CN: Myths, One-liners and Technology in Education

Notes from: Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government – Major Findings of 2004

• Macoubrie (2005) warns of uncritical acceptance of nanotechnology in our day-to-day lives as we don’t have sufficient information regarding its long-term ramifications, encourages productive and regulatory stakeholders to consider public opinion when determining what oversight is necessary.
• Draws highlights from two 2004 studies by National Science Foundation to explore citizen perceptions of nanotech. The first focused on how the ideas were presented to the general public and who the public trusted to protect them from possible dangers. The second dealt with how informed citizens were reacting.

The national, general survey

• showed positive reaction to the potential benefits although general ignorance about the technology.
• This was centered around medical concerns/breakthroughs.
• The West Coast and Midwest showed the lowest trust in the government to manage risks in these areas.
• Public uncertain of risks/benefits having positive ratio

The informed citizens survey

• had effectively no trust in government or industry to manage risks
• Concerns were not based on present information but on evidence of previous scenarios where downsides were not recognized until much later
• Concerns not specific to nanotechnology but rather general failures to manage risks with other new technologies (once bitten twice shy)
• Concerns largely mirrored contemporary political memes (“evil doer,” world military), along with health and environmental impacts
• higher education positively correlated to distrust in government risk management.

• This article is a collection of myths that have come to define how some interact with their computers.

Notes from: Computer one-liners

• A collection of puns, etc, on the topic of computers/computing, most, like other one-liners, lame.

Notes from: Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer Networks

• Explains what a computer network is, and highlights pros and cons of using one.
• Highlighted Pros: File sharing, resource sharing, increased storage capacity, increased cost efficiency.
• Highlighted Cons: Security issues, rapid spread of viruses, expensive setup, dependency on main file server
• I would argue that the final idea of a primary file server is unnecessary depending on setup (such as torrents use). The computer only needs to know where the files are stored to obtain them.

Notes from: Technology and social control: The search for the illusive silver bullet

• “The last half of the 20th century has seen a significant increase in the use of science and technology for purposes of social control.” (para 1)
• “As used here social control refers to efforts to enforce norms by preventing violations or discovering and apprehending violators, rather than to other aspects of social control such as the creation of norms, processes of adjudication and sanctioning, or the broad societal guidance and integration which was of concern to early theorists of industrialization and urbanization.” (para 2)
• The view that derivatives of science (ie, new technologies) are fair and impartial does not account for the social interpretation of the outputs or information gathered by these technologies.
• Security, from its earliest forms of locks and moats, has been about social control
• contemporary control is more manipulation than coercion
• in an engineered society, violations are eliminated or limited by controlling the physical and social environments. The key is prevention. Problems are anticipated and designed away, or where this is impossible, some deterrence (identification and apprehension; reduction of gain) is employed.
• Six social engineering strategies:

1. Target removal: cashless society, furniture that is part of the structure, graffiti-resistant bus/subway exteriors, etc
2. Target devaluation: self-destructing car stereos, dye packs in bank robberies, access codes for consumer technologies, biometric identifiers, etc.
3. Target insulation: gated communities, skywalks, networked video of public space, etc.
4. Offender incapacitation: chemical castration, tranquilizers, pepper spray, cars that have breathalyzers connected to ignition, background checks on firearm purchases, adding a foul odour to aerosols to prevent huffing
5. Exclusion: electronic anklets/bracelets, potentially eugenics, jail
6. Offence/Offender/Target identification: document the occurrence, offender, and apprehend them, personal alarms, possession removal alarms, organized citizen snitching

Other concerns: Not all of these have equal weight in different cultures. More research has been performed on those who violate rules than those who enforce them.

Implications: Technology is the purview of those who can afford it. More technology creates a greater demand for neutralizing solutions, high or low-tech. False-positives are common.

What does this have to do with myth? Perhaps the myth that technology can make us safe. 

Notes from: Computer intelligence will outpace the human brain by 2030

• Behold the mighty computer! We are on pace to make something smarter than ourselves!
• Maybe.
• If we can get it to “think” like us.

Notes from: Computers and cultural transformation

• This article is a bit dated, citing technology popular in the mid-90s as current (IRC, MUDs, etc)