Journal Entry 5

Thursday 5 November 2015

• Girls are often taught from a young age to play with barbies or play with dolls while boys are given opportunities to play with Legos, build things and take things apart. Perhaps teaching girls to take things apart and put them back together from an early age could equalize the perceived gender gap in the workforce. While this may result in more girls in the work force, I don’t think it’s necessarily the right thing to do. The Family A Proclamation To The World states “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” Perhaps building things and taking things apart isn’t the best way to help girls learn, from a young age, how to nurture their future children.
• Many women may use the “I’m going to be a stay at home mom” attitude to avoid getting an education. This may be true, but I also feel that many women use the attitude of “I’m not going to be just a stay at home mom” attitude to avoid starting a family.
• There may currently be more men than women in the work force. I believe that this is fine (regardless of the field) so long as the only thing providing for more men in the work force is that the women qualified for the positions don’t want the positions.

Tuesday 10 November 2015

• What is the definition of “fair”? Typically people will use this word to their advantage. So perhaps “it’s not fair that there are more men than women in the workplace” is not the best way to phrase the point if you’re trying to make a change. Something more along the lines of “The fact that there are more men than women in the workplace inhibits women’s ability to provide for themselves without relying on men.” would better suit your needs.
• ”Violent Video Games are Linked to Aggression, Study Says” Is it ethical to title an article in a way that may mislead readers? While this particular title of an article may not be the best example of this point, the question remains. I feel that one should always deal in a straightforward and upright manner. Therefore, titles that are intended to mislead are unethical. If a title is not intended to be misleading, but someone is still mislead by it, then it’s the person’s fault for being gullible.
• If it can be shown that violent video games cause aggression, is making such video games ethical? I don’t feel that it would be ethical to make violent video games if this were the case; however, in this situation I fear that if all of the “ethical” people refuse to participate in making such video games there will be no “ethical” force to balance all of the “unethical” people that will inevitably continue making violent video games. So, even if it were shown that violent video games cause aggression, I feel it would still be ethical to participate in making violent video games, if only to be a balancing force on the side of “good.”

Thursday 12 November 2015

• Guest speaker Cydni Tetro said that virtually all of her daily interactions were with men. While this may not be a problem for her, this could be part of the issue preventing women from seeking out jobs in the tech world. It’s possible that women don’t want to be in those situations every day, or it’s possible that the women’s husbands discourage them from seeking such positions so that they are not put in such positions every day.
• Cydni made the generalization that “All studies will tell you that a team with both men and women will be more successful than a team of all men.” While this may be true almost all of the time, I’d be willing to bet there there are some situations where a team of all men (or a team of all women for that matter) would be able to perform a given task better than a team of men and women. Such sweeping generalizations can serve to convince an easily swayed individual; however, to others they may serve only to discredit the individual making such statements.
• One of Cydni’s points was “Make it a non-issue.” She explained that this meant we should treat our workplace interactions with those of the opposite sex in the same way we would treat our interactions with those of the same sex. I think this is a valid point and that many workplace environments would benefit from implementing this advice; however, males and females are different and as such it may not be “for the best” if all differences in gender/race/personality are disregarded when interacting with another individual.

Tuesday 17 November 2015

• What are the ethical implications of an employer limiting employees' use of social media/dictating what an employee can/can’t do on social media? For example, is it ethical for an employer to prohibit employees from “connecting” with clients in order to avoid potential breaches of client confidentiality? I say that this is ethical. If an employee has a legitimate outside-the-workplace relationship with a client they should be able to “connect”; however, otherwise it is the business’s right to protect itself.
• The average American spends 16 minutes per hour online. Is it ethical to make such social media websites that enable people to “waste” so much time? The degree to which time is “wasted” is largely a matter of perspective; however, I feel it is not ethical to make websites/games that are built with the intent of wasting people’s time. I’m sure that most social media sites are not built with that intent, so they are “ethical” even according to me; however, I feel that the creators and engineers of the social media sites could make a greater effort to make their sites less prone to “suck people in” to wasting large amounts of time.
• Microsoft has a bunch of groups (Gay Support, Russian Speakers, Hispanics, etc.); however, it doesn’t have any “Straight Support” or “Caucasian” groups. I feel that not having such groups is discriminatory (or having any groups at all is discriminatory). If a company is going to cater to the desires of every minority group that cares to raise its voice, the company should also provide the same level of support and resources to any group, even if the group isn’t a minority. Many companies (and entities in general) are so concerned about catering to minority groups that the majority of individuals are actually subject to the discrimination that the minority groups claim to be subject to.

Would You Ride in a Deathmobile?

Imagine you’re driving down the road when all of a sudden an oncoming car darts into your lane making a crash inevitable. You have a split second decision- hit the oncoming car full of people, or avoid the car by swerving and hitting a pedestrian. Which do you choose? Now imagine that your car was self-driving. Who teaches your car what it should choose in such situations? With the advancements in technology in recent years these situations are likely to become a reality; however, this reality brings with it many difficult questions. What should the car do when an accident is inevitable? I feel that the only “fair” logic to program into these cars is the logic that makes the car take the path of the least amount of harm for all parties involved. However, what should a car do if this “path of least harm” involves the death of the self-driving car’s passengers? Should it still take this path? I feel that in such situations the car should still take the “path of least harm.” If this logic is consistent in all self-driving cars everyone will know the risk they are taking by riding in a self-driving car and the outcomes will always be what’s best for the greater collective good. All that being said, if that’s the logic in self-driving cars, I’ll never ride in one.

