cyborg can do anything better than you

Cyborg Can Do Anything Better Than You

Cyborgs have been in movies since the 1960's, and it finally looks like they will become reality. With technology advancing so rapidly, this looks like a real it might become a real possibility. This should sound exciting, being have robotic sounds awesome. You could almost do anything, if you were a cyborg. Just think a the possibilities, amputees would be able to have their appendages back, blind people could have a robotic eye and be able to see (again or for the first time) and many other amazing feats (and that's not including selfish things like being able to control house functions by something inside of you). Although I am for most of this technology but let's look at the issue closer so can judge this topic better.

Let's first look at the bad side of this issue. The phrase all men are created equal would almost be a laughable pun. If the poor didn't feel a divide in status from those that are richer, they certainly would now. These new improvements would cause an even bigger divide then there already is. Instead of plastic surgery people would get cyborg parts to enhance themselves. It seems like the rich have a hard enough time not getting plastic surgery, if they could get robots parts in them, they would go crazy! Ok, so some people are pretty much robots, what's the big deal? Well, there would almost be no point in playing/doing anything physically strenuousness. Doesn't sound to bad, but that's one thing I love in life. The ability to watch someone do something amazing because of hard work and the right type of training is something human love to do. Don't believe me, then why are the Olympics so popular! Playing sports would become a joke, now the fans watching at home could actually do everything that they see their sports hero is doing. That't not all, people think that guns are a problem, just think of gangs of half robots. And then at what point do these "people" not becoming people and start to become machine? I can't imagine a life that doesn't have a humanity side. These limitations can also be what makes us great.

I'm not going to talk to much for the other side, I think that it is pretty self explanatory. I think that most people have pretended that some part of their body was a machine and then were able to do amazing things. We could now do these amazing things, and I do think that it is a good idea. And for some this would give them not only intrinsic happiness but also instrumental, which would make these "upgrade" something worth investing in.

Nanotechnology, the Smaller You Go the More Questions There Are

Nanotechnology, the Smaller You Go the More Questions There Are

Nanotechnology has been in the news lately and will be more and more for the coming years. Everyone always comments on how small everything is getting. From the first computers to smartphones that can do more than a computer from the 20th century. Not only are these electronics getting smaller, but they are getting faster and able to do more! If this trend continues then soon we will have technology that cannot be seen by the naked eye even. Well guess what these already exist and we will only see more of this in the future.

 These machines give humans an almost unlimited possibility to do anything. From the medical field to the energy sector. These little things will be everywhere. Just imagine a world where humans can build anything, even a molecule. Where everything can be made cheaply, efficiently and however one would like it. Even batteries would be able to hold exponentially more energy. Now if we start to talk about the molecular level things really start to get fun. Being able to bio-engineering things would be incredible. Jurassic Park might not be something that is just a science fiction film. Then the medical field would be hit hard by these machines. From new smart drugs that could be administered in new ways, to nanobots that help our immune system fight off diseases.

The benefits are so numerous, it seems ridiculous to even consider a bad side to nanotechnology, but this is the most important part for discussion. There are, what Tavani calls the pessimistic view, six categories where developments in molecular manufacturing could result in disaster. These categories are: Severe economic disruption, Premeditated misuse in warfare and terrorism, Surveillance with nano-level tracking devices, Extensive environmental damage, Uncontrolled self-replication, and Misuse by criminals and terrorists. These are the major issues that arise when talking about what can go wrong with these nano-machines. Then there are the issues of privacy and control, longevity and runaway nanobots. Any one of these issues are full paragraphs by themselves, but I will just touch up on them. With nanotechnology being so small people would feel like they are being watched constantly which, so there will need to be some rules and regulation in which it will not be legal to tape someone. Longevity isn't a major issue, there will always be an equalizer here, which in the human case might be the destruction of all resources on the planted, killing everything on earth. Runaway technology is always a what if scenario that humans like to play. Many movies have been off this idea, I'm looking at you The Terminator and The Matrix. Once these issues are addressed and made so that they are minimized, then we will have the utopia that nanotechnology can give us.


Tavani, Herman. Ethics and Technology. 3rd. California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Print.

Why Autonomous Cars are the Ethical Way to go

One of the inventions of the future that has been synonymous with science fiction movies of the past have been cars that drive themselves. This would be great on the surface, not having to worry about driving would make those long road trip a heck of a lot easier. When we actually take a look at these types of cars bunches of ethical issues come up. The biggest one that people get into is "who is held liable if the car crashes?" Let's use professional ethics and put it on the company that sold them the car, or perhaps the programming company that sold the car dealership the driver program. These kinds of questions keep on popping up.

