Education Considerations

I am excited to be in the education group for the final project.  It is a topic that has always interested me.  Call me crazy, but my dream job would be a high school teacher.  That will never happen though because my future role as a husband and father cannot and will not be carried out with a teacher's salary.  I believe that this is one of the reasons that our pre-university education system in the U.S. is slipping.  From my experience in public schools, there are a considerable amount of teachers that are not good at teaching..  Just because a person is knowledgeable in a subject area does not mean that that person is able to teach that subject effectively.  Teaching is its own subject area.  It is a separate skill.  Effective teaching equally requires both knowledge in the subject taught and the ability to teach.  I had two teachers my senior year that were valedictorians of their high schools, and they honestly did not do teach very well at all.  I am not saying that I am a good teacher.  I would want to be one, but for now the subject of teaching and our education system easily interest me.

Another area to consider in the realm of education is funding.  The image above shows the average amount of money that public schools are allowed per student.  More money per student does not always mean better test scores. 

 http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/volunteering/101-the-ins-and-outs-of-school-finance.

I have really liked the idea of self-directed learning in this course.  When I first heard we would be doing self-directed learning it sounded like it might be a joke of a class, but once I began to actually learn in this manner for the class, I started to thorough enjoy it and consequently I began to learn more.  It was because I was learning about what I wanted to learn about.  We of course were assigned books on certain subject material, but it was probably necessary to give some initial base or direction.  However, I do not think that self-directed learning is a substitute for structured or instructor-directed learning.  A little bit of both gives a solid foundation without compromising individuality.  

Something that does compromise individuality is standardization.  This is the most  

Movie Rental Industry: Adapt, Migrate, or Die

In a capitalist economy, companies will eventually have to adapt, migrate, or die.  In my opinion, the ideal option to do is adapt to markets when possible rather than move to other markets.  In the movie rental/streaming industry, the company that is most convenient wins out.  To adapt this industry, a company needs to become more convenient than the other options.  Price, availability of receiving merchandise, proximity, and movie selection are all factors that contribute to the convenience of a movie rental/streaming company.  From evaluating some of these factors, it is clear why certain companies in this industry prosper or dwindle.  

 

Blockbuster has long been the giant of the movie rental industry.  During its time was also Hollywood Video and Movie Gallery (Hollywood Video eventually bought out Movie Gallery).  The initial concept of these stores was great at the time, and these stores, especially Blockbuster, did very well because they was relatively convenient.  Why buy when you can rent?  That was the initial idea.  The competition between movie rental stores to become more convenient was illustrated by Blockbuster's long-anticipated removal of late fees.

These types of stores still exist today, but they are on the sharp decline as the much more convenient concept of, you guessed it, streaming.  In the graph above you can see a clear correlation between the rise of Netflix and the fall of Blockbuster.  Blockbuster tried to combat this with its own mail-in movies and streaming, which it still utilizes, but Netflix still won out.

The most important deduction from this convenience phenomenon is that Netflix is going to want to continue to adapt if it wishes to remain the forerunner.  However, they might have adapted in the completely wrong direction at least once. When Netflix saw its lead in the industry, it decided to try to raise prices and even decided to split streaming and DVD services.  This quickly lost them hundreds of thousands of accounts, and they aborted the plan, but again, the damage was done.  Netflix has since attempted to adapt by focusing primarily on TV shows rather than movies.  It has also attempted to migrate somewhat by expanding into the UK and Ireland, but many experts say that this is clearly moving too quickly. 

Once Film-Focused, Netflix Transitions to TV Shows

So who is the future bright for right now? The vending machine.  Redbox requires actually going to but it is available in convenient places like gas stations or grocery stores which are places people are going to go to anyway.  Redbox is cheap and they weren't jerks like Netflix was.  Also, they are currently teaming up with Verizon to begin to offer a mobile streaming service in the near future.  Blockbuster is adapting and is still alive, and it is putting out its version of vending machines as Redbox's top vending competitor.  The movie rental industry is anybody's game right now.  The most convenient will win out.  Personally, I'm pulling for Redbox.

