English 1020 Final

Over the past semester, I have realized many problems I have when it comes to composition.  My main problem I have found to be time management.  I have not had much help from outside sources to build better time management, but my professor has been an outstanding help.  I have always looked at myself as an “okay” writer, but never as a great writer.  I will say, my ability for writing has grown exponentially since I started English Comp 1 last semester.  My main wish for taking these courses (aside from being required) is to become a well balanced writer.  I want to become a teacher, so I need to have a better writing skill than I had originally possessed.

I started out this semester fresh from English comp 1, and I knew I still had a long way to go to be able to effectively put out sufficient writings.  During this semester I have learned a lot about how to be persuasive, but also about general grammar mechanics.  I know I personally have a terrible habit of comma splices, but I have been given the knowledge of how to fix that as well as how to spot them.  My biggest problem however, was time management.  I have done more harm to myself this semester with time management than at any other point in my life.  It caused me to be late on nearly everything I have turned in, and it has drastically reduced my grade Quite literally in this case to the point of no return. 

When I fist came to English comp 2, I was curious to see how it was different from comp 1.  I had made it through comp 1 progressively making higher grades than the one before.  my first paper being a D, my last paper was an A.  I ended the semester with around a C overall.  That in and of itself was a self-esteem booster.  Overall, I have learned a lot in these courses, and I am extremely glad I had to take them.  I feel now that I possess a writing style that would be sufficient for what I plan to do in life, but I know I can still further improve.

I intend to continue my education in writing, but I need to also work on my ability to keep up with everything.  I have had so many instances this semester where I have woken up and looked online and saw I had a paper due.  I am never that bad at keeping up with things.  My lateness even shocked me through the semester.  I want to get better at keeping track of everything that is going on, and I know I need to work on that if I am to succeed in college as well as life. 

Through this semester, on the papers that I have done, (lateness not included…) I have tried to produce a well thought out and planned argument or essay.  I havent tried to just throw a bunch of information together and feed it to the class, however I would be wrong to say that I had put my all into everything I have produced.  If that was the case, I would not have been late on everything, and I would not be worried about passing the class.  I am proud of the things that I have written, and I do believe I have put sufficient time and energy into my writings, however I am not proud of what I have ended up doing this semester.  I know I could have succeeded with an A or B, however I slacked off and decided to do my own thing and not pay much attention.

All in all, I am glad I was given the opportunity to learn and progress my knowledge of writing, and I genuinely enjoyed this class.  I have learned a lot, and I have gained a lot of wisdom on ways NOT to pass a class.  I am very thankful that my professor has been there and helped me through my hard times, as well as when I was lazy or computationally illiterate.  I am happy that I made it through the semester, and I will gladly continue my education.

Formal Assignment #3 Final

Formal Assignment 3

1. I seek to solve a question dealing with technology.  I am trying to argue the point that our nations drive in trying to develop technology for the future has dwindled.  I will use the 1950’s as a comparison, for in that decade we produced many of the essential elements that made the present so much more technologically advanced. 
2. The problem flourishes mentally, as well as physically.  We have as of late been trying to develop technologies to make everyday tasks easier, rather than trying to develop new and exciting energies, or other types of groundbreaking technologies.  This is a debatable topic in the sense of how you view technology.  Certain tasks do take a lot of time, and it is extremely beneficial to lessen or decrease the effort and man hours required to achieve or complete said tasks.  However, a light switch that turns off by clapping your hands is not necessary, nor is it required, nor is it in any way a difficult task to switch off a light.
3. I have researched farm more than the last twenty years, and what I have found is that during the 1950’s, we as a nation developed so many new and phenomenal technologies, things that the public would have never thought possible.  The inventions created in the 1950’s shot us into the future.  The automotive technologies we have developed in recent years have been incredible, however a lot of the options are of almost no value.  If we look at the progression of the Personal Computer (PC) in the last 60 years, the abilities have grown exponentially, while the size of the PC has reduced exponentially.  On the same topic as above, look at the Cell Phone.  It has gone through so many adjustments and upgrades that it is unbelievable.  They started out gigantic, as technology progressed, the trend was to get them as small as possible.  Now however, cell phones are beginning to grow in size again.  Our cell phones now are more powerful than the computers we had ten years ago.
4. In the last twenty years, we have announced several new productions, and even though they make everyday tasks easier, are they in turn causing a negative effect on the consumers both physically as well as negatively?  The research I have gathered on the subject agrees with my argument, I have found that many of the newer technologies are focused on making simple tasks easier, rather than focusing on improvements for the future.
5. I plan to compare these last twenty years to that of the 1950’s-1970’s.  From what I have found, in the earlier set of years, we as a whole put a lot of knowledge into the unknown with technology, sending satellites to space, creating microchips, etc.  I feel that we as of late have tried to do nothing but make simple tasks easier, I feel that this in turn will create a “Lazy” generation.  I believe if we focus the same energy that we do on making these tasks easier, to a more pushing or important idea, there are no limits on what we can accomplish.  We are a nation of men and women who seek to make the lives better for ourselves instead of our future generation.  We need to spend more time thinking about the future instead of the present when it comes to technology.

