Kyle Brady: A Blog

Here’s another paper I had to write, this time with a little less zeal.

It’s fairly decent, but ended up being a little shorter than I had intended.

— — —

Plagiarism: The Overwrought Bastard Child of Copyright

Citations and plagiarism have strode hand-in-hand through the world of academia almost as long as the idea of “the institution” has existed.  The theft and rebranding of another’s ideas, purely for academic credit and recognition, is the ultimate sin amongst professors, collegiate authors, and students, but this disease of morals is seen by many to be spreading in the current age of all things digital.  However, there is a growing cloud of dissent that continues to rain on the copyright parade, contending that copyright itself is a flawed concept, and, therefore, so is the current system of academic citations.

            Plagiarism is currently defined, by Dictionary.com Unabridged, as

the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work (“plagiarism”)

with citations being concurrently defined as “the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent” (“citation”).  However, the rules and definitions get further defined and restrictive, as a few large governing bodies have arisen to act as the academic citations watchmen, the most pervasive of which is the Modern Language Association, or “MLA.”  This godlike body has handed down the law from on high regarding when citations are necessary, and it has become the Golden Rule of all forms of academic writing:  anything that is not completely original in origin is required to have a source.  Exemptions include self-operated exercises, using self-created media, or an author retelling a life experience… but, for all intents and purposes, those are the only exemptions (Purdue OWL, Stolley, and Brizee).

The results of such stringent documentation necessities should be immediately obvious to any intelligent external observer:  any written document that contains anything other than the author’s dream descriptions or embedded photographs of their children is going to be full of citations, to the point of excess and annoyance.  Granted, in the scientific community, this makes perfect sense- scientific knowledge is heavily layered, building on previous work and its iterations of both research and writing, and cannot produce a truly original idea.  A scientist writing a paper outlining a new theory or concept may be groundbreaking and revolutionary, but due to the very nature of scientific work, the paper will be acceptably laden with references to other theories, equations, and research outfits.

Outside the scientific community, such extreme reverence for prior works of art leads to a document that reads like the author has obsessive-compulsive citation tendencies.  The typical argument for citations of all unoriginal work, including ideas that have been digested and reformed as the author’s own, involves statistics on the “rise of plagiarism” and how the stringent requirements of formats such as those by the MLA will help to squash such unethical and immoral activities.  However, as Mike Hart and Tim Friesner mention in their whitepaper on academic plagiarism, “[e]stimates of the prevalence of plagiarism may […] be contingent upon the definitions employed” and that “plagiarism may be only weakly associated with cheating behavior”(89).  The current situation of statistics vs. definition arguments is a stereotypical chicken-and-egg scenario that may not have a true beginning. 

In “Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity”, Lawrence Lessig, a Standford professor known for his political activism, states:

“There has never been a time in history when more of our ‘culture’ was as ‘owned’ as it is now. And yet there has never been a time when the concentration of power to control the uses of culture has been as unquestioningly accepted as it is now (28).”

This not only aptly describes the copyright climate, but it also exists as a parallel to the citations argument:  if such a large number of works have been written on an infinite number of topics, how can one write a truly original paper?  The author may use or paraphrase concepts or ideas picked up many years ago from another source, and yet doesn’t think to cite them.  It may seem innocuous, but this is still filed under the category of plagiarism.  Because of this potential reality, many universities, and even high schools, have adopted an attitude of prevention in an effort to educate students on the intricacies of using information learned elsewhere (Wiebe).

However, it is such an attitude that will only perpetuate the current copyright cringing and citing-by-default climate.  The central issue is not whether or not plagiarism exists, but rather why it exists, and if what is perceived as plagiarism may actually be a misinterpretation of the needs and purpose of copyright itself.  An argument may be made that students, and otherwise authors of academic works, are viewed “as lazy cheaters who are guilty before proven innocent” (Regan 5), as the predatory behaviors of teachers, critics, and otherwise citation hawks is self-evident.

