Blog 6

People continue to be hesitant of electronic voting because of the prior miscalculated elections. For example in the 2000 Presidential election, the tallied votes for Al Gore in Florida were 16,000 fewer than casted. The company, Diebold distributed the majority of voting machines, however many voters are weary of their votes accurately being counted with no written documentation to confirm that their vote was in fact correctly tallied. The reason for concern is machines are not 100% reliable due to technical malfunctions and also honest being compromised and undervalued. Investigations of the Diebold company discovered that they controlled the electronic voting conditions regarding the machine with “uncertified software,” retreiving the memory cards as well as utilizing it. Those three factors hold a large amount of control over the voting results- the means to voting, retreival and calculation. It does not seem fair that one company pulls such a great of weight on such a large outcome.

The voting results rely on whether or not those in power are honest individuals. Whether or not the votes are calculated manually or by a computer, there will be an inaccuracy due to corruption. However, I feel that voting machines are the better way to calculate votes, yet should be operated by a multitude of companies providing the machine. Instead of one company monopolizing the voting machines, they should be spread out. According to Chris Hood, “Someone could get hold of all the technology- for manipulation- if they knew the inner workings of just one machine.” While, it inevitable that computer hacking occurs, the best way to ensure that the votes are accurately counted would be to politically spread the power of who is closest to the votes.

Blog 5

As a college student, I am aware of how difficult it is to obtain all the music you wish to listent to due to financial restrictions. Music has become expensive, but its just like anything else worth owning. Its an investment, like clothing, books or a painting. The reason for cost is logical- the artists producing the product should be compensated for their work since music is their means of living.

As for the comparison of the radio to downloading music, I view it as unequal since music being played on the radio is beyond the listener’s control, while downloading a song is permanently located in your music files, creating full control of usage. I believe downloading music illegally from any artist is unethcial since it is stealing from the artist.

From an ethical standpoint, it doesn’t make a difference whether the music is produced by an independent artist or major label, money is still not being paid to the artist. Although people are quick to say major labels do not need any money, those artists worked hard to become successful and should be paid tribute.

Obviously stealing a C.D. from a record store is the wrong thing to do since stealing of any kind is illegal. If it were allowed, there would be no point to having a price tag on the album.If you’re downloading a song to “try it out,” then there is no point in saying you will buy the full length album later, in most cases that doesn’t happen. Sites like youtube allow for free listening where you can decide whether the song is worth the cost. Then if you really like it, just purchase the CD or share with a friend.I think copying a CD from a friend is okay though, since that friend most likely had to buy the music. Itunes allows for five different uses per song, which makes it legal to share music with friends. However, since I do not currently use LimeWire to download music, I do not participate in file sharing. While you are not the one to download that file, you are sharing it to hundreds of people are promoting the stealing of music from the artist since it is sharing the file to a mass amount of people. I view creating mix CDs for friends as fine, since it is legal to do. If the music you have purchased is from Itunes, the sharer is only allowed 5 uses of the song, creating a limit to the number of CDs made. However, selling CDs produced by another musician is illegal. The music is there work and you should not profit off of something someone else created. Its not hard to burn a CD, but the work involved in creating a song generally is.

When it comes to the downloading of music, I believe it is better to purchase the music from itunes or a record store. Artists should be paid for their work and downloading music from the internet is ultimately stealing from them. Since music is an abstract form of ownership, people create exscuses for reasons stealing music is acceptable, but in my opinion it is the same as stealing the CD from the store. Although the CD is a tangible form of music, file sharing yields the same results as the content of the album.

