FRS111

D-Wave, a Canadian company, recently released a supposed commercial, 128-qubit quantum computer. If their claims are true, then the computer, called the D-Wave One, would be a quantum leap forward for computing. A 128-qubit computer can represent all of the 3.4*10^38 128-bit numbers simultaneously, which would require an incredible amount of normal computing power. The D-Wave One should have the potential to change the world in profound ways. Several of these systems running in parallel should be able to accomplish feats requiring incredible computing power – simulations of proteins, the search for extraterrestrial life, and other tasks would become much easier to accomplish.

The D-Wave One, potential game-changer

However, I am skeptical about the true quantum nature of the computer. My first sign of suspicion is the fact that no other researchers have even come close to running a viable quantum computer. Other research teams have been unable to use more than fourteen-qubit computers, and are unable to maintain the quantum states of the qubits for a useful number of operations. A 128-qubit computer would be orders of magnitude more difficult to sustain. It is possible that D-Wave has discovered some incredible breakthrough that enables them to create such a machine, but if the best other top scientists have been able to do is a quantum computer with fewer than fourteen bits, it seems unlikely D-Wave has managed to create a 128-qubit quantum computer. Indeed, other top scientists are highly suspicious of the D-Wave One’s quantum nature.

Another fishy aspect of the D-Wave One is its specialization. A true computer should theoretically be able to harness its processing power to accomplish any computable task, but the D-Wave One only claims to solve specialized math problems. It also claims that it cannot yet outperform conventional computers, which seems absurd considering that the system should be able perform 3.4*10^38, or three-hundred and forty undecillion, operations in a single step, which is far, far beyond the ability of computer in the world. So why isn’t this computer able to outperform a conventional computer with only a fraction of this capacity?

Finally, there is a strangely small amount of press coverage for such a supposedly world-changing invention. The revolutionary nature of a 128-qubit computer should cause it to make far more headlines than it has, and this lack of coverage is also suspicious.

However, the D-Wave One has its believers. D-Wave’s first customer is Lockheed-Martin, who bought a computer for $10 million after analyzing it for a year. They must have found enough certainty through their analysis to warrant the hefty price tag, which leads me to suspect that even if the computer does not work as well as advertised, there still might be something revolutionary about it. The size of Lockheed-Martin’s commitment reflects their certainty. If the D-Wave One is really a legitimate quantum computer, it could profoundly change the world, but its true nature remains to be confirmed.

Works Cited

Guizzo, Erico. “Loser: D-Wave Does Not Quantum Compute.” IEEE Spectrum. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2012. <http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/loser-dwave-does-not-quantum-compute>.

Knapp, Alex. “D-Wave Announces Commercially Available Quantum Computer.” Forbes. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/17/d-wave-announces-commerically-available-quantum-computer/>.

Matson, John. “Physicist entangle a record-breaking 14 quantum bits.” Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2012. <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/04/05/physicists-entangle-a-record-breaking-14-quantum-bits/>.

Zyga, Lisa. “D-Wave Sells First Quantum Computer.” Physorg. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2012. <http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-d-wave-commercial-quantum.html>.

Along with humanity’s increased knowledge in DNA and genes has come the possibility of genetically modifying organisms. Now, animals and plants can be modified to have traits that they otherwise would not have. This has become a huge deal in the food industry, and these days almost everything we eat has been affected in one way or another by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The animals we eventually consume are modified to grow bigger and fatter while the vegetables we eat are modified to grow better in different environments and to be resistant against pesticides and insects. However, this has cause a huge debate.

The advantages of GMOs are pretty obvious. Farmers will make more money if they can provide more meat and vegetables every year. With crops that are naturally resistant to pests, the need to buy pesticides goes down. Cows, pigs, and chickens all get bigger and provide more meat per animal. Some foods are even modified to taste better and contain more beneficial nutrients. With a higher rate of food production to feed the world’s increasing population and foods that are seemingly healthier and more nutritional, it’s hard for anyone to deny the pros of GMOs.

However, while advocates of GMOs boast about how healthy the organisms are, many skeptics disagree. Some people who are against the use of GMOs argue that genetically modifying organisms could introduce unintentional allergens into the food we eat. Some go as far to say that we could even be unknowingly transferring poisons and other harmful compounds into our bodies. Of course, these claims come with some legitimate evidence: although rare, there have been cases of people’s bodies reacting badly with genetically modified foods. Some other objections come with some very different and subjective reasons: many people don’t think that it is ethically right to mess with the natural genes of species, and that it is wrong to tamper with nature to such an extent.

