This article is a short summary of the On Star's capabilities and why the general population should be scared of the technology. The author gives several reasons as to why the On Star service should not be in cars, and how it is an infringement on our rights. He goes on to give several examples of how the On Star system could actually be used against the people that payed for the service if the government so decided to do so. The author proposes a solution to keeping people's rights and ending On Star all together: boycotting any and all vehicles that come with the On Star technology built into the vehicle.
This is a very well thought out argument and as far as a proposal to stopping the problem, it is very easy to adhere to. The simple act of not buying a new car equipped with On Star seems like a very easy feat to do, considering that it is actually more expensive to buy a vehicle with the hardware in it already. He provides a good background to explain the On Star system and service, and speaks about the recent update to the On Star system. He provides a counter-argument about how the system could and has helped people, but warns against it all the same. The one piece of evidence given that is flimsy is the authors conjecture on the future applications against the person's car. His conjecture is backed by prior knowledge of updates, but otherwise it is still flimsy. The entire argument focuses on why people do not need, nor should want On Star in their car because of possible infringements on their rights.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
"Ten reasons Why GM Won't Feed the World" summary
The article is a ten item list that explains why Genetically Modified foods are not as good as they are claimed to be. The author goes on and lists the reasons why GM foods are not as good as they claim to be, and gives supporting details as to why he chose the said reasons. He states that GM foods are not backing the claims that they are said to do, can cost more, are able to interbreed with other plants of that species, that they are a risk to human health, and that they do not produce as much as they are said to.
Throught the entire article he seems to attack genetically modified food and demonize it. He gives no acknowledgement to an opposing view and gives no alternative to his way of thinking about the subject. He uses multiple references to articles to build credibility, but other than that he appeals mostly to emotion. He does not seem to propose an alternative other than a simple: "no GM foods" policy world-wide. The article is most similar to the style of a counter argument, because of the countering of the claims that GM is good for the world. Also, this article points out flaws that arise with growing GM foods. This argument is not horrible, but it is not good either. The argument made here is not proposing any change that can be done, nor is it directly targeting one proponent of a pro-GM argument. Instead, it focuses on covering all the problems that the author has with the GM foods.
Throught the entire article he seems to attack genetically modified food and demonize it. He gives no acknowledgement to an opposing view and gives no alternative to his way of thinking about the subject. He uses multiple references to articles to build credibility, but other than that he appeals mostly to emotion. He does not seem to propose an alternative other than a simple: "no GM foods" policy world-wide. The article is most similar to the style of a counter argument, because of the countering of the claims that GM is good for the world. Also, this article points out flaws that arise with growing GM foods. This argument is not horrible, but it is not good either. The argument made here is not proposing any change that can be done, nor is it directly targeting one proponent of a pro-GM argument. Instead, it focuses on covering all the problems that the author has with the GM foods.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
"Why The future Doesn't Need Us" summary
The first part of the essay written explains the theory that humans will no longer be needed in the future. The Author, Bill Joy, is a computer scientist and was the co-founder of Sun Microsystems who, in this article, discusses his personal feeling about what the future holds for us all. The author feels that with recent advancements in technology that in a very near future human life will be obsolete. He fears that eventually technology will over-rule our biological way of life and that slowly we will not care that it is happening to us. he goes on to say in his article that he fears this new world will be filled with self-replicating terrors, and that these advancements will breed new evil into the world. In the second part of the article he continues on to explain how he has grown up and how he feels about technology as a whole. At the end of the entirety of the article he asks the question of what we can do to coexist with our new technology.
The argument raised in this article is "if the future will need us at all?" The argument made asks the question of what humans will be useful for in the future, and if we will even exist at all. The argument raised here is not a good one. The argument states that humans will not be needed in the future and so that they will be terminated, which is never founded upon any facts. He makes the argument from an example in one of his colleagues books of mammalian species in the Americas and how one was more apt to survive after hundreds of years of divergent evolution. This argument is flawed because it does not compare like things in the least, instead it makes a weak metaphor for humans and their robot "predecessors." Another argument he raises is that the new technology will breed a new sort of evil, and claiming that the new weapons of mass destruction will be based solely on knowledge, as opposed to the rare materials as they are today. Overall, this is a very poor argument. The author is not coherent in what he is trying to argue, he does not acknowledge the opposition to his claim, makes wild conjecture without reasons, and focuses the support of his argument on others musings. The authors facts to support his argument are non-applicable to the real world and often unfounded claims about the future.
The argument raised in this article is "if the future will need us at all?" The argument made asks the question of what humans will be useful for in the future, and if we will even exist at all. The argument raised here is not a good one. The argument states that humans will not be needed in the future and so that they will be terminated, which is never founded upon any facts. He makes the argument from an example in one of his colleagues books of mammalian species in the Americas and how one was more apt to survive after hundreds of years of divergent evolution. This argument is flawed because it does not compare like things in the least, instead it makes a weak metaphor for humans and their robot "predecessors." Another argument he raises is that the new technology will breed a new sort of evil, and claiming that the new weapons of mass destruction will be based solely on knowledge, as opposed to the rare materials as they are today. Overall, this is a very poor argument. The author is not coherent in what he is trying to argue, he does not acknowledge the opposition to his claim, makes wild conjecture without reasons, and focuses the support of his argument on others musings. The authors facts to support his argument are non-applicable to the real world and often unfounded claims about the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)