May people ask me as a designer if I ever think print will die. First I respond with laughter, because I often think it a rather stupid question. Then I proceed to say “I certainly hope not…”
Paperless has become quite a trend. People often think that we’ll be entirely paperless by some distant point in the future in order to save millions of trees and deforestation of rain forests etc. Their biggest advocate? The eBook. Why? Because there isn’t any paper pages, and often they’re cheaper to purchase. A pretty solid argument right? Perhaps… if you don’t live in a third world country.
There has been a big push for literacy in the world as a step towards solving poverty. It’s a great start I think, and a very noble task. People need to learn how to read as a means of making it through this life and becoming a “successful and functional member of society” (I’d love to hear someone tell an African Tribe leader that, they’d probably end up disgraced and kicked out of the village, or even worse in some cultures). Written language certainly can open many doors, but if we’re making the striving to build up the economic world using literature, we’d have to make it accessible to everyone. Now tell me, how many isolated tribes in the rainforest have pluming and electricity? Probably none of them huh?
What I’m getting at is this: eBooks are not all accessible. Not everyone in the world has internet. Not everyone in the world even has basic necessities for that matter. So why are we so convinced that going paperless is a real option for the whole world? Perhaps for more developed nations it can be a reality, but that would also cause the problem of increasing the poverty gap, and perhaps even possibly make poverty a bigger problem…or worse…cause us to take extreme measures destroying cultures by bringing in a very western and commercial line of thinking.
There is this great documentary on PBS about the development of nations based on the question “Why are some countries more developed than others?” It’s called Guns, Germs, and Steel based on a book by William McNeill and if you’re interested in the subject I recommend you find it or perhaps download it somewhere and watch it. It’s quite fascinating if you’re a history buff. It’s good stuff and talks about some of the issues of poverty and resources in certain nations, and how they developed into power houses and third worlds.
I do not think print will ever die. Printed books are easier to get to the masses that digital ones for the reasons I said above, and so many others as well. Paper is used in so much more than printed work, poster, fliers and pamphlets. It’s a practical resource.
If you need more convincing…then watch the video below.
With the War ongoing and the dilemma of ethical technology use ever more blurry. Many lawyers have been conducting legal research on the matter and the issue stands whether or not it is a legal issue at all, or simply a moral one.
This topic was brought up by what is being called the ”White Paper Memo” saying the President has the right to kill indiscriminately using drones…including US citizens (don’t you just love the freedom of equality).
For an introduction to the topic, please visit the link below.
The link below is a video that discusses the issue of Drone Warfare and the argument against it’s ethical and legal use.
The link below is to a video of Harold Koh, legal advisor to the US Department of State, arguing that the use of drone warfare is legal according to United States and International law.
Regardless of a person’s stance on the issue, we have to agree that to every action there is an intention, and there are those things that are unintended.
I don’t know about any of you, but I saw this on one of my dear friends facebook statuses today and it caused me to get a little nervous:
In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).
For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!
(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place
them under protection of copyright laws.
By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).
Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.
Being an artists, graphic designer, and photographer, I know better than to post any of my most personal info and artistic content on Facebook. Having a healthy caution of putting things on the internet is the first step to being a responsible patron of the online community (and respect of yourself). However, whenever I heard of things like this I always tend to get a little paranoid. So, I do what I do best, and take a little peek at the online news to see if I can find enough reliable resources to validate or refute the statements. Turns out this whole thing is a hoax and honestly, you cannot refute the contract via facebook status. That’s not how the law and copyright works friends (and if anyone seriously thought that it did then you’ve been seriously uneducated). Also how can you refute facebook’s ownership with a status when they own the statuses you put up?
If you are interested in legally putting your work under Copyright then please visit the U.S. Copyright Office website for more information on going through the proper channels. For more info on the Hoax and facebook policies read your Facebook Terms of Agreement, and view these helpful articles:
Yes folks, it’s happened. As crazy as it may seem… it is possible that weaponry can be printed. With the creation of a new form of technology there is always a down side. The use of the 3D printer for weapons has been a discussed possibility for everything from gaming dice and simple manufacturing to medicine and military use.
