Spreading of Technology

I will be discussing the programs that give computers to third world countries.  It seems like a great idea and there are a lot of positives but what are some negatives?

A negative could be that it exposes the children to different types of cultures and the older population might not be ok with that.  Also, if the government of the nation does not like what is being looked at on the computer that too can cause friction between the population and the government.

What are your thoughts on these type of programs? Are they all good?

Scaled Down Population Statistics

While on Pinterest, I found a link to the diagram to the left. It shows varying statistics based on the world being only made of 100 people. The statistics are the same as with the current population, just on a much smaller scale.

Honestly, I found the statistics shocking. When it is on a larger scale it doesn't seem like that many people. But when it is only on a scale of 100, it suddenly looks so much larger.

The statistic I found most surprising was the one on college education. In today's time it seems that everyone goes to college or is in college. My friend pointed out to me that this diagram is based on the world, not just America. In America, it may be true that most go to college, but when averaged with the rest of the world's population, it is only a small percentage.

Another statstic I found surprising was the one with the nationality divisions. It often seems that North America is the powerhouse of the world, and that the majority of the population is in that region. But Asia's population is much more dense than North America's, so it makes sense that Asia is at 61/100, while North America is only 13/100.

What is your opinion? Do you think this is an accurate diagram? What is most surprising to you?

Shoes Movement, Helpful or Hurtful?

Shoes. Something we, in America, consider to be an everyday commodity. But in some parts of the world, shoes are a luxury. Shoes impact more of a person’s life than I originally thought. I knew there were health risks with not wearing shoes, such as injuries and infections. But it is more than that. For children, not having shoes to wear could mean not receiving an education, because in some schools, shoes are required to attend classes.

Toms is a popular shoe brand, with a variety of styles to accommodate men, women, children, and infants. But the company does much more than just shoe production. Toms has a “one for one” program, where every time a Toms shoe is bought, the company matches that and gives a shoe to a child in need. They provide shoes to children in countries such as El Salvador, Malawi, Peru, and Haiti. The corporation has grown over the last few years and now not only provide a one to one trade for shoes, but also a one to one trade for eyeglasses. Toms also assists in funding eye exams, and eye surgery.

By providing shoes to underprivileged countries, Toms is reducing the money families spend on shoes, allowing that money to be spent elsewhere. However, there has been a controversy over just how much good Toms is actually doing. A blog countering Toms approach describes their intentions as "good marketing, bad aid." While it is a noble mission, it is doing about as much harm as it is good. When shoes are given for free, it takes away from the local markets and removes jobs as shoemakers.

Regardless of whether or not you support the cause, Toms' marketing strategies, and the form by which they raise awareness is one to be modeled after. One Day Without Shoes, is a global event where people go an entire day without wearing shoes to raise awareness on the impact shoes can have on a child's life.

I want to hear your opinion, is what Toms is doing hurting or helping?

Bomb Threats

This week alone at Texas A&M University in College Station there have been many bomb threats called in. This post is very personal to me because I have a ton of friends that go to there. Since I speak to my friends daily, they have been telling me that despite the threats, class is still going on there. To me this was not only very concerning for the safety of all the people, but I almost cried at the thought of such violence. When I searched the news, I found an article that said that the reason why class was still in attendance is because the Bomb threats weren't credible. However, they took "measures" by heightening security. 

According to Texas A&M's website, a bomb threat is defined as "a verbal threat to detonate an explosive or incendiary device to cause property damage or injuries, whether or not such a device actually exists." Also, their protocol, if having received a call, is to evacuate buildings and classes. You can read more about their protocols here. 

While I am sure they had reason to believe that these threats weren’t credible it still concerns me that they continued on with class. I also believe that since this is the week before spring break some crazy student wanted to get out of class. But this does not dismiss the fact that the bomb threats could have been real. 

A few years ago in 2010, there was believed to be shooter in a tower. While it turned out to be nothing but a student with a toy gun, classes were dismissed, the campus evacuated, and police called in (cant find a link for this but I remember this myself). I remember calling my friends a million times to make sure they were ok. I was so worried to the point when one of them didn’t answer that I cried. 

My point is, is if this much effort is taken for a potential shooting, why not for bomb threats? A bomb could kill way more people than a gun could if both threats were real. Also, a bomb could destroy a whole building. 

To me, all of this unsettling and very scary to think of. I wonder if Schreiner had a bomb threat, how would security handle that? I would like to think security would take it very seriously. Also, I wonder if bigger schools are more likely to brush it off and smaller schools are willing to take it more seriously? Also, I wonder if this is more common in bigger cities? What do you think? 

Robo- Barbie

What is the next major advancement in technology? Man invented the wheel and now the iPhone. Robotic machinery was invented to serve mankind doing repetitive tasks accurately and with no mistakes.  The idea of robots though as substitute people has been advanced in Japan … robots no longer just being used in a utilitarian capacity but now becoming … real people, real people, friends, playmates maybe even replacements for children, husbands and wives. When your human child creates chaos they go to timeout; when the robot throws a rod they get repaired, reprogrammed or turned off. Who needs the aggravation of real life with real problems?

