File Sharing

Kyle Monteleone

Information Ethics-E

No, it is very similar to sharing a record or movie, the fact that it can be copied is what makes creators of the said media angry. In reality the creator is not losing much service, in fact in many cases they gain from it. When I have my friend synch his I-pod onto my account he goes home and re-synchs it onto his computer. When he listens to the music he finds songs that he likes, he then looks up the artist that sings the song and buys more of his songs. Songs that I never would have bought. Widespread file sharing online such as a website giving away free music should be shutdown. But simple friend to friend file sharing should be left alone as it is just the same as sharing a record or movie with a friend, there is no money made from file sharing and the users most likely would have never bought the song in the first place. The exception to all of these rules are the large file sharing sites such as Sharebear or Limewire. Users use these sites to get music that they are seeking for free, it is not shared with a few friends but with the entire would and while the users should not (and in fact cannot) be prosecuted the creators of these sites are the ones who should be held accountable for the loss of revenue to artists.  

The beauty of Creation

Dan Swank

Pd. E

2/24/12

The usage of copyright in the world

As we all know, the worlds entertainment is constantly being changed. Whether it be the music industry, technology, or books, all ideas are inspired from something in the past. I feel like I can relate and understand this topic perfectly because as a musician, I am constantly writing songs to play with my band. Sometimes, when I'm listening to a song from another band, and idea pops in my head and a song is built upon that random idea. I wouldn't be able to write songs without hearing other artists. Even with my band, the music we play is inspired to sound like bands such as All time low, blink 182, and A day to remember. They are the people who inspire us to make music in the first place, so therefore we can thank them for even picking up an instrument. And these bands who we look up to, looked up to bands when they were young as well. I like to think of it as a constant, never ending cycle of ideas and inspiration. In my opinion, file sharing should not be illegal, because I think getting ideas out to people is so important. It's important for society to grow and constantly progress in a forward direction. If idea's stopped, creations would stop; it's as simple as that. I know that most musicians (at least the ones I listen to) make music because they love to do it, not to make millions and be holly wood stars. And if fame and fortune happened to come as a result of making music, then that's great. But I think most musicians would want their music to be shared and heard by all people no matter what, even if they didn't make “millions” off of it. Music, literature, and all ideas are so pure, so why charge money and stop the sharing of them? I am inspired by things I hear, and my own work comes the things I hear. In no way should we ever take someones work and copy it completely, but I think it is important that we hear other ideas to help create our own. Like I said, it's just a cycle of ideas, innovation, and creativity. We should take ideas that we hear or see, and build on them; put our own spin on them, and try to take these ideas and make them into something even better. So, in my opinion, sharing should not be illegal.

Editorial

Chuanpu Sun

24/2/2012

lifeskill,E

Copyright will be useful in promoting the progress of culture

Any new creation are all created by people's hardworking or some great idea though it's probably just some remix things. If anyone want to make a new creation, he has to pay a lot of time and effort to work on it.

Like “slide to unlock” by the Apple, many new creations don't really have too much value on themselves, but something valuable is the ideas. The creators spent a lot time, sometimes also a lot of money, to think of the new ideas, and make it true. At this time, if someone just come on and take your effort away and use it for free though you don't allow that, anyone will get really mad, right? If no one can protect your interest at this time, you will get really mad and sad because whatever your think is really great and how valuable your think is, everyone can just come on and take it though you don't like that. Do you think the creators will still trying to create any new things at this situation?

The copyright is the strong law to protect that interest. It can never make all the people don't use pirate things but it make at least eighty percent people get away from pirate things to buy the authentic things because they don't want to get into trouble and that don't really “waste” them too much. And with this eighty percent wealth to get back, the creators will probably be encouraged and make more useful and great things for people, and this is how copyright can be useful in promoting the progress of culture.

MLA:

Jolly, David. "A New Question of Internet Freedom." Editorial. New york times.
N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/
technology/06iht-acta06.html?ref=technology>.

Ross, Patrick. "Copyright Laws Work Well Against Illegal File Sharing, Also
Called Online Theft." Editorial. New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Dec.
2008. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/12/22/
copyright-laws-work-well-against-illegal-file-sharing-also-called-online-theft>.

Can We Do It Any Other Way?

Where does it start and where does it stop? Where can we limit the power of the government where must the government allow its citizens to work things out on their own? How can a government already swamped with the task of ridding themselves of trillions of pounds of sludge possibly take on the daunting task of tracking the file sharing of millions of songs, books, and movies alike? The truth: it is out of their control. Yes, copyright laws exist for a reason and yes, people exploit them, but the undeniable truth is that if a change is made to the system, then unimaginable new problems will be faced, and the original problem could possibly be the least of the government's worries. The copyright laws in place today are not perfect, but they are undoubtedly the lesser of two evils.

We live in a world where the news we hear and digest is usually negative – someone has died, someone has been hurt, something has been destroyed. In the same light, file sharing has not destroyed the music and entertainment industry as the media likes to advertise. Does every kid listen to music they did not pay for and watch movies that they do not own? No, they do not. The industry itself has realized that these things exist and has created innovative ways to create incentive for consumers to ethically enjoy entertaining information without having to pay the sometimes lofty prices that paid-for songs especially can add up to be. Take Netflix for example. The company creates an affordable and reliable network of movies and TV shows to a broad audience for a small fee every month. By doing this, they offer the consumer the ability to “take the high road” rather than get drawn into the very alluring illegal file sharing industry. The best part about Netflix's particular innovation: they did it WITHOUT the government's help! Industry, as it always has in the United States, overcomes all obstacles to create profitable business for itself and useful services to its customers. Copyright was initially produced to create incentive for creativity and innovation in the country, and, although most people claim that this creativity has been hampered, Netflix is a key example of how copyrights continue to encourage creativity. At first there were movie rental stores, then On Demand, and now a company has taken advantage of the most useful resource to humanity: the Internet. In the grand scheme of things, as talked about in the U.S News article, the author of a best-selling novel is well protected by the copyright laws, and as I see it, people as a whole do not want to break laws in order to obtain entertainment, but they will do so if given the option of wasting money on songs or getting free and easy music illegally.

