tech. divides

"Bridging the Global Digital Divide, One Laptop at a Time."

I thought this article was interesting because as the title states, it addresses global technological inequalities, specifically with computer/internet access. It seems that in areas of great poverty, access to computers is especially difficult and hard to come by. Because of their economic status, these people are put at an unfair disadvantage towards recieving information as well as the knowledge people who do have computers available are able to possess. Many computer companies and activists are trying to bridge this divide through the creation of easy-to-use and affordable laptops that have already been distributed around the world to underpriviledged developing countries, most noteably Africa in particular. The non-profit organization, One Laptop per Child for example, has already released its first model and is working on its second version. They are hoping these computers will not only bridge the digital divide, but also educate the people recieving this technology. Some are skeptical that such laptops will really improve these people's education, but I think that technology companies are doing a good job in initiating the first steps towards bettering citizens of third world countries' lives and making resources available to them. I praise their efforts for sincerely trying to create a small sense of equity in the world through their laptop programs.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1978

Week Four Discussion

Hey Guys! I missed discussion this week because I wasn't feeling well last night. I thought I would post some of my comments about the reading just to keep in touch.

I thought that the article by Koontz did a very well job explaining throughout the whole article that you can not judge which libraries deserve to remain open and which ones should be closed by their statistics. Koontz explains this because libraries now do more than check out books. This is explained well when Koontz there is an increased "use of various media formats such as audio and video, CD-ROM, and eventually electric resources." Aggregated statistics also overlook the increasing amount of people who use the library for strictly internet use. I also think the fact that they were looking at diverse neighborhoods, aggregated statistics fail to examine at what the minorities use the libraries for.

For the Community Analysis article I liked there method of analysis better. I thought it was important that they performed the drive thrus they could witness for themselves what happens in these communities that way they can get a better idea of what the people are like. I also thought this analysis was better because it seemed like they were going as far as they could to get answers to all there questions. This was made apparent when the authors state, "the systematic and overlapping process continued as long as there were unanswered questions."

Divides..

I'll admit, I had trouble finding an article for the project until I stumbled across an article on CNN about how Microsoft is coming out with an application store (similar to that for the iPhone) and will also be updating is software for so-called "smartphones," hoping to keep pace with Apple's gains while improving it's overall market share, as it fights with customers over brands like Blackberry. 

Let me just say, I have a "smartphone," and I love it because I continually have access to the latest information, either on CNN or Perez Hilton. That being said, I think smartphones really do contribute to the information divide, since some members of the population are give continual access to the latest information in the pocket, while others don't have that same access. For example, I was able to watch President Obama's swearing in ceremony on my phone despite the fact that I had class. Other students might have missed out on that experience just because they didn't have the latest technology in their back pocket. 

I think smart phones also contribute to a technological divide because they cost more and are becoming increasingly popular for cell phone providers to carry instead of traditional phones. As a result, people from lower income classes may no longer be able to afford cell phones at all, since they won't be able to buy the phone or the additional service that you often have to buy when you purchase the phone. Not only does this create a technological divide, I think it also creates a safety issue-- do we really want someone walking back from the library at 2am without a cell phone? If they were attacked, how could they call the police for help? Clearly, these type of innovations, while exciting and new, are likely to cause just as much harm as good. 

Technological Inequality in Television Switch

I found an article about the recent digital TV switch set to be instated on February 17th throughout the United States. In this Fox News article, it was discussed that President Obama is attempting to push back the digital TV switch due to inequity between class groups. Obama feels that if the switch is made, many rural, elderly, and minority groups will not have access to a working television. Also, switching from an antenna to the new technology requires a converter box, which may be too pricey for some families. The previous solution to this issue was to provide these families/people with converter box coupons, however, the waiting list for the coupons is currently exceeding 1.1 million people. The digital TV switch has many positive influences including freeing up airwaves to be used for other services such as emergency wireless lines. However, if minorities and many poverty-stricken people will lose this form of communication and information, are the benefits worth the cost? 

I can't really decide how I feel about this issue. I agree that people shouldn't lose access to this valuable communication medium, however, I understand the need for use of those taken airwaves. Does anyone have an opinion with some support on this issue?

