Fred's Site

Technology in Therapy:

With the introduction of the internet came a whole new way to practice therapy.  In a fast paced world where people expect fast and immediate results, therapy on the internet has become a popular alternative to the traditional face-to-face methods. 

History of Online Therapy:

1976: After the introduction of the first personal computers, computer bulletin board systems began to come into service.

1986:  "Uncle Ezra" was founded by Jerry Feist, Director of Psychological Services and Steve Worona.  This was one of the internet's first advice forums.

1995: First fee-based mental health services offered to the public.  Growth into many websites charging for mental health services.

The are three different ways that online therapy can happen.  The first is through e-mail.  The second is through a live chat, such as an instant message.  The third is through a webcam session.  Each of these different types of therapy mediums has its advantages and disadvantages. 

Online examples:

Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN7KWHkcDkY&feature=related

Mytherapy.net: https://www.mytherapynet.com/index.asp?

Message board: http://asktheinternettherapist.yuku.com/

Uncle Ezra: http://ezra.cornell.edu/

Depression screening test: http://psychcentral.com/depquiz.htm

Catalysts and Corosions:

-People afraid to go to face-to-face therapy would otherwise go untreated

-Good for clients who are physically disabled

-Clients may feel more comfortable in their home

-Clients may not be computer literate, especially older generations

Ethicical Issues: Multitude of ehtical issues present 

Primary responsiblity of helping proffesionals: Do no harm:

Does online therapy do this?

-May be taking advantage of people who are in need of therapy.

Some issues may be much too serious to talk about over the internet, ie. Suicuide

-Online tests and assessments may not be accurate.  Suicide risks.

-Confidentiality can easily be breached, especially on message boards.

-There is no definitive answer whether this type of therapy works or not.

 -Minimal research done in the field. 

 

 


 


 





 

I think an example of a one-size-fits –all design is the Millennium Bridge located in London.  The bridge was completed in 2000 to pay commemorate the new millennium.  It crosses the River Thames and connects the Bankside with the rest of the city.  It stands directly in front of the Globe Theater and the Tate modern art museum.  The ultra modern design of the bridge does not fit in at all with the designs of the surrounding brides, some being hundreds of years old.  There is definitely a design clash when looking at the Millennium Bridge in context with its surroundings.  Furthermore, after the bridge was completed it began to sway heavily in the wind.  Pedestrians were only allowed to cross the bridge in small numbers, causing long lines to build.  Eventually, the bridge was closed for a period of time and vibration absorbers were installed.  The designers of the bridge did not anticipate the amount of pedestrian traffic that the bridge would generate.  Clearly, this is an example of a project that needed to be better researched on many ends.

A good example of eco-effectiveness design is a green roof.  Although this design has been talked about before, I do think it shows exactly what eco-effectiveness is all about.  In essence, a green roof would help insulate a building, keeping it warm in the winter and cool in the summer, absorb UV rays, absorb harmful CO2 gasses, and produce oxygen.  This is an example of a design that is both useful to people and also gives back equally to the environment: the very basis for what eco-effectiveness is.   

Fredric22 (9:36:59 PM):So, this weekend, i went on a road trip to NJ and my friend Tara made us a CD to listen to on the way.  Turns out she still downloads music illegally over the internet.  I was pretty surprised because I'm pretty sure they are cracking down on that with huge fines.

lap2785 (9:38:39 PM):Yeah, I know some people who still do the same thing.  I actually had a friend who lived in the dorms and was fined for something like that

lap2785 (9:38:53 PM):I stopped downloading music a long time ago

Fredric22 (9:39:12 PM):The thing is, I always downloaded music before they started prosecuting people, and I never felt bad about it.  The only reason why I won't now is because I'm afraid to get caught, not because I think it is wrong.

Fredric22 (9:40:20 PM):To me, it doesn’t seem like a "real" crime. 

lap2785 (9:40:34 PM):Yeah same here, if it were still available without penalty I would still be downloading

Fredric22 (9:41:59 PM):I don't really know why that is.. that we don't feel like its morally wrong.  I think it may have something to do with us feeling like music should be something that is free to everyone.  Something that everyone should be able to take part in for free.

lap2785 (9:42:50 PM):That is definitely true, it all kind of started with burning CD's, etc.  People just wanting to share similar tastes in music with each other

Fredric22 (9:43:43 PM):Yea, that’s it, "sharing."  I think that’s why it doesn't feel like it is really wrong. 

