Mass-produced detergent and the IBM green data center

Blog on the following topic: Identify and describe one example of "one size fits all design" and one example of eco-effectiveness design. (Something not covered in the book.)

As stated in the book, major soap manufacterers design one detergent for all parts of the United States and Europse, even though different communities throughout the world need different needs of water and soap quality. Customers in the Northwest, with their accumilation of soft water, need only a small amount of detergent. Hard water locations in the Southwest need much more detergent than the average town. It is designed the same with the same amount of antibiotics to do away with germs the same way anywhere in the world. In the book, they refer to the "one size fits all design" as the "worst-case scenerio", where the product is designed for the largest possible audience, where it will work with the same efficancy across the board.

One example of eco-effectiveness design is the newly developed IBM Project Big Green, a re-direction of a billion USD a year to increase energy efficiency in its data centers. Early estimates come out to over 40% of energy savings for an average 25,000 square foot data center. Based on the energy mix in the United States, this will come out to a reduction of over 7000 tons of carbon emissions. This is eco-effective because they are are investing in systems that deliver a better performance per watt, thus reducing their carbon footprint on our world. The project invests in running the same workload as before, just at lower cost and with reduced environmental impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Big_Green

The Universal Product Code

After watching the documentary on Wal-Mart in class Wednesday, what really changed in terms of labor or consumption due to the introduction of automation and/or information technology is the implementation of the universal product code (UPC), a specific type of barcode. The idea of a barcode was developed in 1932 by Wallace Flint, who proposed an automotive checkout system using punch-cards in his college master’s thesis. The idea fell flat because of the recession and lack of technological capabilities, but was picked up again in 1948 when Bernard Silver and Joseph Woodland developed a system based off of two previous technologies- Morse code and movie soundtracks. Extending the dots and dashes to create varied widths, coupled with reading the information through a tube that was designed for movies made in the 1920s. The tube translated the light reflected from the bar pattern into electronic waveforms, which led to the original message of the barcode. In the 1960’s railroads experimented with this process for tracking railcars, but eventually abandoned it. In the early 1970’s the development of laser light allowed the information present in the bars to be read quickly and from multiple angles. Kroger grocery chain became the “test rat” for bar code use. It worked well, sprouting several other systems across the country which caused a major problem- no uniformity in the system, bar codes weren’t recognized by certain scanners. This problem was solved on April 3rd, 1973 by George J. Laurer, who developed the UPC- a bar recognized by all scanners.

The information embedded in the UPC of certain products had translated into keeping in front of the curve for Wal-Mart. As explained by former Wal-Mart store manager Jon Lehman, the barcode is able to, "track sales on specific items specific weeks, specific days, specific hours of the day, when [they] sell merchandise the most." This has changed the entire method of communicating with the manufacturers, requesting products at a certain price based on what people are buying- a complete change from the days of old when the manufacturers held the power over the retailers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/barcode.html

The Mouse- Timeline

The Computer Mouse Timeline

1952- The Royal Canadian Navy invented the trackball using a Canadian five-pin bowling ball as the user interface for their DATAR (Digital Automated Tracking and Resolving), a computerized battlefield information system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DATAR_trackball.jpg

1963- Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute invented the first computer mouse. He never received any royalties for it, as the patent ran out before it was shipped along with personal computers. Came with one button.

1972- While working for XEROX PARC, a research division of Xerox, Bill English invented the “ball mouse.” It replaced the external wheels of Engelbarts’ first models with a ball that can rotate in any direction; came as a part of the package of the original Xerox Alto computer.

1975- Both Ball and Wheel mices were manufactured heavily for Jack Hawley of Xerox, complete with three buttons. http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/images/hawley1.html

1977-Swiss professor Jean-Daniel Nicoud and engineer Andre Guignard created a modern design with a single rubber mouseball and three buttons- became a common design until the 1990s when the scroll-wheel mouse was created.

1980-First optical mice hit the market, which used photodiodes to detect movement instead of the surface used by mechanical mice.

January 24th, 1984- Large scale success of the mouse came with the release of the Apple Macintosh computer.

1986- Apple created the Apple Desktop Bus which allowed mice from other devices onto the bus with no configuration whatsoever.

1997- The Scroll Wheel really took off when Microsoft Office and internet explorer started supporting the wheel-scroll feature.

