PLEASE READ!!!!!

Listen, this blog is a way for me to express the massively important thoughts that occupy my brain but don't fit in a facebook status, so PLEASE READ IT!!!!  It'll be super interesting and not lame, and I'll post dirty pictures all the time.

still bloggin

yo what da fuck!<!<!??? i'm still bloggin mothafuckas@@!!!!!!!!!

sources

The leafcutter ants : civilization by instinct  
its a book


Ant encounters : interaction networks and colony behavior
  Gordon, Deborah (Deborah M.)
its also a book

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4JG4MPC-8&_user=209810&_coverDate=03%2F07%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000014439&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=209810&md5=ffd5dbc07743d631c9b3bbddc045c9e7&searchtype=a
not a book

Ant encounters: interaction networks and colony behavior

Author: Gordon, Deborah

another book

noles

If I had to take a guess, which here I am forced to, the author's research question was, "are Native Americans offended by tribe based mascots?", or something like that.  The purpose seems to be that making a big deal out of mascots like this now is silly, that if these tribes can survive being attacked by men wielding vastly superior technology, that seeing mascots that may not portray them in the greatest light is certainly not a big deal.  He focuses in on the Seminole tribe, which I think makes that point difficult to apply to Natives as a whole, but maybe I got the purpose wrong.  One thing he does that didn't thrill me is that he talked about the Seminoles' business ventures, acquiring Hard Rock International, and mentioning that the girl's father was a casino operator.  This gives to the stereotype of Natives currently as casino lords, rather than a proud people of strong tradition.  If somebody has given up their ancestral way of life for what many may consider a relatively "dirty" career running a casino, they are much less entitled to be irritated by any caricatures of their people.  He did not focus on the Illini or Sioux tribes, though that may have made for a totally different paper.  Nonetheless I agree with his point that anger over long used names is ridiculous.

Is the Google Making us Stupid?

Carr definitely raises some good points in this about the effects the internet has had on the way we think and process information.  It is interesting to bring up this topic, because I was thinking the other day about whether Google was a good thing or not.  On one hand, there is very little information that cannot be found by simply typing it into the Google search bar, on the other hand there is very little information that cannot be found by typing it into the Google search bar.  The repetition was intentional, as Google has made my generation almost dependent upon it for routine questions.  With the development of smart phones and other portable internet capable devices, any question or curiosity that pops up during the day is punched into Google, and the results are instantly shown.  While this may not seem like a bad thing, this is another way in which Google diminishes our thinking ability.  Rather than critically thinking about the relationship between two things, or just trying to recall facts about something, our brains no longer get the exercise these tasks would normally provide, as they immediately go to Google for their response, almost like a dependence.  Though Carr's reasoning is semi-logical, it seems to me that he has abused the internet as much as anybody, the guy still reads blogs.  Realistically blogs are pretty much for people who can't fit all their useless thoughts for the week into one facebook status, so they post it on blogger for nobody to care about.  If Carr spent a little less time glued to the computer screen and bothered to read a real book every once and a while, he probably wouldn't be having the problems that he is blaming on the internet.  Much like many other things in life, the internet can be nice and is definitely convenient, but if it is abused it can do harm to those who do not use it carefully.   

joy

Joy's primary concern in the article is that people will fail to pay proper attention to what they are creating, and not fully weigh the consequences that may ensue its creation, basically 90% of science fiction without the excitement.  I did not mean to discredit Joy as I think he makes a good point, and it is useful to see it made in a straight forward way as how he does it.  He makes very clear that he is not anti-technology, but that he is aware of the power of current advancements and realizes that they must be kept in check.  His ethos is impeccable.  Joy makes good references to various pieces of literature which support his point, and I found the Unabomber anecdote interesting and most effective.  I think that the issues are as relevant as ever, especially because many people do not think much about these matters.  What was once the future is pretty much here (yes cliche) and while it may not be the Jetsons, in many ways technology has shaped the lives of everybody outside of Lancaster.  Robots have already taken the Jeopardy crown from humans, who knows what they may be capable of doing next.  While that seems a silly comparison it does prove that robots are getting closer to human level intelligence.  Though I maintain that robots could not totally take over humanity as they are developed by humans and owe all of their "intelligence" to us, genetic engineering leaves many possibilities.  Knowing that we can synthetically produce almost any life form with genetic alterations makes very few things truly impossible.  While many of the nightmares related to genetic engineering seem unrealistic, they are not as far fetched as we might like to believe.  There is little aside from ethics to stop people from creating races of superhumans or human devouring carnivores, especially if a time comes when genetic engineering becomes a wide spread commonplace in many nations.  People worried after the first nuclear bombs were dropped about the implications of the Soviet Union obtaining such technology, and later of countries such as North Korea or Iran.  If that is considered a problem, imagine if somebody such as Kim Jong-Il were capable of the White Plague mentioned in Joy's essay.  While it is easy to worry about a robot that one cannot stop, it is almost a guarantee that the robot's creator knows exactly how to stop it, and the fate of others rests in his/her decision to stop the machine.  With genetic engineering the creator can easily lose control of their creation, as it is a living thing, and no matter how much research has been done and precautionary measures taken to prevent disaster, the creation has a mind and life of its own and is capable of anything, which could be the downfall of a careless society.

kjhhlkgh

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/18/utah.state.firearm/index.html
In a time where state budgets are trying to cut back, why in the hell are officials working on things such as naming a state handgun?  If I lived in Utah, the first sign of increased taxes or removal of union bargaining rights would send me straight to the capital if this is what the state government is doing with their time.
http://us.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/nuclear.risks/index.html
I'm a big fan of nuclear power, as it is a low emission source of electricity.  Unfortunately, many people are terrified of nuclear meltdowns, mainly because every time we come anywhere near one the news acts like the whole world is going to be radioactive.  A properly built and maintained nuclear power plant is as safe as any other power plant, and hopefully this doesn't ruin nuclear for the whole world.