Tuesday, February 24, 2009

computers are dumb

I've been taking my computer science class for a couple of weeks, and it's just astounding how simple, yet so complex computers on. On and off switches. Just a sequence of on and off switches over and over, different sequences here and different sequences there just to represent a few letters. And there are programs (other sequences of on's and off's) to help you remember what your other sequences ment, and programs for those programs < - - - and the list litterally goes on for a long while. and then you have your programs ( sequences) for displaying a seqeunce of colors on your screen, programs to send the data to your screen. to relay instructions, to decode those instructions, to encode those instructions and to caring out those instructions just to by pushing one character key on your keyboard. and all the programs have programs within themselves to make the encoding shorter and easer, and programs to help you remember what your other programs are for. times this by several hundred and you have just your computer running just, microsoft word. and today, we use the internet, powerpoint, excelt. etc. hundreds apon hundreds of programs for just on program, and hundreds apon hundreds of other programs. so in the end, its just a certain amount of electricity going through a gate that either puts through a certain amount of electricity, or no electricity. and its doing this billions of times per second. and computers cannot look at a problem and anazlye it and solve it, without being programmed to do it it's self. like i said ealier. those sequences of on and off switches. you'd think, well we have to be told how to do math or english etc. but reguardless, we had to learn at some point by our selves, be it hundreds of years ago. so computes cannot do the simplisist thing without very specific directions. all we've been doing is taking those codes, so to speak, and scaffolding them on to each other over and over to what we have now. they can do advanced algebra, grammer corrections, find a million links for one set of info. in less than a second. man computers are dumb.

------------this is kind of a mixed format of grouping my thoughts. couldn't really change it around after i proof read it because i can't copy and paste becasue the box won't let me, and i don't feel like retyping all of it.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

controdiction within opposition

After reading the work of Susan B. Anthony's work

In my opinion, i believe Mrs. Anthony constructs a very shrewed image upon herself. i believe that the image she is trying to construct is of a wrong world. that she has the right to break any law she finds to be inefficient to the qualities of a standard in which she sets in stone. as well as justifying her infringements upon the law as an act of deviation from what she claims as bad and good by her own personal discretion and present amplitude. to me, i believe the method of construction she used in her speech "On women's right to vote" to persuade others was very contradicting. her version of oligarchy in the speech is within itself stated unjust. and yet, that same government that pushes aside others disregarding their right to be equivalent, is at the same time being subjugated by those same individuals through means of opposition that only converse the role of our democratic government to that of an oligarchy which she spoke. I do believe in the women's suffrage movement. i do not believe breaking laws is the way to a greater democracy. a more MLK approach could have worked


i know this isn't right. its only my opinion which i stated throughout the paragraph. so i don't have women, i just disagree with the method she used during that particular piece of literature. so i know we have different opinions, and this ones mine