Works Cited

Ross, Patrick. “Copyright Laws Work Well Against Illegal File Sharing, Also Called Online Theft.” Editorial. U.S. News. U.S. News and World Report, 22 Dec. 2008. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.

Copyright Laws Work Well Against Illegal File Sharing, Also Called Online Theft

Life Skills E

February 24, 2012

Aaron Magazine

Copyright Laws Work Well Against Illegal File Sharing, Also Called Online Theft

The people of America need to be free of copyright laws so that they can combine songs and images into there own remix. The people's mash-up culture is right alongside copyright law. But why are the people doing this? Because copyright law is purposefully ambiguous, encouraging such creativity. This mash-up culture does not rely on file sharing. The internet and the market are providing alternatives, that will be made by the property rights system that will give the creators power over the production and distribution of the work they have made. The rights system we have in America can not be switched to empower file sharers at the risk of the artist and their creativity to continue, create and distribute their work. We should not be focused on legalizing theft, instead we could be supporting legal alternatives and teach the people the importance of the creators rights. To give up on online theft is showing a lack of faith in intelligence and reason of the American people. It surprises me how many people do illegal things. Users don't even know right or wrong on the web and it is just the easy way out of things if they can get that game or piece of music for free. America has gotten out of hand and now people are stealing the creators' work and posting it on the web illegally. Websites such as piratebay; you can download any game or music for free! The creator has to get credit for the hard work he or she put into her work and file sharing has gotten out of hand. Forming copyright was a good way to protect the creators work and it made sure they would be credited. What infuriates me is how greedy we are in America. We always want to take the easy way out of everything and we don't care about anyone but ourselves. We don't care if we rip off the original creators' work, as long as we can get that article, game or piece of music for free. Hopefully one day America will open their eyes and see what is actually happening. Creators' work is still being stolen today and it has to come to an end.

Citation

Ross, Patrick. "Copyright Laws Work Well Against Illegal File Sharing, Also
Called Online Theft."U.S.News22 Dec. 2008: n. pag.U.S.News. Web. 23 Feb.
2012. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/12/22/
copyright-laws-work-well-against-illegal-file-sharing-also-called-online-theft>.

Copyright is away from what it should be

     I read two articles about copyright. These two articles represent the two completely opposite opinion about the function of copyright. One says that copyright is well-doing in promoting the science and technology to evolute. The other, says that the copyright's law is not working in the wrong way and its extreme control is not necessary. From my opinion, I agree with the second one, I think copyright is away from its original job and not helping develop our society.

     First of all, the author mentioned that the amount of organized crime has been increased and the government developed the law of protecting the rights of the creators. It seems that there are more and more peer to peer piracy happened in the past ten years. Many experts claims that the right of creators are being impinged, it is unfair to their creativity. In order to promote the science and culture. The government makes the creators feel their inventions are worth and meaningful. So the copyright's law is becoming more and more powerful. But actually, this also produce other important problem. And to our surprise, this problem is about the creativity, which is regarded as the things we protect well.

     In a video called “Everything is remix”, which shows people a creative action is divided into three parts: copy, transform and combine. The idea of that movie is warning people that every creativity need the original things to transform and combine. We are not just copying directly and we are inspired by each other. On the other hand, does the copyright's law really protect creator's right? I definitely doubt that. Even though many creators won their lawsuits, they still did not get anything from this. The money went into others' pockets, especially the companies and lawyers. What's more, the society is blaming the children that they get use of many things online without the copyright, they do not respect the creators enough. But I think that is a action of killing the creativity of kids. They get information from the products of others and have their own ideas or views of that. They would think of some thing different from the normal rules and adults. We should impulse them to be creative but not just stay away from other inventions.
     In conclusion, Copyright lose its balance between protecting creators' rights and helping the Science and culture progress. As the creative score of children is going down, we should think about how to promote our creativity in a appropriate way, and recognize the real function of copyrights.

Lessig, Lawrence. “Prosecuting Online File Sharing Turns a Generation Criminal.” Editorial.

U.S News. N.p., 22 Dec. 2008. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. <http://www.usnews.com/‌opinion/‌articles/‌2008/‌12/‌22/‌prosecuting-online-file-sharing-turns-a-generation-criminal>.

Editorial

Kevon Chambers

2/15/12

Period E

Ethics Editorial

The article that I read was mostly about how what legalizing drug would do. A lot of people think that legalizing drugs would put an end to all of the turmoil with smuggling and the underground market for drug. However the author of this particular article thinks otherwise. Everyone knows Michael Jackson died from some sort of prescription drug as well as Amy Winehouse and most recently Whitney Houston. The author of this article does not think that legalizing drug would cause crime with drug to decrease because look at what happens with the use and abuse of legal drugs because of legal drug we have lost three of the greatest musicians ever. The opinion that the author basically gives is that Drug will always be abused so by making them legal your just making it easier for people to abuse them however if you keep them illegal people have a harder time getting them therefore less abuse of legal drug like prescription medicine can occur. The author has a valid point indeed however his thinking is kind of one track. Legalizing drugs wont prevent abuse with a few people but what about the millions of people that need these drug to live their lives, what about the people that need the drugs to be mobile, what about your grandparents that need these drug to stay healthy. I say for about every person that abuses these drug there are about forty- thousand people that don't. So even though this author has a very valid point I feel like you can't just think about one side of the situation when writing an article like this. You can not have a one track mind because in this situation it is not fair to stop making drugs legal because of the couple famous people that have a ton of money and are able to abuse the drugs, when there are a lot of poor people that actually need these drugs and are getting the minimum amount if any at all.

