tech

The goal of privacy is not to protect some stable self from erosion but to create boundaries where this self can emerge, mutate, and stabilize.

...there is a danger of churning out students who are rapid processors of information but may not necessarily be more reflective, thoughtful, and able to give sustained consideration to the information that matters most.

In the short run, technology many be more efficient than man, but it will never be perfect. Every piece of equipment will eventually reveal an error code. In the long run, man will never be perfect, but prove to be more reliable than technology.

One of the really tough things is figuring out what questions to ask. Once you figure out the question, then the answer is relatively easy.

I wish that I was 'tech savvy', but unfortunately for me and my family, I'm 'tech illiterate'.

Hi! I'm Tech Savvy!

Just because you have baggage doesn't mean you have to lug it around.

Advances in technology can be empowering, progressive and enriching. History has shown this across civilisations and societies. But it has also shown, and the present and future will continue to show, that it is foolish, risky, flawed and folly without us raising our individual and collective consciousness and mindfulness to accompany it - to ensure we use it shrewdly, kindly and wisely.

If you are on social media, and you are not learning, not laughing, not being inspired or not networking, then you are using it wrong.

The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort: not just tiny but abstract__ binary digit, a flip-flop, a yes-or-no. It is insubstantial, yet as scientists have finally come to understand information, they wonder whether it may be primary: more fundamental than matter itself. They suggest that the bit is the irreducible kernel and that information forms the very core of existence.

All media work us over completely.

Linux is a superbly polished copy of an antique - shinier than the original, perhaps, but still defined by it.

Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like... [It] often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. Nevertheless, so long as those commitments retain an element of the arbitrary, the very nature of normal research ensures that the novelty shall not be suppressed for very long... [N]ormal science repeatedly goes astray. And when it does__hen, that is, the profession can no longer evade anomalies that subvert the existing tradition of scientific practice__hen begin the extraordinary investigations that lead the profession at last to a new set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science. The extraordinary episodes in which that shift of professional commitments occurs are the ones known in this essay as scientific revolutions. They are the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science.

When we ask people to live their lives through our models, we are potentially reducing life itself. How can we ever know what we might be losing?

Seemingly innocuous language like 'Oh, I'm flexible' or 'What do you want to do tonight?' has a dark computational underbelly that should make you think twice. It has the veneer of kindness about it, but it does two deeply alarming things. First, it passes the cognitive buck: 'Here's a problem, you handle it.' Second, by not stating your preferences, it invites the others to simulate or imagine them. And as we have seen, the simulation of the minds of others is one of the biggest computational challenges a mind (or machine) can ever face.

As our country increasingly relies on electronic information storage and communication, it is imperative that our Government amend our information security laws accordingly

If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What's more, you deserve to be hacked

Hackers find more success with organizations where employees are under appreciated, over worked and under paid. Why would anyone in an organization like that care enough to think twice before clicking on a phishing email?