Topics covered in class: Ebooks, nuclear power, weather forecasting, 3D technology and genetic engineering.
On Ebooks: I am personally in favour of ebooks because they can really change the conventional methods of learning and facilitate our way of life. I think one of the main advantages of ebooks is the searchability of information. Regular books have nothing like this to offer. When looking for information in a book, I'm sure we often find ourselves spending quite a bit of time browsing the pages because we have forgotten the exact page the information is on. Ebooks will help save us the time and trouble of doing this. Indeed, regular books have a content page and indexes to help us find the information we need, but they offer a very crude (and still tedious) solution to finding things within the same book. However, when advanced searches of phrases or words in proximity, or when searches in a library of books is involved, a paper book would not be able to be much of a help. The long, painful process of having to browse through each book one by one is still inevitable. Especially for students like myself, who need to do a lot of research, there is really no comparison between researching ebooks or doing it the traditional way of trying to find something useful in paper books. Ebooks would certainly go a long way in helping students gain access to the information they need much more accurately, and more efficiently.
Another more common advantage of having ebooks is the idea of a mobile library. With ebooks it is possible for us to have access to a complete library of books all the time, no matter where we go. Already, it is possible for us carry hundreds of ebooks in little flash memory cards or thumb drive. Regardless of where we go or stay, we can always have a library of knowledge with us. We can go up into the mountains and have a little hand held computer to give us access to the accumulated knowledge of our subject area of interest. Our thoughts can flow better and our research will be accurate, based on a vast reference library.
Ebooks would also be an economical way to frequently publish updated and corrected versions of books. For most hard copy books today, it is difficult for publishers to make corrections in errors in the books because the cost is too high. Corrections can be made easily and published and sent out immediately to a large audience. The ebook can be kept up to date and updates can be produced and distributed with a reasonable amount of work and cost.
Furthermore, I think a lot of improvements have been made to ensure that ebooks become user-friendly and suitable for our everyday needs. An example would be the issue of the short battery life of ebooks. However, current developments have demonstrated the ability to overcome this limitation: eReaders. eReaders are slim screens about the size of a thin hardback and they use a special technology technology is called ePaper, which is what makes a changeable, computer-style screen possible without the use of backlighting. No electricity is used to preserve the image on an eReader, so long battery lives are easily attainable. As the image is created simply by reflecting light, ePaper can achieve a contrast ratio similar to newspaper print.
However, I feel that regular books should not be completely eradicated simply because a better and more convenient alternative has been developed. Traditional books still hold a lot of value in the hearts of people and I'm sure that they will continue to have an intangible connection with people in the same way they have done so for centuries. Thus, I feel that it is best for individuals to possess both ebooks and traditional books. When we need to do extensive research or travel long distances, we can tap into the convenience and mobility of books that ebooks offer. However, when we are at home or would just like to do some leisure reading, it is perhaps better to read traditional books. It is also healthier for our eyes to read traditional books than stare at the screen of an ebook. People today still appreciate the physical nature, the touch and feel of traditional books and it is unlikely that this feeling wans as we move into the future. Ebooks should be seen as complements to traditional books and not replacements.
Overall rating: 7/10
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Group presentations I
This week's lesson covered the topics of cosmetic surgery, cybercrime and water.
Some thoughts:
Earlier on this year, the UN declared that access to clean, safe drinking water is now an official basic human right. I managed to find some pretty cool technologies that have been invented to make clean, drinkable water out of undrinkable water:
Lifesaver Bottles: They were initially designed to help of natural disasters. Today, they come in many shapes and sizes and are being used around the world to help people gain access to safe, drinkable water without the need of complex machinery and filtration systems. This technology would give a possible solution to providing drinkable water for those in developing countries or water-scarce areas.
Lifestraw: It takes dirty water and through the use of a filter in the straw, turns it into safe drinking water. It is also very very cheap, at $3-$4 a piece.
These two inventions seem to have one thing in common, they are disruptive technologies. They have made water more accessible to those who do not have the financial ability or infrastructure to gain access to safe,drinkable water. The invention of disruptive technologies is thus probably the most effective short-term solution for those who have no access to drinkable water due to natural disasters, war or poverty.
If water is so precious and essential for survival, I wonder why it was not established as a basic human right until now? This then begs the question: Why was the right to water contentious in the first place? I think there a few reasons for this. The first is that water is a scarce resource, so for countries that have an abundant supply of water resources, making water a human right would bring up fears that they would have to share their water supplies with others. The next reason would be the privatisation of water. Water would no longer be commoditised and would cease to be profitable anymore. Many companies that provide water supplies will no longer make as much money as before. Some may even close down and many employees will be out of a job. Furthermore, nobody likes to be told how much water they can use, even knowing that those in the developed world use much more water than those in developing countries.
Overall rating 6/10
Some thoughts:
Earlier on this year, the UN declared that access to clean, safe drinking water is now an official basic human right. I managed to find some pretty cool technologies that have been invented to make clean, drinkable water out of undrinkable water:
Lifesaver Bottles: They were initially designed to help of natural disasters. Today, they come in many shapes and sizes and are being used around the world to help people gain access to safe, drinkable water without the need of complex machinery and filtration systems. This technology would give a possible solution to providing drinkable water for those in developing countries or water-scarce areas.
Lifestraw: It takes dirty water and through the use of a filter in the straw, turns it into safe drinking water. It is also very very cheap, at $3-$4 a piece.
These two inventions seem to have one thing in common, they are disruptive technologies. They have made water more accessible to those who do not have the financial ability or infrastructure to gain access to safe,drinkable water. The invention of disruptive technologies is thus probably the most effective short-term solution for those who have no access to drinkable water due to natural disasters, war or poverty.
If water is so precious and essential for survival, I wonder why it was not established as a basic human right until now? This then begs the question: Why was the right to water contentious in the first place? I think there a few reasons for this. The first is that water is a scarce resource, so for countries that have an abundant supply of water resources, making water a human right would bring up fears that they would have to share their water supplies with others. The next reason would be the privatisation of water. Water would no longer be commoditised and would cease to be profitable anymore. Many companies that provide water supplies will no longer make as much money as before. Some may even close down and many employees will be out of a job. Furthermore, nobody likes to be told how much water they can use, even knowing that those in the developed world use much more water than those in developing countries.
Overall rating 6/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)