I learned too many new things through out this course such as WordPress, Pixlr, and Smore. I liked WordPress the most. It was excited when I can create a pretty website. There are many template to chose from and the color scheme is geogoues. I am going to use what I had learned in this class through out the college, for my business and future carreer. Also, I am going to teach my two little boys what I had learned in this class. It is going to be a big mistake if I do not taking this class. I am very appreciate Dr. Draper Deri for letting me enroll in the class late.
ePortforlio Reflective Letter Assignment
By: Nhi huynh
Digital writing
Ids 307
T_32320
I learned too many new things through out this course such as WordPress, Pixlr, and Smore. I liked WordPress the most. It was excited when I can create a pretty website. There are many template to chose from and the color scheme is geogoues. I am going to use what I had learned in this class through out the college, for my business and future carreer. Also, I am going to teach my two little boys what I had learned in this class. It is going to be a big mistake if I do not taking this class. I am very appreciate Dr. Draper Deri for letting me enroll in the class late.
Technology is growing rapidly. Cyber security threats continue to escalate in frequency and variation. This is going to help the crime to increase. To prevent these crime, the government have to spend billion dollars to prevent the attacker. They rather spend the money on the hunger people then spend the money on repair the damage of the disaster. The United States of America is trying to build a strong computer system to prevent the cyber-terrorism, criminal groups, and hackers.
First of all, cyber-terrorism is the most resent and dangerous in cyber security. They are attack into the government system and trying to plan for their evil things. September 11, 2011, is an example of an attack. Many people was in injury and died on that they. The government of the United States of America lost a lot of money due to that accident. Terrorist seeks to incapacitate, to destroy or exploit critical infrastructure to cause a huge casualties, threaten national security, damage public confidence and morale and most of all weaken the economy. It is only take them a short period of time to gain access into computer system, information, computer programs and data. So, they can accomplish their goals. They are taking the advantages to destroy the computer network. The United States of America have to come up with new technologies to prevent the terrorist.
Moreover, there are criminal groups which they are seeking to steal the money from big company or group of people. For example, some of them set up a fate company to trick people who using the internet to believe that they might have to win a big amount of money. Criminal groups will ask to give them those people credit card number or bank account. As soon as people give their information, then the criminal groups withdraw their money. Secondly, some other attack the system using spyware or malware to theft other people identity. Third, some pretend they are the home owner. They are asking for deposit. When people deposit to their lawyer account, they change their phone number so people cannot contact them for the refund. Those people lose a lot of money for nothing.
Lastly, one of the biggest affliction and threat for the internet is the hacker or spammers. Even though, the strongest security still cannot prevent these people from hacking. They are trying to take advantage of searching smartphone engines to spread the malicious content. There are two ways which the vulnerabilities are attacked. The first way is to developing the software such as malicious programs. They can attack the people PC or the servers that are not updated by the latest security update. The second way is the “zero-day attack” is when they attack the system right after they establishes a new vulnerabilities before people updated their latest security.
Even though, the cybercrime technology is getting stronger every single day. The government should not be lack of threats awareness. The attackers can get information, steal or damage the computer system. The most dangerous thing that the attackers hack into the government system for the political purposes. They can kill many people by creating a war when they can break into the government system and try to plan for their evil purposes. In order to reduce the effects of the cyber security threats, the government have to spend numerous amount of money to invest in developing the computer networks. They rather use their money to invest on preventing the attackers and for the poor hungry people on the World instead of repair the damages of the accident or war.
In conclusion, cybersecurity threats are very dangerous for the nation. The attackers can break into the computer system of the government to access critical information for their evil purposes. Also, they can access to the big company or personal account to steal money. Some company event trying to scam people such as old people who are poor and always wish to gain more money when it is hard for them to gain more money at their old age. They did not realize that money is not from the tree of the back yard. If something is too good to be true, then it is not true. In order to reduce the risk of the citizens, the government have to continue to build a strong defensive capabilities to prevent the enemies to access into the computer system. This can help people to feel safe and peace. The government have to think citizen safety is the priority.
Numerous people are hungry every day. Even though, there is enough food on Earth. More than half of the hungry people are children. Children are very innocence. They need to be joy. I would like to ask everybody to help those hungry people so they do not face world hunger. The world can change from one lenient heart.
Many people have family members who died because of not having enough food to feed for the whole family. These people are waiting for us to help them save their lives. If we were in their place, we would like someone to help us so we can survive. We will have the same feeling if we are in the same situation that we cannot afford food to feed our family.
There are many program to help prevent world hunger such as United Nations World Food Program (WFP) and Free Rice. Also, we can donate cans and boxes of food to a shelter. In addition, we can send money to other organizations such as churches or temples.
Please help those hungry people by spreading your word to your family, friends, and community. We all can help to stop world hunger by holding our hand together. Let makes everyone smile.
