Inital Research

CQ Researcher
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2006021000&type=hitlist&num=0
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1992121800&type=hitlist&num=1
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1985090600&type=hitlist&num=2

Book (PSU Library)
The psychology of eating : from healthy to disordered behavior
    Ogden, Jane

Bonding Over a Mascot Response

A potential research question that LaPointe could have started with for this essay is "Is the use of Native American imagery offensive to the tribes upon which the imagery is based?" This question would be fitting because LaPointe, through the NCAA ban on using Native American imagery, discusses the true relationship between the Seminoles and Florida State University. While explaining the relationship between schools and the inspirations for their mascots is one of the main focuses of the paper, I think the true purpose of the paper was to inform about the NCAA ban, and how it was not truly necessary because the schools generally have a good relationship with the tribes their mascots are based on. For example, Florida State University got permission from the Seminoles to "be theatrical" while using the Seminole as their mascot. Also, the Seminoles feel a sort of pride in being used as a mascot for the university, as long as the use of the Seminole is done respectfully. LaPointe's research contributes the the article because he justifies the positive relationship between Florida State and the Seminoles using the history of the school, the history of the Seminoles, and by getting the opinions of people that are related to the mascot debate (such as the Toni Sanchez, Myles Brand, and Tina Osceola, the Seminole's director of the historical resources department). By getting the various opinions from people involved in the debate, LaPointe is able to solidify the idea that the use of the mascots isn't demeaning or incorrect.

"Is the Internet Making Us Stupid?" Response

After reading this article, I do not believe that the Internet is making us stupid, as Carr claims.  I do not think he backs up his point enough to truly conclude we are becoming less intelligent from use of the Internet. Throughout the article, Carr refers to reading for leisure; he doesn't really talk about reading for research or any other purposeful reasons. One of the people he references says they are no longer able to "read War and Peace anymore." Carr mentions reading articles, but that's basically the only intelligent reading he mentions. I've been using the internet since I was young, and I have not lost my ability to "read deeply," especially if I am reading a book or article for fun. I think how interested we are in the topic and how important the topic is plays a role  in determining how "deeply" we choose to read it. For example, if I'm reading an article on nuclear science for a class, I'm probably going to skim it to get the general idea; however, if I am reading a book for recreation, I'm more likely to pay attention to detail and become absorbed. Of course, if I have to read an article for class that I will be tested on or will have to reflect on, I will pay more attention to it, which is how the importance of the article/topic factors in to how "deeply" we read something.
I think Carr's argument is centered around how we acquire and utilize information as opposed to how much intelligence we actually have.  I think the internet gives us a new method of finding information, as opposed to removing the old methods. In finding information online, we are more likely to skim an article for useful information, which is most often a way to save time and acquire only the necessary information for the topic at hand.  Carr also counters the point he is trying to make by giving examples of technologies that were once reviled. They became accepted once their benefits were identified; this point only counters his argument because it seems to imply that the internet will be as accepted as writing is today. In general, I understand what Carr was trying to say, but I think the internet just opens more doors to new information and research techniques, and helps people to be more efficient in their research.

Joy Response

Bill Joy's primary concern in this article is the rapid pace at which technology has been expanding and improving.  This rapid pace had brought about the possibility of humans becoming dependent on robots - whether robots will take the place of humans (and humans will become extinct) or humans and robots will be merged to formulate a biological "superhuman."  Joy also suggests that robots would become so integrated into our society that they would never be able to be removed, for social chaos could (and would probably) ensue.  Although Joy does mention some of the benefits of technology improvements (such as low cost solar power, cures for cancer, cleaning up the environment, etc.), he constantly reverts back to the idea that extreme technological advances are a threat to humankind.  In order to help support his argument, Joy asserts that "the (technological) changes would come gradually" and "it's far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones." These sentences work together with the somewhat ominous language of the passage to clearly relay the message to warn people that these possibilities are a definite reality.  Another tactic Joy uses to exemplify the importance of this issue is integrating passages from various books that discuss the idea of technology providing people with robots.  Some of the books/articles mentioned in the article are The Short Run written by Moravec, and Kaczynski's The New Luddite Challenge.  The use of these two examples is particularly effective, because the more scientific book, The Short Run, only backs up the claims made in The New Luddite Challege, which was written by an unabomber. By supporting an unabomber's claims with science, Joy makes the robot possibility that much more scary.  Joy also supports his ethos by informing the audience that much of his own work has been in computer networking.  By telling the audience this, it proves that he is a legitimate person to be writing about such a vast, yet pressing issue.  Joy also spends much of the paper bolstering his pathos by more or less "playing" with a natural fear of something that could replace humans - robots.
Although this article was written in 2000, I do not think its significance has been lessened because technology is more prominent than ever in society today.  People can carry one item that can transfer calls, access the internet, be a personal library, and be used to keep track of finances, among so many other things.  Technology is an important aspect of society, and the possibility of robots entering our society is not far-fetched by any means.  Just because people do not often talk about the possibility, that doesn't mean that robots won't take the stage some time in the next few decades.  Computers were once a "thing of the future," and now we can't live without them; who's to say that won't happen with robots?

Proposal Problems - Sunday

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/business/20risk.html?ref=business
Another problem related to the Japanese nuclear plant is that it has a huge effect on the world market.  Like other prominent world events, the destruction of the power plant could leave the world economy ruined, and thousands of people in debt.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/complaint-box-noisy-diners/?ref=nyregion
Although this article is technically a complaint, it brings a common problem to the table - restaurants play music that is too loud.  If the restaurants continue to drown out the conversations of those attending the restaurant, they could potentially lose business by driving their customers away.

Proposal Problems - Saturday

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/health/research/22risks.html?ref=health
In this article, the problem is that pain drugs are shown to increase the risk of birth defects.  This is a problem because so many people today take pain drugs (legally or illegally).  If women continue to take pain medication during pregnancy, it could increase the occurrence of spina bifida and gastroschisis.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?ref=drillingdown
In this article, the problem is that oil drilling is growing extensively.  The newest process to drill for oil is called hydrofracking, which uses high pressure water mixed with chemicals and sand to break apart rocks.  Using hydrofracking has environmental and health consequences that are greater than they were previously thought to be.  The water could make its way into sources of drinking water and have disastrous effects.

Proposal Problems - Friday

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/sports/18horses.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Ex-Racehorses%20Starve%20as%20Charity&st=Search
 The problem in this article is that The Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation, one of the leading ex-racehorse rescues in the U.S., has not been taking care of the horses it has dedicated itself to caring for.  This is a problem because some of the horses have been taken away from the rescue; therefore, the rescue is losing its good reputation and may go out of business.  If the rescue does close, the problem of unwanted horses in the United States will increase, and there will be one less outlet to help solve this growing problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/asia/18intel.html?scp=1&sq=Data%20Show%20Radiation%27s%20&st=cse
The obvious problem in this article is one we are all familiar with - attempts to cool down the nuclear reactor in Japan have failed.  If this problem is not solved, the radiation from the reactor could continue to spread due to a nuclear meltdown and affect both people in Japan and the North West United States.