At this point, GMOs have already become so prevalent that it would probably be near impossible to completely get rid of them. Nevertheless, there remains a large number of people who continue to fight against GMOs. When it comes down to it though, your opinion of GMOs will be based on your own moral standards and which facts you choose to believe.

The rise of the internet has provided society with new modes of communication. People are able to communicate across long distances instantly and easily through many different methods. With these new methods of communication has come has come with them the inevitable debate about whether this new innovation is a good thing or a bad thing, and either side can easily be argued.

On one hand, the increased use of Email has drastically decreased the need to send paper mail. Why send a message through the postal service when you can send one instantly through the internet for free? Many people complain that emails inherently makes these messages less personal. Also, the use of instant messaging (IM) has become one of the primary modes of communication in our generation. Millions of people log onto services like AOL Instant Messenger and MSN Instant Messenger to chat with friends. This gets rid of the need for even email when it comes to having a conversation, but also, as many would argue, reduces many conversation to as little as abbreviations like “lol” and an array of emoticons. Many could see this as a cause in a possible decline of our ability to carry out “normal” conversations.

On the other hand, however, are internet forums and blogs like ours, where the internet provides an easy for a group of intellectuals to share ideas in an effective, practical, and efficient manner. While some may argue that instant messaging is undermining the value of conversations based on long discussions with the use of correct grammar, I believe the internet provides plenty of other ways that actually support and facilitate the opposite. The internet makes discussion among a huge group of people possible in ways that were never imaginable before. Also, the fact that face to face interaction is not necessary can make people more open about their ideas, leading to more sharing of ideas. Another big thing to take into consideration is the use of social networking sites like facebook, which comes with its own set of interesting arguments to be made.

The last decade has seen the proliferation of technology designed to bring us information at an alarming rate. From incredibly fast Internet to NOOKs, the act of sharing information has become easier and, some would say, has deteriorated. Accessing and processing information, too, has evolved (or devolved) to an act that takes so little time that we can intersperse it throughout our entire day, between other tasks, as a side thought. There are NGOs in the developing world that exist solely to bring the Internet to rural communities. The UN has declared access to the Internet a human right. Over the Internet, we meet, we protest, we shop, we absorb everything that is happening in the world. But how much do we retain? And how much has our standard of “news” devolved?

Classroom textbooks are being replaced by laptops and ipads. For proponents of the initiative, this signals a step towards ultimate access to knowledge, super-powered classrooms and super-focused students. To others, it marks the end of students investing themselves in the learning experience. How does total immersion in technology affect the mind? Does quicker access to information translate to more efficient and knowledgeable students or overwhelmed researchers? As an extension, is a digitized world a necessarily better one? Critics would argue that it removes an individual from the natural world and thereby removes them from the subjects of which they may be learning.

An example that I find most revealing is the innovation of the hyperlink. When researching any subject, one is bound to come across a bevy of articles on the Internet that are themselves interconnected by a series of hyperlinks. This mechanism allows for a much broader foundation of evidence but also strains the attention span of any user. It is hard not to find oneself drowning in “new tabs” as each new link is expanded. After long periods of Internet research, I even find myself attempting to “control, f” a physical book or click on a word on a page for a definition. As we develop technology that makes life on the Internet easier and more efficient, we may be losing touch with reality. In fact, even as I write this blog, I have four other windows open on websites that have nothing to do with this topic. Innovation in computers is an amazing thing, connecting people all across the world, but it is important not to let fall to the wayside the world right outside our door. And to realize that not every piece of information is as necessary as it may seem. We must retain our ability to filter information.

DARPA announced in 2010 a project aimed at developing an organism that would theoretically exist forever. DARPA, the Pentagon’s shady research division, stated that the goal of project BioDesign is to “eliminate the randomness of evolutionary advancement.” The organisms would live and breath, forever. A startling addition to the projected skillset was a “tamper-proof” self-destruct mechanism that would allow the scientists at the Pentagon to destroy the organism with a virtual “flip of a switch.” DARPA has earmarked $6 million for the project, as part of a $20 million synthetic biology program. The researchers at DARPA have raised eyebrows at peer institutions both for their blatant dismissal of previous research proving the desired result impossible and for their disregard for ongoing debate about the human’s role in his environment.

