas into a multi-million dollar company.

Zen Buddhism made Jobs into the man that he we all came to know. His brilliance made his designs, but his understanding of his self-worth and importance allowed his brilliance to come to the forefront.

Help Me I'm Lost...

Most people know me by now as the girl who never stops posting pictures of her new cat (and dogs by the way). What can I say, he's inspirational. But anyways, I was sitting here thinking once again about what kind of technology I could possibly sound somewhat educated about, when it dawned on me, Winston is microchipped. How many people these days talk about microchipping their pets? Not very many - at least in an average day to day conversation.

Most shelters now microchip all of the animals that are adopted so if the animals get lost, and are found, they can be returned to their rightful owners with just a scan. Last year around April, I was driving home and saw a small Jack Russel Terrier walking down the side of the road. I picked him up, put him in my car, and away we went to find a shelter where I could talk  to somebody who may be able to find an owner. This poor little guy didn't have a collar on or anything, and was pretty darn old. The day ended up with me driving all over Greenville, Appleton, way out over to the Outagamie County Humane Society with this little dog - who I bonded with quite a bit. Once we got to the shelter, I brought him inside (the leashes and treats I keep in my car happened to come into handy in this circumstance) and the woman at the drop-off area scanned him with one of the wonderful microchip scanners. Success! This little old dog had a home, and if it wasn't for the microchip, we may have never found his family.

Some people are worried that microchipping may hurt the animal, since a small microchip is literally placed under the skin through a small needle right in between the shoulder blades. I have placed a few microchips in my days of working at an animal shelter and I can honestly say, no animal has ever had a problem (under my care at least!). The main lesson of this post is that, all animals should really be microchipped... at least our furry friends, I cannot say if microchips have been approved for reptiles as of yet. Microchipping helps return our furry friends back to their family members who may have otherwise been left at a shelter until claimed or adopted out to somebody new.

"Everything else is secondary..."

In Bellah et al.'s Habits of the Heart, he discusses two types of individualistic cultures, that of the utilitarian type and that of the expressive type:

Utilitarian individualism: basic human appetites and fears - sees human life as an effort by individuals to maximize their self-interest relative to these given ends. Utilitarian individualism views society as arising from a contract that individuals enter into only in order to advance their self-interest - an affinity to an economic understanding of existence.

Expressive individualism: opposition to utilitarian individualism Expressive individualism holds that each person has a unique core of feeling and intuition that should unfold or be expressed if individuality is to be realized - the expressive individualist may find it possible through intuitive feeling to "merge" with other persons, with nature, or with the cosmos as a whole.

Before reading any of the biography Steve Jobs, or watching this commencement speech, I would have thought Jobs would most definitely be considered to fit into the category of utilitarian individualism. From what I have seen on the television about Jobs and read in the newspaper, he seemed arrogant, self-centered, and acting purely out of his own self-interest/pocket book. However, I am beginning to see him in a new light. Steve Jobs was arrogant, self-centered and acting out of his pocket book, but he loved what he did. This man was full of passion and energy for his creations and life; he did not blame others for being fired from Apple or for getting into trouble throughout his childhood. In his commencement speech, Jobs clearly pushed for the graduating students to understand that each one of us has an intuition that will show us where to go with our lives, and we should listen to it and follow it. It is only after what makes the self happy that the self can find happiness within the company of others. Individuality encompasses Jobs' entire being - he is the ultimate individual. He has gone by the beat of his own drum and was willing to ask for and push his way into what he wanted in the end.

Jobs happened to be good at profiting from what he enjoyed doing most. In some regards, his character flaws of being arrogant and self-centered are what made him so exquisite at what he did. As a genius, why wouldn't he think that he was better than the rest of us? Technically, in terms of IQ, he was. He had the ideas, he had the knowledge, and he made the products happen - with employees and friends of course, but it was still ultimately his vision. As a senior this year, filling out graduate school applications, I cannot help but be delighted by his speech. I have found what I am truly passionate about it in life, and it is comforting to know that someone as successful and happy as Steve Jobs is able to explain to students that yes, everything does happen for a reason, but in the end, all the dots will be connected and your goals will be achieved.

The Life-Hack

As I sit here, with my cat Winston, pondering what kind of technology has made my life easier, I can't help but notice that while I'm typing this, my iphone is logged into facebook, I have my e-mail open on my desktop, as well as spotify playing a wonderful playlist of Noah and the Whale in the background. So, should I describe the fact that my iphone keeps my life at the palm of my hand or that my HP laptop computer can perform multiple tasks at the same time? Since my iphone can basically do (almost) everything my computer can, I will discuss that.

I remember back when I was approximately 13 years old or so and I got my first cell phone. Back then it was just a standard phone; I could dial 911 and call my parents (just for emergencies). Today's iphone is clearly very different. I have social networking at the palm of my hand - just one click of the facebook app and I can be instantly updated on what my friends are doing, where my family is, and update my contacts on where I am. Texting is now unlimited (according to my verizon plan) and, clearly, calling people is a thing of the past. Who needs direct communication anyways? To say that facebook hasn't impacted my life in the easiness of contacting friends, reconnecting with old ones, and staying in touch with those who move away would be a lie. If it didn't, why am I constantly checking for updates? Even though I wouldn't consider Instagram to be a ground-breaking, life-altering new app, I would definitely say that it has added a wonderful ease of adding stellar effects without the use of photoshop and a direct link to facebook, allowing me to litter my friends' and family's timelines with beautiful pictures of my newly adopted kitty. Taking photographs used to take time with developing film or even plugging your camera into your computer and uploading your images into iPhoto or Windows Photo Gallery. So, I very much enjoy the ease of taking a picture, adding a witty caption, and instantly uploading it to facebook. In all honesty, who wouldn't?






I took a picture of my cat Winston (with Instragram) watching a video of himself on my laptop (uploaded to facebook) that I took with my iPhone.










Inspiration for Post:

Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Robert N. Bellah.Chapters 1-2