User:RM395/Course/Week 08

This is a discussion page. Contribute to a discussion thread by indenting your response at the bottom of the thread. Placing a colon at the beginning of a line will indent everything until you hit enter and start a new line. If your thoughts don't fall under existing headings (or if you're the first person to edit this page), create a new heading at the bottom. Remember to include your signature and timestamp by adding four tildes or clicking the signature icon up by the bold and italic icons.

We're already seeing a shift from print to digital copies of everything. Our generation got really comfortable staring at computer screens from a young age and the next generation I believe even more so. We are beginning to make the shift to reading books online or on a kindle device rather than a hard copy, and I believe the next generation will be raised with devices like that from the very beginning. It takes up less space, and also with the trend of everything going green for the environment that will play a factor too. All "information" will eventually be digital information, which is easier to share and more efficient to store. Librarians will not exist because you will be able to find anything you need with a search function and check it out yourself too. This isn't even technology that doesn't exist yet, it's all there and already beginning to slowly take over.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about technology from the "going green" factor. Great point, definitely a huge motivation and push for technology to become more prevalent in future society!--Tabbboooo (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

When I think about the future of technology I too turn my thoughts towards digital distribution for better or for worse. This is noted especially in the video game industry where games will likely become entirely digital downloads exclusively, but also applies to other digital media such as film e.g. Amazon Instant Prime. Already we see loads of information readily available and in this decade all in our hand, and as technology improves (more storage space for less) so will digital distribution. --Seannator (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Digital is the way of the future. Going digital allows you to store vast amounts of information in such a tiny space. With the rise of tablets and getting faster and faster phones information can be received digitally almost anywhere. I think mobile is the way of the future. Everyone wants to be able to get information anywhere they are and they want to get it instantly. Currently we are working on creating faster and faster Wifi. We just released a new 4G connection and are trying to make this connection so widespread that it can be accessed anywhere in the US and eventually the world. I think that technologies such as brain chips are a very very long way off, we need to learn a lot more about the brain first. I think that a completely mobile, real time, information access network is right around the corner. You could argue that we are already almost there but I still think that 3G is pretty slow. 4G is pretty slow as well. The web pages are also fairly limited, in that the max upload/download speeds are really low and it doesn't allow you to get information quickly at all. I think once this is rectified information will be able to be accessed anywhere and almost instantly, if you have a question all you have to do is ask and you will be able to find an answer.--MartellRedViper (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate what you wrote above: " Everyone wants to be able to get information anywhere they are and they want to get it instantly." For years I've been looking for a way to have all of my stuff -- content, music, images, contacts, email archive, data, calendar -- all of that stuff, available 24/7 at any location and on any device, all synced in real time, available both in the cloud but also saved on the local device, in case of lost connection. It's still not there, but should be possible. I use Google Gmail, Calendar, and Contacts, and with Google Drive I almost have what I'm looking for. The big downside is that Google stuff is only available in the cloud and doesn't replicate onto the local device. Evernote is great because it replicates to the device, DropBox also does this, but these apps don't give you a calendar, contacts, email -- that communication-oriented stuff.--Brodmont (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mobile devices are the most demanded technological items on the market at this time. It is a way of communication, information gathering and exploration on the individual behalf. Cell phone companies now have H+, 4g connection which in other countries it is 5g and practically you can access the web and information at theoretically 42-60 MBPS( megabytes per second). Tablets and ipads are necessary as well as you have more of a portable technological machine in which is useful for continued work, research, communication, connection and even gps signals. Mobile devices are trending in style but is useful as well as is very benefeical. It seems to subsequently take place of the computer. It is more of a portable computer in which we