 

Formal Assignment 3

Formal Assignment 3

1. I seek to solve a question dealing with technology.  In the last twenty years, has the technology developed in a way that is more beneficial or harmful to our way of life? 
2. The problem flourishes mentally, as well as physically.  We have as of late been trying to develop technologies to make everyday tasks easier, rather than trying to develop new and exciting energies, or other types of groundbreaking technologies.  This is a debatable topic in the sense of how you view technology.  Certain tasks do take a lot of time, and it is extremely beneficial to lessen or decrease the effort and man hours required to achieve or complete said tasks.  However, a light switch that turns off by clapping your hands is not necessary, nor is it required, nor is it in any way a difficult task to switch off a light.
3. I have researched farm more than the last twenty years, and what I have found is that during the 1950’s, we as a nation developed so many new and phenomenal technologies, things that the public would have never thought possible.  The inventions created in the 1950’s shot us into the future.  The automotive technologies we have developed in recent years have been incredible, however a lot of the options are of almost no value.  If we look at the progression of the Personal Computer (PC) in the last 60 years, the abilities have grown exponentially, while the size of the PC has reduced exponentially.  On the same topic as above, look at the Cell Phone.  It has gone through so many adjustments and upgrades that it is unbelievable.  They started out gigantic, as technology progressed, the trend was to get them as small as possible.  Now however, cell phones are beginning to grow in size again.  Our cell phones now are more powerful than the computers we had ten years ago.
4. In the last twenty years, we have announced several new productions, and even though they make everyday tasks easier, are they in turn causing a negative effect on the consumers both physically as well as negatively?  The research I have gathered on the subject agrees with my argument, I have found that many of the newer technologies are focused on making simple tasks easier, rather than focusing on improvements for the future.
5. I plan to compare these last twenty years to that of the 1950’s-1970’s.  From what I have found, in the earlier set of years, we as a whole put a lot of knowledge into the unknown with technology, sending satellites to space, creating microchips, etc.  I feel that we as of late have tried to do nothing but make simple tasks easier, I feel that this in turn will create a “Lazy” generation.  I believe if we focus the same energy that we do on making these tasks easier, to a more pushing or important idea, there are no limits on what we can accomplish.  We are a nation of men and women who seek to make the lives better for ourselves instead of our future generation.  We need to spend more time thinking about the future instead of the present when it comes to technology.

 

Annotated Bibliography

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-development-technology-1900-1950-1950-2931888.html

                This website describes the growth of technology from 1900-1960.  I am going to use this as an argument that we had a larger growth of technology between 1900-1960, than from 1960-Present.  I feel that this website describes a lot of the inventions and stuff that occurred between these two timelines.

http://www.slb.com/about/history/1950s.aspx

                I found this website to be very helpful to learn about the different types of inventions that had come out between the decades.  I am going to use this to prepare some extra knowledge of the growth of the technological aspect of these inventions.  I am not interested in the new shoes or things along those lines, but the ability to mass produce shoes, the technology that is used in an assembly line is incredible.

English 1020 Midterm

            My background in writing is probably the same as most everyone’s.  I started mainly writing in many composition classes, but I have always been told that I was an abomination to all things writing.  I took the comments very seriously so I started to take more composition classes to help myself learn the basics of writing.  As I progressed through the courses, gaining knowledge little by little, I began to think about why I might need to become a better writer.  I was looking for a larger reason than just because my 10^th grade English teacher said so.  So I began to do some research on the level of writing I would need to produce as an engineer/professor in the Air Force.