The result of such predatory behaviors has only one logical conclusion, which the academic world is only beginning to realize.  Many times, after authors discover that citation-free blocks of text in a written academic work will be scrutinized for plagiarism, “there is a temptation to […] pad out [their work] with descriptive material leaving little time […] for their own […] comments” (Friesner and Hart 94).  Academia is not alone in their problems with their own versions of perceived theft:  both the music and movie industry are screaming obscenities as their glass houses built with sex, greed, and drugs quickly disintegrate under the flames fanned by Internet “pirates.”  Despite the obvious differences in definitions of theft and their target audiences, all three institutions have the same central problem:  copyright (Silverthorne).

For years “the industry” has continued to convolute the definitions of copyright, extending the terms of protection and prosecution, converting a system meant as a means of protection into something that resembles a heavily armed drug cartel, “protecting” their goods.  And since citations are borne out of the ideas of “prior work”, a concept used in copyright law, the anti-copyright world of academia actually continues to support and favor copyrights by pushing overzealous citations.

Regardless of the chicken-and-egg birthcycle, there is a solution.  Academic institutions need to de-emphasize the habit of wanton citing, and governing bodies such as the MLA need to loosen restrictions and definitions to a more reasonable, but still protective, level.  Rather than regarding authors as highly likely to be cheaters and perpetuators of plagiarism, they should be given respect and a certain level of trust until they prove to not be worthy of it.  The justice systems of the world have such a revolutionary concept:  it’s typically known as “innocent until proven guilty.”

If a scientist isn’t required to prove e = mc² in order to avoid citing a well known and “common knowledge” theory, every time they use it in new equations, projects, and theories, then why would the academic literary equivalent be necessary?

— — —

Works Cited

• “citation.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 25 Nov. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/citation>.
• Hart, Mike, and Tim Friesner. “Plagiarism and Poor Academic Practice - A Threat to the Extension of e-Learning in Higher Education?” Electronic Journal on e-Learning 2.1: 89-96. Feb. 2004. 25 Nov. 2008 <http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/vol2-issue1/issue1-art-35-hart-friesner.pdf>. 
• Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture Control Creativity. New York: The Penguin Press HC, 2004. 28.
• “plagiarism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 25 Nov. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism>.
• Purdue OWL, Karl Stolley, and Allen Brizee. “Avoiding Plagiarism: Is It Plagiarism Yet?” Purdue OWL. 30 Sept. 2008. 25 Nov. 2008 <http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/02/>. 
• Regan, John. “Curing the Cold but Killing the Patient? Turnitin.com, Online Paper Mills, and the Outsourcing of Academic Work.” Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification 3.2 (2008): 1-11. 
• Silverthorne, Sean. “Music Downloads: Pirates or Customers?” Harvard Business School: Working Knowledge 21 June 2004. 25 Nov. 2008 <http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html>. 
• Wiebe, Todd J. “College Students, Plagiarism, and the Internet: The Role of Academic Librarians in Delivering Education and Awareness.” MLA Forum 5.2 (2006).

posted on November 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pm by Kyle - Comments

Tags: Copyright, Essay, Plagiarism

Here’s a paper I wrote in class for my midterm… “argumentative”.

But, of course, when I was done I saved it and emailed it to myself, not only for archiving, but for public display!

— — —

On November 4^th, 2008, registered voters across California will have a chance to decide many important issues regarding the future of their beloved state, and one of the most important propositions, which coincidentally happens to be one of the most expensive, is regarding the very safety, livelihood, and continued existence of California’s citizens: a proposal to create a high-speed railway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. To vote against Proposition 1A is tantamount to environmental homicide, as well as a binding contract to slowly stop breathing. Why? Because the central issue of this proposition is not singular in nature, but in fact twofold: traffic congestion and pollution (Prop 1A).