Read the article that inspired this post here.

Journal Entry 4

Tuesday 27 October 2015

• In the “dot com bubble” phase, investment bankers took companies public even though the companies weren’t profitable. Was this action ethical? Looking back I think it’s easy for the general public to say “no” because the general public lost money; however, the fault partially lies with the general public because they were unwise enough to trust the advice of the bankers to buy the stock of these companies even though said companies weren’t profitable.
• Friends of Frank (a Wall Street banker in Silicone Valley) were given the opportunity to buy stocks that were about to go public. This wasn’t necessarily ethical (giving the stock or buying it) but it could be seen as a “wise business decision”. If someone offered you the chance to “legally” double/triple/quintuple your money in a day, would you take it? It’s possible I might, though I’d make sure it was a “sound” decision.
• The “Greater Fool” theory – if everyone keeps buying and the price keeps going up… what are we really paying for? At some point someone says “wait a minute this company has no value, so I’m not going to buy” then everyone starts selling. Is it ethical to participate in an activity where you’re counting on a “bigger fool” than yourself? I say yes, depending on the activity; though if one ruthlessly takes advantage of people it’s not.
• VCs told mortgage.com not to sell their company to Intuit. Is it ethical to give advice that might hurt someone in the long run, but if they follow it they’ll still profit? Is it ethical to give that advice if in giving it, you will also profit? I say it’s OK to give the advice, but give it only as that – advice. Don’t force or pressure the entity to whom you’re giving advice and be honest in your advice- make sure they know that you’re giving advice for partially selfish reasons.

Thursday 29 October 2015

• Sometimes white-hat hackers will send spam emails along the lines of “You’ve won $1,000,000. Simply pay $1,000 to claim your prize!” to employees of a company the hackers are targeting. The hackers will then target the people that respond to the email in an effort to obtain more information about the company. Are such actions ethical? I say they are. In this day and age, if you’re gullible enough to think one of those emails could lead to some sort of “big payday”, your company should be aware of your gullibility and be able to protect themselves appropriately.
• If you have a contract with a company saying something along the lines of “A 15% margin of error in cost estimates is acceptable” is it ethical to charge your customer 14.5% more than what you quoted them (even if it didn’t cost that much)? I say that unless it’s explicitly agreed upon that you’ll be doing that, it’s not ethical to charge more than what you quoted (especially if the cost you actually incurred was less that what you quoted). Perhaps an honest mistake in billing, or an erroneous quote every once in a while is acceptable, but consistently charging more than the amount quoted is the same as stealing.
• Certain banks during the "dot com bubble" were pushing companies to go public, even if the companies weren't profitable. Are such actions ethical? After all, if the company went public it would get money that could help it become profitable. I contend that in certain cases, helping a non-profitable company go public may be ethical (after all the whole point of an IPO is to raise money so that the company can "do more"); however, the banks in this situation were taking actions with the sole purpose of benefiting themselves. In the end the banks (and close friends of the people that ran the banks) were a lot richer and better off and many people in "the public" were a lot poorer and worse off due to the actions of the banks.

Tuesday 3 November 2015

• Postmann article:
  • Culture always pays a price for technology
  • There are always winners and losers in technological change
  • The medium is the message
  • Technological change is not additive, it is ecological
  • Media become mythic (like the alphabet)
• Concerning “There are always winners and losers in technological change” – I agree; however, I do not agree wholeheartedly. This statement is constructed to appear that both winners and losers are equally prevalent. I contend that this is generally not the case. Sure, the invention of the assembly line may have put many blacksmiths out of business, but it created many more jobs for those working on the assembly line. Sure, the invention of computers may have made paper and pencil manufacturers a little more obsolete, but countless people have benefited from the advancements in nearly all aspects of life that a computer facilitates. In short, there may be losers, but generally speaking for any “advancement” the loss of the losers is generally insignificant when compared to the winnings of the winners (and sometimes the winners and the losers are the same individuals).
• Concerning "Culture always pays a price for technology" - I also agree with this statement; however, again, I don't agree wholeheartedly with what the statement implies. When I read it I get the feeling that the author was implying that the "price paid" for technology is almost so much that it doesn't justify the technological advancement. I feel that there are many advancements today that came at a price far less than the gain we experience each day. For example the prevalence of TV/movies today has "normalized" the dialects of English in the United States. To me, this "price" is well worth the information and entertainment afforded by the TV and movies.
• Concerning "Technological change is not additive, it is ecological" - I agree with this statement. When a technology is introduced into a society it rarely (if ever) will affect only a small portion of society and then cease to spread. As good as this sound, it does come with a downside. With the "ecological" changes technology has introduced into our society, we've become dependent on things that we, as a nation, didn't depend on in the past. For example, if for some reason the laws of physics suddenly changed preventing internal combustion engines from functioning, how many people would starve because they lived in a big city that depended on commercial transportation to bring food into the city? How many people would be out of a job simply because they lived too far away from their place of work to get to and from work each day (or even week) without the aid of some sort of engine? So, while I agree that the statement is true, society may be better off if the statement weren't true.