            Writing is an integral part to most, if not all, career options.  In my specific career field of teaching math and sciences, writing is rather important.  It helps me articulate ideas and thoughts in a much more concrete way, and it helps me personally form coherent responses.  As a teacher, I would need to be able to write clear instructions to tasks, as well as clear and coherent emails and responses to students as well as management.  In the field of an engineer in the Air Force, writing is essential for building plans of action, as well as articulating specific orders and requests to all military personnel.

 Several years ago, I could guarantee that I lacked almost all necessary skills of writing that would have been a key aspect in both of these career fields.  However, in the past few classes I have taken, the professors have been excellent and very helpful.  This class has been a great help to learn how to clearly argue a point, and how to research it properly.  I personally had trouble attacking the validity of the point and not the other debater.  I found that I tend to poke fun at the other debater’s ideas and make them seem stupid rather than actually proving a point of my own.

            Through the rest of this class, I intend to learn more about how to form arguments and take correct sides when given the opportunity.  Most importantly, I just want to further my knowledge on the subject of writing.  As I stated earlier, writing was never easy for me, and I have been trying to change that for a while now.  I finally feel as if I am becoming a better writer.  When I had gone back and read some of my early papers, I would cringe at some of the sentences and words I had used.  Going and reading some of my more recent papers, they just feel more coherent and formal. 

            In conclusion, I started out terrible at writing, and I began to try my best to get better.  Then I began to study what I would actually need to learn in my career fields.  I was beginning to enjoy the thought of writing as I progressed through my courses.  I finally am at a point where I feel competent enough to start my careers.  I feel as if I am at the correct level, however, I do not intend on stopping my progression of knowledge in writing anytime soon. 

Reading Response

The article is about a woman who is being forced to resign because she posted a few suggestive pictures against a schools policy.  However the larger problem that she is arguing is that she had these pictures listed as private so her students would not be able to see them.  One of her student’s parents saw the pictures and went to the principal about the incident, and even though Ms. Payne’s pictures were private, others could still see them.  She has now taken the fall on a problem that was not necessarily her fault.  However, this could have easily been prevented if she had not posted pictures with a beer in her hand.

In today’s day and age people tend to assume before they act, rather than thinking about the consequences.  I may be a poor subject for the preceding message, for my father had worked with cyber-security.  Nothing about the internet is private.  There are always ways to gain access to information whether you mark it as “private” or not.   The internet is a massive storage database that the government has full access to.  No matter what form of internet site, whether communication/social network like Facebook in Ms. Payne’s case, or IM like texting or email, there are saved packets of information that will remain.  Not only that, but saved right next to it are the IP addresses (Computer names so to speak).

Eli Pariser’s “Filter Bubble” Final Draft

            Eli Pariser is debating that there are invisible online filters that determine what you can and cannot see online.  I am here to say that I do not believe it is that large of a problem, and I can support that purely by saying it is the people’s responsibility to search for what they want to find out.  The only true problem with these “Filter Bubbles” is that they are in fact invisible, and only a handful of people actually acknowledge or have noticed the fact that they even exist.  Pariser stated that this can cause people to become unknowledgeable on some rather important topics that range from politics to wars.  I do not blame the companies that enforce these “Filter Bubbles,” nor do I believe they are doing something in that could potentially be detrimental to society.  However, I do believe there should be some sort of way to turn the filter bubbles off. 

             On the surface, Pariser has a very compelling argument, but when you start to really think about, he is just blaming a “Laziness to search for what is going on in the world” on somebody else.  I believe it is the job of the person to search for what he/she may need to know in the world.  The company that runs an internet site has written an algorithm in the sites history allowing it to display articles that may be more relevant to you the individual.  Pariser does list a very interesting point when it comes to Facebook.  He mentioned that he was a conservative, however he enjoyed reading about the liberals as well.  Ultimately, he liked more of his conservative friend’s posts, than the liberals, and after a while, Facebook stopped showing the liberal’s posts in general.  Depending on what you enjoy seeing on Facebook, this could get rather annoying, not necessarily bad, but just annoying. 