Bennett, William J. "Legalizing Drug Won't Prevent Abuse." Cnn. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/15/opinion/      bennett-whitney-drugs/index.html?hpt=ju_t2>.

Life Skills E

February 17, 2012

Aaron Magazine

Smartphone Security Blankets

Security is a very important matter in our everyday lives, how can we protect the personal information on our phones? Many apps have come out for the Iphone and Android phones such as Find My Iphone and Lookout. The app Find My Iphone is a free app on the Itunes market and allows you to visit a website to find you lost or stolen phone on a map. You even have the capability to lock down your phone so no one can find out your personal information. Lookout has the same capability but is for the Android phone and can also download and scan your data on your phone and back it up. All of these apps are great to use not only keeping your text messaging or photos on your phone private but any bank or security information you have on your phone. Simple things such as going to a Panera and using their WiFi can be a risk to your security because a person with an okay background knowledge of technology can hack into your phone and look at the information on your phone. To protect yourself from this happening to you; you can use a virtual private network. This will allow you to be protected by making the active thing you are doing on you phone into non-sense, making the person trying to follow what you are doing impossible. Technology has advanced so much that we can track our lost devices so we can keep our privacy. If everything was open and we had no privacy our world would be corrupt. We need to protect personal information such as security code for our home, bank account information and credit cards. Now with smart phones out now, we now just have a higher risk of people accessing our data. With these apps out for our phone is a big deal and very helpful. Without technology advancements we would not have the same amount of privacy we have today. These are great apps that came out for both Android and Phones and I'm looking forward to what else the future withholds.

Cites

Brustein, Joshua. "Smartphone Security Blankets."NY Times 17 Feb. 2012: n. pag.
The New York Times. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
02/19/nyregion/smartphone-security-blankets.html?_r=1&ref=technology>.

editorial

Chuanpu Sun

15/2/2012

Editorial

Through this article, I feel that some people in the article were really boring. I think we don't really need to prove our great relationship between us to the world, or even by marriage. If we are really good friend but we cannot get married, we can just live together and don't care about anything. We don't really need to do some boring things to get “marriage”. That “marriage” has no meaning and no one will agree with that.

And also the law and the society are not really suitable for the time. Now our society has some people that not really fix the traditional society. I don't want to be like them but I also don't look them with a strange way. I want them to look themselves correctly but not do boring things like this.

MLA:

Kevin Noble Maillard, Beyond Marriage, Blood or Adoption, New York Times, February 13, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/02/13/family-ties-without-tying-the-knot/beyond-marriage-blood-or-adoption

Fear erupts after the death of a legend

Dan Swank

Pd. E

2/15/12

Whitney Houston's death has musicians afraid

This past weekend, the world lost a legend, and an inspiration. Whitney Houston, 48, was found in a hotel bathroom the night before the Grammy awards. Though the cause of death is unknown, many speculate that usage of prescription pills could be the reasoning. Whitney Houston was as special of a talent as we will ever see in this world. She truly had the voice of an angel, and could hit notes that no other singer could even dream of hitting. She had an extremely successful career, and established herself as a legend in the music world. But a woman who is 48 years old should not be dying. It is devestating to think that Whitney couldn't even make it to age 50. She still had so much life ahead of her, and now it is all gone. Like I said, drug use is most likely the reasoning, and that is what makes it all so devestating and shameful. Why is it that our culture stresses the need of prescription pills? We as humans are beautiful as we are created, and therefore there is no reason to be taking any sort of diet pills which many suspect Whitney to have been taking. Whitney's ex husband Bobby Brown is put under scrutiny as the reason Whitney started abusing drugs. Although Whitney Houston died on saturday, it can be argued that the true death of Whitney Houston occurred when she got involved in drugs, and started the downward spiral of her life. It is upsetting that we are seeing musicians die so young, such as Amy Winehouse, Michael Jackson, Nate Dogg, and now Whitney Houston. These people, so talented in their craft, simply ruined their lives with substance abuse. Is there a standard in music that if you are successful in the industry, it is required that you abuse drugs? No, I don't think that is the case. I just feel that these artists have money to waste, and they are surrounded by all the wrong people. They lose sight of whats rational or irrational, and believe that they are invincible. We can only hope that the death of Whitney Houston opens up people's eyes and they realize the true damages that substance abuse can cause.

Works Cited

Toure. “After Whitney Houston, Musicians say: I’m Afraid.” Editorial. www.time.com. CNN, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/14/after-whitney-houston-musicians-wonder-whos-next/>.

Colorado River

Andrew Black

2/15/2012

Where the Colorado Runs Dry

The article I read is about the Colorado River which is starting to go dry. The Colorado river is the most legendary white water river. The river was regularly flowing south through the Arizona California border into the Mexican delta until 1998. The rapid climate change, growth in population and all of the damming is what is causing the lowering of the water level. In the 20^th century according to records of tree rings the river was at its peak, and it would flow constantly through the delta non stop. The Colorado river was not only a legendary white water river, but it was very important to fertilizing the land providing drinking water, transportation, and giving a perfect mix of salt water and fresh water for some fish such as shrimp. In 2008 the writer of the article said that he had tried to go down the 1,450 mile river, but had to walk the last week of his trip because the water had dried up. He like many other people who depend on the drinking water they get from the river are worried that soon there will be no more. The writer of the article also said he feels sorry for the generations who will inherit the river, because soon nothing will be left. Another affect of the climate change would be that scientist believe by 2050 the runoff will decrease from 10 percent all the way down to 30 percent.

Unfair, Caused By Morals? It's Government

 

The article written by Paul Krugman, who joined the New York Times in 1999, try to tell people in the U.S about the truth of Unfairness in the society now. Many people always yelled at their rotten deal because of their small salary. This article try to warn people that problem was obviously caused by Money, not Morals. From my point of view, the U.S. is facing the problem that less-educated men and traditional families could not receive the equal treatment like other Americans because they don't have enough money taking care of it.