Now understand me correctly, these weapons are not your class A firearms. in many cases the guns printed only lasted a handful of rounds or less. The article The 3D-printed gun: When is high-tech too hot to handle By David Cardinal gives a bit more information on the problems of printing 3D guns. Plastics simply are not the kind of quality materials that guns need to hold themselves together. But he also brings up the main issue:
Few issues generate as many opinions as gun ownership. Almost every country in the world recognizes the special importance of firearms and regulates them. In the United States, the right to own a gun is written into our constitution as part of the famous Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights. Tempering those rights are a slew of state and federal regulations including laws requiring those who manufacture weapons for sale to be licensed, the weapons they create to be numbered and registered, and the guns to be readily detectable. 3D printing is threatening to turn the existing system of regulations on its head.
In short, this means that people without gun licenses — or people who have had their licenses revoked — could print their own lower receiver and build a complete, off-the-books gun. What a chilling thought.
But hey, that’s the ambivalent nature of technology, the great enabler. In just the last few months, 3D printers have also been used to print organs, blood vessels, and drugs. In a few more years, when 3D printers move beyond plastic resins, who knows what we’ll be able to print.
For every piece of technology we create, there is usually a number of pros and cons. In many cases the pros are larger in number than the cons, but at the same time the few cros are much larger problems than we realize. At what point do we critically regulate the uses of certain technologies, and when do we draw the line between the 1st Amendment and the well being of the population? Are we really being enabled and is it taking us in the wrong direction?
If you’re a Mac user you know some of the connotations that go along with Macs. Yes, they’re expensive. Yes, many wealthy schools and people have Macs. Yes, Apple is a large company that has made quite a bit of money on their flashy (aka beautiful) products and unique marketing scheme. But, is that really cause for making people pay more online?
Yes, you heard me correctly.
Being a Mac user I can’t say that I’ve come across this problem. Mostly because the site found to have done this kind of marketing was Orbiz, which is a site I don’t particularly use, because I’ve not needed to book hotels before. But several articles from US News, CNN, and CNet have given information about this type of business practice, one that I find personally to be unethical. The CEO of Orbitz comments on the matter (From CNNs report):
“CEO Barney Harford told CNN that Orbitz recommendation results are part of an attempt to pair customers with the hotel they’d probably pick. In this case, Orbitz will offer recommendations based on what other PC or other Mac users selected as their final hotel, on the assumption that spending habits are the same, he said.
“What we have found is … that Mac users are 40% more likely to book four- or five-star hotels than PC users,” Harford said. “That lines up with (the fact that) Mac users are typically more willing to spend more money on higher-end computers.”
Now when one reads this 40% is a pretty high number. But, what if you consider that 40% of students are the purchasers of Mac computers? According to SeattlePi reports, Microsoft hasn’t been very attractive to this new generation. Though the information is almost 2 years old the trend is apparent on college campuses, coffee shops, and cyber cafes across the nation. Students are a fairly large sum of mac users, and I ask why should they pay more? Aren’t loans enough to pay off?
Of course this is all here-say as well, there is still a lot of information that isn’t accounted for. There is still that 60% of Mac users to take into account. There is still the fact that some people receive Macs as gifts like I did with mine (I’d like to know what % that is). But, regardless of that information, it causes a kind of socioeconomic profiling that I simply cannot reconcile, even if it’s for the sake of marketing. It’s almost as bad as The Nations report on how women pay more for everyday items (even medical insurance) than men do. It’s simply unreasonable. If The United States is a nation that stands for equality, then why are we being reduced to stereotypes based off something as small as the kind of computers we use? Why do human lives and choices have dollar signs all over them at all? All I know from this information is I won’t be using Orbitz anytime soon…or later in my life.
The other day a friend of mine posted a video from a pretty neat YouTube Channel called Vsauce which is dedicated to technology and peaking the interest of those around the world about their world. Upon further inspection of the site I found several other creative, informative, and interesting videos that anyone interested in technology and human interactions, simply couldn’t live without.
Here is a video I found on there that takes us thorough the things we do in a day that ordinarily we would do in reality, but now have the capabilities for on the internet. All the links you could want ( should you want them) are available in the description section beneath the video. Trust me, you won’t regret seeing this.
First off, apologies for not posting much. Summer is crazy between work and well…work. Oh, the joys of being the intern.