            I look at the “Filter Bubble” as a way of making it much easier for you to access what you are probably getting on the computer to access.  The way Pariser describes the algorithm makes it sound as if it would be impossible for anyone to find anything outside of their bubble.  That is not the case YET, but for now, I find it much nicer to see all of my music related news on the front page rather than seeing a bunch of political nonsense that I was never interested in.  I still have the ability to search for said political nonsense if I feel it would be beneficial to read.  Nothing prohibits me from seeing any other non-music related news, both global and personal.  There are always ways to counteract internet filters like this, you can delete your history, reset your cookies, a mixture of both, or even just turn off browser history in general. 

            I found the argument to be rather exaggerated, but if it progresses to a degree of seriousness that Pariser described, then it could become a very large problem.  If somebody is interested in finding information on something, most will use more than one article, as well as search the topic him/herself.  I guess I do not find the seriousness of the article either.  At the exact moment, no harm is being caused by it, and it is making things easier on people just doing their daily reading.  I just feel that this is not as serious as it could become. 

            For argument sake, let’s say that our “Filter Bubbles” are that extreme, and that there no ways to get rid of them.  If that was the case, Pariser would have an outstanding argument, and I believe he would have done an excellent job conveying it.  He would have been correct in saying that we would all live in our own little bubble, and that it would cause people to become unaware of what could be going on in the world around them.  If you truly break down the algorithm into what it actually does, you would find that it does nothing more than take all of the links you click, and average them out.  The links you have a higher average of clicking, it displays first.  The program does not erase all possibility for you to see news and entertainment besides what your “Filter Bubble” “thinks” you are going to click on.  I still believe whether it is the extreme version, or the version of “Filter Bubbles” we have now, that there should be an option for what can and should not be filtered. 

            There is however, one flaw in my argument.  My main idea is that people will actually do something for themselves.  My argument is flawed by the same reason “Filter Bubbles” were created.  People are trying to make everything easier and require less effort, or in blatant terms, being lazy.  Pariser would have made a great point if he had stated that people will inevitably become too lazy to search for other news outside of their bubble.  I know that this sounds bleak, but give it some thought.  We have become as a nation, lazy.  Everything that is being designed or produced nowadays is purely for laziness and a refusal to put effort into simple tasks. 

            My final argument is the same, these “Filter Bubbles” are not dangerous, but there should still be a way to view the settings of the filter, and enable us to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to implement into our web browsing.  Pariser still did an excellent job posing an argument, whether you agree with him or not.  I just do not personally find them to be a great foe in the world of online entertainment/news. 

 

Self-Assessment

            After reviewing the comments, I have found a few grammatical errors, and personally I found this to be one of my better writings.  I still have a long way to go to be on par with my colleagues, but all will come in time.  I learned that I have a problem of attacking the author, and taking a demeaning stance on his argument, but I am trying to get better, and look at it from a whole rather than just my biased opinion.

 

 

Works Cited

• “Eli Pariser: Beware Online “filter Bubbles”” TED: Ideas worth Spreading. N.p., n.d. Web. 11    Feb.2014.

Reading Response (Multitasking)

The argument stated is that multitasking is generally less efficient than single-tasking.  I agree fully to the argument, however, I do not believe that it will change the way I will work in the future.  He states that one of the reasons that we, as a whole, multitask is that it makes us feel better about ourselves.  It lets us think that we were able to accomplish more than just one objective, and in our minds we believe that we not only finished multiple objectives, we finished them to the same degree as we would have had we done them one at a time.  I fell that it is a very true point, and I again fully support it.  I also agree that it is very difficult to focus on one main topic for long periods of time, it brings my ADHD back, I personally have a very hard time trying to focus on one topic at a time.  My mind goes in every different direction, so I almost have to have some sort of outside or extraneous stimulus, otherwise nothing will ever get done.  I like to believe that I can multitask, but as he put it only a very small percentage can actually effectively multitask.

 

This argument was a very well thought out post.  I found it to be very interesting, and I fully support it, and I fully agree with it.  That being said, I do not intend to change the way I personally work on the internet.  I have several tabs opened at this very second, yet I am able to refrain (For the most part) from switching between them.  The hardest part, in my opinion, of getting work done is actually sitting down and telling yourself that you are going to get started.  Once I get started, then it is easy, but before I get the first few words down, all of the extra stimuli of the internet look so much more interesting than they would at any other point in time. 