Although there are negative points associated with automated cars, I will try to argue for this technology (as long as it doesn't follow apple maps). The creators of this technology are sure to take into account the number of lives that could be at stake if one part of the code went wrong. No one would release a project of this magnitude before it is ready to be released. With this in mind, they wont release this program until it would be a better driver than the average person driving. Also this program would be affected by little things like, a strange noise, night time driving (a educated guess here), or emotions are just a few. This would lead to less car accidents, which in turn would save lives. Almost every single ethical standpoint indicates that this is what we should do then. Saving lives would be the an instrumental good that would weigh heavier than any other intrinsic good would. There are plenty of other benefits from these types of cars, but the only other one that I will point out is that with this technology more people will be able to get around then they would have in the past. Take a blind man for example. There is no way that he would be able to drive in these current condition, but with the help of these cars he now could go where ever he wanted to without solely relying on other people. This would be amazing for them!

 Well regardless, it looks as though autonomous cars are going to in our lives whether one likes it or not. In the state of California they have approved of letting the google self-driving car on the streets, there is a human in the passenger seat for safety measures though. Some have ever speculated that in as little as five years there will be these cars on the road. That's why this is an ethical issue that needs to be discussed now before it already happens.

Has the Army Gone to Far

Has the Army Gone to Far

        It has resonantly come to my attention that there was place called The Army Experience Center. In it
they had 19 X-box's, 60 computer (that one could play a pc game), a actual simulator (that took you through a possible army scenario) and much more. On top of all of that, all the games are free to play. Something sounds fishy, and everyone has heard the saying if it's too good to be true it probably is. Although the center has already been shut down, by protesters or by the military itself, there still might pop up more like this one around the United States.



It states, on the official homepage of the United States Army, the goal was "offer visitors the opportunity to virtually experience many aspects of Army life, while evaluating new marketing strategies." Later on the page it states that Hansen (part of Ignited Corporation who partnered with the Army on the project) "The center is an attraction tool. There is no recruiting mission here. Here it is more about changing perceptions." If there is no recruiting missions, then why are they evaluating new marketing strategies? What it seems like is they are trying to recruit people without explicitly saying that they are recruiting people. In a video that PBS published it is explained that you have to be 13 or older to enter and the employees (all apart of the Army) are not to try to recruit anyone under 17.
Although there are a lot of people against this Center, I will take the position of fore this time. Kid are already going to play most of these games, if they do actually have questions about how these games related to real life there is no one better then a branch of the military to explain to them the difference. With this in mind I can now say that according to professional ethics, it's not the person who uses the technology but the person who creates it. The Army is already going to try to recruit you, this just gives them a better way to do it. It's smart, and there will be plenty of people that use this centers services that will not join the army, it's not a contract. 
Lastly I just want to point out that although I myself am not in the military, they are a necessity for America. There is no debate there, we need a military in order to, at the very least, protect ourselves. Without the military finding new ways to recruit people it will end up dying out, or worse yet they will bring back a draft like system. 

Why Wikileaks Made a Bad Move For Donations

Why Wikileaks Made a Bad Move for Donations

As of Thursday October 11, 2012 Wikileaks will now require you to donate in order to view some, if not all, of it's documents. This move by Julian Assange and his team came about because Wikileaks has had a lack of funds recently, due to almost every type of payment method has put a ban on donating to them. This move has made some people a little angry though, one of the most recognizable ones would be Anonymous. Anonymous has been one of Wikileaks biggest supporters in the past. It was stated by Anonymous that  "We have been worried about the direction WikiLeaks is going for a while. In the recent month the focus moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information further and further while it concentrated more and more on Julian Assange.", adding that "awesome idea ruined by egos".

The legality of the Wikileaks site and of Julain's actions has been a thing of debate over the past few years, but the main purpose of the site was to  provide the public with information that would otherwise be kept secret by industries and governments. With this being said, it seems like a direct contradiction of what they were trying to do in the first place. It also seems like it's not ethical to make people donate in order to get information out that Wikileaks thinks the people ought to know. Of course the site need to get some money in order to keep the site up and running properly, but by using this way it doesn't seem like it will produce the most good for the people. In fact, in my opinion, it will make the site so uninviting that Wikileaks will lose most of the people that used to view the site.

