Technology’s effect on Society

Technology, the application of scientific knowledge for practical purpose, has been drastically improving since the first people in history began to settle down with agriculture. Even today, according to Moore’s Law, they say the processing power of modern computers doubles every 24 months. Technology now is more impressive than ever and new technological advances are invented every day to make society better off. However, this isn’t always the case. Although technology is suppose to make society better off, it has failed to do so because it is negatively impacting the intelligence and habits of the young generations because they are too dependent on technology such as the use of calculators and spell-checks at an early age.

In discussion of technology’s impact on society, one controversial issue is if people have become too dependent on technology or not. On one hand, Didi Cece, a journalist for The Star, wrote an article called “Technology is Dumbing Down our Society,” in which he describes how much times have changed since the 50’s and 60’s and that we practically have the world at our fingertips, referring to the vast amount of information we have access to. However, he describes that he had a college class cancelled for a lecture because the projector wouldn’t work and is just one example of human dependence on technology. He also goes further and describes that it isn’t just colleges and universities, but elementary schools are starting students off with the wrong foot with the use of calculators instead of their heads. He goes as far as describing his own fear of having difficulty solving simple math in his head and having a shorter attention span due to technology compared to before. Sadly, this case is too frequent with the current young generation, which is our future workforce. Most kids have access to some sort of video games which they would gladly play as much as they want instead of going outside to play and being active which is important in the development of the young body and mind. One of his examples that makes perfect sense is how much people freak out when there is a power outage or if their phone dies, and maybe a long power outage is what we need in order to remember how to do things ourselves and to get rid of our dependence on technology. However, this is easier said than done as technology controls our schedules, computers at our jobs, and even transports us from place to place.

On the other hand, Andrew McAfee, an associates director at MIT, wrote an article called “Why the Internet Is Not Making us Stupid” in which he argues specifically against numerous authors such as Andrew Keen and his book The Cult of the Amateur. His argument is with the current technology, people all over the world are able to express themselves, have huge access to all kinds of information, and connect with people interpersonally. He states that instead of technology making us stupid, it is the only thing keeping us smart. In response to his statement, how did people stay “smart” without the power of technology we have today. In the 1940s, the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project didn’t have google to ask “How to create an atomic bomb?” With common sense, it’s obvious to say that you have to be pretty smart to create the atomic bomb for the first time and these scientists “stayed smart” when the internet didn’t exist. Now I completely agree with his argument that we have access to all kinds of information today, however, do people really take advantage of that? Only recently have I started to see kids in elementary school and middle school with cell-phones, I didn’t have one until sophomore year in high-school because I had no practical use for it. According to “Statistic Brain,” 25% of all Facebook users are under the age of 10. Facebook started first with the college crowd to socialize and keep in touch with classmates. However, with the fall of Myspace, everybody moved to Facebook and with the advancement of technology, the percent of Facebook users under the age of 10 skyrocketed. Why does a kid need Facebook, a website where people can post basically anything such as music, pictures, and statuses that are not appropriate for kids that age. So yes, to agree with McAfee, people have access to information now more than ever in the past, but that is not necessarily always good as it exposes kids to materials that they should not be exposed to.