First of all, the author said that lately inequality has re-entered the national conversation. That seems like government are taking care of what's going on in the society. But Government tells to public that this is caused by morals. They claims that problem is the collapse of working-class family values, which is somehow the fault of liberals. I, so as the author, strongly disagree with their statement. The government did not do any exact things but just saying “Hey, that's your faults, not me”. But how you can be sure of that. Based on Charles Murray's book, from 1960 to 2010, a men with a high-school education or less than that becomes harder and harder to get a job. Did they really change their sense of worth a lot or even completely opposite during these 50 years? I can't believe that.

What's more, Author also provided that data about some indicators of social dysfunction have improved. That means the social moral are getting better. But family claims that they still hardly afford themselves. The government had pulled out lots of the raised of salary in each family. But that just because of the women work more than before. There is no direct relationship between this and low education people. I believe that the big amount of lower-education working men, who hardly finding jobs with decent wages and good benefits, would be the major factor of social unrest

In conclusion, I suggest American should reject the attempt to divert the national conversation away from soaring inequality toward the alleged moral failings of those Americans being left behind. We have to see the problem behind and require the government to take responsibility.

Krugman, Paul. “Money and Morals.” Editorial. New York Times. Times company, 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/​2012/​02/​10/​opinion/​krugman-money-and-morals.html?ref=ethics>.

A Marital Debate

What is marriage? Who decides what true “marriage” is? Is it purely religious? Is it a loving relationship? Or is it the legal term for a couple who has to split the pot if they get a divorce? “Marriage,” as it is seen today by many social conservatives, is a holy unity between husband and wife, an eternal bond making two people (of the opposite sex) one. The true definition of marriage, however, is the question circulating throughout many states in the United States, but specifically in New Jersey. A legislation to legalize gay marriage has already passed in the New Jersey Assembly and now sits on the desk of Governor Christie to be either passed or vetoed. As a rising Republican himself, the pressures of the historically Republican belief that gay marriage should remain illegal surround him, and the governor undoubtedly has not even considered the possibility of passing the bill. He has, however, considered the idea of putting the question to the people of New Jersey in a referendum. Knowing that the socially conservative group will, as they always have, get to the polls to vote down the legislation, the Democrats simply want Christie to pass the bill. The only other option is the 2/3 majority that is required to override the governor's decision. If they get it passed, New Jersey will be just the eighth state to legalize gay marriage, a movement now being paralleled to the women's rights movement and other civil rights issues.

Although I understand and agree with the social conservatives of this country when it comes to the holiness of marriage, I believe that the unity must be looked at in a very different light by the government. Would I support my own church supporting gay marriage? I would not, but “marriage,” as it should be viewed by the government, is the sharing of assets and shelter amongst a couple, no matter what the combination. Marriages do not have to be approved by priests or churchfolk alike, but can be performed at the courthouse without a church or legal establishment within miles of the “ceremony.” If it is the wishes of a gay couple to share their money, their house, and leave their lives and fortunes in the hands of their loved one after death, there should be nothing held against them. It is the government's job to recognize the willingness of so many gay couples to settle down just as nearly all Americans wish to do at some point. The legalization of gay marriage, however, should never be accompanied by a legislation forcing all churches to marry gay couples. The church and the state, just as in the public education of our children, should remain separate and do not need to cross paths anyhow. Marriage in a religious sense and marriage in a legal sense are two completely different topics that must not be confused. Besides, if the government thought of marriage as a holy and binding contract between a man and a woman, then why do they allow nearly half of all marriages to end in divorce? Let gay couples marry just as every other loving couple can; it is a right that all of us should be able to enjoy.

Works Cited

Zernike, Kate. “Gay Marriage, Passed, Awaits Veto by Christie.” New York Times 17 Feb. 2012: n. pag. The New York Times. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/nyregion/veto-awaits-new-jersey-bill-allowing-gays-to-wed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp>.

FREE WRITE What does it mean to read print? How is it different from what you do online?

When I read I am at inner peace. Everything is blocked out and I'm only making a movie in my mind with the words on the page.

Literacy is to get good or right information from books or some other things that have information. Literacy is also to understand your information well.

Writing is not just literacy

Reading is saying the words in my head. If I like the book I will be relaxed.

Online I'm surfing, searching, typing, chatting, reading

When I'm reading I am processing words, ideas, information, stories
When I'm online, I'm surfing, browsing, seeking, interrogating

I used to read some things about politics or international events, so I'm always thinking about the relationship between countries when I am reading.

When I'm reading I'm mostly thinking about the topic in the book or article that I'm reading and how it relates to topics that I already know about. I also analyze the topics that I am reading in detail with my mind.

The book becomes a movie, it's more of a dream than a book. I learned to read the summer before I was six.

When I read, I'm usually sitting in a quiet place and thinking about the things I'm reading. When I'm online, I'm blogging, reading everything, using tools to help my work, using social internet function to contact people and listen to music.

I read with a cup of tea and sunshine.

I like to actively read by writing short predictions. I like to jot down notes on the side of the page if I believe the information is worth highlighting.

technoliogy

                                                                                                                                            Po-hsuan.sheng

Facebook's Mobility Challenge

facebook is one of the many people now use to contact or chat site, he can not only chat , you can put photos, write articles, play games, but recently often hacked, and personal privacy are other people to see the bare. Facebook is now used in the U.S. Did not before, because the number of privacy issues so that the use of facebook has been declining.

Facebook is not the only company struggling to translate the success of its web site to mobile devices, Google, a fecabook competitor on the Web, was the biggest player in the mobile ad market last year with about 750 million in revenue, and Apple came in second with more than 90 million. Facebook has begun to creep into that territory with Places, a service that allows users to check in and share their whereabouts with friends.

