GOF 5.29-Hate Speech

Some of the websites I found that contained hate speech involved hurtful material concerning political groups and racial groups. Specifically, I found information about President George W. Bush, and concerning gays. There was a lot of hate speech, and not much for their defence. This is unfair, because there is more information being presented containing hate speech than there is towards the group or person's defence. Even though these websites are hurtful, they are still protected by the 1st Amendment, because the only speech not protected by the First amendment is defamation of character, such as libel or slander. Although it seems that hate speech could hurt a person's reputation, it is still considered to be a form of expression, no matter what form it comes in. Some of the websites I found that contained hate speech were:
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/palestinians.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace

This chapter in A Gift of Fire, by Sarah Baase, concerns our First amendment rights (freedom of speech and press), and government controls on what we can put on the Internet. The Internet is such a beneficial way to communicate and send out ideas, because we can get them out to so many people. The problem is that there are many harmful items online that people believe should be censored, at least from young children. The Internet is now the easiest medium we have where we are able to share our ideas, so this is not only a very good thing, but also very bad. We finally have a source where we can share our ideas without restrictions, but we also now have easier ways of spreading pornography, spam, and has also created new avenues for pedifiles. So the question is, does government control over the Internet benefit us in the sense that we are safe from unwanted junk mail, pornography, and pedifiles; or does it harm us in the sense that we are being prevented from excercizing our First amendment rights? Are we willing to give up out rights to protect our children, or is this too large a price to pay?

New Radiohead CD to Debut Online

This NPR broadcast, by Jacob Ganz, talks about how Radiohead is selling their music on their website, rather than through record label companies. The real shocker is how much they're selling their new record for-whatever the consumer feels like paying. That's right, there's a blank box for where the price should be with a question mark next to it, and you can buy the album for whatever you want. This way of selling music is actually causing Radiohead to make a lot of money-more money than they'd make if they were selling it through a record label company. This also makes it so that more people are interested in Radiohead's albums. If you look at the bigger picture, though, you'll also see that buying the album for any price may also cause a decrease in people illegally downloading the album online. This could be the solution to end Internet piracy that every one's been waiting for! Reasons why people download music online is because they don't want to pay for the CD, and that it's easier just to download it off the Internet. With Radiohead's method of selling music, they are eliminating these reasons for people to illegally download music. Could this bring an end to Internet piracy?

A Robot With Heart

This article, by scenta, talks about a robot that can perform catheter ablation surgery on people with arterial fibrillation (AF), a heart rhythm disorder. AF is the most common heart disorder, especially in the elderly, and yet catheter ablation is the most difficult surgery to perform, due to the complexity of the surgery, and there are few doctors that are trained to perform this kind of surgery. This makes it so that only 10 percent of people with AF can undergo the surgery. The Sensei Robotic Catheter system is a robotic arm controlled by a doctor in another room that performs the surgery-it has the brain of the doctor, and the precision of a robot. This new technology makes it so that many more people can undergo the surgery, with a lot less risk. There may be a risk to this Sensei Robotic Arm, though. There have been many instances of engineering designs failing, such as the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis. Who knows if this robotic arm could suddenly malfunction, at the risk of the person having the surgery? It's a good thing, though, that there is a doctor controlling the robotic arm, because operations need a surgeon's innovation and expertise, and a robot performing surgery on its own could be dangerous. The Sensei Robotic Catheter system can be a very beneficial instrument in the medical world, and can help save lives, but there's no knowing if the robot may malfunction. Do the pros outweigh the cons?
http://www.scenta.co.uk/Health/1706351/a-robot-with-heart.htm

Intellectual Property

In this chapter in Gift of Fire by Sara Baase, the problem of copyrighting and what can be done about it is addressed. Intellectual property is an original work that is protected by copyright, but , with advances in technology, copyright infringement is becoming easier than ever to get away with. The fair-use doctrine states that, as long as the use of the copyrighted material has a good purpose, then distribution and use of the material is protected under this doctrine. The problem with this is, who has the power to decide what is "fair"? This could be a matter of opinion, and anyone could say their purpose for using copyrighted material is fair. What really causes controversy is whether the use and distribution of copyrighted material has an effect on the market. Free downloading of songs on the Internet could be said to cause a decrease in the sale of Cd's, which would be harmful to the economy, along with being unfair to the copyrighter. A good solution brought up in the chapter is using encryption on hardware and software that prevents copying or viewing without proper authorization (digital rights management technologies). This seems like the best way to prevent copyright infringement. The only problem is, could this go against the fair-use doctrine? There needs to be a balance between all-out copying and use of any and every copyrighted product, and completely stopping the fair use of copyrighted materials.

The Copyright Paradox

This article, by Jonathan Band, is about copyright laws, and how they seem to be targeting beneficial organizations rather than individuals. It's easy for individuals to perform copyright infringement (like burning CDs and downloading music online), but libraries and colleges are the ones getting in trouble for it. Legislation (through the DMCA and the UCITA) can help prevent Internet piracy, but it's also preventing libraries and educational organizations from distributing copyrighted material fairly. It's ironic how individual copyright infringers, who mean harm, are able to get away with copyright infringement, while libraries (etc.), who mean no harm, are prevented from distributing useful information, which, under Section 108 of the Copyright Act, they are allowed to do. There definitely needs to be something done about copyright infringement, but legislation seems to be going about it the wrong way. Shrink-wrap and click-on licenses help, but the freedom of the Internet causes people to be able to put anything and everything on the Internet, and once some thing's on the Internet, there's no stopping it. The only solution that seems to come to mind is the dreaded government take-over of what's allowed to be on the Internet, but this would be against our First and Fourth amendment rights. This situation is indeed a paradox, and there doesn't appear to be a tangible solution. Perhaps just awareness and consideration of others could help solve the problem. There definitely needs to be a large effort on the consumer's part if there's going to be any solution to this problem.

Is there a light 10 billion times brighter than the sun?

This article, by Jacob Silverman, talks about the Diamond synchrotron, which is a particle accelerator that can produce a beam of light 10 billion times brighter than the sun. A particle accelerator accelerates electrons to a great speed so that they'll produce a lot of energy, and the Diamond synchrotron concentrates these energetic electrons into an extremely concentrated beam of light. Since light waves consist of X-rays, this technology can be used to read manuscripts that are too old and fragile to handle. Since light waves also include waves such as microwaves, it could be possible to use this kind of technology to power homes, like nuclear energy (which uses nuclear fission reactors). When Silverman wrote this article, though, he failed to write possible harm this Diamond synchrotron could cause. Light from the sun includes UV rays, which are radioactive, and can cause cancer. If this synchrotron can produce a light beam 10 billion times as intense as the sun, this means it is also 10 billion times as radioactive as the sun. This light beam can be very beneficial, but it may also be very dangerous, so it needs safety precautions, just as nuclear reactors do, to insure safety while providing benefit.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/synchrotron.htm