There’s an extremely interesting article that supports Cece’s argument. It’s written by Nicholas Carr for The Atlantic called “Is Google Making us Stupid?” The author describes a very common phenomenon in which book lovers have lost their passion and concentration when it comes to reading books. The cause of this phenomenon is the internet because it is such a powerful medium for information. Instead of reading long essays and articles for information, the internet can directly transfer us to the information that you want within minutes, even seconds. My brother, who is 10 years older than me, described this phenomenon to me a few years ago because he saw it happening with me. When his generation went to middle school, high school, and even college, Google and Wikipedia we not as popular so in order to get the information they needed, they had to read numerous books, articles, and essays to get the information they needed. Along the way, they would pick up other useful information while reading that would stick in their mind for future use. However, with our generation, Google is designed to give us precisely the information we desire extremely fast, making us lazy to read long passages like the earlier generations, thus tampering with our concentration and our mind. This is supported by the article as well as bloggers like Scott Karp, a literature major in college, and Brucie Friedman who have lost patience in reading long passages because they are so used to skimming through information they only need through the internet. So all in all, the way they read didn’t change, the way they think changed. It isn’t just the internet, but any information medium such as the typewriter used by a 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The typewriter had a negative effect on his reading, made him lazier, made his arguments go from “arguments to aphorisms.” Even as I read this article on paper in front of me, the light emitted from my computer called me. It drew my attention away and it did exactly what it is designed to do. The computer is now everything people “need” like clocks, calendars, phones, TVs, maps, and more. Carr describes that we can’t read an online article without blinking ads,notifications from instant messages, emails to draw away our attention, and that will cause the downfall of human intellect. Carr also describes Fredrick Taylor, the author of The Principles of Scientific Management, and his experiment to make a manufacturing plant more efficient and relates it to Google’s headquarters in California and that their religion is “Taylorism.” Like Taylor did, Google collects information about the articles looked up, the kind of information people are looking for, and how they’re looking to access it everyday. Google uses this information to create new algorithms to make it easier for people to access information, “What Taylor for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.” When a person first thinks about this, why would easy access to needed information be a bad thing, it would make everybody more educated. Wrong. “Education” is not only collecting information in random piles, it’s having the ability to apply it to situations that are needed and Google won’t teach you that. It’s like having a computer hard drive plugged into our brains, will that really make humans smarter or dumber, because it is the computer doing all the thinking, not the brain.

A scholarly article called “Time, Society, and the Course of New Technologies” talks about the less abstract and practical purposes of technologies. These uses include the rising popularity of Global Positioning Systems in Canada for their use of navigating through the terrains when the visibility is low and the roads are dangerous. This is the type of technology that pushes humankind forward, unlike the internet, because they don’t exactly affect the way people think, it just acts as a support to human navigation in time of need. The article also talks about some negative things such as the young men in Inhambane, Mozambique and how their recent acquisition of cellular phones has led to the downfall of socioeconomic inequalities while preserving an unpleasant public secret about the workings of Mozambique's postwar economy. These secret workings include communicating and exchanging services for sexual favors which puts everybody in harms way of diseases and financial conflicts.

Another scholarly article called “Neo-Luddites Protest Technology,” talks about a group of people that do not favor the increasing popularity of technology. The original Luddites were a group in early 1800s England that destroyed certain machines that craftsman created during the Industrial Revolution due to the fear that the machines will take away jobs from the average man. This group of “new” Luddites do not advise violent resistances to technology, they just advise to give up technology as much as possible. They say that the cause of depression is technology in many industrialised countries. The averages person in the US watches around 28 hours of television per week which isolates them from their community because when people watch TV, they do not interact with others. They also say that before the automobile was invented, people walked around more and had a higher chance of bumping into neighbors to create social relationships and build a stronger community. I have experienced this firsthand because I moved to the US when I was 10 from Serbia. Everytime I visit my small hometown, I notice a few things; most people walk instead of drive because the city center is so close and there isn’t lot of parking spots. However, the strength of the community is unbelievable. Walking with my cousins and friends, I realized that the majority of random encounters with others are already existing social relationships, in other words, everybody knows everybody because nobody uses the automobile as frequently as they use it in the US and nobody has their face taped to their cell phones. When people get isolated, they grow unhappy and become depressed or anxious. Of course though, the Neo-Luddites support technology in many ways. The life span in industrialized countries has doubled due to medical innovations and common sense says that’s a good thing. But, being Luddites, they have many more  reasons to hate technology than love it. The original groups cause was to protect the jobs that were being taken away by new technologies and the Neo-Luddites mindset hasn’t change. They despise the facts that technology is taking away jobs such as the computer reducing the number of secretaries. However, in an economics class, you learn that with the destruction of old jobs, new jobs arise to complement the old ones. Such as the usage of computer. Yes, typewriter manufacturers had to close down their companies, but now computer companies are open. This brings new jobs like computer repairmen to replace the old ones. So their argument is a little faulty there but I do recommend that people should try to give up as much technology as they don’t need because I have seen the effects of no technology firsthand and they are amazing.