Despite the obvious hypothetical situation in which these new, immortal creatures take over the planet and make human beings energy slaves, immortal organisms pose a series of problems that DARPA did not address in their announcement. Is it ethical to add to the planet a creature that was not naturally produced? Critics of the plan envision a scenario similar to when Kudzu was introduced to the Western hemisphere. There also exists the religious temper; for those who believe that God is the only creator, this project is highly controversial. Would these organisms be able to produce and thus rapidly over populate the planet with beings that never die? Perhaps most controversial is the “kill switch.” Whether or not these beings are as sentient as humans, is it ethical to harness the ability to kill one arbitrarily? Is it even ethical to program that ability into a creature? These highly theoretical situations are difficult to grasp—the ethical problems facing a creator are certainly many.

These questions are perhaps unnecessary considering that DARPA has as of yet only managed to increase the life span of a rat by %20. The implications of an immortal species are vast, however and if our government is beginning to explore technology leading to that fabled organism, it is imperative that we fetter our eagerness for a result before we properly consider them. The “kill switch” actually seems the most prudent of all of DARPA’s effort regarding the project. Though there are plenty of ethical pitfalls to that aspect of the project as well. If anything, the issues raised highlight a need for more transparency in DARPA, and for any scientific research that could have such far-reaching effects.

Citations

Drummond, Katie. “Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal ‘Synthetic Organisms,’ Molecular Kill-Switch Included.” Wired. 05 Feb 2010: n. page. Web. 17 Jan. 2012.

Up until a few years ago, there wasn’t much new going on with education. Perhaps a charter school or two opened their doors, and a few people steamed with rage over the overall quality of the American public school system, but it was being done the same way: with textbooks covered with words, and a basic motivational system at odds with how most people actually find motivation and purpose. That is why the developments of the past two years have become all the more interesting. The technology that today brings us isn’t interesting because it puts a textbook on a tablet – it’s interesting because it changes the way traditional “education” is done altogether.

I didn’t even know that I was signing up for an account on CodeAcademy – I just put my mouse in a box, and started answering questions. Before I knew it, I was creating java script variables and performing string functions as the command prompt-looking interface taught me how to code one step at a time. I didn’t feel like I was even being “educated”, I was just playing along with an interactive program. That’s where the magic is happening , and that’s why this is an exciting moment for education. With CodeAcademy, and other new startups like CK12, Benchspot and KhanAcademy, traditional education is passing from a passive try to learn, then do activity, to one that blends both. That is where real learning happens. It’s similar to the benefit one receives while working with a partner, or a musical teacher – there is continuous expert guidance every step of the way that carefully adapts until the student masters the concept.

And of course, underneath it all is the same underpinning philosophy that guides the financial startup PersonalCapital that I wrote about a few days ago, Bionic Software which blends the expertise of people with the flexibility and ubiquity of software and the web. Bryce Roberts says the following about Bionic Software:

A bionic system is one that combines the biological and mechanical systems to create an enhanced system that is more powerful than either alone…one of the things that distinguishes web applications from PC-era applications is the fact that web applications actually have people inside them, working daily as part of the application. Without the programmers running the crawl at Google, filtering out the spam, and tuning the algorithms, the application stops working. Without the users feeding the spiders by continuously linking to new sites, the crawl turns up nothing new. In a profound way, the users are part of the application. This turns out to be true in one form or another for almost every breakthrough web application.

Bionic software will be the future, and to the wonderful benefit of society. However, now the question is how will we adjust to all of this? To so many people learning to do so much due to systems that conform to them? When computer programs antiquate so many professions? What will be next? Only time will answer these questions.

Works Cited:

Constine, Josh. “BenchPrep Is Codecademy For Any Subject, High School To Med School.” TechCrunch. AOL, Inc., 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 2012. <http://www.techcrunch.com>.

Roberts, Bryce. “Bionic Software and Programable People.” BRYCE DOT VC. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://bryce.vc/post/12600078312/bionic-software-and-programable-people>.

A chat bot is a computer artificial intelligence system programmed to simulate an intelligent conversation with humans using voice or text, in order to fool human users into thinking the program is human. This, as we all know, is the Turing test. Alan Turing’s article Computing Machinery and Intelligence, published in 1950, speaks of the Turing test as a benchmark of intelligence. This is measured by the computer program’s ability to simulate actual conversation with a human user, so that the user cannot tell the difference between the program and a real human.