Second, if you love computer ethics, never really thought about your imprint on a technological scale, and/or love anime…you may want to see this film. One of the most thought provoking films I’ve seen concerning the possible impacts that large internet powers (like Google and Facebook) can actually have on society that is totally dependent on them. Especially when things go terribly wrong.
**Warning: Watching this film may give you warm fuzzy feelings you may not feel comfortable with. Not recommended for children due to strong language and mild adult humor.**
A New York court on April 8th declared it legal to view child pornography on the internet claiming thst it is not “possessing” child pornography if it is merely being viewed (See full article here).
The issue the, New York court of appeals states, is that viewing online doesn’t mean you posses the media its self. If you view a lawn mower online doesn’t mean you own it right? Well, they aren’t wrong on that point, but we aren’t talking about inanimate possessions any more are we? We’re talking about children, living breathing beings being abused for the sake of entertainment (I’m sure that if one of the court members own children was in one of those online child pornography sites, they’d be playing a much different tune). What about hiring hit men? If one isn’t killing anyone themselves are they still held responsible for the death? The way I see it, viewing pornography is the same as hiring a hit man because it is another way of enabling the creation of child porn simply because of the increase in demand for it (and an increase will inevitably come as viewing increases).
On a side note I was dicussing pornography with a friend and they made a good argument. They wondered how is pornography is not considered prostitution when you’re paying people to have sex with other people…like prostitutes. So why isn’t porn specifically illegal like prostitution considering they have the same definition?
Regardless, online morality might be taking an “interesting” (to put it lightly) turn because of this ruling.
Want to know what you can do to help fight against child pornography? Click here.
Ever walked into an interview and been asked for your facebook username and password? Apparently this women has. To get the full original story click here.
Big controversy over employers asking for full access to prospective and current employee facebook accounts. As I understand this was recently voted down in the House as reported on March 28th (due to a few holes in the proposal as well as other arguments), but there is still legislation that can be made within states wether or not to allow such information to be available to employers (click here for more info). It’s not a wide spread practice, but one can’t help but be unnerved. We’re not obligated to give our e-mail and zipcode to stores for marketing reasons. So why should we give our employers our private and personal information? They have our Social Security numbers for heaven’s sake! As if that isn’t unnerving enough.
I understand the desire to check personal information and make sure you’re hiring a quality employee, but what does a Facebook page have to do with it? Sure there are privacy setting people put up, but usually those are specifically to prevent undesirables from contacting you and knowing where you live. What could you possibly be keeping from an employer that they couldn’t see my looking at your facebook profile? Personal and professional lives are meant to be separate aren’t they? Have we lost the art of switching hats? Are we that desperate that we need to have constant access to our workplaces?
I usually try to remain objective in my posts, but things like this friggin’ irritate me. We should have some kind of protection under the law that allows us to ask the same of our employers if we’re not able to have protection to keep it to ourselves. If I were ever asked to do such a thing, I’d ask them for their passwords so I could figure out if they’re the kind of person I’d want to work for. I as an employee have to protect myself too right? And how do I know my boss is a trustworthy person? How can I look for red flags if I don’t come into contact with them often (an issue with large companies)? I feel if employers want to ask high standards of their employees they should also be held to the same standard to their employees. A “Golden Rule of Private Information” if you will. I’d bet if something like that were to happen, very few employers would ever ask for Facebook passwords ever again, much less have anything good on there to begin with.
As usual I highly recommend to you read the provided links in this post completely so you can fully understand the extent of these potential laws.
Was on the AIGA website and found an interesting article about designers designing for immigration reform. I’m finding it more and more interesting how art becomes a major part of political image and change especially since technology has improved over the past two decades alone. To read more about this specific topic the article is called CULTURESTRIKE: DESIGN ACTIVISM TO IMPACT IMMIGRATION REFORM. There is a gallery available for you to brows through.
With the upcoming elections, immigration is one of the many political battles that politicians and people alike tend to weigh heavily. With all the controversy over the boarders, many wonder what really can be done about this close-to-home issue. Despite my political views on immigration and boarder control, I think the designs for these posters are raw, but effective. Reminds me of Russian Constructivism not in appearance, but in meaning: making strong statements with art. For many more articles on design and social change visit AIGA’s website.
