In Matthew 23 Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and Sadducees. He rebukes them for their improper use of authority in “bind[ing] heavy burdens….they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” He speaks of their selfish desire to be seen in positions of power, and “to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” even if they did nothing to deserve that authority. These men where in the position designed to lead their religion. They spoiled that opportunity and thus their people suffered. I’ve had a class in college, which wasn’t necessarily my first choice, that reminds me that being given a position of authority doesn’t equate to proper teaching and learning. The guest professor wanted to make sure the class understood that she was in authority by not budging on a flawed system, even though it would have facilitated learning and positive feelings towards the learning process of the class. Even if assignments were done on time and correctly, if they weren’t recorded and turned in the way the professor wanted, it would result in penalties. The more the students pushed to be on the same page the “higher up” the professor stood on her stance. I believe that the learning process, in any environment, can be enlarged through cooperation and consideration from both the teacher and the student because as Jesus said “for one is your Master, even Christ.” and we all have something to learn in either position.
Another smallish: Technology and the Gospel
This post was inspired by the reading, “Tangled in the Web”. From the start, the article takes a negative tone towards internet usage. This is tough for computer science people because more likely than not, our occupation and our major currently cause us to use the internet extensively on a daily basis. Elder Bednar’s talk in the recent BYU Education Week mentioned something very important. He said something to the effect that the internet, specifically social media in this case, is neither inherently good nor bad. I believe that the internet is simply a conduit through which bad people can spread their badness, while the good people can do the same. However, there must be moderation in all things. I believe that the woman in the article was not practicing good moderation but I also believe that she wasn’t addicted to the internet. She was addicted to the social aspect and ease in which a person can open up on the internet, and chess. Those are things that can be and have been used for good, specifically in spreading the gospel. A comment given in a Sunday school lesson I recently attended on this subject sums up my feelings on it. It was that the internet and social media aren’t going anywhere. So, we might as well use it for good.
Here Comes Everybody
This book produced some good points and invoked good insight, but was a little long-winded. The thought that stood with me the most is that as self-governing internet communities come about, the quality of this community is only as good as the people that the community is comprised of. The self-governance inherently establishes the credibility of this community. If we think of a global example, like wikipedia, we find a “community” that fact checks itself to the point of establishing good credibility. This is because of the quality of knowledge of the people that are contributing to the site. Assuming that knowledgeable and wise people are always interested in the credibility of wikipedia, it will continue to be a good site of good information. Once the general population-I say general population along with wikipedia users since millions use it around the world- turns to incorrect principles, sites like wikipedia will no longer be a good site. This reminds me of a scripture found in Mosiah dealing with giving people more power in their own government. It reads:
“And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgements of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction evan as he has hitherto visited this land.”
This connection that the book inspired made it a good read.
OS Revolution
The uprising of the open-source software was interesting to learn about. I believe it come with its pros and cons. The head guy of the movement has some radical ideas that I don’t think I would enjoy. However beneficial that thought idea may be, I would have to change a lot to benefit fully from it. Most would no longer be able to naively enjoy their computers. Understandably, computer science/ computer people in general understand how to overcome problems on their computer because they understand the art of “googling it”. When computer science people leave their realm it is often lost on them that other people don’t know how to just google their problem. However, those with the minds for programming are have the ability of collaboration; this community idea that was spoken of. Truly, the best line spoken in the film said something to the tune that both the open source community and “proprietary” community both serve a complementing purpose to the computer world.
Women in CS
I found the lecture on women in CS to be awkward. First, I didn’t know if I was supposed to feel ashamed of being a male, and second, I felt awkward when it needed to be pointed out that it was ok that our TA was choosing a “typical” female major. I didn’t find the lecturers life examples of how she was oppressed in the workplace for being a woman very applicable to what I’m supposed to do about it. If I were to derive anything from the lecture it would be not to hit on my female coworkers, and not to oppress women. First, I have to derive that. Second, I think that is becoming the general idea of society. I recognize the issue with it, but I also feel that our generation is more aware of that in the first place. We are all more connected. We see women doing all sorts of things that they weren’t doing decades ago. For us it’s normal. Therefore, trying to force mindset on us that we need to fix something struck foreign with me. Understandable with the hitting on women in the workplace, I believe that is more of a societal problem than a women in computer science problem. That again let me to wonder what am I supposed to learn from this.
Open Source
We’ve discussed open source in class, sometimes more in depth, and sometimes in passing. It is difficult to talk about it objectively in our class because open source is geared towards our crowd. It isn’t however geared towards the general public. If I told someone in my choir to download Linux because they would have open access to do whatever they please, they wouldn’t be interested. So for us, yes, it does provide a community where we can share, collaborate, and improve existing software. But in all honesty, I wouldn’t feel comfortable modifying important files on my computer in hopes to optimize my experience. I’m not that confident in my abilities. There was one line in the video we watched on linux that wraps it all up for me. One man said he believes that both open source and private software have a place in the world. It is fair to say that both have their pros and cons. The idea that came accross in the video and with some people I’ve met is that Microsoft is the villain in this. To me it is just the different side of the same coin. Are people slaves to the way Microsoft works? Sure, but for most companies out there it’s simply a mainstream medium for them to get their business done. They may not want to waste time and resources to familiarize themselves with a different system. And they have every right to choose that, come whatever pros and cons may.
The Cuckoo Report
This book proved that not too long ago, strides in computer security were made by some of the most simple procedures. What made these simple procedures brilliant was that no one had done them before. As time goes on, people are still able to gain access to places they shouldn’t by more complicated procedures. This idea brings to mind the human predicament that we face. Trying to keep bad things out is drastically more difficult than being the one trying to get one bad thing in. Defenders have to try and guard against all attacks, whereas attackers simply have to find one hole. In a gospel sense, we have to try and keep all the commandments. The adversary simply has to get us to falter on one. This leads me to another parallel I drew from the book. The hacker initially found a weakness at the workplace of the writer. He then moved parallel through the network to other places with information that he wanted. The same happens in our life. We may have difficulties in an area of the commandments that truly is innocent. However, giving heed to the adversary in even an innocent realm allows him access, which access he will use to take down the entire system.
Smallish blog post 2
I enjoy the idea of exploitation vs. innovation. It reminds me of when my high school English teacher revealed to us that nothing today is original. Everything, at some point in its development, takes from something already created. She said the big instigators of this was Shakespeare and the Bible. That being said, people are still creating great things in literature. The same applies the technology. However, original things do get created in technology, if you don’t consider using an existing language as unoriginal. The literature principle comes in when we start to talk about the exploitation side of the idea. When someone creates a new idea or program, there are often more who are able to expand on it creating something else, able to exploit an idea. People think of Steve Jobs as an innovator, but to begin his reign of apple he really just exploited the invention of Steve Wozniak. Exploiting has a negative connotation but in this context, it shouldn’t. The industry wouldn’t be where it is now without those moments of exploitation.
Current Event 9/23
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519281/cryptographers-have-an-ethics-problem/
I enjoyed this article because it talks about the blurred lines that cryptographers find in their art. Often an ethical principle will be in direct conflict with another ethical principle. It states a more black and white example of killing in times of war vs killing in peace times. The comparison sheds light on our current situation. Since the war on terror, we haven’t really been in a time of war nor a time of peace. Cryptographers and those hired to break encryption fall in that gray area. They’re job in hacking threatening communication is more to prevent conflict than to resolve it. Where is the boundary on how far they can go? The conclusion I sit well with is freedom over security.
my404blogss 