How do these chat bots work and what are they used for? While some chat bots use natural language processing systems, most of them work by scanning for keywords in an in-built textual database and forming replies with the most matching keywords. Chat bots can be incorporated into dialog systems for information retrieval, online help and search functions. They can also be used as automated online assistants that are capable of holding simple conversations; in fact, many large companies, including banks and telecommunications use these assistants instead of call centers to increase efficiency in customer services. There are also chat bot competitions, such as the annual Chat bot Challenge and the Loebner Prize, which test how closely the robots can mimic human interactions.

There are many chat bots online that interact with human users via textual methods; Alice (alicebot, former winner of the Loebner Prize), Bildgesmythe (former winner of the Chat bot Challenge), and English Tutor are some examples (many more can be seen and used at the links provided below in Works Cited). We can continue to develop these chat bots by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of existing chat bots, and figuring out how to get more accurate, specific, and natural responses from them in future conversations with human users.

  Translation bot

What, then, are the purposes and significance of these chat bots? They can be used for fraudulent purposes by getting people to divulge personal information about their lives, such as credit card and bank account numbers, and for mass spam and advertising on instant messaging and chat rooms. In terms of artificial intelligence, while so far the test has not be passed and robots cannot fully and effectively impersonate humans, the intelligence of such systems has been rapidly enhanced to the point where they are very close.

Siri on the iPhone 4S functions similarly in that it is a voice-recognizing intelligence program that allows people to use just their voices to perform functions on the cellular device. Siri understands what users say, what they mean and want, and responds accordingly with the information needed (by searching through databases and using web sources such as WolframAlpha, Yelp, and countless others). According to Apple, “It’s like you’re having a conversation with your iPhone.” These functions make Siri an efficient assistant and users’ daily lives easier and more convenient. However, because Siri can effectively comprehend what is being said and respond accordingly, it seems as if Siri can ‘think’, which has a variety of implications. In addition to the obvious, allowing criminals to more easily find how and where to bury dead bodies and people to find prostitutes in any given location through Suri’s vast database and other malicious purposes, there is now a foreseeable future of robots becoming intelligent enough to supplant humans in a variety of endeavors. Many also worry about loss of human control over computer-based intelligences, as we now grapple with the socioeconomic, legal, and ethical issues associated with the development of these artificial intelligence systems.

Works Cited

“A. L. I. C. E. The Artificial Intelligence Foundation.” A. L. I. C. E. The Artificial                          Linguistic Internet Computer Entity. Web. 9 Jan. 2012.             <http://alice.pandorabots.com/>.

“Chatterbot.” Chatterbot – Virtual Characters Chatting in Text Based Dialogs with            Humans. AI4US Ltd., 23 May 2010. Web. 9 Jan. 2012.             <http://www.chatbots.org/chatterbot/>.

“Chatterbot.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 18 Dec.                   2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatterbot>.

Chen, Brian X. “With Siri, the IPhone Finds Its Voice.” Wired.com. Condé Nast Digital,               11 Oct. 2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012.             <http://www.wired.com/reviews/2011/10/iphone4s/>.

Copeland, Jack B. The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic,    Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life Plus the Secrets of Enigma.           Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. Print.

“Decadent Vapours’ Chatterbox Challenge 2012.” Chatterboxchallenge.com. 2011. Web.               9 Jan. 2012. <http://www.chatterboxchallenge.com/>.

Laven, Simon. Chatterbot Central at The Simon Laven Page. 1996. Web. 9 Jan. 2012.                   <http://www.simonlaven.com/>.

The Oddcast Translation Bot. Photograph. Translation Tools – Oddcast and Google. EFL            Classroom, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 12 Jan. 2012.             <http://community.eflclassroom.com/profiles/blogs/translation-tools-oddcast-        and>.

Open Directory: Computers: Artificial Intelligence: Natural Language: Chatterbots.         Netscape, 1 Sept. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012.             <http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Artificial_Intelligence/Natural_Language/Chat              bots/>.

Photograph. Cult of Mac. CULTOMEDIA CORP, 13 Nov. 2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012.                    <http://www.cultofmac.com/129512/10-third-party-iphone-apps-that-apple-        should-integrate-with-siri/>.

“Practice Your English with Mike.” ESL – Writing. Eslfast.com, 2009. Web. 9 Jan. 2012.              <http://www.eslfast.com/robot/english_tutor.htm>.