Fredric22 (9:45:25 PM):But, do you think that the music industry and the government is wrong for telling people that they can't do it any longer?

lap2785 (9:46:55 PM):I think to a certain extent it needs to be regulated; otherwise people who make a salary out of their album sales will be suffering

lap2785 (9:47:09 PM):i think that services should be cheaper

Fredric22 (9:48:33 PM):Yea, I agree with that.  Although, I heard something saying that file sharing really doesn't take money away from the artists.  It basically said the people who want to buy the CD's will buy them no matter what.  I do think that some artists have suffered from it though. Especially ones that aren't well known.

lap2785 (9:50:27 PM):Really?  I didn't know that....in that case I feel that maybe it doesn't matter so much

Fredric22 (9:51:31 PM):I just think music is something that should be shared and I think that it is something that does belong to the commons on a certain level.  Its definitely not a black and white issue though. 

lap2785 (9:52:30 PM):there definately seems to be a big debate with it.  Luckily programs like napster allow you to pay per month for a service

Fredric22 (9:53:45 PM):Yea, I guess that does help a bit.  I still don't like getting charged for stuff like that.  I think sites like facebook are also moving in the same direction.  They are trying to make a ton of money from advertising to us.

Fredric22 (9:54:46 PM):In the last couple of months I have gone to Atlantic City a couple of times.  Well, now every time I log onto facebook, the banner ads that come up are all from casinos.  To me, that is scary.

lap2785 (9:55:07 PM):Yeah, there are always ads up on facebook for different things

lap2785 (9:55:17 PM):trying to get students to buy into things

Fredric22 (9:55:46 PM):Yea, but now it seems like they are somehow able to research what you have been doing online and make ads appear that you would be interested in.

lap2785 (9:56:44 PM):yeah it seems like they do that for a number of things. like which friends you talk to more pop up in the mini feed more often

lap2785 (9:57:07 PM):I have seen a lot of ads for cell phone companies too

Fredric22 (9:58:05 PM):I think that people are drawn to sites like facbook because it allows them to communicate and network in such an easy way.. but on the other hand, I feel like the site is also exploiting people just to make money.

lap2785 (9:59:35 PM):I agree with that.  It is such an easy way to reach so many people quickly and efficiently

Fredric22 (10:01:21 PM):I think people are just searching for a way to communicate with others in a new, easy way.  I think facebook has changed the way people communicate in our society.  But, I also feel like people are starting to get turned off by what facebook and other sites like it are doing. 

lap2785 (10:03:15 PM):I definitely was more interested in facebook a few years ago when it didn't become so commercialized and almost a way for everyone to know everything about you

lap2785 (10:03:22 PM):a lot of people lose their privacy

Fredric22 (10:04:32 PM):I definitely think privacy is important. I think sites like facebook are good for our democratic society, but I also think that using information gathered from those sites to target people for advertising.

 

In the last twenty years, the way in which the world buys products has vastly changed.  E-commerce has changed the consumers buy goods.  With introduction of the internet, retailers found new ways to sell their goods to people who could buy them with a simple click of the mouse.  In 2006, E-commerce accounted for almost 200 billion dollars in revenue. 

Timeline:

1992: J.H. Snider and Terra Ziporyn published Future Shop: How New Technologies Will Change the Way We Shop and What We Buy.  With the growing popularity of the internet, Snider realized that retail businesses would be able to sell in an entirely new marketplace. 

1994: Netscape released its first browser, under the name Mozilla.  The first online banking website was also created.  Pizza hut was the first major restaurant chain to begin taking orders online from its webpage.  Here we see that user-friendly internet browsers such as Netscape made it possible for consumers to access and navigate through the internet easily.  Retailers recognize that they could use the internet to make a profit.  Also, banks realize that doing business online decreases costs.

 1995: Jeff Bezos launches Amazon.com and eBay was founded under the name Auction Web.  These two dot-com companies would grow into some of the largest internet retailers and auction houses.  These were the first two large companies to use the internet as their primary way of doing business. 