Article: Can be found on Fox.com under Obama: Let's Postpone Digital TV Switch

The Divide is Everywhere

I had been searching the technology portion of the New York Times for quite some time trying to find the perfect article that showed the digital divide.  It wasn't until I read articles about the Kindle, new blogs on Google, street lights that could be turned on by cell phones, podcasts, Twitter and chip plants that I realized how much technology our society depends on.  Think about it, if you had no money to buy a computer, or a cell phone, look at how much stuff you would be missing out on.  There would be no blogging, no podcasts, let alone a Kindle.  People on low incomes have to choose which technology is more important to them.  Is it a computer?  A cell phone?  If they choose to have both, maybe that means they don't have a car or can't make the rent payments.  The digital divide is much more prevalent than we think.  Even among those teenagers who have texting and those who don't, the divide shows.  Those that don't have texting tend not to be contacted as much as those who do.  The digital divide is all over the place, just looking through the New York Times reminded me of that.

Health Inequities and Green Areas

An article in the USA Today brought an interesting approach to the idea of inequity and inequality in health. A British study found that health differences between rich and poor could be narrowed with the simple addition of green, open areas.

"Dr. Richard Mitchell, of the University of Glasgow, and his colleagues noted that previous studies have shown that the presence of green space has an independent beneficial effect on health and health-related behaviors.... In areas with the most green space, the health gap between the richest and poorest people was about half as large as that in the least green areas..."

Though this is not directly related to Informational inequalities, the connection between social class and well-being is prevalent. This finding provides support for the idea that if people, regardless of class, have somewhere to be active in a good environment, their health will benefit. This is especially crucial, the article says, for those in poverty because costly health care creates a divide in who can and who cannot receive adequate health treatment.

This study shows how important a natural environment really is. Green areas not only improve standard of living by making people happier and more relaxed; they also can improve health and reduce the mortality rate of all incomes for preventable diseases such as circulatory disease and coronary heart disease.

This article made me think of the those that would be most affected by a hypothetical "green space" in a Metropolitan area. Those in urban settings, where a large minority population can be found, would benefit the most.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-08-green-inequality_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Las Vegas's Latest Gamble

The February 8th New York Times article, Roll of the Dice on Las Vegas's Shabby Downtown, investigates the mayor of Las Vegas's decision to raise taxes on the lower-income parts of the city during the present economic decline. Downtown, which is faded and ignored "like a worn-out show girl," is mostly filled with older bars, wedding chapels, cash-checking stores, and a few new things like outlet malls. Mayor Oscar B. Goodman wants to dump cash in the eroding area to revive its glitz. Consider some of the plans for the editions/additions:
The project would include a new city hall (never mind that the existing one, built in 1973, has an addition only six years old), a casino resort (the first in downtown in some three decades) and office, residential and commercial space (because, the developers of this project assert, the eventual economic recovery will create demand for it).

The project would include a new city hall (never mind that the existing one, built in 1973, has an addition only six years old), a casino resort (the first in downtown in some three decades) and office, residential and commercial space (because, the developers of this project assert, the eventual economic recovery will create demand for it).

While the idea of revamping a decaying or tired part of a city is admirable and part of a mayor's responsibility, the timing and choice of neighborhood is unfair to the rest of a city known for swimming in money. "For taxpayers, the bottom line could mean borrowing $150 million to $267 million, with tax revenue from new development paying it back over time," the journalist reports. That is a lot of money to invest in a hope for the "eventual" for an area struggling with rent, mortgages, and business expenses. Especially as the burden is on those who live there and the reason is to clean up the face of the main drag.

He [the mayor] thought little of suggesting that federal stimulus dollars help finance a planned museum — downtown, of course — commemorating the mob’s role in building up Las Vegas...The downtown casinos have, however, never matched the allure of the Strip or its gambling and hotel revenue, and the area, though popular with some locals, has long struggled with crime and blight.

The injustice of imposing taxes on struggling communities to build and buy sports teams, arenas, more casinos, land, unnecessary city buildings, 1,000-room hotels, etc. is unnecessary padding of reputation for the wealthy without concern for the critical economic climate of less-prosperous areas or impoverished areas. It's not unlawful injustice, but it's inconsiderate social injustice. The downtown will not gain the most from this makeover--even if the will accrue more business, it will take more than newly-painted walls and fresh pavement to make it safe, and welcoming, and the fall before the eventual decline could be widespread and caused by one man concerned with appearance. Improvements can only be made when people can afford it, and the mayor is risking the entire low-income downtown by raising taxes.