Proposition 1A would create a high-speed railway from the Transbay Terminal of Downtown San Francisco to Union Station in Los Angeles, clocking in at a quick two and a half hours for a one-way ride at 220mph, with a handful of stops along the way for convenient trans-California commuting. The High Speed Rail Authority, created to manage this project full-circle, from conception and surveys to completion and operation, is requesting close to $33b to complete this project, which would be paid for in roughly equal thirds: state taxpayers, the federal government, and private investors. While this number may sound large and slightly scary to the Average Joe the Plumber, not all of the funding will go towards construction: a large part will be necessary for the planning and design stages, due to California’s propensity for multi-stage tectonic movement, as well as connecting pre-existing public transportation services such as San Francisco’s BART or the Altamont Commuter Express to this new and modern method of travel. Admittedly California’s largest public works project in the history of both the United States of America and Union of old, this project is not just another attempt at a hopefully-well-used public transportation system (Cabanatuan), but an obvious move of offensive nature to combat the growing problems that the Sunshine State faces.

As anyone who has driven a moving vehicle of any sort in California will know, traffic is a major issue at almost any time of the day, and will only continue to get worse as the state’s population is projected to reach 50m citizens by 2030 (Cabanatuan). Not only does the vehicular traffic of the state, and the nation at large, continue to grow, but the use of current and pre-existing railways is problematic at best, not giving frustrated drivers viable alternatives. Concerns of using services like Amtrak, Altamont Commuter Express, or the ill-fated attempt at an East Coast high-speed railway known as Acela, range from pedestrian to mechanical, but are mostly regarding the inconvenience and extra time necessary to use such transportation, in addition to the questionable safety record of these aging government subsidies (Miller). Foreign countries are able to navigate the perils of a reliable and fast national railway system, so why should America not have its first?

The reasons for voting “Yes” on Proposition 1A are immediately obvious, and detractors have difficulty in arguing against them: with high usage of such a proposed railway system, vehicular traffic will decrease, which, in turn, results in fewer daily emissions and pollution, while also reducing the cost of travel for many workaday citizens (Cabanatuan). Additionally, the proposal from the High Speed Rail Authority is to run the railway by electricity via magnetic levitation - known as “maglev” - , rather than the predecessors of coal or steam, much like many of the modern European transit circuits; once again, this results in less emissions, since the train has none, which puts the final nail in the coffin for this proposal being a “win-win situation” in regards to the environment and Global Warming (Grossman).

However, the minds of the grumbling minority have managed to find issues to complain about, largely revolving around the proposed and actual costs of this project. In order to repay the State’s debt from this beautiful attempt at progress, the opponents of Proposition 1A claim the cost will total at almost $20b, taking thirty years to reach a zero balance. Additionally, they reference other herculean public works projects, such as Boston’s “Big Dig”, and the unfortunate reality that they tend to go considerably over budget (Cabanatuan). Despite being part of the pessimistic fiscal conservatives, these groups and individuals, which includes California’s Chamber of Commerce, do give voice to legitimate concerns.

But should the State’s, or concerned individuals’, fears about the thinning of their wallets be a reason to not finance such a revolutionary and forward-thinking proposal? Should cost be allowed to be the deciding factor in a battle of ideals and morality? Gargantuan efforts such as NASA or the secretly-ran Manhattan Project used considerable amounts of capital, and in the case of NASA, still does, in order to achieve their goals. The cost was not a deciding factor in the discussions to proceed, because the end goal was deemed to be too important. Granted, this project is of state origin, and not entirely federally funded, but such logic and reason should be applied to Proposition 1A regardless of its point of origin because, in the end, it is not effecting just traffic and the stress-free well being of California’s citizens, but the environment as well.

Historically, California has paved the way for other states to enact large changes in their governmental thinking or operational processes, such as the state mandated emission levels for corporations, movements toward green energy production for the general population, and, as is hotly contested in this voting cycle, the legal marriage of same-sex couples. The issue of a greener and more efficient method of transportation for the citizens of America could be just the latest in the line of born-and-bred Californian innovations, creating change that sweeps America off its feet. If the federal government is not going to personally create a national railway system that is up to the standards of today’s time, emissions, and efficiency standards, not to mention safety, then it is the responsibility of the people, and by association, the state, to accomplish what our illustrious Congress cannot. A vote of “Yes” on Proposition 1A is not only a vote for change, it’s a vote for a future America. But most of all, it’s a vote to continue breathing.