store our personal information and further gain information and necessary knowledge and news. --Isaiahgee (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think eventually almost all information will be in the form of some kind of electronic medium. Books are limited in that it uses a lot of paper and constantly updating it will eat up more paper. Websites, on the other hand, are only limited to server space and cost of hosting, but there isn't any "borders" to the internet. Kind of like how old books get "archived", websites can do that too, with the help of other sites such as "the Wayback machine" if the site was popular enough. With the help of technology like the Kindle, books can now be accessed electronically. Even now, some Korean manga have evolved to websites like Naver that holds online manga (also known as "Webtoons"). As internet and technology becomes more and more accessible, paper information is slowly developing into webpage information. --MangoDango (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that books are costly and lack the ability to be updated. There are some costs to the internet, such as the computer/kindle/other device, the internet itself, and any subscriptions that are necessary, but overall it is less expensive than print medium. Online books don't have the problem that online websites do with credibility either, but website do need to catch up on the credibility scale.Kslinker5493 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Books definitely had significant drawbacks in terms of cost and keeping the information they contain up to date. People will continue to change and improve the way information is handled and displayed on the web. As these techniques improve, new organizations will emerge as credible and drive everything forward.--Jeflicki (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. Electronic media have huge advantages over paper and will probably continue to overtake hard-copy media. I still find, though, that paper is a great interface for certain kinds of work. I consume books in three different forms now -- paper, electronic, and audio. Some books for some purposes I will only obtain in paper form because I need to be able to work with the content in a certain way that is not possible with the audio or electronic form.--Brodmont (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree I find paper as a good interface when for some types of work as well. I also find electronic and audio useful for other types of work. It all really depends on the situation. When I am studying for something or doing a rough draft I prefer paper because I can easily write down notes and ideas. When I am looking up information and I am trying to find a specific word in a text electronic is useful due to the find command. Many people say books will become a thing of the past becuse electronic is so more convenient but I doubt it. I simply think that some things will always be printed. --Youngpenn (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point, I don't think there are any really well known programs that would let you interact with the text online. For example, I know some people like to highlight and write notes on the margin of books when reading, especially when it's an assignment for class. Some may even put sticky notes. That is a bit harder to mimic online. Some programs like Microsoft word can highlight and add comments, but I highly doubt people actually read entire books on Microsoft word. As far as I am aware, I don't think Kindle or .pdf files can do those types of things. Some non-electronic things are still better in terms of meeting to the needs of disabled people. For example, braille books or audio like you said, could help a lot with people who are blind. Reading on the computer, on the other hand, may be more difficult for them unless they get a lot of audio programs downloaded onto the computer. --MangoDango (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you have ever used a kindle before but they actually support both of these actions. With a kindle I can highlight certain sections as well as put in line notes into the ebook. I can then view a list of all the highlights I have made and do the same with my notes as well. This to me seems a much easier way especially since it supports a find feature, so you can jump straight to a topic or key word you are looking for.--MartellRedViper (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the dissemination of information will continue to expand into the corners of the world that have been yet untainted by the modern blessings of internet and vast communication abilities. I'm personally fascinated by the possibilities that lie in ubiquitous, global information sharing in terms of literacy and human interaction. Here in the United States, computer literacy has become mandatory for daily life -- those who fail to adapt fail to maintain relevancy. I predict that will spread across the globe. I strongly believe that eventually Kenyan teenagers will be complaining about their grandparents being on Facebook (or whatever the topical social media website of the day is) as much as we do. I'm also firmly persuaded we should all be learning Chinese. Seriously, you guys.