Technological innovations push society forward and keep our lives in order. What would we do without the cars we drive to work and without the telephones and computers? If those were instantly removed from the world, we would be in chaos. So it is safe to say that technology plays a key role in our society today, but it is also safe to say that we are being too dependent on technology in situations where we don’t necessarily need it such as interpersonal communication. Do we need a reminder to socialize with people or to post statuses? Do we need to keep a calculator with us at all times to figure out if we have enough money in our pockets to buy a certain quantity of things? Sadly, if our dependence on technology continued, the answer would be yes. Starting in elementary schools, kids are taught to use calculators, who needs to know math when you can just own a calculator. What’s the point of going to school if everything we learn can be accessed on the internet. With this mindset, our dependence on technology would push our intelligence so far back that it would grind the progress of humankind to a halt. So it’s okay to turn off the TV, the computer, and the buzzing cell phones to pick up a book or to go outside, be active, meet new people, and enjoy life without the incarceration of technology. This way, the people will live happier, smarter, more social, and healthier lives than the lives they live in which technology dictates their every move. Give it a try, turn off the computer and put down the cellphone.

Naysayers #3

My view is that the technological advancements that society has achieved to this day should benefit society, especially the younger crowd, but with a limit. Young adults and teenagers today waste way too much time on things like Facebook and Twitter.  Andrew McAfee disagrees in his article "Why the Internet is not Making us Stupid." One of his arguments is that people can express themselves online to a very large crowd, some good that does to society. His other argument, which I can agree with, is that kids who live in developed countries have access to more information than every before to expand their knowledge. McAfee, however, doesn't describe the fact that most kids DON'T use this opportunity to look up useful information but instead waste time "expressing" themselves on social media websites.

They Say #3

Didi Cece wrote an article for "The Star" called "Technology is Dumbing Down our society" in which he describes the advancement of technology from the 1950's to the present. The technological advancements are called advancements for a reason, they're suppose to make society better off in the long run. However, he makes a strong point in which he describes school lessons in which kids, from an early age, are taught to use calculators and spell-checks instead of their heads. In Cece's point of view, as well as my own, that seems to make society better off because it makes students, our future workforce, depend more on technology to get work done. Why hire a person to do math related work when I can just hire a calculator?

I really liked Sheed's about how education should be as desirable as winning. I'd add that other than the competition, winning is the most important things to athletes and it should be to non-athletes as well.

A young man was driving his Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, a Japanese made car, on an icy morning before school heading westbound on Spring Creek Road right next to Guilford High School. As the bumps on the roads rattled his car, he tried to switch lanes but the mixture of miniature bumps and ice caused his tires to slip and drift towards the oncoming lane. He collided with a Dodge Ram 1500 and a Chevrolet Monte Carlo, both domestic cars, at speeds of 40 mph from both sides. The aftermath looked pretty bad. The Lancer’s and the Ram’s front sides were ripped off and the Monte Carlo, who was next to the Dodge Ram had a smashed-in side and door. The drivers of the Dodge Ram and the Monte Carlo suffered minor injuries such as broken fingers and a knee injuries while the driver of the Lancer walked off without a scratch and went to school afterwards. This is one of many examples that show the reliability and safety of Japanese import vehicles. A common notion presented by media is that domestic vehicles such as Ford and their “Built Tough” slogan are much better and safer than the small and fragile Japanese cars such as the Mitsubishi Lancer. However, in reality the makers of the Japanese cars put great emphasis on safety all around, power, milage, size, and are still able to sell most of their cars for a smaller cost. It doesn’t mean that the cars made from Japan can be classified as better, but they sure do have more advantages than the domestic vehicles found today.

In discussion of domestic vehicles versus imported vehicles, one controversial issue has been safety and that Japanese cars are small and made of fragile materials such as plastic that would kill the driver in a collision. On one hand, Jerry Edgerton, a former car columnist and the author of Car Shopping Made Easy, created a article called “The Safest Cars on the Road” which includes descriptions of improvements made by certain companies and a list of highly rated cars on the safety chart. I would like to point out that every section, except pickups and SUVs, is dominated by import vehicles particularly from Japan. Through advances in technology, makers such as Mitsubishi, Mazda, and Honda were able to improve their ratings all around including rollovers and side collisions. So even though that the common notion of their cars being small and fragile, statistics shows that they are indeed equipped and built to save the lives of their passengers in case of a collision. Consumer Reports, a database which keeps track of buyer preferences as well as manufacturing factors of vehicles such as luxury, mpg, and power, has created an article called “How we Test our Cars” which explains how every cars new model has to be tested over and over before it can be evaluated for a certain safety rating so that every car model and every manufacturer has a fair grade. One of the things is that the cars go through 50 different safety evaluations including crash testing with Japanese cars showing consistent results of technological improvements.