GREAT Links!

Redbox Threatens Netflix

Redbox and Verizon to Create Streaming Mobile Service

4 Things Redbox Streaming Service Needs to Beat Netflix and Amazon

Televised Politics: Presentation Skills

The presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was a major event of the 20th century.  This debate on September 26, 1960 marked television's grand and lasting entrance into presidential politics.  It was the first chance for so many potential voters to actually see their candidates in competition.  Studies after this televised event found that the audience of 70 million claimed by a large margin that Kennedy was the winner of the debate.  In contrast, the debate's radio audience claimed that Nixon was the winner.  At the time, Nixon was just released from two weeks in the hospital, was underweight, and refused to wear make-up to brighten his image.  Kennedy on the other hand looked confident, tan, and well-rested.

Many concluded from this that those who tuned into the debate via television were focused on what they saw rather than what was actually said.  Kennedy looked better and had a more smooth, charismatic feel about him.  His appearance a difference.  Does that mean that televising politics is wrong? No.

Televising politics really did change the nature of presidential politics.  It has been a technological advancement responsible for an increase of informed participation in the political process.  Also, the importance of personal image has become a more important factor for candidates which I believe is not necessarily a bad thing.  As the world is inevitably becoming more televised and globalized.  How a politician presents him or herself is important in making negotiations, addressing the public, and bringing confidence to a nation. How a person presents him or herself is completely different than physical appearance, but sadly physical appearance has become an unavoidable determining characteristic for politicians as well.

Also, there is a fine line between presenting oneself well and being a flatterer.  The Book of Mormon was truly written for our day.  In Mosiah 11:7 it says,

   

"..they were deceived by the vain and flattering words of the king and priests; for they did speak flattering things unto them."

When I think of general authorities for the church, I think that not necessarily every one of them is the most handsome man to walk the earth (don't get me wrong, I think they are all great) but they are all do a fine job of presenting themselves.  They don't tell us things just because that is what we want to hear.  They aren't flatterers.  We can look for the presenters without choosing flatterers.

Televised politics allows voters to recognize presenting skills of candidates which is an important consideration for candidates which is hopefully prioritized after considerations of actual issues.  Although presentation skills are important for politicians, they are all too often weighted too heavily.  We should be aware that televising politics is virtually unavoidable and creates both positive and negative effects in regard to informing voters.  

Below is a link of a YouTube video called "BUSH: The 10 most stupid moments of his life."  If these were my top 10 most stupid moments, I would be proud of myself.  However, it does have to do with the importance of self-presentation and composure in political office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D4uAW_3Gjg

Digital Use and Abuse

Due to the recent devotional on Valentine's Day, I have been considering my use of digital technology.  I've been considering my usage time and my usage purposes.  I feel that God has willingly allowed us to grow in our digital technologies exponentially.  There is, however, opposition in all things.  It is important to reflect on our own usage, and not just eliminate it completely.  I know people have talked about this many times from our class, but it is a topic that takes personal realization to have any real impact.  From what I have learned, my argument is similar to that of David A. Bednar's which is expressed in the video below: Digital technologies, like all of God's gifts, can be used resourcefully and abused wastefully, so we need to assess ourselves accordingly.

David A. Bednar.  "Things as They Really Are."  Mormon Messages.

From an LDS standpoint we often view the internet as a potential good technology because it can be used for family history/genealogy, and we view it as a potential bad technology because it can be used for the viewing of pornographic images.  These potentials are both obvious and extreme in opposite directions.  It is important for us to recognize everything in between.  

The following link shows the most popular internet activities.  If you view this table you will see that the vast majority of these activities can be done productively and appropriately.  I have come to find that reflecting on and accordingly adjusting these various activities based on their real use can go a long way.  On my last blog post alone I got distracted while researching and ended up checking Facebook twice and watching four completely unrelated YouTube videos.  I knew this was a problem and that is part of the reason I am writing this.

