Module 8

The Computer Education Era!!!

For the last 13 years, since I graduated high school, I have notice many trends in which computers have increasingly helped people better educate themselves. There are far too many examples to be fit into a two page essay, especially being that I am an I.T. student. I think a more appropriate question would be, “How doesn't my computer help in my education?” Since there are so many things I could write about, I will discuss what I feel to be the two biggest educational advantages that students of today have over there predecessors. The first one being the search-engine, the second being word-processing software.

Now is the time of the information era. People have so much power in the palms of their hands and most of them have yet to realize the magnitude of it. For example, in high school I had to do this huge research assignment to fulfill the needs of my senior English class. From grades 1-12 I have been taught how to use periodicals, the dewy-decimal system, and of course the infamous card catalog in which you would have to open drawers full of cards that simply referenced the books that you are seeking. The process of getting the info could take hours, especially if you had to eye scan an entire book to extract a small yet important piece of inforamtion. This type of efficiency is no longer the norm, and would not be accepted in today's world as it simply takes too long to compile a project in this manner. So forget everything that I've learned in high school! There is a simpler, quicker process to retrieve information. Of this course is the search engine.

Lets say I wanted to do a research project on the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. Before this era, I would have to go to the library and do a bunch a research just find some info. Heck, I couldn't even tell you what date it happened on unless I put 10 -15 minutes into research. But thanks to Google I can simply type “when did the challenger explode?” into the URL bar (assuming I am using Google Chrome),and bam there it is, Jan 28^th 1986! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster)! I found the answer in only the amount of time it took me to type the question!!! That is powerful! And I was excited when the card catalogs when to computers! That is nothing in comparison of today. Of course none of this is possible without the internet, another obvious educational tool.

Second, I would have to say that the word processor is another important computer tool that makes typing projects faster, and easier then ever before. Even as I am now writing, I can say that I have already used the back-space, delete, and copy n' paste options numerous times. Had I been using a typewriter I can guarantee that this essay would have been typed numerous times over before getting the final draft to perfection. Even the slightest mistake while using a type writer will cause havoc and force you to either use white-out, or even worse, you might find yourself typing the whole page over again.

Having said all that, I do find one draw-back to word processing software. It enables us to become stupid spellers as it auto-corrects or checks all your spelling errors. I consider myself to be pretty intelligent, however I am awful at spelling, and the fact that everything I type gets corrected for me does not help my spelling skills. Of course in this day and age is it really important to be a good speller? Or use correct grammar for that matter? Seems that text-lingo is taking over. I also know that English is always evolving and changing. So is this text-lingo the new evolved English? I really hope not. A part of me wants to maintain the integrity of the English language; but at the same time, I am wondering if it really matters that much. We all understand the new text-lingo, and understanding is really the only part that matters. Either way, I am constantly finding myself typing text-lingo into my essays only to have them removed (thanks to word processing software) after I proof read.

I seriously contemplate the whole text-lingo vs English dilemma all the time. So I ask all that read this blog please respond with your thoughts. Do you see the same trend happening? I would love to get a census on it, and thanks to blogs, word processing software, and the internet and am able to do so!

Module 7

Comparative Advantages are no longer defined by a country's national resources or its geographic location. This is in part due to the fact that in today's economy, ideas and innovations are just as important as trucks, apples or oil. There is no doubt that with the flatting of the world, some developing countries will tap into the worlds platform and improve its overall economy, while some will remain stagnate and suffer. Friedman gives four basic concepts in which developing countries will have to improve.

The first concept that developing countries will have to improve is infrastructure. This is the basic technology and bandwidth in which individuals and companies must have to collaborate on the worlds great platform.

The Second concept is the right educational system. One that promotes not only math and science but also arts and music. Not only is it important to be computer savvy, but it is equally important to be creative and innovative. This is especially true if a developing country lacks natural resources and relies solely on services and entertainment.

The third is the right Governance. This includes a wide array of things. It is very important that a person be able to launch a business fast and cheap. This in large as a lot to do with the local laws. How easy and expensive is it to get your business up and going? How well protect are your employees? Are they too well protected? And how friendly are your countries macroeconomic policies, or what Friedman calls “reform wholesale?” All these things need to be considered.