The author is Jenny Wortham. Now the technological progress, and on the network to understand the latest news of friends and family , the program can also come through the computer with friends and family video and chat like skype. Continuous network of science and technological progress in the future of science and technology really looking forward to also what is even more convenient and practical technology.  

Andrew Black

Wolfram

The article I read is about a search engine called Wolfram. Wolfram was created by a smart man named Stephan Wolfram who is 52 years old and is a software designer. The search engine Wolfram gets its information from its own database unlike google and bing which search the web. The search engine started off small and was only used for small science or math questions that someone might have. Since technology has improved rapidly the search engine that Stephan made now is giving some of the answers for the question answering assistant on the Iphone 4S. Soon the new version of Wolfram is coming out, and will be called Wolfram Alpha Pro. The difference between the two search engines will be the newer version will deal with more data and images. In the article it says that Dr. Wolfram demonstrated his new search engine by dragging a bar graph to the engine, and showing that you can download it in many different formats. Another fact about Wolfram Alpha is that the question answering assistant on the Iphone 4S makes up for about a fourth of the queries fielded by the search engine Wolfram Alpha. I think that this search engine will become a great success, and may even end up being used more than google or even bing. I think that Dr. Stephan Wolfram is going to keep on improving the website until it can not get any better.

MLA Format

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/technology/wolfram-a-search-engine-finds-answers-within-itself.html?_r=1&ref=technology

Search Engine of the Century

Life Skills E

February 6, 2012

Ramen Noodle Lover

Wolfram, a Search Engine, Finds Answers Within Itself

Stephen Wolfram is an old scientist, software designer and entrepreneur, and tends to go his own path with results. When he was 15 he will write his first physics paper, earn his Ph. D and then win a MacArthur prize. Dr. Wolfram will create a new search engine that will beat out Google and bing. This search engine you can find out about an fact, problem or equation. At first the critics did not like what Wolfram was doing because at first it was only used for math and scientifict facts. Now that technology has advanced and he has expanded his website; now you can find out about any fact about the world or country's history. This website is based off of all facts during history and recent events. As Dr. Wolfram said, “We’re starting to have the ability to understand data and images in the way we understand text queries.” This would defiantly be a good and reliable source because it is up to date and the facts are true. I went to this search engine and it is very easy to use. All of the links work and the website is complete. I even typed in one of my math homework problems and got the correct answer. If you ever had a question about who was the 7^th president it will tell you and give a brief description on him. I believe that this search engine is going to be one of the most used engine's in the world. This is the building block of a new way to find good and trustworthy information. This website has surpassed the Almanac and now is more accessible and has facts about everything that has occurred through history. I have been using this search engine and I love it. The information you get is not only the answer but a brief description on the subject or how they got the answer. This search engine is going to be key in the present and the future.

Marijuana Legalization?

Dan Swank

Pd. E

2/6/12

Editorial

With the constant evolving of society in our country, we as citizens should come to expect drastic changes. For example, we have seen the first African American president take office, and a cell phone that literally has no limits in the Iphone. Years ago, very few could even rationalize the thought of either of things two things happening; but obviously they were wrong. Another revolutionary change that is on the brisk of happening is the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana had been claimed totally illegal for years, but slowly steps are being taken towards total legalization of the drug. 16 states in the United States have legalized the drug for medicinal purposes, and Washington is on the verge of becoming the first state in history to fully legalize marijuana. In this upcoming November election, it could become a reality. My opinion on marijuana is simple. I believe people smoke pot to relieve stress going on in their personal lives, which can be understandable to some people, but not me. There are many, many ways one can work off stress in a positive, active way. My favorite stress relievers are playing guitar, and shooting basketball. I love these two things, and frankly I don't need to get “high” to work out my problems or have a good time. Neither do other people. Sitting on a couch, smoking marijuana is not an active stress reliever. People need to get up, get out, and do something. I have friends who are active pot smokers, and over a year I have noticed drastic changes in their personalities. They aren't as funny, out going, or motivated as I remember. If pot is legalized in the U.S., we will see many people change. I don't want to see people who inspire me, such as athletes and musicians, suddenly become mellow and lackadaisical about things. The world needs motivation and in my opinion marijuana is the ultimate motivation killer. America, stay straight edge.

Cohen, Adam. Legal Recreational Marijuana: Not so far out. Time.com February 6, 2012. CNN. TIME. February 6, 2012. < http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/06/legal-recreational-marijuana-not-so-far-out/ >

Cyber Bullying.

Many teenagers hear the term cyber bullying and they don't think anything of it or they think it would never happen to them. Cyber bullying is a way to bully someone using different types of technology and is becoming a big problem. Its only natural for teenagers to gossip and for harsh talk to go on between students but it has reached a level of sexual harassment and even death threats but does the school have the authority to handle something like this? Many schools are proactive in the stoppage of cyber bullying but telling kids not do something really doesn’t influence them in not doing it as much as most people would think. Students often intentionally go against the adult telling them not to do things because they don’t want their fun to be ruined. Kids now focus less on calling people and now its all texting and when someone sends you a text, its not like you can understand the tone of that text so this can often lad to misinterpretations and only complicate things more. Children are killing themselves because of the humiliation of cyber bullying. When I went to Hollidaysburg, there was a girl who sent out a picture of herself with nothing on to my friend. Naturally, when getting this photo he wanted to impress everyone so he sent it to a lot of us and then we sent it to our friends and soon the world was seeing this fourteen year old girls innocence (keep in mind I didn’t have a phone so I sent nothing). I was good friends with this girl but as a guy if you choose a girl over a guy people will instantly judge you.. Ever since this photo was sent around she couldn’t live with the mistake she made and she tried to kill herself several times. She has been reported on suicide watch and we haven’t talked in years. Naturally the parents wouldn’t accept the reality that the daughter sent the text of free will so they wanted the boy to be thrown out of the public school but the school didn’t interfere and he continues going their to this day. Sometimes I wonder if im the only one who remembers what he did to one of my best friends. Even in this article if children did do a presentation on how you shouldn’t have a facebook under the age of thirteen I would be shocked to find out if none of them did. People may preach about a certain thing but that doesn’t mean they agree with it at all. Ive seen people at my old school do anti drug speeches and then the next week I see a photo of them and some guys hitting up a bong or doing other things. Does the school truly have a right to interfere with something like this if it happens in school or what if it happens outside of school? What do bully's really think they accomplishing when they crush how a person feels about themselves or when they send things around and cause chaos in the child's life. I grew up in a town where cyber bullying was second nature for everyone and I wonder if the same would happen to my child, if I were to have one. All parents want someone just to be blamed even if they are innocent for what happened to their child though cyber bullying they all just want results. I truly believe that cyber bullying will never go away and I am frightened for how future technology will not only enhance life styles but enhance cyber bullying.