I noticed the question distinguished information rather than knowledge. While the two are connected, they are different. Information spreads with greater speed, it seems, than knowledge. So, we KNOW that eating too much fast food and candy will make you gain weight. But the right way to eat is still in question. It's more information than knowledge. Wikipedia is really good for spreading information, I think, and it models the same principles (open-source, non-expert contributions, democracy-based establishment of 'fact') that will lead us into the future of information. --Luna002 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the trend in recent history, it seems pretty natural to assume that everything will become electronic in the near future and that books and print may become obsolete. I think this is most likely the case, but that there will be a spin to it. I think the "concept" of books will be added to online resources in that editors, biographies of the authors, citations, and more will start to become the norm. People are less trusting of their information today, partly because of the internet, and that sort of thinking is going to lead online writers to have to prove themselves. Now, it is still sometimes hard to figure out the author of online sources and what his/her credentials are. If that starts to change, and furthermore, if editors are added, the online source would be much more trustworthy and reliable. Kslinker5493 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With all these "book" apps available, it would make sense for people to be able to convert print books into digital copies. Using Origin, a hard copy of a computer game can be made digital so there is no need to insert a disk to play. I think this will soon happen with books. Many people read books over again and it would be nice to have access to a whole collection of printed books all the time. You could even do it with reference materials and magazines. Say you have a whole volume of encyclopedias that are just taking up space, but you don't want to get rid of them because you think you might one day have something you need to look up. Just scan or enter a code into a digital reader and download them there. You've just cleared up all that space on your bookshelf. Rebaduck (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is true about all the digitizing of books, and others have mentioned it as well, but personally, I like having bookshelves full of books, where I can see and smell and touch them and I've written personal notes in the margins. It makes me sad to think that printed books might be obsolete. There is just something solid and real about a book.--Tinaface86 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that eventually, not next year or anything, but EVENTUALLY, we will have some sort of information chips implanted into our bodies. Kids are already being chipped with all their information, medical problems, GPS, etc, by their parents, and we've all seen Minority Report- if it happened to Tom Cruise, it's definitely in our future, right? Seriously, though, you will probably be able to just download "Gardening" into your chip and go outside to your plants and have all the information about gardening right there in your head. Kind of like in the Matrix when they download Karate or whatever kind of fighting to Neo, and he just knows it. I don't really know anything about these technologies but I hardly doubt the government is that far off from initiating a chip system to keep tabs on all of us. Big Brother is watching. (That's 3 pop culture references in one post by the way). --Tinaface86 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a legitimately impressive combination of Hollywood-inspired predictions for the future. But it's probably a good thing that 2001: A Space Odyssey hasn't been accurate. But maybe we could do with an Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind future... not only can we insert chips to GET information, we could get treated to FORGET information. Ooooh, the possibilities...Luna002 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd be willing to go as brain chips yet but I do think information will continue to be accessible. Everything depends on where the internet is going. Information is only as accessible as the internet is. I think technology will continue to accommodate people's needs for portability. Internet connection technology will continue to become more efficient until it is cheap enough to be available to everyone. The devices we use for the internet is the biggest grey area. Maybe some kind of brain chip is possible, but I think that there will be some sort of very small device that will project images into the air but will somehow be touch enabled. But as far as information goes I firmly believe it will only go as far as the internet and the devices we use to access the internet will take it.--SJRick (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In my Critical Analysis of Media class we recently read a futuristic novel Feed (Anderson novel). In this novel, people have this thing placed in their head called the "Feed". This chip allowed access to loads of information based on where the user was. If he/she walked into a store, advertisements for merchandise within the store would pop into your head; You could read reviews of what others said about the product; There were statistics on how many units were sold and much more. Eventually, the crew found out that the "Feed" was constantly trying to put them into certain demographics so that they could be marketed to whatever there likes/dislikes were. That is a very scary future of information. --Thepresidenthal (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that completely because I think it is frightening enough how Facebook and other websites know your searches to be able to give ads that will be more likely to apply to you. I search google and reddit about hockey and go to nhl.com and facebook knows about it? Selling information to make a profit is scary.