The fourth is the right environment. Its the countries that preserve their green spaces that will attract the best workers. I surely can relate to this. I must find my roots with mother Earth on a weekly basis or I'd go crazy.

When all is said and done, the winners will be the countries that have the right infrastructure, best people, and practice “reform wholesale.” This explains why China and Ireland have been so successful.

Shifting gears, a coupe of months ago I helped a friend buy a computer online. We went to HP's website and started looking. The thing that really surprised me (never having bought a computer online) is how customizable each laptop was. I was under the impression that after he picked his particular model, that would be the end. Well, I was wrong! That was when the fun just got started. My friend was able to customize practically every component on his machine, from his hard drive, to his ram, the size of the screen, and color of the body. To the best of my knowledge this is the only time I have ever been a self-directed costumer, and even then I wasn't the consumer my friend was. However, I thought this to be pretty cool. I understand what Friedman was talking about when he says that Big companies should make them-selves small. It almost seemed as if we were dealing with an individual who was taking our order, like at a restaurant.

Finally, will globalization mean Americanization? I will have to respectfully disagree with

Friedman and say yes! Friedman presents some good arguments of why he believes Americanization will not happen. However, I can find rebuttal within his own concepts and observations that he has made through out his book.

If I may, I will take you back to India. By Freedman's own accord, there are numerous Indians EARGLY learning to speak English just so they take part in the jobs that are offered by American outsourcing. So is that not Americanization? I believe it is. Also, Friedman puts great emphasis on free-trade and frictionless supply-chains. He teaches that in order to have frictionless supply-chains, standards have to be established, ie. computer protocols, and software. Seems to me that human language should also be standardized as well for maximum efficiency. And lets face it more people speak English then any other tongue. I can very well see English as the worlds language in the very near future, at least from a business stand point..

Basketball is yet another example of Americanization in progress. Lets not make any mistake about this, basketball is 100% American. It was invented in Massachusetts in the late 1800's and has been perfected through-out American Universities ever since. No wonder why Americans have had the edge in basketball for most of the 1900's. Not because we have better athletes, but because America has many resources to teach this wonderful sport. No wonder Friedman chose to mention Greece beating us Americans in the 2006 Basketball World Championship as an example of globalization. Suddenly Greece has great basketball resources, just as America! However I think Friedman neglected the idea that when any person who isn't American practices basketball, Americanization is taking place as they are practicing a part of our American culture. Also note that there are more international NBA players then ever before; and there are more basketball teams and leagues in Europe and across the globe then ever before. Lets take a look at the NBA's newest star who's talent is sweeping America by storm! His name is Jeremy Lin, and he is not from here, he is from China!!!!If that isn't Americanization then what is it?

Finally, Friedman symbolizes the internet as a pizza in his attempt to solidify his case that Americanization is not happenning. I find this very odd as I think to myself, “Man that's some pretty vertical thinking for someone who is trying to teach that the world is flat.” I don't buy into his symbolism. The internet is something logical and intangible. If the Japanese were to put it piece of sushi (as Friedman puts it), on the pizza that is the World Wide Web, then that piece of sushi isn't sitting on top of Japan alone, it is spread across the world. The same no matter what country you are from, or what type of food is placed upon the pizza. At the end of the day, American will have put more food on top of the pizza then any other country. Sure this casserole pizza will have a little bit of everything in it, but it will be American dominate having more hot dogs and hamburgers then anything....

Module 6

 Simply put free-trade is the ability for companies from different countries to do business with each-other without the friction of governmental regulations, taxes, or tariff's. It is quite clear that Friedman is 100% pro free-trade and gives great examples of why I should be too. The biggest debate on going in America concerning free-trade is the “visible” mass amounts of jobs that are being outsourced to foreign countries for cheap labor. As Americans, we are angered to see jobs lost to other countries so that the “American” outsourcing company can get its labor done cheap. However, the part that goes unnoticed is the small companies hiring in the 10's and 20's. For every job that is outsourced, there are more jobs being created. It's important to note that these once poor individuals of the nations receiving the outsourcing are now buying American made products. Also the price of these products, thanks to the same outsourcing, off-shoring and free-trade, are cheaper then they have ever been. Its a win-win situation. Friedman is right! If free-trade, offshoring, and outsourcing, is so damaging to America's economy, then employment rates would be much higher then 4.5%. I am a logical man, and I admit I didn't hear too much of the protectionist/anti-outsourcing school's side of things, however Friedman's reasoning sounds logical to me. Therefore, I too see great advantages for both America and the world as a whole if free-trade is the norm. However, Americans have some serious waking up to do if we are going to be able to compete in the world of tomorrow.