Hoffman, Jan. "How Should Schools Handle Cyberbullying? - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Tiffany and Co Jewelry, 27 June 2010. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html?pagewanted=all>.

Syria problem by chenqi.shi

Chenqi. Shi

4/2/12

Today the Syria on the surface is Europe and the United States under the sponsorship of the United Nations’s said. They are helping the Syria’s people to overthrow the government, and to set up the new regime.

But this only the European Union and the United States want to control the Middle East of saying it. Today’s Libya very good proof of that. On the surface the NATO troops helped the Libya rebels army overthrew the dictatorship government. But the NATO improving the status in the new regime through the military aid. Plus NATO strong power, actually The NATO has controlled the Libya, make Libya into a puppet regime, and work for them, get oil form here.

For now, The European Union and the United States in the Middle East to the pace of aggression, the more we reflect these countries thirst for energy and scarce. The crisis of their own country to other countries, Thus robbing there resources. This is covered with humanitarian coat new fascism.

The so-called humanitarian is just said to developing countries, they through the power trample on the sovereignty of other countries, and use the “humanitarian” let others have nothing to say.

The Syria still in the war, the middle east has become a NATO hunting ground.

In China and Russia to intervene the middle east, the results also just delayed the time for NATO to achieve full control of Middle East.

Libya, Syria there were just a beginning. I think next the United States will be use Israel for the springboard began to attack Iran, and this for eradicate the European Union and the United States in the Middle East of the interests of the last of a threat.

But the world is changing fast, let see what going to be in future.

Syria's Assad Learns Lessons from Arab Spring, Recent History BY Henry Ridgwell | Beirut

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/-Syrias-Assad-Learns-Lessons-from-Arab-Spring-Recent-History-138822779.html

U.S. Sanctions on Iran.

Kyle Monteleone 2/6/2012

Information-Ethics E

The sanctions (over nuclear weapons) that have been imposed upon Iran by the U.S. (and other countries) are being broken by Iran. President Barrack Obama has said that “the only way to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to make them understand it's not in their interests”, and if we want to avoid any further fighting, this is true. However with such instability in many countries in the middle-east can we afford to wait for Iran to listen? What of Iranian citizens, how would you feel if (as an Iranian) you were told that your country could not have nuclear technology? Even further what if you were a citizen of Israel, how would you feel if a country that has (historically) been Islamic, and against Israel? As an American do you feel that our nation should have such a commanding power over the development of other countries? In truth Iran's plans for having a nuclear weapon will take a while to manifest into a real bomb. We may be able to bide our time and reason for now, but when the time comes for action we cannot hesitate to stop Iran from creating a nuclear weapon. As an Iranian I would probably be very bitter towards the U.S. for telling my county that it cannot progress, but (if educated) would understand the need for such sanctions in an unstable region. As an Israeli I would be scared, with so much hate, and violence in the middle-east already pointed towards Israel I would be loathe to see an Islamic county obtain such a potent weapon. Though I understand that not all Islams are so hateful there are still those who are and (once again going back to the instability) could take control of Iran. As myself I feel that while it may seem unfair or unjust America must impose such sanctions for the safety of itself and other countries. Nuclear science requires (among other things) stability, radiation can destroy large swaths of land for generations. Nuclear power requires responsibility and reliability, the later if not both seem to be lacking from the middle-east (and other areas of the world). America (though it may sound boastful) is the most powerful country in the world, while our rules my be somewhat hypocritical, they do keep us and others safer.

Griffin, Jennifer. “New Sanctions on Iran.” Fox News – Breaking News Updates| Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos. Fox News, 06/Feb.2012. Web. 06/Feb.2012 <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/new-sactions-on-iran-intended-to-ratchet-up- pressure-but-could-ease-isreali/>.

Ethics Editorial

Jason Wright

2/6/12

Info Ethics

And They Win It

As most people know already on of the most import games of any body's life was played last Sunday and is called the super bowl. It was a huge game between my Home town team the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. The super bowl is one of the biggest sporting events in sports and just being apart of a team that has made it to the super bowl is Unreal. But a lot of people have decided to say that the this super bowl was mostly won by luck. The final touchdown scored by the giants winning them the super bowl. People have been stating that the Patriots coach allowed the Giants to score in order for them to have time to make a final drive down the field. But in my eyes if you looked at the play a little closer you would notice that the defense the Pats were in was a Pass coverage and its no body but the patriots defensive lineman’s fault for the touchdown that was ran up the middle and leaving Bradshaw Untouched. People have also been saying that the final touchdown should have been called back for his little touchdown celebration. When after just about every touchdown that has been scored in any football game was followed by either a little dance, hand shake, or chest bump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/sports/football/super-bowl-46-after-giants-surreal-touchdown-debates-on-the-strategy.html