I have had my Facebook account since the summer of 2008.  I have been on it enough to know its potential for bluntly both good and evil.  It really can be evil in that misuse of it will lead to wasted irreplaceable time.  It leads to missed opportunities to do so many more important things in our limited mortal existence.  It is a sin, most often of omission, but a sin nonetheless, to not take advantage of the gift of this earthly life that our Father in heaven has provided for each of us.  That being said, there are also several great capabilities made easy through Facebook, and they are valuable enough to possibly prevent me from ever deleting my account.  From keeping up with the colleges my high school friends get into, to seeing pictures of family members back home, to knowing about upcoming events, there is no doubt that we can utilize it appropriately.  But too much of a good thing isn't always good anyway.  The following infographic-style video hits on how widespread Facebook usage is.  (Usually I don't include two videos in one post)

( http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/facebook-statistics-stats-facts-2011/ )

Today is the day that I put StayFocused on my Google Chrome browser.  I am starting by limiting my time on Facebook to 10 minutes a day.  It is will actually be hard for me on some days, but I know it is a good start.  I have had friends who said it was very helpful, and it improved their productivity significantly.  I would pass on their recommend to you for any site you could definitely use some limited time on.

I also want to illustrate that improvements of digital technology are gifts from God.  With everything that God gives us comes the opportunity to use and abuse through agency.  He gives us the ability to reproduce and people abuse that.  He has allowed us to have cars, and people drive recklessly or avoid exercise.  He has allowed us to have drugs for medical purposes, and people abuse them.  All of his gifts to us can be abused, but that does not mean that we should not ever use them.  Just think of all the capabilities that recent improvements in digital technology can have on spreading the gospel and improving the lives of saints.  I think this is just as true as how God led the Reformation in order to make the world readier to accept the restored gospel.  In Preach My Gospel it says,

“After centuries of spiritual darkness, truth-seeking men and women protested against the current religious practices. They recognized that many of the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel had been changed or lost. They sought for greater spiritual light, and many spoke of the need for a restoration of truth. They did not claim, however, that God had called them to be a prophet. Instead, they tried to reform teachings and practices that they believed had been changed or corrupted. Their efforts led to the organization of many Protestant churches. This Reformation resulted in an increased emphasis on religious freedom, which opened the way for the final Restoration.”

The Reformation was a medium in which the earth was prepared for the gospel, and improvements in digital technology are a medium in which the gospel is able to spread.

Just to clarify, I really enjoyed Elder Bednar's words on this topic that I shared at the beginning of this post, and if you get anything at all from this post, you should get it from him.

Gamification on a personal level

Gamification has caused a lot of conversation recently.  At first glance, some may feel that it creates unbalanced priorities, but I feel that it can serve as a motivation to do something that we already know is good.

Nike set up Nike+ which is program set up to track running.  Nike+ gathers this information and creates competition between runners which can lead to more running. http://nikerunning.nike.com/nikeos/p/nikeplus/en_US/what_is_nike_plus

The examples we have been using including the one above have been mostly involving how influential gamification can be in promoting desirable behavior in others.  We have seen how gamification works in social causes, businesses, and other ways.  In addition to using gamification to impact others, I think we should use it on ourselves.  Are we smart enough to make ourselves think that something otherwise ordinary or even boring can be fun?  I think we are, and we do this maybe more than we think we do.  We can have our personal burdens made light with gamification.

Some examples I thought of are probably more obvious than you could be thinking.  Some fall more under the umbrella of gamification than others.

1)Music/Dance
The first example for this I thought of was in cleaning.  Those of us in apartments or dorms may or may not have as much cleaning to worry about as previously, but we still have to do it, and it takes time.  Cleaning is a physical activity that for many is made easier by the accompaniment of music.  If you're brave enough you can even dance as you clean.  

2)Make it a Contest (yes, even with yourself)
When out grocery shopping, try to beat your savings records.  Make it a contest with yourself by seeing how well you can track down deals at the supermarket and beat your previous record.  It can be fun and save you money.