American has had the luxury of being the biggest economic power in the world for the last half century. We were the innovators of most things, and we were at the top because we really had no competition. After time, we Americans began to take this for granted and became stagnate and lazy. Friedman notes that it's not entirely good to be mediocre in a vertical company, however before globalization 3.0, it was possible to survive in that situation. Whereas today you'd get eating up alive, due to the high amount of highly skilled competition in the world; and it's the America's middle-class that will be hit the hardest.

It is going to require a lot of changes and self-ambition, for the middle class to survive! Friedman breaks down the “New Middlers” into 8 categories by skills. They are:

First the “Great Collaborators and Orchestrators.” These are the guys that can run a supply chain, at a local level on a global process.

The 2^nd are “The synthesizers.” These are the guys that are remarkable at creating one job from two or more skills.

The 3^rd are “The Explainers.” These are the people that can see the complexity of “The Synthesizers,” but can explain it with ease.

Fourth are “The Great Leveragers.” These guys can leverage every possible bit of productivity out of new technology.

The 5^th are “The Great Adapors,” the Swiss Army Knives, a jack of all trades kind of guy that's very savvy in a variety of info systems as well as politics and business.

The 6^th are “The Green People.” In a world where fossil fuels are becoming more expensive, less abundant, and bad for the environment it is important to have S&E people constantly trying to discover renewable energy sources.

The 7^th are “The Passionate Personalizers.” These people put there own little personalized special touched that can not be duplicated or outsourced.

Eighth are “The Math Lovers!” This is simple enough. They are people who love math; and in this day and age of digitized everything, they are becoming as important as air.

Finally are “The Great Localizers.” These are the people that have a great understanding of the global platform and uses it's tools to offer localized demands.

Now that Friedman has outlined the “New Middlers,” I notice one important constant in which they each share, education! And not just any education, the right education. In chapter nine, Friedman talks about how Americans were inspirited by JFK's speech of landing a man on the moon. Americans went crazy with science trying to out do the Russians. He talks about how Americans need that same kind of leadership and inspiration that JFK provided, and how Bush has failed at it. Not only in inspiration, but also the fact congress cut funding for scientific and engineering education during Bush's terms; the exact opposite of what should have happened! President Bush was a joke, with alterior motives. The last thing Bush wanted was smart people developing renewable energy resources, he is in the oil business!!!! No further explanation needed!!!!

However, America does have a great leader today! This book was written before Obama and Friedman says nothing about him. Well, I'm going to! I admit that Pres. Obama isn't the best president in the history of America, but I see in his speeches and actions that he understands the importance of education, as well as the flattening of the world.

Back in '06 while Bush was in office, I applied for a Pell Grant and was denied. I once again tried after the Obama and behold, I am here taking this class in my last semester before graduation! Thanks Obama! Now if America will just realize that he inherited Bush made problems, he probably wouldn't seem like such a bad person.

Finally, CQ + PQ > IQ means that the Curiosity Quotient plus the Passionate Quotient is greater then the Intelligence Quotient. I believe this statement to be true. A high IQ person doesn't know everything, and if they don't know a certain subject they might not be interested in learning it. Opposite are the curios and passionate. Curious people want to learn, passionate people will never give-up; put the two together and you'll have someone who will WANT to fix or innovate anything, even if the going gets tough. A high IQ person might or might not, you just don't know. Even greater, is a group of CQ/PQ people collaborating on the world's platform together. When this happens the laws of synergy start to take affect. One plus one is not two, its three! Yes, I buy into the CQ+PQ>IQ formula!!!!