--SJRick (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you could have any 3 brain chips with any chunk of knowledge, what would they be? I think I'd pick languages... probably Arabic, Chinese, and... whale. Luna002 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Information is headed toward non-scarcity. Everything is available online, and most of it is offered for free. (Where it’s not, someone has undoubtedly copied-and-pasted it elsewhere.) You can’t avoid bias, but it doesn’t matter when the number of sources is infinite. Society would be left a lot worse with an effective monopoly holding the information industry, especially it feigns objectivity. Likewise, different perspectives often force readers to learn what the other side is thinking — this can be healthy for both personal development and rhetorical strategy. I see schools and universities disappearing within the next ten years. The institutions will exist for “hard majors” (e.g., sciences) requiring the perfection of technical skill sets (i.e., experiments in laboratories), but most of what students learn in school is, frankly, pointless memorization. Why force students to memorize facts that they can summon with a click of the mouse in real life? Non-scarce information is disruptive; that’s for sure. Ultimately it will lead to a more informed and better equipped world. --Information-01152001 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that information will continue to become more and more technological as well as more prevalent in parts of the world which are not quite as tech savvy yet, as someone stated above. I recently learned that my old high school, which my little sister still attends, now requires every student to purchase a macbook to be used in class for readings. The students access readings for class using their laptops and books are no longer used. I for one find it appalling that this is happening. Books will soon be forgotten as they are replaced by laptops and iPads until, one day, a generation will evolve that wont even know what a book is. Just as people have become heavily dependent on their iPhones, so too will these forms of education become relied on. What would happen if there was a catastrophe in which internet was wiped out from our planet? Would people even know how to continue with their lives without such technology? People have survived much longer on this planet without technology than with it. It seems ridiculous that we have become so reliant on technology and it causes me to wonder what percentage of the population really could survive without it... Aside from those beliefs, I believe technology will only continue to advance and become more prevalent. With new gadgets that continue to become smaller, quicker and using newer "better" technological innovations. For instance, holographic computers, like those in Minority Report, as referenced by someone else.--Ryenocerous (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the strangest thing about that is a laptop computer is required in a high school. There are lots of people that cannot afford to have that. As time goes on it becomes cheaper to reproduce technology. Look at how much a dvd player costs now, they are practically given away when a few years ago they were top notch. I see where you are going and I think as it becomes cheaper and many years down the road it is highly possible there will be holographic computers in every house because it has become a necessity to own such technology to be able to access information.--SJRick (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that slowly but surely we will see the demise of paper books. We first saw the shift from books to hand held devices like Kindle or Nook but now we're seeing more than just books becoming available. Subscriptions to different types of publications, like newspapers or magazines, are available on just about any type of hand held device. Whether you're on your smartphone, tablet or computer, companies like The New York Times are available on just about anything. In addition, it is a shame that schools are requiring the use of laptops. I can't stand assignments taken from textbooks and placed on the internet to read or web assignments. There's nothing wrong with using an old fashioned book, or stopping by the newspaper stand and picking up your local paper. To me, the makes the content more localized and honest.Jastout (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of the massive amounts of information found everywhere in our current society, I think there's going to be a definite push for condensing information in the future. People no longer take the time to read extensive descriptions and explanations. For a large part of the time, people want the essential facts and then they move on. Information in the future is going to be concise. No flowery language, just pure information. Along with compact information, this information will become available more instantly. Right now we can yell at Siri to find an answer to something and this technology is improving daily. Just recently Google released designs for their newest product "Google Glass" which will allow users to do various tasks -- such as search the web -- right in front of your eyes using voice command. I think our information is turning into small bursts of instantaneous facts and will continue to do so in the future.--Eems.p (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I really like that you used the word "condensed" here. In my post, I discussed the universal availability of information as well as the possibility for instant reception, but I forgot about how much information we can store in such a small amount of space. For instance, someone just the other day condensed The Pirate Bay's entire content collection into a single 75MB file that people can download in case the website is seized one day. It used to take numerous boxes to contain a few books in the past; now thousands can be packed into a weightless blip protected by encryption and anything else. --Information-01152001 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Great comments written above, and much of this will probably come true. But at the same time, I think some amazing and unexpected things are going to happen that we have almost no way to predict. I'm old enough to remember when there was no Internet -- not just that few people knew what it was, but that it didn't yet exist. I was using the Internet at the time the World Wide Web was started. Now it's hard to imagine a world without the web, but if you went back in time to 1985 and tried to tell somebody about the web and how much it would change the world, they would think you were crazy. That's why I say that maybe the most important things that will happen with information are things we simply can't imagine or articulate now.--Brodmont (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a really interesting point and I definitely agree with it. We imagine by building off of things that already exist. It's hard for us to think of new things without first thinking of a slight moderation of something we already know. Before the World Wide Web and the Internet, most people would never have thought about such a thing, its concept is so different from anything that was previously in existence. What you're saying about unexpected things is so true, we can speculate all we want about the future of information, but only time will tell!