3)Keep a Progress Chart
I have about five progress charts hanging up on my bulletin board in my bedroom.  They are each for various projects or goals.  Whenever I accomplish specific tasks, I mark off my progress.  I also have occasional checkpoints that constitute a personal reward.  Despite how pathetic, that may sound, it works.  One result of this is that I can keep up on long-term projects and avoid my usual procrastination.  Making a point system to reward oneself is also beneficial.

4)Role Play
Do you have a hefty, dry slice of reading to do for a class?  Read it in an accent, either in your head or out loud.  This may be my favorite of the list.  It can keep you alert and entertained while reading.  You have to make a more conscientious effort to focus on the words and the flow of words, which for me at least increases my understanding.  Accents can be fun without being offensive.  And why not simultaneously work on your Australian accent as you read?  Such a skill could score countless dates.  (Don't do that.)

5)Make it Artistic
Try to make a cheap and ordinary meal look exquisite.


6)Develop a Rhythm
Really redundant and monotonous tasks can be done to a rhythm.  I associate this technique more with physical tasks.  Maybe with sweeping, hammering nails, or painting a wall.  If you can get a rhythm in place, your effort can be less conscious.

7)Do it with a Friend
Misery loves company?

8)Unnecessary Rules
A lot of times when I go up large sets of stairs, like going up the RB stairs when I'm out for a run, I make it a rule that I have to skip every other stair.  It makes me think less of the climb without actually lessening the climb.

There are definitely other categories and great specific examples that you may have to gamify the not-so-fun parts of life.  There are plenty of examples other than and better than the ones I brainstormed.  Share them and use them, they can really help.  I have tried a couple of these techniques in my life recently, and I'm interested in any more others could come up with.  It truly is very effective and I think we should consider incorporating this more to a personal level.

Consumers of Creavitity

Our globe is an interconnected weaving of peoples and cultures.  With constantly improving technologies, we gain access to sources of culture from virtually anywhere.  With this wonderful accessibility comes a price, however.  We feel less of a need to create, and we limit our scope of what we feel creativity is.

When culture is readily available to us, we tend to refrain from creating additional culture.  We feel no need since it is so readily available to us.  Overall, there have been some who continue to be creative while the rest of us devolve to simple consumers of culture.  I read about this phenomenon in the book Remix by Lawrence Lessig about three weeks ago, but it has since stood out to me.  This tragedy is preventable, especially at an individual level.  One may argue as well that it can be prevented at a more societal level with education reform, but I won't go into that now.  I absolutely loved the clip of President Uchtdorf talking about creativity that was shown in class.  In it he said,  


"The desire to create is one of the deepest yearnings of the human soul.  No matter our talents, education, backgrounds or abilities, we each have an inherent wish to create something that did not exist before.  Everyone can create.  You don’t need money, position, or influence in order to create something of substance or beauty.  You might say, I am not the creative type.   If that is how you feel, think again.  Creation is your opportunity in this life….. Start small.  Creativity does not require a brush, a pen, or the keys of a piano.   Don’t let the voice of critics paralyze you.  You will make the World a better place.  Improve, beautify, extend, smile, cultivate, develop, create."

These are truly inspiring words coming from one of God's special witnesses, and I like it so much that I had to include the whole thing.  All too often, some of us choose to be only the beholder rather than the artist, when in reality we are artists at birth.  We have more tools to create readily available to us than any generation has ever had.  What we need to do is wake up from our sluggish ways.  There are already  some who are making so much use of the tools available, and they are able to accomplish so much.  From virtual choirs to improved farming methods, we've seen it all.  No. We haven't seen it all.  That's the point.  We think we have witnessed so much creativity from others that we refuse to.  I wanted to list out some examples of creativity, but I couldn't.  It's whatever we make of it, and enumeration is part of the problem.  Too many feel that creativity can only be music, drawing, interior design, engineering, or writing.  This is a bold claim, but there is not an aspect of our lives that we cannot be creative in.

