Small computer, large influence

Modern Americans live for instant gratification. Laptops with wireless internet connection provide exactly that. Laptops have become a standard expense for college students and traveling businessmen and women. Internet is essential for every day living, if being connected to the world is important to someone.

I own a 15 inch silver MacBook Pro. I chose to purchase this computer over a PC because Apple claims that Macs cannot get viruses (none have been created for Macs yet), and therefore will not crash because of them. Commercials have claimed that Macs are simpler to use than Microsoft, and that Wifi connects more quickly. Again, instant gratification--Americans rarely want to work to get such luxuries. We always look for the easiest, quickest way to get things done.

We are a society that values the internet. It is our new way of connecting to “friends,” researching (what’s a library??), and playing (how can you play a videogame on such a small screen?). When we can’t use our family’s desktop computer because dad has to use it for work, it is chaos. We don’t know what to do with ourselves. Laptops come in handy for relieving the boredom. I spend much of my time on my laptop when I have nothing to do. If I lose internet connection (or it’s too slow), I get very impatient. But I have to admit, it is a wonderful thing.

Apple believes that Americans are becoming fed up with how PCs behave. Apple assumes that all American citizens (and the rest of the world) need a laptop if they are a student or a professional. This company assumes that every person has had a computer at some point for them to want to try a MAC. Apple also thinks that the internet is essential for every day life, therefore Americans will undoubtedly buy them.

Toulmin Abstract on Carr

Nicholas Carr states in "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" that the use of Google is changing the way people think and concentrate when reading long pieces of writing. We may read more, but in smaller portions than we used to. Adults' minds can adapt to what they take in, and do it frequently. Carr shares that Bruce Friedman remarked that he is unable to " 'read War And Peace anymore. I've lost the ability to do that.' " Carr assumes that everyone who uses Google has experienced the same change in thinking, and that everyone has this technology available to them.

If anyone can add to this or offer any ideas, please do. I had a bit of trouble with this, and I'm not quite sure I got the idea... Thanks!

Carr/"Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

Not a bad question. And certainly, there is some truth in "the internet is sucking my brain out." But I'm leaning more towards the development of ADD, than actual brain loss. And Carr's point is that he believes that his THINKING is CHANGING, rather than his BRAIN DISINTEGRATING. Maybe he means that he is losing the ability to think at all, with information to be found everywhere, with little effort. Are we becoming robotic, as he suggests? Desensitized, sure, but robotic? I'm not so sure. We simply get used to ideas, things, events, and then expect them to occur, or appear. Just because we get most information from a machine doesn't mean we're becoming them. What makes this information (or our intelligence) artificial is not how we get it, but that we don't know where it comes from. Anyone can add or delete or create info. We can't ever really know what is true.

As for people's inability to concentrate on long pieces of writing, I do not agree at all with Carr. I spend a lot of time on the computer, but what I do is read. What I read is called fanfiction--fiction based on characters from already-created shows, movies, books, video games (I don't understand that one...) and other things where a universe is created, with characters. These pieces of writing can be extremely long, almost novel-like, or very short. They are presented in chapters if they are long enough. Many of my favorite fanfictions are long ones. So although I do not read novels as much as I want to, I feel that the amount of these stories I read compensate for it. I'm still reading well-written works.

Carr argues that if something is too long, he will not be able to concentrate on reading it. This happens to everyone. If something is not interesting to a person, they will not continue with it. Or, for those who claim they cannot read a favorite novel ("I can't read War and Peace anymore" says Bruce Friedman), perhaps they have read it too many times. If this post is boring to someone, I don't expect them to read it. If they've already read it, I don't expect them to read it again. I do believe that computers make us lazy. Google makes us lazy. Not stupid.