— — — — — — —

Works Cited

Cabanatuan, Michael. “High-speed rail plan a key ballot measure.” SF Gate [San Francisco] 11 Sept. 2008, sec. A-1. SFGate.com. 11 Sept. 2008. SF Gate. 28 Oct. 2008 <http://www.sfgate.com/‌cgi-bin/‌article.cgi?f=/‌c/‌a/‌2008/‌09/‌11/‌MN6812P3E1.DTL>.

Grossman, David. “The case for high speed rail in America.” USA Today 22 Aug. 2008, Travel sec. USAToday.com. 22 Aug. 2008. USA Today. 30 Oct. 2008 <http://www.usatoday.com/‌travel/‌columnist/‌grossman/‌2008-08-22-high-speed-rail_N.htm>.

Miller, Jeremy. “AMTRAK, Off Track.” Triplepoint 2005. Triplepoint. Boston University. 28 Oct. 2008 <http://www.bu.edu/‌sjmag/‌scimag2005/‌opinion/‌amtrak.htm>.

Prop 1A - High-Speed Train System Will Provide A Needed Boost & Jobs For California’s Economy. Sacramento: California Alliance to Rebuild California, Local 3 Operating Engineers Union, 2008. Californians for High-Speed Trains. 2008. A Coalition of Taxpayer, Business, Environmental and Labor Groups And People from Across California Tired of Being Stuck in Traffic. 28 Oct. 2008 <http://www.californiahighspeedtrains.com/‌docs/‌Multipage%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf>.

posted on October 30th, 2008 at 1:04 pm by Kyle - Comments

Tags: California, Essay, High Speed Transit, Proposition 1A, Railway

Here’s yet another paper I had to write for a class.  This time it was in defense of atheism as a rational concept, and not some sort of epic bringer of destruction like so many religious people would have you believe.

It’s not my all-time best work, and it’s not as “punchy” as usual… the teacher forbade me from using my characteristic tone.  But I managed to sneak in a good closing line all the same…

Either way, here it is…

— — —

Atheism, the immortal bane of all religions, is typically portrayed as the black sheep of the family of religions, creating chaos and wreaking havoc purely for the simple and thrilling joy of it.  This, however prevalent in the minds of the modern religious, is a manifestation of the fear of the unknown and variable on behalf of the religious authorities and believers alike.  That fear can be easily put to words, as shown by Nevermore, a Seattle-based progressive metal band, in a song called “Narcosynthesis”:

Such fears are largely unsubstantiated in today’s modern and largely free-thinking society, since, in actuality, a large majority of the innovative human intelligence relied upon by the world at large is atheist, or it’s close cousin of the uncaring sort, agnostic.

Atheism is defined as “disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings” (”atheism”, Dictionary.com), note that the pure meaning does not contain any mention of malevolence or destructive intent.  However, atheism is also associated by some with acts of violence and chaos, despite evidence to the contrary.  Catholic Online, which provides an online repository of Vatican doctrines and other Catholicism related information, categorizes atheism as without morals and that, according to the internal view of an atheist, “human actions would be neither right nor wrong, good nor evil” (”Atheism”, Catholic Encyclopedia).  Each characterization of atheism presents a different image and seem to be polar opposites of each other:  a relatively innocent belief vs. a rejection of morals.

Throughout recorded history, atheists have been blamed for having “abandoned duty and embraced hedonism” (”Criticism of Atheism”).  However, in attempts to defend themselves, an atheist’s arguments fall largely on deaf ears.  There is no central body of atheists, unlike the majority of faith-based religion, and therefore there is no loud voice proclaiming what is truth and lies, presenting an elegant defense against dogmatic invaders.  This typically leaves the individual atheist alone in the defense of their particular brand of faith, where the religious, both the fervent and casual believers, find the arguments full of nonexistent insults, appalling methods of reason, and shocking blasphemy, none of which they are willing to hear (”Criticism of Atheism”).

