Visualizing a Trillion dollars

Hey guys, so I came across this on the internet. It relates to Tuesdays class where we were talking about how people have a hard time visualizing what large numbers look like, and how people don't seem to know how proportions work. So I found this site, and it basically shows what a trillion dollars looks like. It is crazy when you put that in proportion to just how much debt we are in and what that amount of money would look like if we put it in physical form. So here is the URL for the site:
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

Samsung vs Apple

I don't know how applicable this is, but I know we were talking about the whole patent thing in class and right afterward I just happen to come across Samsung's response to Apple and found it interesting, so I shared.

"Necessity's Mother" Discussion

I found the Chapter, “Necessity’s Mother,” to be very insightful and thought provoking.  The author provides explanation and evidence to account for the observation that some regions of the world have a greater degree of technological development than others.  He lists multiple economic, ideological, and geographic factors which he believes contribute to these differences.  I think his reasoning is sound, and the geographic factors seem to be especially important in explaining the apparent systematic differences.  He lists such factors as war, resource abundance, and centralized government (pp.250), which influence technological development.  Resource abundance, of course, is important because it determines the raw materials industries have available, as well as the types of innovation which would benefit a given society.  Government is important because it creates the environment which determines incentives inventors have to invent.  The free market in the United States, for instance, is largely unregulated by the government.  This lack of regulation allows for competition; for companies which develop technology, this means competition for innovation with the hope of increased market share and monetary gain.

In addition, the author emphasizes that the degree of innovation in a particular region is not so much dependent on one or even several “great minds,” but rather on society’s receptiveness to and ability to use the technology.   This seems reasonable since clearly not all “great” minds are concentrated in one or several regions of the world.  Once an invention or type of technology “catches” in a particular region or country, it can be “self-catalyzing.”  Such was the case with the technology boom in the U.S. in late twentieth century as computers became more affordable and more widely used.  Technology in the computer industry (and related industries) took leaps during this time not because human intelligence increased at a similar rate (because it’s a safe assumption that it didn’t), but because a market had been created that held technology which found application in a multitude of fields.  This new industry not only created a necessity, but made society extremely receptive to and hungry for more technology.  I don’t think the author intends to discredit individual “genius” or contributions, but rather point out that although these are necessary for innovation, they are not alone sufficient.

I think it’s also important to briefly touch on the interplay between technology and mathematics, as well as the way in which each seems to continually push the other forward.  On the most fundamental level, binary code runs computers. Then, programs and systems run by computers can lead to advances in mathematics, specifically in performing calculations and computations which would have previously been too time consuming to provide for any practical application.

Discussion of Jared Diamond, "Necessity's Mother"

The central focus of this article was the differential cross-cultural development of technology.  It is interesting that today the gap between technological advancements of different cultures is as wide as it is.  Now pretty much everywhere we look, there are people talking on their smart phones.  The fact is that six months from now, the smart phones we have now will be outdated and seem undesirable.  In other parts of the world, however, there are still several cultures and communities who lack the most basic developments such as running water and electricity.  Six months from now, there will likely be little change if any within these cultural communities.  Why is it that technological development takes off exponentially in some cultures, yet remains relatively stagnant in others?  The article touched on several possible rationales for this trend.  Several factors influence innovative advancement of cultures.  The differential relative economic advantage, combined with differential social value and economic prestige between cultures can definitely have an effect on a culture’s willingness to adopt new innovations. 

That being said, this article really got me to start thinking about what remarkable progressions our society has made in the last century or so.  The Wright Brothers did not make their first flight until 1903.  The first affordable automobile did not hit the market until 1908.  Yet by 1969, we had a man walking on the moon.  The key to this continual progression is the fact that one tool can be developed and then used to further develop more advanced tools and technologies. As the tools we have available become more and more complex, the potential things that we can develop using these tools will inevitably become more and more complex themselves. The article touched on this idea.  James Watt, for example, did not wake up one morning and invent the steam engine.  He actually used Thomas Newcomen’s steam engine as a model, and further developed and expanded on the ideas Newcomen already had in place.  It is interesting to consider what will come of our future should these technological advancements continue at the exponential rate they have been progressing over the last several years.   With each technological advancement we increase our human ability to understand and experience the world around us.  Technology continues to push the limits of what we can do as humans.  Will we ever get to a point where further technological advancements will not be humanly possible?  Or will these technological advancements continue to progress, giving humanity power over the unimaginable?  Five hundred years from now, will people be laughing at the technologies we find to be innovative today?

 

Amusing illustration of our discussion Tuesday.

Post limitations-READ THIS, PEOPLE!

For those commenting on posts, please keep your comment length reasonable. I'm not going to pick an arbitrary word number, but if you have that much to say, save some of it for in-class discussion.

The Lesson of Dragon's Egg and Innate Arithmetic

       I think we can all agree that reading Dragon's Egg was a bit strange. I still can't completely picture what a cheela looks like or figure out why they call north and south the "hard directions". However, it was an interesting story, and its lesson is hard to miss: math helps us survive. As human beings, we must utililze multiple aspects of mathematical thinkings to help us overcome daily situations. While the story does a great job of illustrating just how great math can be, it fails in regards to another facet of this course: ethics. Now, I understand that the math told the leader of the tribe that they didn't have enough food for the entire tribe to make it, so she made the logical choice of leaving the elderly behind. Ethically, however, was that the right decision? When the elder made the long journey to deliver food for the infants of the tribe, did the tribal leader have to just take the food and send the starving hero back to die? I guess what I'm saying is that this story really told me two things: one, that mathematical thinking is and must be used to ensure the survival of our species, and two, that mathematical thinking devoid of anything else is a sure-fire way to make some horrible decisions.
      If, as the second reading seems to suggest, mathemetical thinking is indeed an innate process, one that we are virtually born with, then it must be tempered with the other abilities of the human species. It is all well and good that humans can subitize - but so can chimps, pidgeons, and rats. Advanced mathematical thinking should not be the only thing separating us from our animal brethren. I agree that it is amazing that the brain - not just the human one - is capable of such abilties from birth. It suggests that mathematical thinking is a key component of how beings make sense of the world around them - a tool given to the creatures of creation to help them understand existence and stabilize their lives. But, since it is not a unique abilty of the human race, we must ensure that we allow all the various virtues and vices of our species to influence the way we make choices and take actions; if we do not, we'll be acting about as human as a rat.