Module 5

The lessons learned from Friedman's “The World is Flat,” are starting to blossom before my very eyes! A couple days ago I got into a deep discussion about Google, the flattening of the world, and yes, outsourcing, with one of my friends who had just acquired a tech-support job for Google. I was amazed at his use of terminology as he used the words “outsourcing” and “flattening”. I admit when I first started reading, “The World is Flat”, I was under the impression that, Friedman did know what he was talking about, I just assumed he was making up some of the terminology he uses in. Due to my conversation with my friend I am now 100% of Friedman's validity. I admit I dread reading this book, however I have learned so much from it. I truly a have a deeper understanding and appreciation of globalization, and I can better play my newly founded knowledge to my advantage. I feel as if I have intellectual property that I can offer the world. I feel the world is my oyster, and because of this boring book I can now operate on the worlds platform with less friction and more innovation then I ever could.

Triple Convergence this the three major processes/events that happened during a short period of time to make what Friedman calls globalization 3.0. The first convergence, happened slowly. This convergence was actully the realization of the new possibilities that came with the new technology. When computers first came out, there was not much of an improvement in efficiency within companies. These companies had yet learned to adapt, and make most of what was available to them. Companies were still thinking vertically, and every dept. within a company was a sub-company all to themselves.

The second convergence was the adaptation; a new way of thinking, so that the world could take advantage of the resources they had. Companies started to think more horizontally, and could connect better within themselves and the rest of the world. People began to use flow soft-ware technologies to be more efficient. The worlds ten flatters finally were starting to complement themselves.

The third convergence is the addition of the rest of the world to the worlds flatting platform known as the internet. It is the ability for just about everyone in the world to be able to put there ideas and innovations out for the whole world to see and converge on. It seems to me that this kind of power can solve just about any problem. While this is a good thing, us Americans should take note of accomplishments set by other individuals in different countries. Many parts of the world; India, China, and Russia just to name a few, have had people who come from different rich educational heritages. These people are born to this world with the great self-desire and motivation to learn. However, in the past these people have been hindered by their own governments and were unable to freely market themselves or their ideas. This is no longer the case, and now that these extremely smart individuals have the ability to communicate and collaborate with anybody or anything at any given moment, puts pressure on us Americans to improve our own education. We DO NOT want to fall behind in our own game. I find it crazy to think that China, just couple years ago, was a closed market society and its government shun their citizens from some of the glories of the internet and its precious gifts. Now, China has more cell phones in use then the number of people in America. Talk about learning to think horizontally quickly!

Reading more about the India vs. Indiana part of this module I come to conclude that neither Indiana nor India had exploited each other. They exploited themselves. As I have fore mentioned, India had all these highly talented, and computer/science savvy persons, while their own country hid them from the world The end result was that these smart individuals were taking taxi cap driving positions and other odd jobs that they were clearly over qualified for.

Indiana exploited themselves because there own government had the inability account for the future of things. The Indianian government was so blinded by the fact that jobs were being lost to people who weren't even Americans, that they didn't think of the consequences of their own actions. That state lost 8.1 million dollars in tax money that could have easily went to build schools or other governmental agencies that would have in turn provided more jobs then the ones lost due to outsourcing. But, the biggest kicker of this whole fiasco is that the jobs that Indiana did save, more then likely only helped the rich get richer. There is a great deal of sorting out to be done in our own home country. People need to learn the true meaning of outsourcing and understand that a world exists beyond what they see.

Finally, intellectual property is the creations, thoughts or ideas of someones mind. Some of the worlds finest innovations have come someones intellectual property. The debate is, however, how much reward should one  reap of of their ideas or work? Individuals should be rewarded for their hard work or ideas. But, how can their intellectual property be collaborated on and refined to perfection if that person is unwilling to share his/her idea? Think about Volvo, the car company that is famous for its safety innovations. I remember reading a couple years ago that Volvo had come out with some highly sophisticated safety mechanisms for cars. Sure, they could have patented that and make money on it, but they thought that this type of intellectual property should be shared to keep everyone safe. So they let other car makers in on there innovations for free. In a nutshell this is a moral issue, and its not shared mutually across the world.

Another thought I have on the subject of intellectual property would be the whole Metallica-Kazaa ordeal. I love Metallica! I also believe Metallica should be paid for their talent, yet I have downloaded most of their albums for free. So am I a thief? Am I immoral? A lot of people would say that I am. However, these same people listen to anything they want on youtube or other sites without paying a dime. So aren't these people thieves and immoral as well? If you want to get right down to it, the world is so flat it doesn't matter if I'm listening to music streaming from my hard drive or music streaming from somewhere in cyberspace, point is we are ALL accessing the same intellectual property, for free.