On the other hand, Christopher Neiger, an engineer who has worked for both sides of the spectrum will say both sides have their advantages and disadvantages and that it is up to the people who purchase the vehicles to make the decisions that is best for themselves. He says that both companies have the buyers in mind as they work to improve safety and preferences but they still have to make profits so they can’t make everything top end. However, there are people who will create illogical reasons to why domestic vehicles should be favored. One reason is that things built in the United States should be favored because it favors our economy, even though most Japanese cars are designed in Japan, they’re still manufactured here in the US which still contributes to the US GDP. Other reasons include calling Japanese cars “Ricers” or “Rice burners.” This comes from the sound that some imported cars make after being modified with an aftermarket exhaust, but the name comes from the domestic loving muscle car enthusiasts which prefer their roaring V8 engines over anything else.

Consumer Reports has created as very thorough list of top luxury sedans found in the US. The list glorifies luxurious imports but not particularly from Japan. When people think of a luxurious automobile, they turn their attentions to the European giants such as BMW, Mercedes, and Audi which are still technically imports. Although dominated by European manufacturers, the list also complements domestic vehicles such as the Cadillac CTS and Japanese vehicles such as the Infiniti G37. Although the domestic makes a small appearance, I think this article shows the advantages of owning an imported vehicle over a domestic. Even though car manufacturing started here in the US a century ago, other countries were able to develop faster and better such as Volvo, a Swedish car manufacturer known for its strength and reliability and it literally often dubbed as the tank of the automotive world, praised as indestructible.

Jethro Bovingdon, an author for many automotive articles, favors one car over all other, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, a crowd favorite in the “car enthusiast” world. In his article “Mitsubishi Evo: The Greatest Evos Tested,” he describes the Evolution lineup of the Lancers from top down. He goes into such thorough detail about the safety, the mpg of the small engine that the Evolution has but the insane amount of horsepower it has as well as its technology in the all-wheel-drive system. Now this car can be compared to one of the most popular cars in the US, the Chevrolet Impala. Both cars are rated equally by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety but there are so many differences in everything else. Yes the Evolution is more expensive by $6,000 when brand new but it has so many more features. The Chevy Impala is much heavier and only has power to the front wheels, called front wheel drive. This doesn’t make it the most fuel efficient car as the engine is a 3.6L V6 which puts out about 210 horsepower. However, the Evolution is lighter, more fuel efficient, has all wheel drive which makes it an ideal vehicle in snow and slippery situations. It has a 2.0L I-4, significantly smaller than the Impala’s engine, which puts out 300 horsepower, the equal amount of power the Chevy Impala “Super Sport” with its 5.7L V8 Gas-guzzler engine has. That’s a 50% smaller engine with a 50% increase in power, may seem like fiction but it’s pure fact. It is one of the reasons the Evolution is a crowd favorite for enthusiasts but the media make it seem like a dangerous sports car. In result, the Chevy Impala is much more popular than the Evo but in my view, the car is only as dangerous as the driver.

The automotive industry has evolved greatly since its beginning almost 120 years ago. However, wherever there is competition, there is always somebody better than the other. Some may be better in certain things, some might be better at simply everything. This is what the media tries to hide by making catchy slogans such as Ford’s “Built Tough” and Dodge’s “Guts, Glory, Ram!” This formula has grown very tiresome and cliche as Japan seems to be winning the general crowd in automotive as well as the enthusiast. The Honda Civic, for example, is a Japanese made car with superb reliability. They have great gas milage and their engines are known to reach 250 or 300,000 miles without a problem and it is one of the reasons it is one of the most popular cars in the United States. If people do not agree, they can ask themselves “Do Japanese civilians drive cars like Chevrolet Impalas and Dodge Challengers?” Of course they don’t. The United States is the world leader in military technology, does that mean it’ll use inferior equipment made by the Russians? The answer is the same. Cars are different however as they are chosen by preference. One can’t be blamed for liking a domestic made car over an import because preferences are opinions, however, science and statistics are facts. Imports like the Toyota Prius dominate the “hybrid” world. Imports also dominate luxury, safety, and popularity. The only classification of vehicle that seem to favor the domestic side are the pick-up truck fans. Toyota and Honda have maybe two or three models while domestic manufacturers have sometimes up to 10. However back to facts, imports are superior in the most important things such as safety, especially when you have a child in the car, gas mileage to power such as the Mitsubishi Evolution, and overall popularity in the world. Even though I didn’t look up any sources on automotive popularity, I was born in Europe and have visited Europe many times and have rarely seen a car made by a American company. Outside the US, the popularity is owned by Japanese models and European models, I guess people can see for themselves which choice is better.