2004- Logitech introduced the laser optical mice, which is used widely today: has over 20 times more surface tracking power than the previous optical mice. Showed that mice can only become more and more advanced into the future.

Internet- the digital world

Identify and describe one technoscience that is crucial to the support of a "Global City" as Saskia Sassen defines it. In a following paragraph (not in list form, but as an argument) discuss various catalysts and corrosions of that technoscience to the function of a Global City.

One technoscience that is crucial to the support of a "Global City" is the internet, the digital super-highway that coexists with our actual living space. Cyber space and our everyday life in the cities are becoming more and more intertwined, whether it be logging numbers on Wall Street, finding a place to eat by use of an iPhone, or just browsing the internet for potential dates on Match.com. As Sassen states cities have always been at major, often worldwide, processes. The internet has increased the complexity, intensity and global span of these networks- everyone is connected together in a city like never before, everyone is being watched on the cyber network (by use of cameras throughout the city, for instance.) Another catalyst of the technoscience in the function of a global city is that we are losing touch with ourselves, instead dealing primarily with a global market instead of the people that we see around us in our particular city. Outsourcing, dealing with other economies to get around labor laws, Nike running sweatshops in 3rd world countries are all negativites that arise from a global city, where people across the world are making my shoes from scratch, instead of workers in this country. This interconnectivity that the internet has brought us could eventually bring our world to the similarity of a machine- everyone working together to get a job done. The internet has the possibility of erasing all notions of 3rd world countries, an incredible catalyst for bringing together cities into a truly global city: one city. In conclusion, the internet has catalysts and corrosions on both sides, it all depends on if you view the glass as half-full or half-empty. The internet has created jobs for people all over the world, but it has also taken jobs away from Americans. The internet has bypassed geographic obstacles to creating a "global city", only in time will Earth become more intertwined with every human on this planet into a true "global city."

Military Advancement- A safe ray-gun?

A technology that immediately comes to mind in support of military is the Active Denial System (ADS), referred to as a ray gun on a recent feature on 60 Minutes on CBS. The ADS is a non-lethal millimeter-wave transmitter designed to subdue unruly crowds. The technology works by targeting high-frequency microwave radiation at 95 GHz toward the subjects. The waves from the ADS targets the water molecules in the epidermis (outside layer of the skin) to around 130, 135 degrees Celsius causing a sensation of pain until those targeted get out of range of the device. As long as it’s being used properly, it causes no harm to your body- an amazing technological improvement of crowd control from the horrific images of riots in our nation’s history where guns were used, as well as enormous water-hoses. The goal of military campaigns is to defeat the enemy while limiting collateral damage, and as seen in an e-mail profiled in the 60 minutes feature. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3891865.shtml) “Twenty civilians were killed in April 2003 when soldiers from the 82nd Airborne fired on threatening crowds in Fallujah. That prompted an e-mail to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from a senior military scientist who knew what the ray gun could do. "I am convinced that the tragedy at Fallujah would not have occurred if an Active Denial System had been there," the e-mail read.” If threatening crowds can be subdued without using lethal force, then we as a society have a reached an amazing breakthrough of technology in how militaristic campaigns are operated for centuries to come.

There are several catalysts for this technology, but I’ll just try to document the major ones. If large crowds can be subdued without using lethal force, then that is a huge benefit for crowd control for centuries to come. This technology can be used to clear ways for military operations to flow through a location without using force, limiting un-necessary casualties. Before the ADS system, the longest range in the world for non-lethal crowd control were sponge grenades, which had a maximum distance of 50 yards. The ADS has range to just over 550 yards, and has no chance for a lethal strike- sponge grenades have been known to be lethal and caused some permanent damage when used improperly- distances closer than 10 meters. The last great catalyst to this technology and how it’s going to play such a role in years to come is that it has such great accuracy; it can be controlled to fire at several different sizes of crowds and be monitored to extend how far the blasts go. This directs the unruly crowd where the users of the ADS want to go, and the success rate is 100% of getting people to move out of the striking zone- this technology is a huge breakthrough.