Eli Pariser’s Filter Bubble Debate

Eli Pariser’s Filter Bubble Debate

            Eli Pariser is debating that there are invisible online filters that determine what you can and cannot see online.  I am here to say that I do not believe it is that large of a problem, and I can support that purely by saying it is the people’s responsibility to search for what they want to find out.  Pariser stated that this can cause people to become unknowledgeable on some rather important topics that range from politics to wars.  I do not blame the companies that enforce these “Filter Bubbles,” nor do I believe they are doing something in malice to contribute to the deterioration of the mental status of society.  However, I do believe there should be some sort of way to turn the filter bubbles off. 

             On the surface, Pariser has a very compelling argument, but when you start to really think about, he is just blaming a “Laziness to search for what is going on in the world” on somebody else.  I believe it is the job of the person to search for what he/she may need to know in the world.  The company that runs an internet site has written an algorithm in the sites history allowing it to display articles that may be more relevant to you the individual.  Pariser does list a very interesting point when it comes to Facebook.  He mentioned that after liking more of one set of friend’s links, the site started to only show that group of friends.  Depending on what you enjoy seeing on Facebook, this could get rather annoying, not necessarily bad, but just annoying. 

            I look at the “Filter Bubble” as a way of making it much easier for you to access what you are probably getting on the computer to access.  The way Pariser describes the algorithm makes it sound as if it would be impossible for anyone to find anything outside of their bubble.  That is not the case YET, but for now, I find it much nicer to see all of my music related news on the front page rather than seeing a bunch of political nonsense that I was never interested in.  I still have the ability to search for said political nonsense if I feel it would be beneficial to read.  Nothing prohibits me from seeing any other non-music related news, both global and personal.  There are always ways to counteract internet filters like this, you can delete your history, reset your cookies, a mixture of both, or even just turn off browser history. 

            I found the argument to be rather exaggerated, but if it progresses to a degree of seriousness that Pariser described, then it could become a very large problem.  If somebody is interested in finding information on something, most will use more than one article, as well as search the topic him/herself.  I guess I do not find the seriousness of the article either.  At the exact moment, no harm is being caused by it, and it is making things easier on people just doing their daily reading.  I just feel that this is being blown way out of proportion. 

            For argument sake, let’s say that our “Filter Bubbles” are that extreme, and that there no ways to get rid of them.  If that was the case, Pariser would have an outstanding argument, and I believe he would have done an excellent job conveying it.  He would have been correct in saying that we would all live in our own little bubble, and that it would cause people to become unaware of what could be going on in the world around them.  If you truly break down the algorithm into what it actually does, you would find that it does nothing more than take all of the links you click, and average them out.  The links you have a higher average of clicking, it displays first.  The program does not erase all possibility for you to see news and entertainment besides what your “Filter Bubble” “thinks” you are going to click on.  I still believe whether it is the extreme version, or the version of “Filter Bubbles” we have now, that there should be an option for what can and should not be filtered. 

            There is however, one flaw in my argument.  My main idea is that people will actually do something for themselves.  My argument is flawed by the same reason “Filter Bubbles” were created.  People are trying to make everything easier and require less effort, or in blatant terms, being lazy.  Pariser would have made a great point if he had stated that people will inevitably become too lazy to search for other news outside of their bubble.  I know that this sounds bleak, but give it some thought.  We have become as a nation, lazy.  Everything that is being designed or produced nowadays is purely for laziness and a refusal to put effort into simple tasks. 

            My final argument is the same, these “Filter Bubbles” are not dangerous, but there should still be a way to view the settings of the filter, and enable us to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to implement into our web browsing.  Pariser still did an excellent job posing an argument, whether you agree with him or not.  I just do not personally find them to be a great foe in the world of online entertainment/news. 

 

Self-Assessment

            I have learned some interesting things from the video.  I find it interesting that people are finding anything and everything to have a problem with, especially something as minor as this.  I personally struggle with grammar, and occasionally using the wrong word.  Any help with that would be greatly appreciated! 

 

 

Works Cited

• “Eli Pariser: Beware Online “filter Bubbles”” TED: Ideas worth Spreading. N.p., n.d. Web. 11    Feb.2014.