 In a TED Talk "Creativity is the process of having original ideas that have value", Sir Ken Robinson used statistics from the chart above which measures divergent thinking.  Divergent thinking is a measure of creativity and is defined as thinking in an unusual and unstereotyped way to generate several possible solutions to a problem.  Different age groups were measured for this characteristic, and Kindergartners outscored other age groups by a long shot.  Robinson suggests this is due to our education system.  I however, think it is based more on two other factors: 1)the increase in conformity as we age and 2)our access to culture.  Both, as I stated earlier are preventable at a personal level.  Also, the first factor may even be a result of the second.  We can choose to break the trend for ourselves and invite others to do the same.

 In a somewhat related note, We value the gems that we dig for. As consumers of culture, we cannot adequately appreciate what we consume without being familiar with the process of creating.  When we've gone through the process for ourselves, we realize what it takes to create.  It causes us to understand the rigor of the means.  Otherwise, we only take in the end result without being able to properly determine the value of the work of others.  

Educational Foundations

Many brilliant people believe they are not.  What is it that gets some kids into good colleges and others not?  Okay, so they are supposedly smart students and hard workers, but how did they get that way?  Motivation plays the largest factor.  The second 16th century group's presentation got me thinking.

Our education system is structured in a way that makes assumptions about students.  These assumptions can alter the willingness or the self-confidence necessary to demonstrate capabilities.  Additionally, it is often hard to say that capabilities are even being assessed properly.  I feel that one evidence of such assumptions is the implementation of forced bell-shaped curves.  A forced bell curve is a literal manifestation of how some are expected to excel while others lag behind, when in reality all within reason can excel.  There is no doubt that students need to be prepared for an economically competitive world, but it is my belief that a child's educational foundation should be first based on competition with oneself rather than with others.  Comparison with others can promote progress for some in the group, but comparison with oneself can promote progress in all.  Children are already too caught up enough in how they compare to their peers, so why would we contribute to this eminent problem at this stage in their lives?  With a self-actualizing foundation at a young age, individuals can have the base they need to compete with others in the competitive society of today.

Children start their first years of school at different educational levels from one another.  I feel this is due partly to personal capabilities but also significantly due to different parenting methods.  I'm not going to crack open the nature vs. nurture egg, so just assume that both are contributors.  Our educational system needs to do a better job at addressing these immediate differences in starting points by not completely swamping children with ending points.  Ending points are great when they do not expect too much or too little

If my ideas are starting to sound anti-capitalist, let me explain.  I am certainly not factoring out personal agency as a determinate of personal educational progress.  In fact, in the majority of cases, individuals definitely carry the most massive portion of their futures in learning.  However, this just means that it is the role of educational systems to develop an environment that promotes good educational choices since the choices cannot be made for them.

"No such thing bad student, only bad teacher" were Mr. Miyagi's famous words.  I agree with this but only because I believe that the student has a partial role as the teacher as well, and this role is his agency.  An instructor or educational system can do everything in its capability, but at some point agency is has to come into play.  Jesus was the perfect teacher, yet his 'students' were not.  But they CAN become perfected through Him.

A quote from my book about Isaac Newton stood out to me.  Newton wrote in a letter to Robert Hooke, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."  Among other things, this says to me is that not only does education prosper when it's not competitive between individuals, but education does prosper when it is collaborative between individuals.

Be sure to check out Changing Education Paradigms  if you haven't already!

Also, this is Wikipedia but the tab "Educational Economies in the 19th Century" gives a great description of the inequality within solely private educational systems.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_reform

Can it be?

In my presentation on Thursday I brought up the idea of "I want to help" vs. "This cannot be."  I really like this ideology by Thomas Clark (it's not actually a quote by him, just a summary of this thoughts).  I used it in regards to openness, but there is a great variety of issues in which it could be used.  These issues can range from a long wait in a supermarket check-out line to the barbaric practice of slavery.  I will therefore be somewhat general at times in talking about these mindsets.