     Many people will agree that with the development of technology, our lives will get easier. However, that is not certainly a good thing because we are becoming too dependent on technology. Kids at a young age now have access to the computer, the internet, cellphone, social networking websites and more and all this does is limit their challenges and their developing imaginations. Cris Rowan, a journalist for the Huffington Post shares the same ideas in his article. Of course, many will probably disagree on the grounds that technology is negative for the younger kids. They could say that the kids can use technology as a resource to further their education.

Watching TV Makes You Smarter

Although I agree with Steven Johnson up to a certain point when he states that TV can make people smarter because it requires cognitive attention, I cannot accept his assumption that the modern reality TV shows help develop critical thinking. Sure the shows keep people guessing and trying to think outside the box by relating to everyday situations, but in the end, it's still just an entertainment channel with no useful information coming out of it unlike, for example, the History and the Discovery Channel. Our generation is being "dumbed" down by the overuse of technology and watching reality TV does not help that notion. Just because the structure of earlier reality TV changed from structured and explained to the mysterious TV to keep people watching in order to find out what happens next, does not mean it benefits people intellectually like he claims, the producers are making the shows strictly to make money, not educate their audience. So all in all, I'd have to disagree with his "Sleeper Curve" theory because letting young kids watch reality TV will never be as beneficial as doing their homework, they will have time to develop cognitively and intellectually on their own and shouldn't waste a lot of time watching reality TV for the greater good.

Immigration

A dark skinned man is sitting in a restaurant reading a menu. His son is sitting across from him and begins telling the waitress what he would like to order. After he completed his order, the waitress asked the dad what he would like as well. After the waitress realized the dad is not fluent in English, she begins talking slower and louder like he’s too stupid to understand. Just because someone comes from a different place and cannot understand the language perfectly clear, doesn't make them stupid. The Immigration to the United States spreads different cultures and ideas such as economics, science, and other contributions against the notion that immigrants are below the native citizens.

In discussion of immigration, one controversial issue has been that illegal immigration is ruining the United States of America. On one hand, travism argues that illegal immigrants are destroying the economy because they are willing to work for a lower pay which puts many legal Americans out of a job causing high employment. However, he also argues that legal immigrants ruin our economy because they still need jobs meaning there will be less jobs for Americans to have in the future. Others even maintain this mindset because there is very little room to argue because evidence of this happening can be found anywhere and it is basically common sense. The illegal immigrants have no guilty conscious shared among them about taking jobs to honest working citizens because if they are caught in this country, employed or unemployed, they are being arrested and deported. 

On the other hand however, this image that people get of illegal immigrants through media and by other means grows very tiresome and cliche. People take the characteristics that the media uses to describe the illegal immigrants in the United States and use them in their interpersonal communication with anybody who was born outside of the United States. Of course the media doesn't call illegal immigrants stupid and mindless, but since they tell the public of how they’re destroying their country, it gives the people an angry reason to hate illegal immigrants. This gets mixed up somewhere along the line and people take that hate and anger against legal immigrants. People need to realize that people who come from different countries are all made equal and that they are just in pursuit of a better way of life for themselves and their family.