Unfortunately, no different from all technologies, there are corrosions. When used improperly it can deter greatly with what the ADS was designed for- non-lethal crowd control. Extended use of the ADS on someone’s body could eventually lead to lasting burns and eventual death, so if this technology got in the wrong hands it can be used extremely effectively as a device of torture. If it were to get into the wrong hands, it can also be used to neutralize defenses to terrorist attack, thus leaving room open for terrorists, enemy combatants, criminals, etc. to take out the American armies. Slight adjustments can be made to the severity and range of the attack of the ADS, into which it can become a death ray of sorts- it all depends on how the technology is used. Ultimately, despite the enormous success rate of getting crowds to go where they want to go, therein lies a huge problem- further angering the mob because they can’t advance to where they want to go. This could lead to terrorist attacks, more ammunition for people to be infuriated with the current system. All technologies have catalysts and corrosions, it all depends on how the technology is used- if used properly, this military technology will be a part of history for years to come.

Catalysts and Corrosions

Agriculture

1. What are the catalysts of the technology or science in support of the state?

Agriculture brings everyone together under a governments soverignity, because citizens eligible receives a block of land, and then they must grow and cultivate it in order to feed their families as well as make a profit to pay for other necessities. This in turn supports the state, and any taxes imposed because the citizens of the state who received the land to use how they see fit are indebted to the governing body.

Agriculture allowed for a creation of a surplus, which in turn created a class of people of the state who controlled and protected these agricultural areas and thus didn’t have to farm for themselves. This created a government who protected the producers, because they receive the produce in exchange for their defense of the state. Because of the surplus, people are eligible to break out from the agriculture profession, and some argue that this has been a crucial factor in socio-economic change.

Agriculture created many different techniques and methods to properly harvest their land, and through the many hundreds of years several techniques have been developed and are still in use today. Flooding the fields in order to harvest more rice, spreading manure to keep the soil healthy, irrigation techniques to flow water in certain directions through the land- all of these are methods that came about by way of agriculture in support of the state. In ancient Spain for example, an irrigation system was in place where water would flow from the top of the hill to the bottom in a maze-like fashion through the separate lands, and there would be someone who would monitor how much water was allocated to each cultivators land- this example shows that agriculture and its methods for growth were in support of the state, because they're were no major problems with this system of irrigation while it lasted.

2. What are the corrosions of the technology or science that undermine the support of the state?

Many governments have subsidized agriculture in order to ensure an adequate food supply. These tactics, according to Science Academy Recommends Resumption of Natural Farming from the New York Times in 1986, are inefficient, and environmentally damaging. This undermines the state in that governments are sacrificing something extremely important (the environment) in the favor of food conservation, which is a poor method to begin with.

In order for people to cultivate their land, the state first had to obtain it, many times by force. The classic example is forcing the native Americans farther and farther away from the land that was rightfully theirs, all in the name of the sovereignty of the state. Agriculture created the need for land to cultivate and make a surplus, violence is unfortunately a byproduct.

Agriculture created a multitude of jobs for people throughout human history, but this of course came with a price- inhibiting growth on other job occupations that can push society father and make living better in the long run. America employed over 80% of workers in agriculture for over a hundred years, which inhibited on industrialization- everyone was working their own farmland! The state claimed a monopoly over the land from the native Americans, and it wasn’t until the majority of the land passed down to these workers from the state started to fill up did people branch out into other occupations, thus leading America finally into Industrial Revolutions to make use of the abundance of natural resources.

Stem Cells and Politics

A technology that immediantly comes to mind that is directly affected by politics is stem cell research. Stem cell research have yielded incredible breakthroughs in terms of creating cells that can combat cancer cells and other uncurable diseases, but research in our country has been undercut by our very own president, despite congress approving H.R. 810 in 2006 (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.) Society is on both sides of the issue when addressed with the question on how society is arranged around stem cell research. There are supporters and protesters, almost completely down the line with democrats supporting the plan and republicans against (with a few exceptions, of course.) Obviously there are several medical instances where stem cell research can play an enormous role in our future. On the other end of the spectrum, anti- stem cell proponents argue it can lead to human cloning which would devalue human life. Another anti stance is that an human embryo required to start the line of stem cells is a human life, and should be given protection. In terms of institutional support, the medical profession and those in need of a miracle to save them are in undying support to anything that can make a breakthrough, or save a life. A certain few in Washington think otherwise, which makes this technology extremely political in nature- when it is getting discussed into bills in congress, and in turn lying on the president's desk for a decision to keep it or scrap it- all about a new technology.