1999: Napster was launched.  Napster completely changed the way that music was bought and used in the world.  Peer to peer sharing sites began to copy Napster’s premise.  Napster launched an electronic music revolution, allowing users to share music without having to buy it.

2003: Amazon.com has its first profitable year.  Unlike other dot-com companies, Amazon had a slow-growth business plan.  This proved to be a good move after many dot-com companies went under in the late 1990s.  This proved that major online retailers like Amazon.com successfully use the internet as a its sole marketplace.   

1971 – IBM Direct Access Storage Product assigns David Noble to develop fast, light, and cheap storage.  He creates an 8-inch “read-only,” flexible diskette with 80kB of memory.  It was used as a program load device for System 370 processing units and other IBM products. 

 

1972 – Memorex creates the Memorex 650, the first “read-write” floppy disk.  It holds 175kB and can be used to transport small amounts of information from one computer to another. 

 

1973 – IBM releases its first “read-write” disk as part of the 3740 Data Entry System.  It holds 250kB.  Multiple manufacturers begin producing drives supporting this format and it soon becomes common for transferring data.  It becomes known as the Single Sided Single Density (SSSD) format and is designed to hold as much data as one box of punch cards (2000 cards).

 

1973 – Shugart Associates becomes the dominant manufacturer of 8 inch Floppy Disc Drives.  The SA800 becomes the industry standard, which allows for competition and thus cheaper prices for consumers.

 

1976 – IBM introduces the Double Sided Single Density (DSSD) format and later the Double Sided Double Density (DSDD) format.  Standardization of the disks brings competitors together to make a single, interchangeable media which improves cost quality and cost improvement.

 

1976 -  Shugart announces its 5.25 inch minifloppy disk drive for $390.  The 8-inch drives proved to simply be too big for the average consumer to use easily.  Society demanded a smaller, more compact way of storing information. Economically, companies saw advantages to providing a smaller, more efficient way of storing information.

 

1978 -  Apple Computer introduces the Disk II, a 5.25 inch floppy diskdrive for $495. 8-inch floppy disks were quickly replaced by these new, smaller disks.  The average consumer now had easy access to the smaller floppy disks.  

 

1980 -  Sony Electronics introduces the 3.5 inch, double-sided, double density floppy disk drive. It held up to 875KB unformatted.  The new 3.5-inch disk was significantly smaller and compact than its predecessors, allowing it to be easily used by consumers.  This size proved to be most successful as it proved to be the standard for the next 30 years.

 

 

1983-   Hard disk drives also became a standard component of personal computers.  The floppy disk was no longer the primary means of memory storage for computers.  Instead it became an easy, portable storage device that could be shared between computers.

 

1984-   Apple introduces the Macintosh computer.  It used single-sided 3.5-inch disk drives with an advertised capacity of 400KB.  Other than Sony, Apple was the first manufacturer to sell computers with 3.5-inch disk drives. With new technologies such as USB portable hard drives, Apple saw that the floppy disk drives did not have a long future. 

 

1998-   The IMAC is introduced by Apple and is the first mass produced computer that is sold without a 3.5-inch floppy disk drive. With new technologies such as USB portable hard drives, Apple saw that the floppy disk drives did not have a long future. 

 

2003-   Dell announces that computers will no longer be shipped with a floppy disk drive.  Instead, consumer could purchase one at an additional cost as an add-on.  This is an example of another company deciding that including floppy disk drives in computers is no longer profitable as new portable storage devices become cheaper. 

 

 

 

 

Growing up in New York city, I have seen first hand the implentation of new technology to the 100 year old subway system.
The new computer systems being implented in the new trains allow the train to run fully automated.  Old trains are being
phased out of service in order to accomodate the new technology.  Also, the MTA has upgraded signaling stations that
allow the trains to run automated without risk of collision. Here is a link to an article in "wired" that explains the
changes taking place.

This new technology would benefit the infastructure of the city in several different ways.  First it would allow for
people to travel throughout the city in a quick and effecient manner.  Second, because of this technology trains
would be able to travel closer to together.  Making it possible for new trains to be added to meet the growing demand
from riders as the population of the city increases.  Also, the new technology would eliminate human error that
could contribute to accidents, as has happened in years past.