I feel with this ideology, there really is an option.  Not all issues will be nor should be answered with "This cannot be."  It is not the go-to answer.  It is a personal responsibility to evaluate whether support is appropriate and to evaluate which mindset is appropriate.  The issues that are answered with "This cannot be" are ones in which the a current characteristic of society is unacceptable compared to potential alternatives.

The analogy I think of for this, which was not actually all that controversial, is the initial usage of tin cans in the early 19th century.  The tin can was one of the great inventions of this period that even now has widespread usage.  Its obvious use was to increase food preservation efficiency, and the first tin can was patented in 1810, yet the first can opener was patented in 1858.  For decades, tin cans were opened with knives, chisels, or through other creative manners.  Yes, people could get their cans open, but why would anyone hack at a can with a knife when they could use something as simple as a can opener?  In this analogy the "I want to help" mindset would be to realize how hard it is to efficiently open cans and react by becoming good at opening cans with a knife.  The "this cannot be" mindset would be to realize that there has got to be an easier way and seeking for the way to do so.  I recognize that this is only one of the many ways


Both mindsets can potentially be supportive of revolution, but the "this cannot be's" tend to be the real leaders and pushers of movements.  These are those who stick it to the man.  But, are these revolutionaries anything without the "helpers" of the cause?  And when do the helpers become merely blind followers rather than reserved supporters?  


Revolution is word with a large range of possible connotations.  It can be perfectly noble or utterly wicked.  This reminds me too easily of the Matthew 7:18&20
          
           18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  
          20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


This ideally is what our mindsets and support against or for a movement must be based.  Yet, in many debates there is seemingly not a more righteous side to argue.   It then requires a conscientious effort to inform oneself enough about issues to make an informed opinion. 


In terms of open science, I do not have enough of an expertise to officially declare which of the two mindsets I have toward the idea, although I am for it.  My support of it includes the recognition that open science can be carried out well, and it can be carried out not so well.  I feel however that open science carried out well outperforms private scientific research that is carried out well.  The reservations associated with open science are legitimate ones, but they are possible to overcome.


I want to end with a semi-related excerpt that to me illustrates the nature of scientific research:  "Ultimately, if the researcher succeeds, a flood of colleagues will pave roads over the path laid, and those roads will be orderly and straight, taking an investigator in minutes to a place the pioneer spent months or years looking for."  (The Great Influenza, John M. Barry)

Presentation Links for Openness

Flow Chart

http://www.ijest.info/review-process.php

TED

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_nielsen_open_science_now.html

Research Gate

http://www.researchgate.net/

Thomas Clark, British Abolitionist:

I Want to Help

vs.

This Cannot Be

Open Notebook Science

Start watching at 3:08, Stop at 5:58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFL0vbUOjfo

-Shows how this form of open science is good for editing flawed data/procedures

Why We Choose ‘Open Science’

-Allen Institute using open science to accelerate research on brain diseases

-Discusses rationale, pros/cons, and process involved with choosing open science

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577058162033028028.html

Better Means

Innovative business model that uses openness/equality between workers for efficiency

http://bettermeans.com/front/index.html

Cracking Open the Scientific Process

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?pagewanted=all

Passage from The Great Influenza, an account of the 1918 flu epidemic, author John M. Barry writes about scientists and their research.

Certainty creates strength. Certainty gives one something upon which to lean. Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.

To be a scientist requires not only intelligence and curiosity, but passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage. It is not the courage to venture into the unknown. It is the courage to accept—indeed, embrace—uncertainty. For as

Claude Bernard, the great French physiologist of the nineteenth century, said, “Science teaches us to doubt.”

A scientist must accept the fact that all his or her work, even beliefs, may break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding. And just as Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested, one must seek out such findings. Ultimately a scientist has nothing to believe in but the process of inquiry. To move forcefully and aggressively even while uncertain requires a confidence and strength deeper than physical courage.

