Avoiding the Susan Greenfield issue, the topic is definitely worthy to ponder for a moment. I'll speak about myself, and in doing so, suspect that I speak for many of us.
Already, my machine is performing a very important role for me: it's my memory. My e-mail archive is a living memory of all the conversations I've had, which means something rather profound: that I don't have to remember the literal data that were provided, e.g., the specific wording of a decision, but instead, that such a conversation happened at one point, and was tracked via e-mail.
Beyond this capacity, let's address the point of TFA.
It's well known that neural circuity develops as a human spends more time with something, e.g., a talented musician has larger areas of cortex devoted to the things that make a talented musician talented, e.g., hand movements, musicality, etc. Whether these areas are separate, e.g., modular, and/or if they're represented as an integrated system is a conversation for another day. Suffice to say that brain areas expand as a human practices things more.
So it's fair to say that using technological tools in the commonplace way that we do builds neural matter that support our expanding use of the same. Whether this is at the expense of other skills, neurally, we don't know.
On the other hand, how many of us take the time to bake our own bread, fix our own cars, and plow our fields? It's fair to say that we spend less time building the products for our basic needs, which means that we develop those skills - and the related neural matter - less
So, while the author of TFA may (or may not be) a lady with a funky background, clearly the idea has merit and its implications - tradeoff of neural representation in areas of skill - is important to consider as we expand our use of social and media devices, and decrease the time we spend developing our ability to perform other tasks (supplanted by technology, as it were).
Dear Google,
We ( http://www.plml.org/ ) use many of your API services for our tools. Recently, we had to switch from the Google Search API to Bing's Search API due to the new fee-for-access system. Bing works, but does not yet deliver the same quality of service that teachers and students expect. We hope they improve, but so far, have seen little action from their API team.
With respect to the Google Search API: While our sites (for instance, http://www.boolify.org/ ) do utilize more than the maximum number of hits per day for the free API access ( with Search, it's just 100! ) we do not have the ability to pay the fees associated with the usage we incur.
Nonetheless, it is our mission to continue to provide free access to the educational tools we develop (there are many others like us), and struggle to continue to provide tools that schools expect to be of high quality, while balancing that ability with what we can provide within existing technological services.
The other grant programs you provide to nonprofits are essential (AdWords, Apps Enterprise, etc). We, and many others, make use of these grants daily, if not every minute, of our operation.
So, as you roll out additional fee-for-access programs, we humbly ask that you extend the grants program to cover these services as well. A little leeway on your part will go a long way toward helping us deliver on our social mission!
Many thanks,
Staff @ Public Learning Media, http://www.plml.org./
Megacorps aside, the interview process has changed significantly in the past few years. We're a small nonprofit devoted to building complex educational designs. While we're keen on building a lithe workforce during out startup stage, and while we're compensating only at the stipend level, our interviews are meant to bring in the best individuals we can find.
What does that means? It means that in addition to the interview itself, we discuss cases and, in many cases, ask for a code sample and/or add a programming challenge. The process isn't meant to be dispiriting in the least; but it is meant to bring in the most compatible, most visionary young people we can find, and, in our case, to help them get a significant boost onward toward their dream (read: visionary) career.
So, the arduous selection process isn't just a part of big-megacorps; it's becoming a part of many smaller (but highly innovative) organizations as well.
--Dave
There is a difference between something that is not a social norm, and something that is not a primary consideration OR an option - until it's too late!
Website and web service users seem very much open to trying new systems; and even letting people, typically friends, view their information. That's no big surprise, and predates websites like Facebook.
On the other hand, websites like Facebook are increasingly opening users' data to the world - reacting to the data on their systems! - and providing users with limited opportunities to change that fact. Isn't it the case that Facebook recently added new "features", such as extended friend network update viewing, and then responded to privacy outcries by building-in limited mechanisms to control the privacy of information?
Furthermore, users are keen to try services without really understanding the possibility that their information ISN'T private -- until it's too late. For example, the user who is rejected from a job application because of his/her photos and/or writing on Facebook is likely to restrict access in the future, as a response to the openness of their personal life.
So: I reject Zuckerburg's notion that privacy is changing, and instead suggest that the nature in which private information is treated as private information, by companies that offer users services, is changing! Changing for the better of their wallets, without a doubt.
Cheers,
--Dave
Technologies are only part of the solution - not at all the entirety!
However, to avoid digressing from the topic of your question, my answers are several:
First, there is simply not the same incentive to create educational technologies as there is to create faster processors or larger hard drives. The benefit of a faster computer is clear and immediately actionable. The results of improved educational opportunities don't become clear for quite some time - 20 years or more.
Second, and more importantly, the comparison of Moore's law to education is inherently incorrect. Would your supposition be that the human cognition must double its... processing capability?... every few years, guided by increasingly powerful educational technologies?
If there is an opportunity, it's the opportunity that we're trying to capitalize upon: that armed with an understanding of how people learn, and coupled with the low costs of producing high-quality educational technologies, we can begin to make a difference.
The most important thing, in making that difference, is that technologies are used in such a way that they add something valuable to the experience of learning - whether it be visualizations with an explanation beyond what a teacher can reasonably provide; or equity; etc. Otherwise, the time required to set computers up, train teachers to use, develop lessons, etc., simply detracts from the educational potential of schools.
If anyone here - LAMP volunteers, especially - would like to become involved in making that happen, please let us know! But, in the meantime, please don't use Moore's law as a point of comparison.
Cheers,
--Dave
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