Although I think I might be able to argue my point with most of the ethical theories, I'm going to do it with duty based. Since they preached at the beginning that they wanted to release information to the public that should have been in the first place, they should stick to their duty to do so. If they now make it so you have to donate before viewing their articles they are now not only limiting who can view their articles (poor people can no longer) but having people who already really want to read an article and support Wikileaks are going to read it. Well if they create this small circle in which people will/can view their information they have, then there is not real big difference between this and the government just holding onto the information. If this is the case then they shouldn't have the site because Wikileaks is no longer preforming its duties that it previously set up for itself.

Apple Maps

Apple Maps

Now you probably have heard by now just how bad the new Apple maps are. I some cases they literally tell the user that the place to which they want to go is in the ocean. Yeah real helpful there Apple. So what do they do to correct this "epic failure"? Cook's official statement is this "While we’re improving Maps, you can try alternatives by downloading map apps from the App Store like Bing, MapQuest and Waze, or use Google or Nokia maps by going to their websites and creating an icon on your home screen to their web app." Basically what this boils down to is that you should do something about it, not Apple but you the costumer who bought the product. Sure Apple has come up with a few great inventions, but is that grounds enough for them to produce something so mediocre? They are releasing products as the full version when they are just in the beta form. This is the same as Siri, although they did at least call that Siri beta to let everyone know that it was not a finished product. However, people still buy all of apples knew things no matter how much it is flawed. Is apple really to blame though? As the consumer we have a responsibility to make sure that we want to buy something before we buy it. Apple even states "APPLE MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THIS DOCUMENT, ITS QUALITY, ACCURACY, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. AS A RESULT, THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS", AND YOU ARE ASSUMING THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO ITS QUALITY AND ACCURACY." This is exactly what Helen Nissenbaum talks about in her article Computing and Accountability. This is an example of ownership without liability, one of the four barriers to accountability. In this case, it is my personal belief that apple should own up and correct their mistake. They are one of the top tech companies and they need to show why they are. They should be paving the way so that other companies will follow, not slack off and do the bare minimum. Sure they might lose some money, but it's not like they can't afford it. I'm sure that Apple will release a version of maps that does work and do a good job at it, but I think that the process of how they got there deserves a look at too. Sure this app probably didn't cause anyone direct harm, but it could have if someone followed it blindly and it suddenly freaked out on them while they were driving at a high speed. Who knows how it might have hurt someone because Apple was careless.

Can We Stop Hackers Before They Hack?

Can We Stop Hackers Before They Hack?

Hacking is a big problem in the world right now. With computers so knew, we don't know how to properly protect ourselves. Even companies such as Sony are having these problems. So how do we stop this from happening, or is there even a way to? One thing that's been done is Cyberpatriot. This program is in association with U.S. Air Force so you would think that everything is "kosher", right"? Well what they are trying to teach these kids might be used for good or for evil, who knows. They don't have a vetting process. They say that this is like a 4-H program or the scouts, but what they are teaching these kids could just as well be used for evil then for good. Another big one is Cyber Challenge. The directer of Cyber Challenge is a former chief information officer for George W. Bush administration, so again should be safe. Well they do not do background checks as well. Even if they did, is there truly a way in which we can screen for malicious intentions? Karen Evens (the director) doesn't think it is possible. They do say that they "request professional references or teacher recommendations from high school and university students wanting to attend the program’s summer boot camps." They Also have an ethics panel discussion with the campers, which include panelists from the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI. With so many programs in place why are we still hearing about all these hacking taking place? Well here is one example of the program not going according to plan. The University of Maryland funds a cyber conference, which is nationally recognized, where they have a proverbial "hackaton". Cody Kretsinger and Raynaldo Rivera where members, or practiced with, the UAT that went to the Western Regional Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition. These same two kids where the ones that got the blame for the Sony attacks in 2011. They were a part of the group notoriously know as LulzSec, a group known for hacking into places where they shouldn't. Even when you make something with the purpose of good in mind, some will always bend it for evil, so how much are these programs helping more than hurting? Only time will tell, and if possible I would like to see a case study of the peoples lives after they participated in these sorts of gatherings.

Heres there main article that I read, that you can read if you would like to read more http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2012/09/stop-computer-prodigies-they-hack/57884/?oref=ng-HPtopstory