             Maybe Mattel’ s next big project could be Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken. They would look like a full-sized child or even adults and will have many different features, which will allow the parents or the children to have endless fun. Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken will be the next hot toy… a technological toy that everyone wants.

Picture you lying in bed late at night and one of those info-commercials comes on:

 “Do you have a young child that is just a handful and you do not have the time to take care of them? Do you have child that does not play with others very well? Or maybe you do not have time to take your child on a play date.  Don’t be concerned, don’t worry, we have just the toy for you!  Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken are the toys you need, but get them while supplies last. Robot playmates are a safe economical replacement for peer pressure toys, clothes and expensive vacations. The Robo-Twins can even call your children, texting them the latest gossip and through Blue Tooth, send them the latest Hollywood and music news.

No longer will your children be faced with sex and drug enticements. The Robo-Twins are a great alternative to that crabby old best friend. The Robots can even babysit.

Barbie and Ken could also be a teacher, a friend, a lover. They could teach the alphabet and even read to you. You could load books on to their hard drive and they could read out loud to your child. While Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken will surpass the Turing Test designed for adults, you will also come to love them as much as your children.

The new improved Barbie and Ken is a toy you can take anywhere and not worry about being lonely. They would have real life features like eyes that blink, a heartbeat, and even fake blood. You can choose from different sized Robo-Barbies and Robo-Kens. Choose the size, the color, the race, be the first on your block. You could even choose Baby Robo-Barbie. If you wanted to you could feed them and they could fake pee and poop, and you could change its diaper if you wanted. It would act almost like a real life human.” Or as the advertisement might say: “Maybe you don’t need real children; you just need Robo-Barbie.”

        Will robo-technology be an advancement to serve humans or a substitute for human interaction? Will humans find it easier to live with the perfect sister, son, or husband? Can robo-technology transplant Robo-Barbie in our affections where love has no downside? Can we create a robot with a soul? More questions than answers?

Government Interference in our Food Choices

           The recent actions by Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago to ban certain popular vending machine items and Mayor Bloomberg of New York to limit the size of soft drinks has kindled the debate over the limits of government intervention in public and private health. Lost in the political and legal debate of these actions is the even more fundamental philosophical and ethical debate. Where does government intervention for the public good stop and the Nanny State begin? Based on current knowledge, the issue of isolated obesity does not warrant governmental intervention in the diet decisions of the adult individual, and government should serve primarily an educational role for minors and their parents.

            Malnutrition can be under-nutrition or over-nutrition. Statistics show a definite correlation between obesity and health issues, but the direct cause and effect may not be as dramatic as previously believed. That is not to say that malnutrition is not a concern. “You are what you eat,” is an old but accurate adage. If you eat healthy foods, you are more likely to be able to live a healthy lifestyle. Making good food choices is key to every healthy life style. With terrible food choices all around, it is hard to make the right ones constantly.

           According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), obesity is common, serious, and costly to deal with. More than one-third (35.7%) of adults of the United States are considered to be obese. Not only are you worried about your weight; you also need to be worried about your health. “Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer.” Along with acquiring health problems, you have increases of medical cost. In 2008, obese people were estimated to pay about $1,429 more than someone who was of normal weight, and overall U.S. medical costs associated with obesity were estimated to be at $147 billion (CDC).

            Although, the United States belt sizes are expanding, is it really right for others to intervene?

           (Governments point …. Obama care and government care is tax payer supported therefore we can for the good of the village tell you what to eat and going forward ban food we think is unhealthy for you and even withdraw healthcare if you continue to violate our directives)

           Does the government have such powers granted to them by the constitution to mandate health care and diet and restrictions against private business to sell us the food we want? Can pig farmers be restricted because bacon makes some people fat?

          Can milk producers and dairies be stopped making BLUE BELL!!!??  

Is living on Mars the Best Option?

Recently in class we were discussing overpopulation and perhaps colonizing Mars by at least 2023. After all, Mars shows some similar salt deposits that can be found in Rio Tinto Basin, Huelva. These salt deposits are coherent with water. Life on Mars has long been debated over its existence and potential existence (you can read about life on Mars here). While people are adamant about colonizing Mars, does anyone know about some of the potential harmful effects that it can cause?

Recently in my physics class we were discussing magnetic fields and an interesting picture was shown. 

This picture shows the earth's magnetic field protecting earth from most of the suns radiation. Even when the poles flip, the earth will still mostly be protected from the suns radiation.  However, when you compare this image to an image of Mars you will see something interesting. What is shown is less protection against the suns radiation. The fact that there is increased radiation on Mars, and thus an increased risk in cancer is even supported by NASA.

NASA has even begun a debate of whether it is safe enough to colonize Mars. Some have suggested instead of colonizing Mars, we should consider the possibility of colonizing the moon first. You can read about the benefits of colonizing the moon first here.

So my question to others is: Is living on Mars the best option or is there a suitable alternative? Furthermore, is colonizing a foreign planet necessary?