Small Object, LARGE SUBJECT- The iPod

October 23rd, 2001. Recognize the date? People were born and died on this day. Some got married, some got divorced. That isn’t why this date has significance. It was the day that would change the way we listen to music forever. It would antiquate the Walkman and CD's. It was the day the first iPods were available to buy. It was the day we would become slaves to Apple, iTunes, and the iPod.

I’m not sure if Apple knew the profound effect that the iPod would have on consumers. If they did, Apple should be worshiped in some capitalist hall of fame. I think the reason the iPod had such success is because you could carry your whole music library in your pocket. This feat would be impossible with a Walkman. First of all, they’re bulky and you need to carry all of your CD's with you. Now, in 2010, doing this is akin to beating stones together to make fire. Now, if you don’t have an iPod, you are alienated from music society. You are considered to be, like the Walkman, out of date. It’s literally, almost impossible now to picture yourself, or someone else, without one. It’s really quite sad.

Another aspect of the iPod that blows my mind is iTunes. Instead of running out to a record store to buy a CD, all you have to do is go online. You can be listening to that CD in a matter of minutes. Instead of buying the whole CD for one song, you can just buy that one song on iTunes. Now, on iTunes, not only can you buy songs, you can buy audiobooks, games, movies, TV shows and apps. You can subscribe to thousands of podcasts. ITunes can make sure that you are never bored. There are more apps, games, audiobooks, movies, TV shows and songs than one can listen to, play, or use. Because of this never-ending supply of entertainment, we are more absorbed in our own little worlds than ever before. You can create playlists for every occasion, have your iPod tell you how fast you are running when you jog, you can listen to it anywhere as long as it has battery life, you have headphones, and the desire. While this is considered a bad thing, our music knowledge base has increased dramatically as a result of iTunes. Without iTunes, I’m sad to say that I’d be listening to a measly 500 songs instead of my still measly 3,000 something songs. I never would have been inspired by the words and melodies of some of my favorite bands without iTunes lending a helping hand. I feel like it knows me better than some of my friends do. I tear up just thinking about it.

So, what does our need for an iPod say about our culture? Apple knows that we are slaves to them and their shiny products. They play the role of the dealer and we play the role of the addict. They’ll add new baubles to each version of iPod they produce. Because they know that it just makes us want them more. Do you really need a video recorder on your iPod? YES, OH YES. We are addicted, blind, consumers. It’s sick, pathetic, and I LOVE IT.

Trash Disgusts Me, As Does Laziness (A Response to Chris Carroll's "High Tech Trash"

Somewhere between 1.5 and 1.9 million tons of computers, TVs, cell phones, monitors, and VCRs will be discarded in the US in the next year according to Chris Carroll. HOLY CRAP. That is a lot of garbage. What is even more shocking is what we do with our garbage. We just toss it in landfills or send it back to the manufacturer. This raises the question: Why are we so lazy? It doesn’t matter that there are valuable materials in our so called “garbage” or that there are toxins in them that can find their way into our ground water and make us sick. It doesn’t even concern us that we are doing this illegally, all we are concerned about, it seems like, is disposing of these materials with the least amount of effort. It’s more disgusting than a landfill. I was really surprised that this kind of dumping occurs all over the world and is starting to become a serious problem in technologically driven nations like China. The fact that if you’re responsible and dispose of your used computers, DVD players, etc. to a company who handles the recycling, doesn’t mean that the company will be as responsible is absolutely infuriating. When I read the section about how people harvest scrap from these machines illegally, and about the damage this causes to themselves and the environment, I just thought, “Why don’t we have factories in which all of these machines and their parts are recycled properly?” It makes more sense than simply dumping them in landfills. Creating factories that recycle used computers would, in turn, create jobs and stimulate the economy. Not to mention, make us and where we live healthier. So, why are we so lazy?

Toulmin Model For: "Is Google Making Us Stupid" by Nicholas Carr

Claim: The Internet is ruining our ability to concentrate

Statement of Claim: “What the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.”

Subclaims:
1. “The writing equipment we use takes part in forming our thoughts”
2. “The human brain is almost infinitely malleable”
3. We glorify new technology
4. Traditional media must become more like new media to keep in business.
5. While the internet has advantages, it also has disadvantages.

Support:
1. “The writing equipment we use takes part in forming our thoughts”

• Nietzsche Example (with the typewriter changing his style of writing)

2. “The human brain is almost infinitely malleable”

• uses words of James Olds (prominent authority in the neuroscience field): “the brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.

3. We glorify new technology

• the clock example ( people started to live by the clock instead of listening to what their bodies had to say.)

4. Traditional media must become more like new media to keep in business.

• “…magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy to browse info-snippets.”

5. While the internet has advantages, it also has disadvantages.

• Socrates example
• Socrates was afraid that the invention of writing would cause people to become less intelligent when really, it spread information. The Internet could have unforeseen benefits.

Warrant: Carr assumes that he is speaking to people who use Google and the Internet frequently.

Response to " Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

When I first read this article, I disagreed with Nicholas Carr. How could Google possibly make one stupider? You can literally, find information on any subject you could think of. Like someone said in class, maybe Google just makes you lazier. After reading what Nicholas Carr had to say, I realized that he has some valid points. I found myself agreeing with him on the issue of artificial intelligence and that the internet divides your attention. Both of these problems however, have answers that make them not an issue.

Personally, the idea of a HAL-like Internet or search engine scares me a little. I’m not very keen on some machine controlling the information I receive. But I suppose, Google and other forms of media do that now, so what is the difference? I think it is the movie, and movies like, 2001: A Space Odyssey make us scared of some super computer taking over the world. This seems a little far-fetched to me, and not feasible. In daily life, we edit what we tell people. For example, you may have gotten a hangover from a party the night before. Your mom calls you, and can tell that you’re sick. Instead of telling her that you went to a party and got drunk, you say that you ate something at the party that gave you food poisoning. You are leaving out the fact that you got drunk. Even the media does this when they are relaying information to the public. They leave out news that they consider not important and cut out bits of a story that aren't essential. Therefore, what is the difference between Google and the types of information technology we have been using for hundreds of years?

When I research on the Internet, I often find myself distracted by Facebook or my email account if I don’t reign myself in. Carr is right that the internet diffuses our concentration. There is an enormous difference between reading a physical copy of a book and reading a book online. A copy of a book only has the story, nothing else to get distracted by, whereas an online copy has many distractions. Unlike Carr, I am perfectly able to sit down and read a book without feeling the “results” of the internet. I don’t find myself wanting to skim the book or getting bored with it, unless it’s a really horrible read. Maybe this doesn’t apply to everyone, but I find that if I don’t allow myself to open other links, I can read a book online or do a homework assignment without getting distracted. The key in achieving a meaningful experience from the information you’re receiving is to focus only on one article or web page at a time.

While Carr has valid concerns about what the Internet could do to the way our minds work, I think he should consider that humans before us adapted to new technology and can do the same with the Internet. We can train ourselves to concentrate only on one page at a time and should be skeptical of movies and people who blow this issue out of proportion.