Is this really what our society has come to need? Do we value actual connection to another living human being or are we content to fill our need for companionship with something like this? Is there a real need for this product, as some in the article suggest? Maybe it is just me or I am truly changing into my mother and grandmother’s generation. But I guess I could see some people needing this product. It’s probably the only action some CONS will ever see. – LOL
I watched this great video. It was a wake-up call for me.
It is way past time that we think about ourselves and our food!
Let’s take the next few steps forward and help those who follow after us!
25 ways to get smarter!
I found this article in The Daily Beast to be fascinating! I haven’t checked out all the recommended links and don’t know whether their list is one to be relied on, but I’m betting at least a few of these hints will be appreciated! Here is a shortened synopsis, but be sure to check out the entire list and reasons why these ideas made the list! Continue reading
My son received an ipod touch for Christmas from his mother. With it he is able to connect to the internet where he can check his email and surf the web almost like he does when he sits before his computer. My son’s and my PC are wired into our router in our basement. My daughter has a wireless connection to the router for her computer in her upstairs bedroom. Given that we had a degree of space to cover with the wireless option, I got a router that blasts quite a bit more signal than I really need to cover my house.
I thought my wireless connection was password protected, but when my son set up his ipod touch in my house, we found that it is not, and thus anyone who has a wireless card could pick up my signal – throughout my block, I would guess. This discovery led to my current ethical dilemma: should I password protect my wireless connection? Am I diminished in any way when someone, I don’t know, uses my wireless connection? Does it cost me more if someone else uses the connection? Since I think the answer to both questions is “No”. I plan to leave it unprotected. Am I missing anything in my thinking here, is what I am wondering?
If someone was using my internet access to commit cyber-crimes that would make me reconsider my decision, but I don’t know of that happening, and doubt I could ever know if that happened or not. Should this possibility be enough to make me reconsider? Thanks for any help you may be able to provide.
This from a Q&A at the WashPo by Kevin Huffman:
“My worry is that we increasingly live in a world where people can’t agree on a common fact base. And if you can’t agree on facts – not how to respond to them, but the facts themselves – it’s hard to see how you ever get to agreement on justice or urgency.”
The above paragraph said a lot to me. I am also concerned about our ability to respond, collectively, to the immense problems we face. What do you bloggers think?
There are currently two separate ethics investigations going on in Washington: investigations to see if Rep. Laura Richardson and Rep. Maxine Waters, both Democrats from California, violated rules of conduct. Rep. Laura Richardson’s case involves whether she received preferential treatment in the foreclosure and eventual re-acquisition of her home in Sacramento, California.
Waters is being investigated for allegedly seeking preferential treatment for a bank linked to her husband, the committee said. According to the panel’s announcement, the investigation will look into whether Waters or her husband benefited from any of her communications or actions involving One United Bank, in which her husband held stock and previously was a director.
At a time when politicians are under intense scrutiny by every pundit with a camera or a computer, one would think those same politicians would learn crime doesn’t pay. South Carolina has had its share of idiots as well, both Republicans, so it’s not limited to any one party. So what is it about politics that tends to bring out the worst in some people? Or do the statistics reflect the general population? I can imagine the answer to that question runs the gamete of everything from stupidity to outright greed, to it isn’t any different than pick a city near you. But I think there’s a basic question that does need to be answered: Is politics, hence party affiliation, really involved, or does the perp lose that when he or she walks the on the unethical side? My answer to that is: a crook is a crook, and what party they belong to makes no difference. I’ve seen it used too often when either a Democrat or Republican is charged with a crime, then suddenly it’s their parties fault. One can list the unethical from both parties, and the list would be ten pages long, at least. So using party affiliation as a blaming factor for criminal behavior is pointless. Any other views?
I am a huge fan of Randy Olson’s. He directed the documentary A Flock of Dodos which covered the Kansas debate on evolution v. Intelligent Design. Olson grew up in the Kansas City region, attended K.U. and his mother lived close to a proponant of the Intelligent Design position.
Dr. Olson has a PhD from Harvard where he studied evolutionary biology. It has not been completely clear to me why Olson made a switch from a career as a marine biologist to a film maker, but I suspect his divorce was a life-changing event. Besides A Flock of Dodos, Olson completed a “mockumentary” on the global warming debate called Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy which covered the the “scientific debate” against global warming.
Olson recently published a book entitled Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. In this work Dr. Olson covers the strength and weaknesses of film vs. other forms of communication. Film doesn’t so much educate as it imspires. Being new to these notions of films, this was quite an educational experience for me; I have a copy available for loan.