In this meme, I would like to ask everyone please put their one hand to help the world hunger. They can donate to many organizations. People are all human. When they cut their skin, they all have red blood. It takes many people to help end the world hunger. People holding each other hand could be a symbol of good karma.
Technological Determinism and the Truth of Neutrality
Savannah Stoyanof
Reese Gelinas
Kendel Barber
Old Dominion University
Digital Writing IDS 307
As the common phrase goes, “poor workers blame the tools.” The application of tools has evolved with society, yet the adage remains true. The tools of the modern age are digital and advancing exponentially. They pave the way for new economies and new boundaries of human ingenuity. Yet technology knows no morals and is guided by no ethics, rather, the user of these tools determines the outcome of their application (Heusemann). As such, technology is a neutral force in society, therefore the concept of non-neutral technological determinism is moot. For example, in the 20th century hydraulic log splitters had yet to be invented. Logging work was done by hand with a splitting maul and a wedge. Today, hydraulic log splitters are a staple in the manufacturing of firewood. While it is still possible to use the swinging maul method, the question becomes one of cost versus benefit. Simply put, there is no benefit in choosing a more costly, inefficient method when technology exists to expedite the process. The machinery, though is useless without human integration. Technology will always remain stagnant without human application. The log splitter will split no logs until a person begins the process. The question of the log splitter being right or wrong then ceases to exist, because the function of the technology (the splitter) would not be possible at all without human intervention. As such, the argument for neutrality comes full circle.
The simple truth of neutrality in regard to technological determinism can be proven by three simple facts: technology has no morals, technology has no choice, and the human component is flawed, rendering blame to the advancements of the age.
First, technology has no morals because as “intelligent” as computers and programs may be, there is no way to program into them a sense of right and wrong. Mankind alone has
developed the mental framework for such concepts. A computer may run through a number of If-Then scenarios to come to a calculated “right” decision, but these so-called choices are nothing more than human design and not true technological autonomy (Anderson). Neutrality in the instance of technological determinism dictates that the technology in question is neither good nor bad, it simply is. The non-neutral stance on technological determinism is a theory which posits that technology is the force which dictates change in social development (Chandler). The neutral stance counters by pointing out that the amoral nature of technology renders this theory untrue. It is the direct use, application, and development of technology by various users that drives the changes in society.
Second, technology is incapable of true choice. A very common example of the neutral perspective is that of the gun. In an article by Psychology Today, David Kyle Johnson stated that, “When it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes” (Johnson). A gun simply existing is not a dangerous object nor is it a fearsome force, it is nothing more than a mechanical item. It is the person wielding the object that determines whether or not it is a lethal weapon. A gun will not fire itself into a crowd of innocents; a human user, capable of moral understanding makes the conscious choice whether or not to harm others. This example leads to the third and final point.
Third, humans by nature are flawed. As a result anything produced by humans is also flawed. This does not mean, however, that which is developed by man is at fault for the imperfections. The theoretical use of new technologies often varies substantially from the actual application. Nuclear power is an example of how intentions dictate the influence of technology, and not vice versa. In the early days of research nuclear power was explored in hopes of finding a massive power source to fuel the ever-growing population and the energy demands that grew as well. With scientific exploration, however, often comes phases of failure. The sheer destructive force of nuclear power was noticed by individuals who saw not the potential for an energy source, but the potential for weaponry. While oversimplifying decades of research and debate for the sake of brief example, the fact remains that the word “nuclear” brings to mind images of mushroom clouds, war, and incredible loss of life. This culturally accepted mindset to the nature of nuclear power is not a result of the source itself, rather, it is the result of the way the source was used, by humans (Furbank).
Technology is a broad term for a host of tools, objects, and creations designed to make life more enjoyable. Although technological advancements show an amazing array of ingenuity, technology is in no way responsible for the societal effects that may result in its use. In an article by “The Atlanic” titled Technology Doesn’t Ruin Our Lives, We Do, the author explains that it is not technology that is ruining society, rather technology alters how individuals are shaped within a culture(Greenfield, 2012). A prolific example is the integration of technology into education. Gone are the days of chalk boards and encyclopedias. Today, there are entire universities that specialize in using the internet as a scholastic medium. What needs to be realized is that the technology has not created this culture, but society has found this to be advantageous when applied to advancing education. Mankind alone is responsible for the application of technological advancements and mankind alone is capable of the complex thought required to comprehend moral choice. It is human nature to believe that the problem lies in external factors; to believe otherwise is to imply fault. It then becomes easier to place the degradation of society upon the shoulders of the Internet and ubiquitous gadgets permeating everyday life. Technology simply is; it is the fate of the human species to dictate what helps or harms the further development of society.