All real scientists exist on the frontier. Even the least ambitious among them deal with the unknown, if only one step beyond the known. The best among them move deep into a wilderness region where they know almost nothing, where the very tools and techniques needed to clear the wilderness, to bring order to it, do not exist. There they probe in a disciplined way. There a single step can take them through the looking glass into a world that seems entirely different, and if they are at least partly correct their probing acts like a crystal to precipitate an order out of chaos, to create form, structure, and direction. A single step can also take one off a cliff.

In the wilderness the scientist must create . . . everything. It is grunt work, tedious work that begins with figuring out what tools one needs and then making them. A shovel can dig up dirt but cannot penetrate rock. Would a pick be best, or would dynamite be better—or would dynamite be too indiscriminately destructive? If the rock is impenetrable, if dynamite would destroy what one is looking for, is there another way of getting information about what the rock holds? There is a stream passing over the rock. Would analyzing the water after it passes over the rock reveal anything useful? How would one analyze it?

Ultimately, if the researcher succeeds, a flood of colleagues will pave roads over the path laid, and those roads will be orderly and straight, taking an investigator in minutes to a place the pioneer spent months or years looking for. And the perfect tool will be available for purchase, just as laboratory mice can now be ordered from supply houses.

Not all scientific investigators can deal comfortably with uncertainty, and those who can may not be creative enough to understand and design the experiments that will illuminate a subject—to know both where and how to look. Others may lack the confidence to persist. Experiments do not simply work. Regardless of design and preparation, experiments—especially at the beginning, when one proceeds by intelligent guesswork—rarely yield the results desired. An investigator must make them work. The less known, the more one has to manipulate and even force experiments to yield an answer.

America: Historic Insourcing to Current Outsourcing

"We are the 99%" was named the quote of 2011.  The ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor has been a very pressing issue in our country.  It is a real trend.  I believe that among other factors, this very present gap is caused by the outsourcing of jobs.  We have transformed from a nation to which foreign workers relocate themselves into a nation that relocates work to foreign workers.  Those who migrated here built this powerful country into what it is, and now sending work away is starting to tear it down.  It only makes sense for us to personally support domestic companies that remain domestic.  

As U.S. companies outsource work, the owners of these companies definitely benefit now that they can provide lower wages and less restricting working environments to foreign workers. Meanwhile, the American workers and managers that helped these companies get how far they've come.  Now they are left jobless as more and more of these types of jobs are depleted.  Preventing outsourcing legally would infringe upon the individual rights of the owners.  But, we as customers should seek business with companies that work to preserve domestic jobs.




Contrast this with the 19th century.  This period was marked by the largest scale immigration the world has ever seen.   Instead of the U.S. rushing jobs to workers elsewhere, workers were rushing to jobs here.  The U.S. felt such a surge of arriving immigrants because there were jobs to be had and jobs to made.  At the time it was because of economic inequality in Europe (those who migrated were generally poor, outcast, and/or looking for a better life) that immigrants sought this land.


As I said in my personal intro, I am a native of North Carolina, as are my parents.  Historically, North Carolina has had a major portion of its economy based in textiles.  However, because of cheaper labor forces in other countries, almost all of North Carolina's textile production has been relocated to countries like Mexico, India, and Pakistan.  The businesses themselves may actually remain in the state.


A company in Duram, NC by the name of Mitts Nitts is one of the few exceptions.  This company, which is actually owned by my uncle, sells on wholesale all of the clothing that it makes here on U.S. soil.  Many clients are drawn toward the product lines of Mitts Nitts because of its domestic roots.

We need to have the attitude of these clients.  Any company that is willing to keep jobs here in the U.S. is swimming upstream and they deserve reasonable support for doing so.  I am not saying that I am a part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.  They  admittedly don't even suggest solutions.  I do recognize the problem, but I also have a solution in mind.  It is my opinion that in order to turn this around, it will require individual initiative and changes in government policy.  It would be blatantly unconstitutional to force companies to keep work on U.S. soil.  However, we can make favorable climates for those companies who do remain domestic.

