Chou believed this sufficed for a contract, but apparently BTT did not because they sent a request for a draft copy of the distribution contract a month after Chou received the e-mail. Chou complied and found out months later that BTT changed management and were no longer interested in distributing STRAT (Melvin, 2011). The first question one might ask after reading the above scenario is at what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? To answer this question one must examine the elements of
The first person to write a dictionary of American English and permanently alter the spelling of American English, Noah Webster through his spelling book taught millions of American children to read for the first half-century of the republic and millions more to spell for the following half-century. Born a farmer's son in what is now West Hartford, Connecticut, Webster attended Yale College from 1774 to 1778, during the Revolutionary War. After graduating, he taught at Connecticut district schools before studying for the bar. The dismal conditions of these schools, combined with his patriotism and a search for self-identity, inspired him to compose three schoolbooks that, he believed, would unify the new nation through speaking and writing a common language. (Previously, almost all American schoolbooks had been reprints of imported British ones.)
Though the Internet is the main subject of his argument, Carr provides insight on other developments as well. By touching on the inventions of such inventions as the map and the clock, he explains that both “changed the way we saw ourselves and the way we thought” (55) and provides example of his idea that the modernization of technology changes our thought process. He illustrates through historical references, the progression of how we read and write. Such examples include: writing on stones and wood, upgraded to papyrus, to tablets, to paper, to typewriters, to computers. Growing up in a time that was predominately print rather than computer, Carr is quick to favor print reading.
The way technology has driven the last half of a century has changed life astronomically. Everyday people crave and desire the next big thing on the market. Whether it is the hybrid car or touch screen phone, the need for something more leaves room in life for unhappiness when those items are not obtained. Lao-Tzu strongly argued that when people do not want anything, they are okay with living simple. This is beyond the truth of today.
Google has “[served] to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge” today in the same way that the development of writing expanded the mind of an individual in the first century (Carr 8). If our technological advancements have changed the way we think, they haven’t done it without controls. Some of the attributes associated with the way we process knowledge may change in our society, but we develop it the way we
Heidegger and Modern Technology: The Setup, the Danger, and the Saving Power INTRODUCTION Heidegger’s key essay to unlocking his view on our current situation, “The Question Concerning Technology,” was not translated into English until a mere 30 years ago, a fact that appears to have primarily served to increase the debate and misunderstanding concerning precisely what Heidegger suggests be done in order to establish a liberating relationship to modern technology and its seeming hegemony over our lives. Many (e.g., Ihde, 1979; Wright, 1984; Wolin, 1990) read Heidegger as suggesting a turn towards art as the only refuge or rescue from the dangers that abound in our modern technological era. Richard Wolin for one, in his 1990 book entitled The Politics of Being: The Political Thought of Martin Heidegger, claims that it is “Heidegger's solution [...] to dwell poetically” (Wolin, 1990, p. 167), as he inaccurately accuses Heidegger of following the “well-worn path already trod by the German romantics” (Wolin, 1990, p.166) in stating that Heidegger abstractly counterposes a poetic transcendence to overcome our modern world entrained by the rules of technical reason (Wolin, 1990, pp. 166-7). But Heidegger suggests no such turning back, no retreat into a poetic realm from our current technological stance, as technology itself is something that “will not be struck down; and it most certainly will not be destroyed” (Heidegger, 1977d, p. 38) by any means.
As we saw in the video “Guns, Germs and Steel” with Professor Jared Diamond, we saw that the tribe’s lack of intelligence was not the case for developing more as a civilization. For example, we saw how the people of New Guinea lived. They used the resources they had around them in order to make food, clothing and weapons to help grow and succeed as a civilization. Not only this, but by having the children help at a young age made the tribe more successful in the way that everyone played a part in contributing to make their civilization stronger as a unit. Another reason that the civilizations might have not been successful could have been the weather and climate that they were to go through.
Syed Hamza Amir 1 Professor Meredith Allison English 1303 23 September 2010 The Future of the Internet As our web experience continues to evolve at an exponential rate, it has provided us with more technology to publish our own content that had once been available only to the few. This rapid expansion in the ability of humans to publish new content has created a new flurry of debate over whether this is enhancing or destroying our culture. Two authors, Andrew Keen and Clay Shirky, tackle this issue with two very different conclusions. Keen provides valid points but falls short and seems like a hypocrite in his condemnation of web 2.0. On the other hand, Shirky gives a complete and thorough view in favor of our ability to publish
As for Postman, his view is that inventions, such as TV and other technical devices saturates us with stimuli to promote views that are not the social norms of a given period, has contributed to shaping changes in which we think and act accordingly. We have become so dependent on these devices that these inventions now control us. Amusement affects our everyday lives and changes our thought processes. As Postman states in chapter six,
Intelligence versus Wisdom Intelligence and wisdom -- these treasures of the heart and brain -- these are the true Sacred Scriptures of the human race. All the wise are intelligent, but all the intelligent are not wise. The difference between wisdom and intelligence is that you cannot be wise unless you have sensitivity for the human condition. Both wisdom and intellect are forms of knowledge. Both can serve several more people than the number of people who possess them.