Neutrality in Technology
Savannah Stoyanof
Reese Gelinas
Old Dominion University
Digital Writing IDS 307
As the common phrase goes, “poor workers blame the tools.” The application of tools has evolved with society, yet the adage remains true. The tools of the modern age are digital and advancing exponentially. They pave the way for new economies and new boundaries of human ingenuity. Yet technology knows no morals and is guided by no ethics, rather, the user of these tools determines the outcome of their application. As such, technology is a neutral force in society, therefore the concept of non-neutral technological determinism is moot.
The simple truth of technological neutrality can be proven by three simple facts: technology has no morals, technology has no choice, and the human component is flawed, rendering blame to the advancements of the age.
First, technology has no morals because as “intelligent” as computers and programs may be, there is no way to program into them a sense of right and wrong. Mankind alone has developed the mental framework for such concepts. A computer may run through a number of If-Then scenarios to come to a calculated “right” decision, but these so-called choices are nothing more than human design and not true technological autonomy. Neutrality in the instance of technological determinism dictates that the technology in question is neither good nor bad, it simply is. The non-neutral stance on technological determinism is a theory which posits that technology is the force which dictates change in social development. The neutral stance counters by pointing out that the amoral nature of technology renders this theory untrue. It is the direct use, application, and development of technology by various users that drives the changes in society.
Second, technology is incapable of true choice. A very common example of the neutral perspective is that of the gun. A gun simply existing is not a dangerous object nor is it a fearsome force, it is nothing more than a mechanical item. It is the person wielding the object that determines whether or not it is a lethal weapon. A gun will not fire itself into a crowd of innocents; a human user, capable of moral understanding makes the conscious choice whether or not to harm others. This example leads to the third and final point.
Third, humans are by nature flawed and as a result anything produced by humans is also flawed. This does not mean, however, that which is developed by man is at fault for the imperfections. The theoretical use of new technologies often varies substantially from the actual application. Nuclear power is an example of how intentions dictate the influence of technology, and not vice versa. In early days of research nuclear power was explored in hopes of finding a massive power source to fuel the ever-growing population and the energy demands that grew as well. With scientific exploration, however, often comes phases of failure. The sheer destructive force of nuclear power was noticed by individuals who saw not the potential for an energy source, but the potential for weaponry. While oversimplifying decades of research and debate for the sake of brief example, the fact remains that the word “nuclear” brings to mind images of mushroom clouds, war, and incredible loss of life. This culturally accepted mindset to the nature of nuclear power is not a result of the source itself, rather, it is the result of the way the source was used, by humans.
Technology is a broad term for a host of tools, objects, and creations designed to make life more enjoyable. While an amazing array of ingenuity, technology is in no way responsible for the societal effects that may result in its use. Mankind alone is responsible for the application of these creations and mankind alone is capable of the complex thought required to comprehend moral choice. Technology simply is; it is the fate of the human species to dictate what helps or harms the further development of society.
Savannah,
Very well written paper. In addition to a cover page, I included a few comments on some things that I though may be questionable. However, other than the comments made, I did not find many mistakes besides some spelling or word redundancy which I made quick edits to. I think your argument is very convincing and you present the ideas well. What I believe would help with proving your statements is having quotes from articles inserted with some in text citations. If you would like, I can provide you with some articles and quotes that you (or I) can insert into the paragraphs. I saw you mentioned this in your discussion post but I just wanted to put it in the
concluding thoughts for formality.
References
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2011). Machine ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chandler, Daniel. “Technological or Media Determinism.” Technological Determinism: Technological Neutrality. 3 July 2014. Web. 28 Jan. 2017.
Furbank, P.N “The Myth of Determinism.” Raritan. [City] Fall 2006: 79–87. EBSCOhost. Monroe Community College Library, Rochester, NY. . 2 April 2007. Web 28 January 2017.
Greenfiled, Rebecca. “Technology Doesn’t Ruin Our Lives, We Do.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Inc, Aug. 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2017.
Huesemann, M., & Huesemann, J. (2011). Techno-fix: why technology won’t save us or the environment. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society .
Kaplan, David M. “Readings in the Philosophy of Technology.” Google Books. Rowman and Littlefield Inc., 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2017.
MacKenzie, Donald, and Judy Wajcman. “The Social Shaping of Technology.” LSE Research Online. Open University Press, 16 July 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2017.
Marx, Leo, and Merritt Roe Smith. “Does Technology Drive History?” Google Books. MIT Press, 1994. Web. 28 Jan. 2017.
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/slideshows/security-artifacts-the-hunt-for-forensic-residue-05.html
https://essaysprofessors.com/samples/Technology/Cyber-Security-Threat.html
PowerRangers, March 9, 2017 http://www.teenink.com/opinion/social_issues_civics/article/173811/Saving-People-from-World-Hunger/
[Reese Gel1]Maybe change this to: Humans, by nature are flawed.
Or: Human nature is flawed.
[Reese Gel2]Consider: In the early days it’s research, nuclear power…
[Reese Gel3]Did you mean to say “With an amazing…”?