Conveniently, the majority of criticisms and holy wars against atheism avoid the unavoidable:  some of history’s most intelligent and well renowned individuals were non-believers.  The halls of heathens include:  Paul Dirac, the original quantum mechanics theorist; Sigmund Freud, groundbreaking psychiatrist, foundation for much of modern philosophy; Stephen Hawking, considered to be the world leader in theoretical physics; Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Inc.; Issac Asimov, acclaimed author considered to be one of the fathers of Science Fiction; Karl Marx, revolutionary philosopher; and Woody Allen, a Hollywood director of “highbrow” movies (”List of Atheists”).  Given the ever-growing list of respected atheists, one can begin to see the holes in many counter arguments.

To the majority of atheists, their non-belief is very simply explained and understood, and does not stand for a larger purpose or cause.  They do not have goals of destroying The Catholic Church, or making Islam illegitimate.  An atheist simply does not believe in a higher power, and therefore does not subscribe to the doctrines and ideals laid out before them by a secretive and archaic organization.  Truthfully, the same individuals are not keen on church burnings or worshiping Baal; these actions are often transposed onto atheism from a completely unrelated vein known as Satanism.  Ironically, and much to horror of Christians worldwide, Satanism may be considered a branch of Christianity, if the branch of Satanism in question worships the Christian representation of Satan (”Satanism”).

However, a common misconception is that without religion, a modern individual has no morals (”Criticism of Atheism”).  Many people believe that morals are independent of religious values, and that religion merely incorporates into their beliefs and services, indoctrinating their followers in the ways of “good” and “evil”.  When considering morality from a religious viewpoint, one must consider the plethora of religious standards, beliefs, and views that continue to coexist in a mostly peaceful environment.  The existence of parallel religions indicate that although the beliefs of people and cultures may be different, the value systems are largely the same.  How, then, are the concepts of morality and ethics attached to religion?

Quite simply, they are not.  When a small child learns that pulling another’s hair is not a good behavior, do they prescribe the reason to a higher power?  When chimpanzees share their food with each other, or even with humans, do they do so because their supreme being said to?  Examples of morality or ethics, such as these, can be found throughout the world, where intelligent animals or still-developing children act in a manner that coincides with many of the same activities of the religious, without being even remotely religious in it’s very nature.

Additionally, the central cause for many atheists to believe as they do is typically found to be reason.  Their beliefs are not bourne out of an irrational fear of the supreme, nor are they founded in an attempt to explain the otherwise mystical.  As previously mentioned, the largest contingent of atheists or agnostics typically fall into the categories of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, or otherwise fact-based thinkers (Cray).  Rational thinking begets a rational view of the world.

Fervent believers may try to argue to the contrary, citing examples of atheism in Soviet Russia (”Religion in the Soviet Union”), anti-religion movements in Red China (”Religion in China”), or Karl Marx’s belief that “religion is the opium of the people”, which is also commonly translated as “religion is the opiate of the masses” (”Karl Marx”).  They may even start gathering their pitchforks while screaming “Out with you, godless heathens!”.  Who knows.

In any discussion of atheism as a culture or true belief, it becomes prudent to mention that non-believers (notably differentiated from heathens) have been discriminated against throughout the ages, and have suffered the same injustices many of the “true” religions have.  Once again, the religious fanatic may cry that this is a modern injustice, and while a shame, it may be warranted.  But, once again, the religious would be incorrect:  the discrimination and occasional persecution of atheists began in the Late Roman Empire… merely a hundred years after the birth, and death, of a certain religion’s savior under the same empire (”History of the Roman Empire”).