New Journalism, Old Controversy

What is valid? What is relevant? What is trustworthy?— these are the questions we seek to answer when we assess information. Among the many non-fiction options we have to choose from, the most popular are biographies and primary sources of the information that we can trust. In the case of New Journalism, a form of non-fiction written to entertain as well as inform, authors are given a large amount of freedom in creating dialogue and internal thoughts of characters that the author himself did not witness, creating controversy that has surrounded the genre since its creation in the 1960s. This “creativity” that the authors use, however, is not full of random guesses about how conversations had proceeded or about the individuals' inner thoughts during the course of historic events; the reputable authors use hundreds of primary sources, mainly accounts of people present at the event, to generate a feeling that truly illustrates the vibe of the story being told. It is the ultimate objective of the author to create a completely reliable and non-fiction account of historic events while creating a personal attraction to relevant characters who impacted those historic events. New Journalism, in some ways, is much more revealing and useful than regular journalism because bonds can be developed with the characters that a stepped-back and overlooking journalism cannot provide; sometimes, the personal flare to the stories is what piques the interest of a much wider audience that old-fashioned journalism cannot reach.

For those who question the validity of the author's representation of what he or she thought to have happened, they need only look at the end of the book where many of the authors provide the sources for their specific detail and tone throughout the book. As in Devil in the White City, Erik Larson provides an entire section at the back of his book called, “Notes,” where he carefully walks the reader through his decision making process as well as the clarifies the sources of his information. Look only to the bibliography of the book to assess the validity of the final synthesis. If it were not for the great research and the dedicated search for every last detail, New Journalism could not survive the constant barrage of criticism that it receives. Webs so cleverly woven together with the silk of many different people need not be torn down, but utilized as a common ground for all the people of the world to cherish and understand.

Works Cited

Gabriel, Mary. “Do political ‘tell-alls’ go too far?” Editorial. CNN.com. Cable New Network, 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 6 Feb. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/gabriel-political-non-fiction/index.html?hpt=hp_c2>.

Personal Privacy are being infringed as the social network developing

         The article written by Jacqui Cheng, who is staff in the Ars Technica, told people about the truth of Facebook. The story is that deleted Facebook photos are still online over 3 years later. This article had warned me that Facebook was sort of impinging our rights whether by accident or on purpose. From my opinion, this article make me think that personal privacy are being interfered while social network is developing.

         First of all, the author implied that we could still see the deleted photos of facebook users over 3 years later. That means the “delete” button does not work at all. People wanted to keep their secret so they delete the photos. They didn't want retaliation from an employer, wanted to avoid family drama, or uploaded a photo of a friend without their permission. But now if someone know the direct link to it, they could still see the photos and even use the images. If we see the questions in the other hand, facebook could save your profile in their system for many years, if a company wants to know the facebook users' information, they could buy it from facebook without the users' permissions. Our private information is being spread secretly, and no one would take the responsibility for it. How could we trust the social network agencies.

        What's more, Author also told the audience, in 2010 the company had already promised that they would solve the problem and no one would infringe our rights. But it's 2012 now, and things aren't much different yet. ARS Technica check the situation again and they are very sure that the problem remains still. The spokesperson said Facebook use a different system for the image storage so that produce the problem. He claimed that the new system would completely avoid the situation happened again. But social network is a business network. They need to feed themselves by selling their information. Yet they might solve this problem finally, but no one could make a pledge that our rights could be protected well in these social network agencies.

         In conclusion, the deleted photos remains on Facebook just the tip of iceberg. There are thousands of things happened every day could tell people how badly the social network did to our personal privacy. We just are losing our own private space when the social communication network developing.

Cheng, Jacqui. “Over 3 years later, ‘deleted’ Facebook photos are still online.” CNN. ARSTECHNICA, 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 6 Feb. 2012. http://www.cnn.com/​2012/​02/​06/​tech/​social-media/​deleted-facebook-photos-online/​index.html.

I give my life to you

Kevon Chambers

Period E

2/7/12

Ethics editorial

My editorial is about a man that sacrificed his life to stop the carjacking of a fellow neighbor. So the basics of this story are that a man just picked up his two sons from school when he heard a women scream and since he is part of the police force he jumped right into action. The man saw the women getting carjacked so he jumped on top of the hood of the car to prevent the robbery by doing this he must have spooked the criminal who fired a shot into the man's chest leaving him dead in a near by neighbors yard next to his two sons. I believe that this man is a hero because of the fact that he would give his life for someone else. However when it comes down to it the man should have thought more about his decision his life is definitively worth more than a car so he should have gotten involved now his two sons have to grow up without a father I just believe that some time you have to pick and choose your battle and rushing into to help against a man with a gun while he was unarmed was not a very wise battle to choose even so. The man that gave his life is a hero either way and I for a fact that the lady he protected will never forget what he did and the courage he showed so his legacy will live on in her mind as well as his two young sons. Any man that is will to give his life for anyone just to uphold what is right and what is wrong is a good person if the world had more people like him then people would live better lives and people would actuall feel safe around strangers because you never know who would help you out when you really need help. However our world is not like that our world is full of people that only look out for their self. Even if they see someone in trouble to make this world a good place we must start to help those who need help without worrying about what they need help with just as the man who gave his life did.

Martin, Rick. "A Father Who Gave His Life for His Neighbor - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/opinion/martin-good-samaritan/index.html?hpt=ju_t3>.

weekly editorials

In recent weeks, I am interested in the situation in the Middle East. Probable you will tell me it is not about ethics or information technology, it is politics. But in my opinion, politics is made by people, so it full of ethics. Actually I used to read Chinese article, and I used to read some articles for one event to make sure my opinion do not distortion by someone's own opinion. Today, I was read like before but one thing is different, I start to read English article, and I found is article.