I actually came upon my next bit of information after I started thinking about my stance on this topic.  It is from President Obama's  State of the Union address, and it was surprising because I agreed completely with him when I usually do not.  He said,

         

               "We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last -- an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers and a renewal of American values."

His blueprint included a tax policy that rewards companies that create jobs in America and eliminates tax breaks for those who ship jobs overseas.  An additional point I would add is to loosen restrictions on working condition codes, which Obama may not be in favor of, especially openly since he is running for reelection.

If we can redirect the current trend of outsourcing back to insourcing, we can reverse the widening the economic gap.  Insourcing is what built this country and is what has maintained it.  Maybe we could even have other countries outsource to us.

 Also, be sure to view this link about how Apple outsourced its production to China.
  Apple Outsourcing

Should we pay to use Facebook or should Facebook pay to use us?

Or YouTube.  Or Flickr.  Or Google.  As you continue to post information in various forms, you are most likely seeking some form of response.  Views, shares, attention, likes, comments.  You do this on a very regular basis, and your doing so provides these entities with their most essential assets: publicity and intellectual-property.  It is through combining these two assets that these free-to-use websites can actually make much of their money through targeted advertising.

 

One of my books talks about how much we actually provide to social media sites.  They are completely dependent on us.  Anil Dash, a vice president with Six Apart posed a question that stuck out to me: "Should Flickr compensate the creators of the most popular pictures on its site?"  I actually really considered this question and did so considering that compensation didn't have to be a monetary value.  But I ultimately realized the answer in any case is no further compensation is needed for either party.

The internet now is a "culture of generosity."  Users willingly take the time to provide information and publicity while the social media sites provide an open outlet to do so.  The users and social media sites obviously both benefit from the exchange.  As long as terms are legal, the benefits between the users and sites are beautifully and exactly equal.

In the case of the Flickr question, yes, the creators of the popularized pictures did bring publicity to the site, BUT the amount of publicity the pictures brought to Flickr is equal to what Flickr as a medium brought to the pictures.  The more I think about this, the more I hear the Newton's Third Law:  To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

I feel that Adam Smith's concept of "the invisible hand" included in The Wealth of Nations is very present here.  Our economy is self-correcting when exercised legally, including in the realm of the internet.  Users of social media unavoidably give up their right not to be used.  The key is that if the process is legal and both parties is willing, how can it not be fair?

FREE IPOD!! (brand new, still in its case!)

My dad currently works for Apple as an accountant and as a bonus he was given 20 free 64gb itouches, and he gave me a few of them and I just... oh wait, you actually looked at my blog post, good. 

I doubt that anyone actually came to this post thinking that they would get an iPod.  You're probably here because you know that scamming people with digital media is very prevalent, and you were interested because you thought my blog would be about that.  Well, kinda. 

There is so much information available to us that it is difficult to discern between what information we really care for and what information is not worth reading.  

We could spend lifetimes reading information that is just a waste of our time.  What is it that sets apart an article we read from the seemingly endless lists of others?  As seekers of information and as informers, it is important for us to know why people are brought to read what they read and why they continue or stop reading what they've stumbled upon.

Accessibility is the first important characteristic of effective information.  Whether it is of use or not, information has to be accessible if anyone is ever going to read it.  Websites pay thousands of dollars to be listed early on search engine results.  Recommendations from peers will also get the sought-after views, readers, hits, or customers.  The phrase "If you build it, they will come" does not always apply to digital media (unless you are Google).

Obviously, a potential reader will not decide to read information based on accessibility alone.  From the title and scanty description provided, a reader must somehow be convinced that the information is so important that he or she needs to take the time to look at it.  People naturally want information that is personal, applicable, and/or controversial.  The more the potential reader thinks they need this information the better.  This doesn't have to be deceptive (like me) in nature.  People write about what they think is important, and they should want others to think the same. 

The second half of the battle is maintaining a reader.  Maybe I'll make another post about that...