Given the modern religious climate of high anxiety, defensive posturing, and wild accusations between different religions, not including internal strife, it is most likely safe to assume that the attacks on atheists will decrease.  As religions become increasingly disorganized, their ability to viciously defend their beliefs, whether rational or not, will decrease, but the heart of the matter will remain.  Unless atheists are truly understood as having their own beliefs, and a substantial amount of morality as well, many of the religious will still wage war in their hearts.  But first, atheism must be given the same blanket of religious tolerance in the media that all others have, including Scientology, in order to begin to change the hearts of the devoted.

Unless, of course, a Pope, Imam, or otherwise empowered religious leader grants atheism it’s rightful status.  And the famous Jesus Christ rode dinosaurs around Jerusalem as a means of travel.

— — — Works Cited — — —

“Atheism.” Catholic Encyclopedia. Catholic Online. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1201>.
“atheism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 20 Oct. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism>.
Cray, Dan. “God vs. Science.” TIME 5 Nov. 2006. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html>.
“Criticism of Atheism.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism>. Path: Morality.
Dane, Warrel, et al. “Narcosynthesis.” Dead Heart In A Dead World. Century Media, 2000.
“History of the Roman Empire.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Empire>.
“Karl Marx.” Wikiquote. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Marx>.
“List of Atheists.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists>.
“Religion in China.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China>.
“Religion in the Soviet Union.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union>.
“Satanism.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism>.

posted on October 21st, 2008 at 3:39 am by Kyle - Comments

Tags: Atheism, Essay, Religion

What’s the old adage?  “You can put rollerskates on a cow, and it’s still just a cow.  With rollerskates.  But it’s not always a great idea.”  Never heard of it?  Probably because I just made it up.

She wants those rollerskates.  You can tell.

What am I talking about?  Some people seem to think they can just randomly decide to be in the computer programming world because it’s a “safer bet” than, say, going into business school at the moment.

And they’re wrong.

It’s a Lifestyle

Being a programmer, coder, hacker, or any other variant of the idea of creating computer software (on any level) is not something you just wake up one day and decide to do.  You can’t, even if you wanted to.  This isn’t the same as studying for 4 years at your favorite college to get a degree in Economics and go pretend you know what all those giant spreadsheets mean.

Programming is typically borne from a love of computers, an obsession with them, and a need to know more.  You start tinkering with your Operating System (probably Windows of some sort), modifying things you don’t like and figuring out workarounds for those “people are dumb, treat them that way” software design idea.

Einstein seems to get what I’m saying.

And then you realize that you can create software.  Maybe you start with HTML and websites.  Maybe it’s PHP in the form of a mashup from your favorite websites.  Or maybe you even start playing with C++ or Java.

All while in middle school, or maybe even high school.  Because you definitely know you have a love affair with computers before you go to college, and have a high level of proficiency at any number of things computer-related.

Trust Me

I’m not making this up.  Us programmers are the same people you called geeks, nerds, and whatever else when we were younger, and now we happen to be the cool kids.  It doesn’t matter if you’re 40 or 20, people put you on a higher pedestal when they know you design software, because they simply don’t understand it.

Ask “that guy” that you know about how he got into it.  He’ll tell you.

It’s Important

Why is it important?  Because programming is not just about learning how to program, the syntax, structure, and quirks of a language.  It’s not even about being qualified to cry about pointer management or laugh at people who think Internet Explorer is “the Internet”.

It’s important because programming has alot to do with how you think.  How you approach situations, analyze them, and segment them into solution-oriented tasks.  How you continually test your code, trying to account for every possible outcome, and include contingencies for any and all failures.

Former MBA students:  this is you.

There’s a reason why people are called “Software Engineers” and not “Software Artists”.

Read More

If you come across a scientific analysis of programming or how programmers work, take the time to read it.  Because current findings are that programmers are not just Engineers, but they’re also artists, despite what I said three sentences ago.

Programming requires the massive analytical processes of an Engineer, but it also requires a high level of finesse, creativity, and “out of the box” thinking typically associated with artists.

This means you need both sides of your brain when you are writing your Pizza Hut Ordering System hack.

This is what happens when you only code for the money.