       John W.Schoen, a senior producer and economic reporter for NBC News, takes his time to explain immigration and its effects on the United States. Although he admits that the immigration policies need a major overhaul, he does make it clear that unless a person in the US can trace their ancestral roots to the Native Americans, they too are immigrants because they can trace their roots back to Europe because of the European colonists that immigrated to North America looking for better life, which is known to everybody in the United States but they don’t put themselves in the Native Americans’ shoes. His argument also defends all kinds of immigrants, legal or illegal, because he also states that American jobs are at risk either way because the failure of the educational system. The American people will lose their jobs to other immigrants here in the United States, or somewhere else across the seas wherever the company decides to move its location in order to find a work force with the same education for a lower wage. He finishes that argument by saying if that’s the case, aren't we better of by having those illegal immigrant work here so they can pay their taxes to the government. His theories are supported by Jeanne Batalova, a reporter for the Migration Policy Institute. She reveals that in 2009, out of all foreign born residents, roughly 47% of them admitted to be from Hispanic or Latino ancestry. Since such a high percentage of immigrants come from countries with low educational systems, it decreases the productivity of the American workforce overall. this give even more incentives to the big corporations to move across seas to find new labor. My own view is that immigrants are people like everybody else who shouldn’t be treated better or worse. We all pursue happiness in our lives and we have the right to; people shouldn’t be looked down upon because they were born in another country. Immigrants try to escape from a worse way of life to a better one in the United States. Due to this, they have more to work for and more incentives to live up to now that the opportunity presents itself and they realize they shouldn’t waste it. I saw this first hand because the last 4 doctors I visited all happened to be born in an Asian country.

          Now that the negative aspects have been revealed, Daniel Griswold, the director of the Cato Insitutue’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, wrote an article called “Immigrantshave enriched American Culture and Enchances our influence in the world” in which he explains all of the benefits of immigrants immigrating to the United States. He states that immigrants do not push Americans out of jobs because they take the jobs that no American is willing to work which is usually a low end job such as dishwasher, landscaping, garbage man, and many more. Since the United States is a dream place to live for many people, that also attracts the well educated immigrants. The well educated immigrants push the United States further into progression as they represent human capital and make our entire economy more productive. Believe it or not, the American work force would shrink in 20 years if no form of immigration existed meaning that the US economy would face an extreme recession. One of the reasons that Americans do not like immigrants, according to Griswold, is because of September 11, 2001. People fear that it will happen again if we allow immigrants from the Middle East to move into our country. However, the 19 men that were responsible for the 9/11 attacks were not legal immigrants, so why should the honest people be punished because of terrorists, its illogical. However, there are other things that stop immigrants from coming into our nation and also from revealing themselves as immigrants completely. According to “Impact of Alabama’sImmigrations Law on Access to Health Care Among Latina Immigrants and Children:Implications for National Reform,” domestic policies concerning the use of health care for immigrants requires them to show proof of legal residency. However, this frightens certain immigrants because they might be mistaken for illegal and be deported and because it is such a long process, it basically made it extremely hard for immigrants to have any access to health care.

          Every person wishes the best for their loved ones and is willing to move to a different country in search of the best way of life. Due to this, immigrants all over the world come together and share their cultural aspects with one another that we all benefit from. The low skilled immigrants do jobs that people are usually not willing to do and the highly skilled and educated immigrants contribute their knowledge to improve our everyday use of technology and more. Their mere presence in this country keeps the workforce in sufficient numbers to operate properly. If we closed our borders to immigrants completely and treated them like pieces of trash, it would backfire on us as we would only be hurting our nation and showing the rest of the world of how highly we think of ourselves and how selfish we really are. Although our foreign policies need major overhaul, we should not think of immigrants any different than we do of any natural born citizen, except of course certain privileges such as voting and running for president which are only available to citizens and natural born citizens, respectively. They are still people of equal characteristics whose potential is as great as anybody’s. Nobody is born perfect and exactly the same, we would rather live by each other’s happiness than each other’s misery; therefore we need to accept each other’s differences so that we can all benefit from each other and the place we call home will be a better place.

As He Himself Puts It

     According to John W. Schoen, "the wave of immigration a century ago also brought to this country some of the most important contributors to American culture, science, business, education and health care, to mention a few." In making this comment, Schoen is saying that immigration is not as bad as most people think it is and that immigration spreads different cultures and different proficiencies all over the world that society can benefit from as a whole.