--Eems.p (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In the future, I wouldn't be surprised if information, while accessible by many, would be controlled by the very few. An example of this happened as recently as last December, where there was an outrage to the change of the terms of service for Instagram; these changes suggested that the company would be using its users' images for its own advertising. In the future, I'd expect that behavior to catch on and escalate. Perhaps the convenience of fully-digitized and easily-accessible information comes at the price of being controlled by those who can afford to host it all. --Katerwaul (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In the future, I believe there will be no paper, but only digital copies of papers. Books, libraries, bookstores, journals, diaries, calendars...everything made with paper (even money maybe) will become digitized in the future. There will be no paper trails. I think eventually, technology will become a part of homes and possibly even our brains (like in all those movies...ahh!). You might even be required to have a digital ID that tracks everything you do on the internet, as it becomes more and more commonplace, and takes over the physical, tangible aspects of life. As technology evolves, so will society. I think values and ideas of the norm will change completely. Society as a whole will become less and less tangible, in every way imaginable. Eventually machines will take over most jobs, video conferencing will replace face to face meetings, and people might not even have to leave their home to work but rather punch in digitally, working with others over the internet. I dont even think you will have to go to the doctor for smaller issues, rather some sort of technology will allow you to be tested in your own homes. Along with these changes will come disasters. When technology takes over everything, what happens when technology fails? Its almost like the question of "what would we do without electricity" in our day. I am scared of the increasing move towards less and less human interaction, and I think it will have huge, negative impacts on society, as well as the children who grow up in it. I think innocence will be lost for many of them, considering that children usually pick up technology the quickest, and are the most curious. Having access to the internet will show them things they aren't ready for, or don't understand (my 7 year old sister youtubes non-stop). This is not to say that there is nothing positive about technology in the future. Surely there will be some amazing advancements in the world, but at what cost?--Tabbboooo (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people have mentioned routes for information technology that I agree with, so I'll talk about information in relation to humanity. I think that with instantly accessible information on just about any topic, knowledge and information is not something that is retained anymore. This is partly because of technological hubs of information like Wikipedia, because information and the "truth" is constantly changing. But I honestly think that much like people can so easily access a point of fact via their iPhones, eventually people will not truly "know" things anymore. With the exception of a few, information will become something that is not discovered through scientific method, but from accessing information through technological databases. I think that eventually, if there is something that isn't written about online, rather than random individuals creating and displaying that information on a topic in an article or something, it will be a crisis situation.--Eng395jy (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole purpose for technology is to make life easier and more efficient. The ideas stated above are all possible and will most likely come true because they help with efficiency. I am guessing that eventually we will develop a AI something like HAL from Space Odyssey which can monitor the small things that we no longer have time to think about or want to do. I also think that the idea of brain chips mentioned above will probably come true but not in the way you are thinking. It wont be a way to deliver information to us because I doubt our brains could handle such a jarring experience. I think it will be something that assists us in our brain function that allows us to make calculations faster and be more precise in our decisions and judgement of what to do. With all this information available to us we wont be able to have the speed to comprehend it all and we are going to need help so I think chips might help with that. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issue with brain chips is being able to translate thoughts and memories into some physical form. Currently we somewhat understand where certain things reside in the brain, such as motor skills, but overall we really still don't know much about the brain. From what I have heard our memory also almost seems to be "limitless" but if this were the case that means that memory isn't stored physically and thus having a chip in our brain would be impossible. I personally believe that we will have to wait until we get to atom computing, I think our brain may store memory in an atomic structure, or perhaps even smaller but we won't know for sure until we can first get a computer working on that level.--MartellRedViper (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the market is shifting more to tablets and tablet style phones, I feel like everything will become digitally available, or cloud sharing. Apple uses mostly cloud computing, which actually works quite nicely. Also, disks, whether it be for music or gaming, I could see shifting to being able to purchase strictly over the internet. We've already seen this happen somewhat with iTunes and with the unveiling of Playstation 4 and Xbox 720, we may see a permanent shift. Books and news are available on kindle and over the web making it very difficult for publications. Condensed information, and not having to cary newspapers, books and CDs around may look attractive to consumers. --Jastout (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there could be a shift from paper to electronic text in the future. As you pointed out, the kindle already serves as a means to replace books. I could definitely see this happen with newspapers as you also stated. Newspapers struggle already in a world where everything is electronically available. If someone wants to read the news they will usually watch TV or look online before getting a newspaper. I could foresee newspapers and magazines going out of business all together as a direct results of this transition to electronic media.--Ryenocerous (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)