My Point

So here’s my point:  these kids may go to school thinking they can just graduate with a Computer Science degree, be programmers, and make lots of money in a secure job.  They may even accomplish that.

But they’ll never be true programmers.  They’ll probably hate their jobs.  And they’ll definitely never do anything great or revolutionary.

True programmers, the ones that change the world, do it not for the money, even though it’s nice to have.  They do it because they love it.  These are the people who have full-time jobs and multiple side projects, always hoping one day to run their own company or get a research grant to do what they want, on their own time.

Some of the best programmers of today and of yore don’t even have degrees.

How is having a degree, when you’re the wrong type of person, going to make things better?

posted on October 7th, 2008 at 8:15 am by Kyle - Comments

Tags: Coding, College, Computers, Essay, Programming, Rant, Technology

Here’s another piece I had to write for a class, but this time it’s a bona fide paper:  5 pages, formal voice… with sources!

Enjoy.

— — —

In Barbara Whitehead’s essay, “Parents Need Help: Restricting Access to Video Games”, she bastardizes the basic concept of a video game and, consequently, argues quite vehemently against an individual’s freedom to purchase the games they wish if they are under an arbitrarily mandated age limit, such as 18 years old (Whitehead 108).  She may very well have significant power of influence, in this situation, over a large group of people:  the old, the digitally disconnected, and the unintelligent.  However, to any outside observer with a working knowledge of both the current state of modern media and the video game entertainment industry, her conclusions, and proposals, will seem extremely ludicrous.  She’s not alone in her opinions, nor is she the first: this is the common war cry of an old, tired, and increasingly embarrassing generation.

Whitehead’s central tenet is that video games promote “fantasy rape, beheadings, and mass murder” (108), and should subsequently be government regulated, much like alcohol, cigarettes, or certain substances.  Using quotes from an obscure Governor, along with brief descriptions of only the most violent video games to ever exist, she proceeds to argue that parents cannot “parent” on their own in a modern society.  Operating from a belief that parents should have ultimate control over every activity their children participate in, Whitehead states that the videogame industry’s overall attitude of parent-based regulation is not sufficient, unless “it were still 1995″ (109), where she believes the parental load was considerably lighter, thanks to a non-digital age.  Additionally, the fact that the industry created a self-regulating board, the ESRB, to label games in age-appropriate categories is also insufficient, because “it isn’t enforced” (109).  Somewhat significantly, Whitehead seems to have a deep and underlying problem with capitalism in general, citing the videogame industry (along with others) as

As an argument, Whitehead falls short of providing a compelling case against videogames, using quotes from an obscure semi-figurehead as her entire source arsenal to defend her own personal beliefs and outlandish claims.  Her structure is typical of the targeted essay found in niche publications: short, fevered, and wildly supportive of it’s point without any bipartisan insight.  This is not surprising, however, as this essay was originally published in Commonweal, “a review of religion, politics, and culture” (Commonweal) read, and written, largely by Catholics.  The language itself is simplistic and at a low reading level, which again is a play by Whitehead to her audience.

While the argument may have proper literary structure and a glossy coat of legibility, the effectiveness of her authorship is largely indicative of failure.  In fact, changing the category of this essay from “argument” to “informative” or “cannon fodder” would not be a far stretch:  Whitehead does not state, or even argue, against anything that her readers in Commonweal would disagree with.  When an author caters to their targeted audience, this is typically classified as “pandering”, not “arguing”.  However, to the unobservant or casual reader from another source, this so-called argument may sound logical and sound if the true facts are not inherent to the reader and the essay is taken at face value.

Fortunately, Whitehead’s blatant failures are not obscured by clouds of religion, fervent beliefs, or audience pandering to all.  The essay is riddled with large holes of both logic and rationality, but there are two more overbearing than the rest: videogames’ “advocacy” of violence and other cultural problem points; and the “failure” of the ERSB and the private sector to regulate the industry (Whitehead 109).