The title of this article is “World Must Aid Syria's Rebels”. Sometimes China is a kind of neutral for Middle East word, so Chinese reporter's articles probable more powerful than American reporter's. Syria event from the surface is provoked by the EU, and know maybe you will be confused what is happened with the USA. I will explain that. You know America is the most powerful country after the World War II and dollar is the international money. The international money not only mean it can measure the price of gold and silver, but also measure the oil's price. But know American government is in debt a huge number of money, and they can not pay for that huge debt, but they have to use some immoral ways to decrease the pressure form the problem of unemployment( maybe you don not think the reason of unemployment is that), so they use the same way that toppled Japan's economy to attack Chinese economy. But the true doesn't like they wish, and after three times quantitative easing for relieved the social pressure, the credit of dollar at international bazaar was lower. In the same time, the euro started to plan instead of dollars to became the international money. Both of them took a fancy of a same prey---oil. Where have the most oil? Of course is Middle East.

How to make a country burst? The easiest way is make them to split into two factions. You just need to create a rebels, and order them to overthrow the existing government. And then you just need to give your rebels advanced weapons, even don't need the reason of rebel, you will get the oil from you rebels government friends, and them control the oil, keep the international money.

When you see that, do you still feel it is moral? Do you feel you were deceived by the country most important the human rights. I think the unethical thing is cheat the most confidence you people.

If we don't have the same opinion about this articles, I think you may not be angry with my clumsy opinion as a rational and learned teacher.

Shadi, Hamid. "World Must Aid Syria's Rebels – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs." Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs. 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. <http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/world-must-aid-syrias-rebels/?iref=allsearch>.

Joe Paterno

 

            I think that this article is very justified in what it is saying about Joe Paterno. I agree that he was a great football coach and that he contributed greatly to the school. The fact that the article says he won 409 games should say that he was a great football coach and he knew what he was doing. Not only was he a great coach on the field, but he was also doing good off of the field. He had another record of 80 percent of his students graduating within six years. I feel that just because he recently made a bad decision before he died it should not mean that is how he should be remembered. I think everyone should remember the good things he had done for the school such as getting so many wins and donating millions of dollars to the library and much more. Even though he did so many good things while he was Penn States coach many people will remember him by one of the bad things he had done. Although there were better ways of handling the Jerry Sandusky incident Joe Paterno still did what he saw fit for the situation. Even though this may not be the best course of action to everyone it was what he thought was the best way of acting. I feel that people should remember him for this reason. Many people may have reacted the same way if they were put into that situation. No one knows for sure exactly how they would act. They can say anything they want, but no one can be sure how they would act until they were placed in the exact situation. Joe Paterno did what he saw fit and let his conscious at rest. That was good enough for him and should be good enough for everyone.

Joe Paterno

I think Joe Paterno the coach before his death is most regrettable that he could not end on the court, but it is a moral wrong in the bottom end, because let's visit to keep members of the scandal he was fired, but the problem is Joe Paterno did not do anything, he has reported to the athletic director, but no news.

Unfortunately he is a very successful coach, he won many games for the school's race. I think he will before he died, he wanted to let the world remember his brilliant achievement is that, rather than that of errors ruined his life, he said: This is the biggest pain in my life, so this thing, I wish I had done nothing wrong.

Make their own moral error shame, if there were such a result would know, send him a direct lift, and now his death will only make us remember that remarkable achievements of the great football coach 

Article for Joe Paterno

Joe Paterno was born December 21, 1926, in Brooklyn, New York. Upon graduation from Brown University in 1950, his former coach, Charles (“Rip”) Engle, became head coach at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State). After 16 years as Engle's assistant, Paterno succeeded him in 1966. Paterno led Penn State to consecutive undefeated seasons in 1968 and 1969 and another undefeated season in 1973.

In his early life,he served in the U.S. Army during World War II. After the war, Paterno went to Brown University. There he dominated the gridiron as the school's quarterback and led his team to a 8-1 season in his senior year.

After graduating from Brown in 1950, Paterno joined his college coach Rip Engle at Penn State University, serving as the assistant coach. He settled down at Penn State, marrying Suzanne Pohland in 1962. The couple had five children together, all of whom later became graduates of Penn State.

In 1966, Paterno became the coach for Penn State University. His first season was a draw, with 5 wins and 5 losses, but he worked hard to build up the school's football program. Before long, Paterno racked up impressive scores, including coaching the team to two undefeated regular seasons in 1968 and 1969.

Over the years, Paterno became a beloved figure at the college. He was known for his trademark thick, square-shaped glasses and for his leadership skills. Nicknamed "Joe Pa," Paterno dedicated himself to his team, the Nittany Lions. He even turned down a chance to coach professional football with the New England Patriots in 1973.

Paterno led the Lions to two National Championships—in 1982 and in 1986. In recognition of his contributions to his winning team, he earned the Sportsman of the Year honor from Sports Illustrated in 1986.

In all, Paterno had an impressive record as the Lions' coach. In 46 seasons, he led his team to 37 bowl appearances with 24 wins. In October 2011, Paterno set a record of his own when Penn State defeated Illinois. This victory marked his 409th career win, making him the leader in career wins for Division I coaches.

With his thick glasses, khaki slacks (always a bit too short), and his Penn State windbreaker, Paterno is one of the most recognizable coaches in this history of football—college or professional. And he deserves the recognition. Since taking over the head coaching position at Pennsylvania State University in 1966, he has amassed five undefeated seasons, more bowl wins than any coach in college football (including three national championships), and risen to earn the title "the winningest active coach in college football." Paterno has also been voted coach of the year an amazing four times by the American Football Coaches Association.

But he is more than just a coach. He is a tenured professor, too, and to his players he is like a father, more so than most coaches could even dream of being. He instills in every member of his team that being well-rounded supercedes singular successes on the football field. "In an era of college football in which it seems everybody's hand is either in the till or balled up in a fist," writes Rick Reilly in Sports Illustrated, "Paterno sticks out like a clean thumb."

"Player Bio: Joe Paterno." Penn State University Official Athletic Site. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. <http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/paterno_joe00.html>.