small object, LARGE SUBJECT!

so this is just going to be my beginning process of this essay so comments on my ideas would be appreciated:).

paragraph 1: Laptop computers were invented in order to make the access of a computer more convenient. It has become almost mandatory to own one while in college.Many important things can be accessed on a laptop and it provides the same features as a desktop computer with more portability. A laptop was a very essential advance in technology.

paragraph 2+3: A laptop is portable and in a college student's case, it can be brought to class to take notes or to the library to research material. It makes things a lot easier when you have a laptop because it can be brought back and forth to places such as: the cafeteria or even to your home on vacation, and all your files will be right there with you. Even though a desktop doesn't have a certain battery life, the laptop still proceeds the desktop computer because of its convenience. Back in the day, no one would have ever thought that while taking a long trip you would be able to type up homework or watch any movie you would like write at your fingertips. The laptop is almost like a personalized version of the desktop. Nowadays, you can customize the color, size, and almost every feature with a laptop.It is very user-friendly and is a lot smaller in size.

paragraph 4: The warrant about this product is that everyone has enough money to afford a laptop because it is a little more expensive than a desktop computer.

the river shined with the e-waste glistening within it.

I found this article pretty interesting because I am writing my small object, large subject essay on laptops so it kind of went hand in hand.

In Chris Carroll's article titled, " High Tech Trash", his main claim discusses the fact that we are polluting the developing countries with our so-called e-waste. Our used technology is being transported to other countries in order to escape the factor of pollution affecting our country. It is truly a serious dilemma. The reasons that we are discarding our "e-waste" to developing countries is because when we do this, we are not bothered by the effects. We do not have to deal with the impacts that this waste is producing. Although, what Carroll is not considering is that this waste could be being transported right back to us. China, like us, is a big producer and they could be sending their waste to us in return. Carroll gives an example of how many countries are now checking to make sure "e-waste" is not included in the goods that are being transported into that country. Carroll says that "e-waste flows like water" and he is right. What is ironic, is that the "e-waste" is actually ending up in these waters blocking the flow. Carroll discusses how abundant our supply of used technology is becoming and how it is just becoming waste that we cannot seem to find a place for so we ship it overseas. He states that "an estimated 30 to 40 million PCs will be ready for "end-of-life management" in each other the next few years".This leads me to think back to this week in my Information Technology class where we were discussing the new iPad. The Professor was talking to us about how a lot of brands, such as Apple, will make a product that is missing one key feature, such as a camera or the radio, just so that they can put it into the next new product and consumers will want to purchase that one because it has that "new" feature". Because of this, there is so much wasted technology because the public just tosses away their old product. The market deserves a lot of blame when it comes to the topic of e-waste because they are the ones leaving out these little features in order to gain a bigger profit. It is disturbing if I may say so. Chris Carroll's assumes that everyone in America is affected by this epidemic and that the public cares enough to want to intervene with the transporting of our "e-waste" to the developing countries. Although this is a shame, I don't believe that much is going to be done about it.

the internet takes over...

I'm beginning to get used to writing on this blog and I think it's pretty interesting to see my fellow classmates' opinions. I think this is a very creative way to express my views on the assigned topics.On to the analysis...

In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", Nicholas Carr's main thesis discusses the fact that google is corrupting the way we think and process information.Carr blames the internet for not allowing him to concentrate on books. He feels as if his brain has been taken over by the increased popularity of internet sources. He begins this article by referencing an example from the movie " A Space Odyssey". This movie features a supercomputer replacing the thinking process required of the brain. Carr feels that we have been reduced to relying solely on internet sources to gather information instead of finding information in books. We are trying to find the simple way of doing things and Google is supplying us with that easy way out. Carr discusses how he can no longer focus for a long period of time when reading pages of a book but he has no problem spending endless hours researching material on the internet. He states that "deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle" and many people would agree that they feel the same way. Carr points out that when we are searching the internet, we more than often end up searching a topic that is entirely different than the one we began with. Carr discusses that because Google is so user-friendly we are able to search many things at once which leads to us not being able to focus. This being the reason that we are not able to concentrate on one simple task, such as reading a book. This is reasoning behind why Carr can make the point that Google is making us stupid. He feels that our intention spans are shorting due to the right-at-hand information Google supply's for us. Carr's warrant in this article is that everyone uses Google and it has had this effect on everyone. There is no proof to this but I think that there is many people that this hypothesis could be true for.

is google making us stupid?

Is google making us stupid? My answer would have to be not at all. Whenever I need to find an answer to something I go directly to google. Times have changed and like we discussed in class today, you don't go directly to a book in the library to find the answer to something. I don't feel that google is making us stupid. If anything, is it just making us lazy. America has become too reliant on google for everything when it comes to finding out information. Google has made it very easy for us to find the sources that we need to find the answer to our questions, but it has also become very distracting. I know for myself anyway, that when I search for something on google that has to do with an assignment, nine times out of ten I end up on a completely different search track. I can go from looking up the birthday of our current president to checking my email just because of the fact that it is so user-friendly and a person can change searches within seconds,depending on the speed of your computer that is. Like discussed in the article, searching on google can make a person unfocused.The internet is being blamed in this article for "chipping away the author's capacity for concentration and contemplation". I completely agree with this statement because instead of having to concentrate on what you're reading and comprehend it, you can just go on to spark notes and read the explanation of what you didn't understand.It doesn't take much effort to read through a book anymore and it's a shame.Google may be making us lazy, but no one can deny that is a very helpful source. I am very thankful for google and I do not agree with the speculations that google is not a positive resource.