Things I Sorta Tepidly Glossed over from Week 2

Week 3 stuff is coming soon, but I didn't want to lose/forget my notes from Week 2 - so here is the jarble that is my notes which I wrote down while watching the material:

Sight
Sight explores how the ubiquity of data and the increasingly blurry line between the digital and the material might play out in the sphere of human relationships. The focus on the emerging social and educational use of game-based ‘badging’ is particularly interesting.

• What is going on here, and how do you interpret the ending?

• Obviously the ending is an individual using sight to manipulate the woman into spending the night with the device’s developer. But there is little explination within the video to proceed this turn of events. No actual control of the independent individual has been expressed before the climax of the story. Instead, we have been given groups of applications which augment and influence the way this (apparently huge douchebag of a human) being proceeds in his attempt to manipulate and then pretty much assault this young woman, who feels betrayed that the man has used technology to pinpoint many specifics which he can use against her.

• How does this vision align and contrast with the ones in the first two films?

• Some things appear very similar between all three of the videos. By this point, one can almost tell that the future of software will take place along already-existing surfaces or special surfaces which require “less” of a device for usage. The tablets in “Glass” are very much just like interactive window panes, while in the sight the device is much more akin to the Google Glasses, and the IBM commercial seemed much more familiar, with objects we already use on a day-to-day basis becoming the center of digitalization.

"[I do not] carry such information in my mind since it is readily available in books. ...The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think." Einstein in response to being asked what the speed of sound was, New York Times (18 May 1921)
The issue, as you pointed out, is the possibility that individuals are not training their minds to think, but are instead bypassing that process as to lazily handle the things which take much effort in their lives already. But, as was the case with Einstein above, some individuals take the vast plethora of knowledge provided and find themselves excelling instead of diminishing.
Seems to me that the issue here is primarily over assumption and syntax. If we call them “Digital Natives” or if we call them “Technologically Wise” is no different then simply saying “there is truth to the fact that some individuals are more affiliated with technology then others”. The issue here revolves around the assumption that everyone is familiar with these tools. The above cited professors should take into account that there is alot of evidence supporting different sections of their claims, things we know to be fact: people in impoverished areas are less affiliated with technology then in affluent areas, technology can be beneficial in a learning environment, lack of knowledge of the tools we are attempting to use can be detrimental. Maybe it’s just me, but I do see the current generation, who has encultured their use of technology to everything in the real-life situations around them, as in general more apt to handle a eLearning environment then generations previous, but that does not mean it’s certain. My grandfather, who is 92, is more skilled at the computer than my 60 year old father. This is a level of training, generally created by familiarity to the way general systems work – and I think that being trained consistently by a culture entrenched has something to say, even anecdotally.