However, all may not be completely well with this new upgrade.  Having a completely automated subway system would
eliminate many jobs, such as train conductors and train operators.  Ticketing machines have already eliminated
many city jobs.  Also, this could cause problems in the event of emergency evacuations.  Without a train operator,
people may not be able to evacuate in a timely, affective way.  Finally, the cost of this project is extremely
expensive.  The MTA is passing on the cost of the upgrades to the riders.  Fares continue to increase every year.
This could affect the city's economy negatively as fares become more expensive in a time when the economy is
already taking a nosedive.

Since WWII, night vision goggles have become and integral part of US military operations.  By definition they allow images to be produced in levels of light approaching total darkness.  It is not hard to see why the military would want to develop this technology and implement it.  Night vision allows military forces to carry out operations at any time of the day.  Many important tacticle operations in the past few decades have been carried out at night.  Take the Iraq war for example.  The very first bombs were dropped during the middle of the night.   Although other technologies made the assault possible, without night vision goggles pilots would be unable to carry out the mission affectively. 

The technology has become so wide spread in the military that almost every single troop is equiped with at least some night vision equitment.  The technology is also advancing at a rapid rate.  There are many US and foreign companies that have conctracts with the US military.  The newest night vision technology will allow pilots to see 95º around in night vision, siginificantly improving their line of sight. 

Some catalysists to the state of this technology: It provides the military with a tacticle advantage, espically when fighting during hand to hand combat.  It also allows soliders to see possible threats at night before the enemy notices their presences.  Night vision also allows the military to perform vital operations in the middle of the night, gaining the element of surprise.   

 

 

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=highway&ie=UTF-8&output=rss

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=night+vision&ie=UTF-8&output=rss

Highway lighting has made it possible for the state to exponentially grow in the last century.  In modern times, we seem to take this technology for granted.  However, without the network of highway lights in the country, there would be little economic growth of the state.  The highway lighting network is almost as important as the highway network itself.

Before the highway and lighting network, the US was made up of many micro economies.  With the invention of the engine, goods were able to be traded to and from different parts of the country.  Along with railroad networks, the national highway system began to become increasingly important for the economic growth of the country.  As industry began to rely more and more on the highway network, a lighting system needed to be developed so that nighttime travel could be accomplished.

Today, the lighting network allows multi-million dollar industries to exist and thrive.  Large corporations like Target, Wal-mart, and Best Buy rely heavily on these lighting networks.  Because these companies use a trucking network in order to supply their network of stores, the highway lighting system becomes essential.  Without it, the transportation of manufactured goods would not be able to take place.  The only way the state can grow and stay alive is through the constant transport of goods.  This whole system is related to the Kaldorian growth strategy, which emphasizes the internal growth of the state where you move from a set of micro economies to a national economy by the implantation of successful transport systems.  The lighting network allows this to happen at any time any day.

After thinking about this topic for a while, I realized that there is a technology that has existed for the better part of the last century that is definitely embedded with politics.  The technology is the automobile.

Since the very beginning of the automobile's use, politics were very much embedded in the way the tire and car companies did business.  Tire companies worked tirelessly to buy up all of the nation's railroads.  The tire companies wanted the car to become the prodiminant method of transportation, not the train.  Instead, trains were used for industrial uses and not primarily for passanger transport.  This system favored the upper-middle class who were able to afford cars at the time.  The tire companies made it hard for good public transportation networks to be created.  We can still see the results of this today.  Take a look at Europe's railway network and compare it to the U.S.  It is truly night and day.

Now, lets take a look at the present.  The auto companies have also been in a relationship with the major oil companies for many years.  Many auto companies have patents on car engines that can get well over 50mpg.  But are they being produced?  Instead, the auto companies are producing a handful of hybrids and more fuel efficient cars in order to be more environmentally friendly.  However, the technology exists for all cars to run much more effeciently.  Auto companies blame this on the consumer, stating that people do not want to drive small fuel efficiant cars.  Americans want large SUVs.  Is this really the only reason or are oil companies relying on the consumers need for oil?