Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 20, 2017 at 2:46 pm #1100Michael GriffinParticipant
Some of the biggest complaints Wells has about the inadequacy of the education system is that it is not universal and that it is too politically entangled. Wells goes on to say that because of these two reasons, as well as others, that “in the race between catastrophe and education, catastrophe is winning.” This is true when in reference to the two examples above, for when politics and non-universal education practices are in play, the bubble that is catastrophe is waiting to burst in time.
Some of his complaints remain relevant to me still, specifically the two I listed above. When the level of education someone receives is determined by the amount of government funding, geographical location, or income received by a county, then the quality of the education will not be the same around the United States. This is a bad thing because not being allotted the same level of education is detrimental to the success of that student’s life. If they are given poor education, it becomes much harder to be successful later in life. Another complaint Wells makes that resonates with me is the political entanglement the education system has. Bureaucracy cannot teach somebody, only the free will of the teacher can, and the best way to teach the fairest is to remove the political ladder from the modern-day education system.
September 15, 2017 at 2:09 pm #1081Michael GriffinParticipant- I learned that a computer is much more complicated than it seems. When I was younger I built my own computer with a motherboard, CPU, and all that jazz. This alone was difficult, but in hindsight, the physical assembly of the system was much easier to understand than the internal workings. Before, I had understood a computer as a means of transferring information from one person to another, and while that’s true, I now realize that it’s much more than that. It’s much more complicated with all its functions that relate to math and numbers for means of transferring information.
- I used to see information as just another set of data that informs people about facts and history from the past, but now I see it as an effective way of reiterating to someone, the sequence of how it makes things work and the role is plays on our everyday lives.
September 13, 2017 at 2:26 pm #1067Michael GriffinParticipant- The fact that most surprised me was that there only remains one worn copy of Robert Cawdrey’s Tale Alphabeticall from 1604. It only makes sense that such a book wouldn’t have many original copies remaining in existence, however, seeing as it is one of the first dictionaries ever produced, it’s puzzling that the book didn’t increase in popularity at the time. It laid the framework as one of the earliest pieces of information, so it would only seem logical for the book to be produced in large quantities.
- One connection I made between Gleick’s chapter and Metadata was the idea of relevance that Pomerantz talks about in the first chapter of his book. He goes on to say, basically, that “what’s relevant to you might not be relevant to me” and I find that ties into what Gleick writes when he’s talking about the Tale Alphabeticall. Gleick writes that nobody had the concept of spelling before, which means there was no need to continue with reading a dictionary to most commoners, therefore nobody saw a dictionary as relevant.
- One question from the chapter that makes me want to know the answer to is why did Robert Cawdrey not push his book further? In hindsight, his book was one of the first tools that people could use that would have made communication and data recording standardized. Although there were 3 more versions of the book produced, if Cawdrey would have pushed his book, he could have set the standard for the way things are spelled, communicated, and
-
AuthorPosts