Throughout history immemorial, any school of thought, technological advance, or progress otherwise has been consistently viewed with fear, disdain, and war mongering by many of the larger and culturally-ingrained organizations (Barker), the two most common being the Catholic Church (Robinson) and the generation outbound from this world.  Not surprisingly, Whitehead straddles both categorizations comfortably, and does not perceive either of them to be debilitating to her sense of reason or logic.  The attack on videogames has consistently used the violence as a key argumentative point, citing the thin correlations between videogame players and modern violence.  While the majority of studies, such as PBS’ “Reality Bites: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked”, have quantitatively proven that those individuals predisposed to violence are drawn to videogames, and not vice versa (D. Jenkins), Whitehead proceeds to take this extremely conservative concept to another level:  if video games involve violence, they must logically be supporting it as well.

A statement with such a logic structure is laughable in most situations, but, for some reason, seems to be largely accepted as reasonable in the argument againstvideogames .  Applying the same parameters to other industries, one finds a few interesting examples of insanity:  the snow sports industry must be a fervent supporter of death and injury, since they provide the means to those ends;internet service providers are guaranteed to be in large support of digital piracy and theft, since they provide the unfettered connections to those sources; and the auto industry is widely known to be supportive of high speed chases and police evasion, since the cars they make are capable of achieving just that.  This type of logic quickly falls to pieces under any sort of intelligent scrutiny.

Blaming the product for the actions of its users is a dangerous road, but not quite as dangerous as calling out both democracy and capitalism at large as the focal point of failure for what is, apparently to some, a modern plight of hedonism, violence, and amorality.  The American Federal Government is responsible for it’s people, yes, but not for the regulation of everyday activities that are, for all intents and purposes, trivial.  In the case of dangerous substance regulation, federal involvement is warranted, and accepted as necessary by the majority of the populace.  However, media is a benign form of entertainment, one that does not require a decree of what we are worthy to absorb as humans, especially when the media in question is associated with children.  This is the role of a special class of humanity, known as “parents.”

Regardless of whether it was truly necessary or not, the videogame industry decided to self-regulate, to a certain extent, and created the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).  The goal of this joint-exercise operation is not to control the actual sale of their products, but rather to inform parents or retailers of the nature of the materials themselves.  According to its mandate, the ESRB

When the ESRB is viewed as a ratings system, much like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), their success is quite obvious: every modern videogame requires a rating to be sold to the public.  However, it falls to the retailers themselves as to whether the rating’s age-appropriate parameters are enforced, or the parents’ judgement.  Certain retailers do vigorously prohibit the sale of video games to minors who are not of the suggested minimum age, and sometimes even with a consenting adult present (H. Jenkins).

The nature of democracy and capitalism can easily be seen in the videogame industry, as there was a public desire, and a vibrant market has grown to accommodate it, all without unnecessary regulation.  To suggest that such an entertainment market requires governmental oversight is to question the fundamentals of democracy:  at what point does federal regulation in a democracy become federal mandates of an entirely different type of government?  As evidenced by the current market crisis, largely influenced by crushing bank failure, the private sector does not always act in its own best interests.  However, the difference between a market capable of plunging an entire country into a recession and an entertainment market that caters to a younger audience are staggering.

In presenting an argument for, or against, regulations in the videogame entertainment industry, both sides need be considered, with realistic and unbiased support and evidence.  Barbara Dafoe Whitehead may have failed miserably at achieving an argument worthy of praise and admiration, but she unintentionally raises an important cause for concern:  will the fears and war mongering of the ever-deteriorating older generations, along with the extreme conservatives, be the undoing of a Democratic America?  In waging their Aged Americans’ Jihad, will they inadvertently cause a chaotic chain of events that lead to a regulated, religious, and strictly controlled government state?

Perhaps.  But that’s exactly why the majority of Americans have very little control over their government.  To avoid an Apocalypse of Stupidity.

posted on September 30th, 2008 at 7:04 am by Kyle - Comments

Tags: Argument, Essay, Government, Rant, Regulation, Videogames