Why Science is a social enterprise

There are three prominent figures in history who study the social dimension of science, specifically in explaining why science is a social enterprise and focusing their paper on why it is important to understand it as such. These three experts on the issue are John Stuart Mill, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Karl Popper. Mill lays his claim to the history of the social science with his well-known political essay of 1859, On Liberty. Mill argues that knowledge is the critical discussions of beliefs of a society and its conception of right or wrong- essentially he states that knowledge is the achievement of the social group, not of the individual.
Peirce's contribution to the matter lies in several passages from his paper completed in 1878. Taken directly from the text, "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate is what we mean by truth, and the object represented is the real." This correlates to Mill's views on knowledge being the opinion of the masses rather than the few, what separates Peirce from Mill is that he instigates doubt and critical interaction into the society, as a means of obtaining knowledge.
Popper is related to Peirce in that he greatly emphazises criticism in the development of scientific knowledge. Where he differs from the other two is his belief that science only progresses when past theories and experiments prove statements made before the test or statement wrong. Everything should be tested, even laws that stood for hundreds of years (Newton's Laws of gravity, for instance.)
These three did have one major common ground- big science, which is the organization of large numbers of scientists bringing their different expertises to a project that combines the separate experts on the subject. The Manhattan project is a prime example of this, bringing together scientists with expertise in nuclear bombs, others in radio transmission on how and when to detonate the bomb, other scientists who control the blast radius and how far the effects of the radiation will reach, etc. The obvious question on the relation between science and society is with morals- is what I'm doing right or wrong? Even though there are breakthroughs in science, should we as a society pay a price for what can come out of it or fight through it to find out what advancements in science can be made. Stem-Cell research is another obvious example. Despite all the great findings coming out of the early findings into the research, George Bush put a stop to it because he thought it was morally wrong- a perfect example of science being a social enterprise, having to bypass society before it can be properly worked on for the benefit of society. As time goes on and more and more complicated issues arise, it will be incredibly important to cross between science and society, and discovering how to properly unite the two for generations to come.

The socialogy of God

Blog a critical paragraph (150-200 words) on the common basis of religion. What is it? What does it produce?

What is the common basis of religion? From the reading, specifically page 33, I have two answers- certain beliefs held by the users of the religion, and that all the users perform all the necessary rituals collectively perform. In the reading, it breaks the two certain beliefs into two things- sacred and profane. The difference between sacred and profane is that you as the religious user must approach the sacred item (crosses, altars, mecca, etc) with respect. All other items (profane) in the world are in their own division, just regular items and locations in the world. For the rituals of religion, the common basis is that the process of doing it the same every time, whether it be the making the cross with your hands, saying the correct words of a prayer to the same pentatonic, etc. Saying a prayer with different words every time defeats the purpose, in the sake of rituals- the journey is what matters, not just obtaining the end result by any way necessary. Answering what does the common basis of religion produce is a very complication answer. Religion produces a group to belong to, a group to adhere to the rules and regulations of the group all towards a common goal. Religion produces an identity, something that can be fought for to the death if it comes to that. People are palpable to becoming martyrs, dying for what religion produces. Religion produces social rituals, rites of acceptance that boost the confidence of the user. Most of all, you only get as much as you get out of religion of what you put in, so it can produce a reason for living for some. Religion and having something to believe in will go on forever, a feeling that someone or something is judging our every move and then writing it down for when we die and then talk to our higher power- religion produces a lifestyle, something that lives and breathes in all of us.

How technology is part of my career path

My major at Penn State is in Information Sciences and Technology, so this class and specifically technology is definitely going to be a part of my career path. Technology and the endless possibilities that computers have are changing and evolving every day, so learning the history of computers and forecasting where they are going is what is talked about in my IST classes nearly every day. We as a society are becoming more and more dependent on computers and technology in general, so even if I wasn't going into this field I would be somehow affected by it in several portions of the day. For example, everything is computerized now, every individual in the united states are numbered by social security, along with bank records, date of birth, extended family members, etc. If computers were to crash worldwide along with other technologies that are so in-grained into our society, what would happen? Utilities such as plumbing, power, etc are all computerized, so even if you had an occupation that had nothing to do with technology, you would be directly affected. So as you can see, technology is part of us now- we can't escape it, so we may as well learn to live with it and thrive with it. And I'll be helping those with science and technology through my career path, hopefully.