Blog #5

Mara McGinley Blog 5 As a college student, I am aware of how difficult it is to obtain all the music you wish to listent to due to financial restrictions. Music has become expensive, but its just like anything else worth owning. Its an investment, like clothing, books or a painting. The reason for cost is logical- the artists producing the product should be compensated for their work since music is their means of living. As for the comparison of the radio to downloading music, I view it as unequal since music being played on the radio is beyond the listener’s control, while downloading a song is permanently located in your music files, creating full control of usage. I believe downloading music illegally from any artist is unethcial since it is stealing from the artist. From an ethical standpoint, it doesn’t make a difference whether the music is produced by an independent artist or major label, money is still not being paid to the artist. Although people are quick to say major labels do not need any money, those artists worked hard to become successful and should be paid tribute. Obviously stealing a C.D. from a record store is the wrong thing to do since stealing of any kind is illegal. If it were allowed, there would be no point to having a price tag on the album.If you’re downloading a song to “try it out,” then there is no point in saying you will buy the full length album later, in most cases that doesn’t happen. Sites like youtube allow for free listening where you can decide whether the song is worth the cost. Then if you really like it, just purchase the CD or share with a friend.I think copying a CD from a friend is okay though, since that friend most likely had to buy the music. Itunes allows for five different uses per song, which makes it legal to share music with friends. However, since I do not currently use LimeWire to download music, I do not participate in file sharing. While you are not the one to download that file, you are sharing it to hundreds of people are promoting the stealing of music from the artist since it is sharing the file to a mass amount of people. I view creating mix CDs for friends as fine, since it is legal to do. If the music you have purchased is from Itunes, the sharer is only allowed 5 uses of the song, creating a limit to the number of CDs made. However, selling CDs produced by another musician is illegal. The music is there work and you should not profit off of something someone else created. Its not hard to burn a CD, but the work involved in creating a song generally is. When it comes to the downloading of music, I believe it is better to purchase the music from itunes or a record store. Artists should be paid for their work and downloading music from the internet is ultimately stealing from them. Since music is an abstract form of ownership, people create exscuses for reasons stealing music is acceptable, but in my opinion it is the same as stealing the CD from the store. Although the CD is a tangible form of music, file sharing yields the same results as the content of the album.

Blog 4

Problem 1:
a. 12
b. 42
c. 0
d. a * b

Problem 2:
a. 5
b. 4
c. 7
d. a/b

Problem 3:
a. Strange: a=6
b. weird: a=8; b=4; Strange: a=12
c. Strange: a=4; really weird: a=8; b=4; Strange:a=12
d. a=3; Strange: a=3; really weird: a=6; b=3; strange: a=9

Problem 4:
a. 1
b. 3
Extra Credit: It states which power of 2 the variables are.

Blog 3

Question 1. a. 1011. Decimal= 11. Hexadecimal= B. b. 10101. Decimal= 21. c. 10010110. Decimal= 150. d. 1111111. Decimal= 127. Question 2. a. 8. Binary= 1000. Hexadecimal= 8. b. 63. Binary= 1000001.Hexadecimal= 3f. c. 113. Binary= 1110001. Hexadecimal= 71. d. 97. Binary= 1100001. Hexadecimal= 61. Question 3. a. 200 MB * (8Mb/MB) * (128kb/1Mb) * (sec/56kb)= 1871.24 sec b.200 MB * (8Mb/MB) * (sec/5Mb)= 320 sec c. 200 MB * (8Mb/MB) * sec/10Mb)= 160 sec Question 4. 60MB*(8Mb/1MB)*(sec/3Mb)= 480/3= 160 sec. 2.5 min/ MB 60 min * (MB/2.5)= 24 MB/ hr (24 MB/hr)*(24 hr/day)*(30 days/month)= 17280 MB/month.

Blog #2

Question 1.
The fundamental issue underlying net neutrality is, "Should the internet be open to everyone?"

Question 2.
Average citizens concerned with Identity Theft are anti-net neutrality since having limiting internet capability would help protect them from crimes like credit card theft.
Comcast is anti-net neutrality as well. The internet was designed to be open to the public, yet there are restrictions as to how many bandwidths you are able to access. Since there are newly created limitation there will become different sects of the internet through the amount in which you pay. Obviously if you pay more you can obtain a greater ranger of knowledge. Those who are unable to afford a more expensive contract are granted less access to the internet, creating a rift in society. Comcast is beginning to monopolize the internet and could possibly control what people have access to based on their payment plan.

Question 3.
Google is a prime example for the fight against net neutrality. The success of their company is fueled by the typical citizen using the internet aided by the search engine, Google. If net neutrality were to be mediated, Google would lose business.
Britain's newspaper, Guardian is in favor of net neutrality. Through publicity via the web, they are able to have a wider based fan group theoretically yielding a greater profit.

Question 4.
I believe the internet should be open to everyone. By restricting sites on the internet, an element of freedom is prevented, which all Americans should be entitled to. Through payment plans, some people would be able to access more of the internet, which would not be fair since that right would be determined through economic standing.