Sebastien Vettel's Domination in F1

     In his article "Is Sebastian Vettel Bad for F1?" BM23Reviews reveals that many fans of the sport are in rage because the results of the sport have become too predictable. Vettel is a 26 year old German driver who races for Red-Bull Racing team for Formula-1, an open car racing sport. He became the youngest driver to win the World Championship at age 23. Some critics of Vettel say that they can watch the beginning of the race, fall asleep, and wake up when it's over and know automatically that Vettel has won and that this takes away the excitement of the sport. BM23Reviews writes back in Vettel's defense that he shouldn't be hated because of his superior skill in driving. That's like hating Michael Jordan for dominating the NBA in his era, it's absurd.    
     Since I grew up in Serbia, the most popular sport in Europe was soccer and F-1 after that. And if you haven't noticed yet, I an extreme car enthusiast. Anyways, at the turn of the century, another German driver, Michael Schumacher was in his prime and ended up winning 5 consecutive World Championships in addition to his previous 2 making him the most successful driver the sport has ever seen. Yes, the races were very predictable because Schumacher would rarely lose but it did not take away any excitement from the sport. My dad and I used to watch every single race, even though we knew who would end up winning, the sport was fascinating to see these cars fly though corners left and right at speeds of 150 mph. I support BM23Reviews because you cannot hate an athlete because of their superior skill. Matter of fact, most sports have that athlete or team at some certain point of time. For example, the Chicago Bulls during Michael Jordan's Era, the Lakers with Kobe Bryant, and less known athletes such as 8 time World Rally Champion Sebastien Loeb. So for those who say Sebastian Vettel is bad for F-1 just because their favorite driver doesn't end up winning because of his, all I have to say is that there is always next year!

Higher Education Visual

SuperCar or Not

When it comes to the topic of the Nissan GT-R, most car enthusiasts' pay full attention. The legend of the Skylines GT-Rs goes back to the 1969 with its first production up to the R34 in 2002. This new R35 did not hesitate to win the car enthusiasts favor with unbelievable track times for a price under $100,000. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of the GT-R can be considered to be a super-car such as the Ferraris and Lamborghinis. On one hand, people say that it is not a super-car because of the engine size, a tiny 3.8L V6 relative to, for example, the Lamborghini Aventador's roaring 6.5L V12. Their argument is also that the price of a super-car cannot be under $100,000. I don't know who decides the price of a super-car. What if Bill Gates decided to sell his Ferrari for $50,000, does that mean it can no longer be counted as a super-car? My own view is that the Nissan GT-R is indeed a super-car. The nickname "Godzilla" isn't there for no reason. The V6 Twin Turbocharged power-plant creates just over 500 bhp (Brake Horse-Power). State of the art suspension and handling system make it one of the fastest production cars in the Nurburgring track, a track where manufactures test their cars lap time and then compare to other cars. The car is also a tuning favorite. A local shop in Chicago, IL called AMS Performance has developed a package, Alpha Omega, for the GT-R to boost its power to 2,000 bhp. That is not a typo. It does 0-60 mph in 1.7 seconds and a quarter mile in 7.9 seconds. They also claim it is daily drive-able and are backing up their statement with a full warranty. So even though it may not look like a super-car to the common eye without its aerodynamic shape or as popular sounding name as Ferrari to the common ear, the GT-R is indeed a super-car and for those that disagree, let the numbers speak for themselves.

A life-time of Student Debt? Not Likely

     In discussions of Robin Wilson, one controversial issue is the enormous number of college students in debt. He thinks that borrowing will lead to their own financial disasters in their near future. On the other hand, Michael McPherson, an economist and president of the Spencer Foundation, argues that most students borrow a reasonable amount of money that they can pay back and are better off for going to college. He states that even though 2/3 of all students are in debt, 65% of them owe $20,000 or less, which is the starting price of a new Ford Escape, implying that the debt is not that high for a higher level of education. My own view is that the students know exactly what they are getting themselves into. Some will attend their dream college no matter what they will have to borrow in order to attend. Majority of the students do not complain about the loans and think it is worth it. Since the average college graduate earns on average $1 million dollars in their lifetime more than a non-college graduate, the $20,000 debt they face is worth it. And because the loans have low interest rates, it can't be a bad investment because you're basically borrowing "free money." I also think that most colleges are the same and therefore there is no need for me to pay a ridiculous amount of money to attend one college when I can get the same education at another college for a fraction of the price such as here at Rock Valley College.