“Siri.” IPhone 4S – Ask Siri to Help You Get Things Done. Apple, 2012. Web. 9 Jan.                     2012. <http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/siri.html>.

Topolsky, Joshua. “Siri Says Some Weird Things.” The Verge. Vox Media, Inc., 12 Oct.              2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theverge.com/2011/10/12/2486618/siri-           weird-iphone-4s>.

Wallace, Richard S. Video blog post. ALICEBOT. Alice A.I. Foundation, 10 Nov. 2011.               Web. 7 Jan. 2012. <http://alicebot.blogspot.com/>.

As of recently, hacking has emerged as a new form of political warfare, being used by political groups or even countries to steal data and/or threaten others. This newest war front is incredibly important, yet extremely vulnerable. As most information is now kept on computer files, hacking can prove to be both disruptive and dangerous to countries at large. Additionally, hacking has proven to be much different than conventional warfare – attackers can be nearly invisible while still inflicting great amounts of damage in short amounts of time. While hacking can occur under non-state actors (NSAs), the most threatening form of hacking is under state-sponsored hackers, who usually attempt to “collect military intelligence and affect economic activity” in a particular country (Barik).

It is this very type of hacking that is of great concern, precisely because of its implications. Hacking has been used to steal industrial secrets,  potentially resulting in the loss of billions of dollars’ worth of research and development. It has also been used numerous times to steal emails and other important sources of information, notably including attacks on Google in China and an attack on the IMF, which could have potentially resulted in the loss of economically-sensitive information. In one of the most overt attacks, a program was used to specifically disable Iranian uranium enrichment facilities. This program was later shown to be incredibly complex, most likely a state-sponsored effort. Thus, hacking has been used for a variety of political purposes, all of which threaten the safety of countries as a whole.

Yet as of now, it is almost impossible to prosecute hackers or fight back against these attacks. Despite the increasing threat and number of attacks, the U.S. has found itself largely unable to provide a strong deterrent to potential attackers, who are guarded by their governments and difficult to track. James Cartwright, a previous vice chairman to the Joint Chief of Staffs, has suggested that a full-throated U.S. policy is necessary, one that allows the U.S. to intervene on servers which pose a potential security threat (Baldor).

Others agree that it is time to fight back against cyberterrorism, calling for a “strong global cyber-terrorism law to get control over hacking” (Barik). Here, countries would cooperate to identify hacking and shut the sources down. This solution would be key in fighting back against the current state of cyber warfare. However, it will be a difficult solution to achieve, especially considering the transparency and cooperation necessary to achieve such a goal. As many countries benefit from their own hacking, they will be resistant to releasing a source of economic and political advantage. As such, the U.S. may be forced to consider more aggressive means of combating hacking. With so much at stake, from intellectual property to military secrets, state-sponsored hacking is one of the greatest political threats of the 21st century.

Works cited:

Baldor, Lolita. “Government-backed Hacker Teams do Most China-based Data Theft.” 12 Dec 2011. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-12-12/chinese-hackers/51830840/1

Barik, Dr. Niranjan. “Hacking: Novel Threat.” Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict. 2 Nov 2009. http://www.sspconline.org/opinion/HackingNovelThreat%20%20_NiranjanBarik_021109

We are all aware of the power and influence of the Internet. People have become progressively connected through networks and the accessibility of information online. Now, research is being done and progress is being made toward using the Internet to create solutions for some of the world’s increasingly pressing social problems, including the integration problem of immigrants.

As migration continues to accelerate, augmented by the changes in global employment, we become more and more desperate for an efficient, effective method of social integration for immigrants. The concept of using the Internet stems from the fact that immigrants are in need of networks to develop connections with others, and realize their potential in social, and economic realms. Online social networks may help to address this issue.

Social networks can be defined as a social structures made up of individuals or organizations, which are connected by common interest. They are a way of visualizing clusters of connections and complex, real interactions between people, and a means through which information can be spread, and bonds can be made and strengthened. Social networking sites provide an innovative, unique form of interaction between members of social networks. They serve as an added layer to social interaction with real-life equivalence, and have the potential to change social dynamics by galvanizing their underlying social networks and the people involved.

Social Network Analysis is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers or other information and knowledge processing entities (Valdis Krebs, 2002). SNA helps us to comprehend and utilize existing social networks and increasingly powerful social networking sites. Ereteo and others advocate the benefits of the use of semantic web technologies to exploit online social networks and aid their analysis using SNA. Using such analysis, we can provide immigrants with a simple, effective means through which they can develop connections and form new friendships. This would strongly associate them with the community within these social networks (new and old), and increase the likelihood and extent of their acceptance into society. The power of identity as seen on certain successful social networking sites, such as Facebook, closely resembles reality where people naturally associate themselves with their interests and affiliations, and feel a sense of belonging as a result. According to Ereteo, this membership in new networks would empower immigrants to make changes toward real social problem solutions.

What is the effectiveness of this method in ‘solving’ the immigrant problem? Why would it help? The differences in immigrants’ economic and social ability to those in their new environment make it hard for them to settle in, adjust, and find job vacancies and niches in society that fit their skillset and qualities and needs. Using networks, which increase connectedness, proliferation of information, power, and influence, would provide opportunities to seek employment that adequately matches their skills, and a sense of community. The belief that all individuals in the world are connected to each other in some way, derived from psychologist Stanley Milgram who conducted the Small World Experiment in 1967 and concluded that everyone is separated from each other by six degrees, is helpful here. The world has gotten smaller in terms of accessibility and connections between people have become more intricate, a trend which has been enhanced by the creation and rise of social networks. People from vastly different backgrounds, geographic locations and networks can easily connect with each other on an online, virtual level, which can heavily influence real-life interactions.

The rise and increasingly popularity of online social networks around the world necessitate in-depth analysis through SNA to determine their impact, which we can use to offer solutions to real, global problems and come up with ways to use the Internet as a site for effective social change. Does the same technology/use of the Internet have other benefits? Can other social problems be solved with equal or varying efficiency? What does the future hold for the Internet and its capacity for change? The possibilities are endless, and only time will tell.

Works Cited

Ereteo, Guillaume, Fabien Gandon, Olivier Corby, and Michel Buffa. “Semantic Social      Network Analysis.” Web Science Repository, 20 Mar. 2009. Web. 3 Jan. 2012.       <http://journal.webscience.org/141/2/websci09_submission_43.pdf>.

Krebs, Valdis. “Social Network Analysis, A Brief Introduction.” Orgnet.com. 2002. Web.            3 Jan. 2012. <http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html>.

Maric, Jasmina. “Web Communities as a Tool for the Social Integration of Immigrants.”               Web Science Repository, 20 Mar. 2009. Web. 3 Jan. 2012.   <http://journal.webscience.org/133/2/websci09_submission_35.pdf>.

Salaff, Janet W., Arent Greve, Siu-Lun Wong, and Lynn Xu Li Ping. “Ethnic                                 Entrepreneurship, Social Networks, and the Enclave.” Approaching   Transnationalism: Transnational Societies, Multicultural Contacts, and      Imaginings of Home. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.

The internet has definitely been a big player in the past decade. While most people I know will say that the internet has been a great positive force for mankind, there are also people with a different opinion. Some of these people go as far to say that it has been the biggest destructive force of our time. Some argue that the internet has ruined TV: the huge increase in channels has led to a decrease in quality of content, and the internet takes away viewers from the TV networks. Some also argue that the internet has ruined music: CDs are becoming obsolete, songs are being pirated left and right, and music industries have had to cede control over to companies like Apple.

On these two claims, I beg to differ. Sure, what they say about the increase in channels and increase in internet use is true, but this change is not necessarily a negative one. While pirating of TV shows does happen, the majority of people who watch TV shows online is still through legitimate sources like Hulu. In terms of music, pirating is a bigger issue. However, the internet also gives a big advantage: people are exposed to new music much more easily. The way I see it, the popular artists still make lots of money, and the less popular artists not so much. What’s different is that the less popular artists have a much better chance of getting lucky and getting famous than artists of the past. With services like Pandora exposing users to new and possibly obscure music all the time, people are much more likely to discover new music than when music was only transferred through CDs. The internet can definitely become a asset for these industries, as long as they are willing to change and adapt.

One industry that I agree has suffered because of the internet is the newspaper industry. With information so easily available online for free, US newspapers, which have existed for about 300 years, are beginning to go out of business. Some companies have tried charging for services online, and some have been successful. However, when one can find the same information for free elsewhere, even these companies struggle. Newspapers have in fact become the least liked source of news for the younger generation of our time, and unfortunately, there is probably not much we can do to save the majority of them now.

Sources:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman

http://2010.newsweek.com/essay/a-decade-of-destruction.html