Rhetorical analysis

My articles from the IEEE Computer Society have all followed roughly the same structure. A problem, a hypothesis, and what the future of it may be. There may be a new technology coming along to replace an old one, which they explain. They then go into details as to how it can be improved, and why. Finally, they give us a test of how the new technology might look and feel when it actually gets here. Most of the articles followed this same structure, especially being that they were all scientific entries about computer technology.

This brings up the next point, reference. As mentioned above, no technology is scrapped, only added upon. In one post I talk about Web 3.0, which is Web 2.0 upgraded. Each article mentions how the technology can be improved upon, never just thrown out. In the oil spill article, they look at the problem and find out how to fix it, as opposed to simply creating an entirely new software system for oil rigs.

The language used in each article can be read by anyone who is familiar with technology. Some of the content may only make sense to someone in Computer Science like me, but most of it is for the layman. All of the writing if scientific, there is really know humanistic or philosophical point of view. It is all to the point and laid out easily.

Although some articles were difficult to fully comprehend, even to me, I feel like the scientific journals provided were interesting and really brought life to my major and where it is going...

Did computer software cause the BP Oil Spill?

We don't have access to all the data from this incident. However, Transocean's interim report, submitted to Representative Henry Waxman's committee in the US House of Representatives on 8 June 2010, stated the following under an "Action items/work needed" section: "Full control-system software review. Software code requested from manufacturer for investigation." Apparently, in studying the disaster, there's speculation of a software connection.


Offshore oil rigs comprise dozens of complex subsystems that use embedded software or are operated under software control. For numerous reasons, each system is a potential point of failure. For example, three rigs with the same design built over four years can end up with different equipment and software versions that might not integrate as expected. This could also lead to serious configuration-management problems.

Another problem is that much of the software residing in or controlling components is routinely delivered well after the equipment is onboard the rig. Engineers test the interfaces at the last minute, if they even test the software at all. Equipment interfaces thus present the weakest link in offshore oil rig systems in terms of reliability and safety, because the industry lacks interface standards and sufficient testing methods.

We'll learn more about software's role in this disaster as additional evidence surfaces.

Fallen behind yet again... Also, ROBOTS!!!

A miniature helicopter enters your workplace through an open window. It avoids alarms and security cameras as it navigates its way to your boss's office. It removes a flash drive from her desk and deposits a substitute, possibly even bearing a potent virus, so the crime goes undetected.

This would have been science fiction until recently but now it is part of the Sixth International Aerial Robotics Competition, held at the University of Puerto Rico in 2010. While this is a wonderful challenge, it also serves as a forceful warning of crime’s coming robotization.

Soldiers now can launch missiles from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) without ever being in the line of fire. But what happens when the wrong hands get the same technology? And what if there's is better? As AI and robots advance these are all things that need to be taken into account.

Is it time for Cloud Computing?

Cloud computing is Internet-based computing, whereby shared resources, software and information are provided to computers and other devices on-demand, like electricity. This technology has become a significant technology trend, and many experts expect it to reshape information-technology processes and the IT marketplace during the next five years.

Using the technology, users on various types of devices such as PCs, laptops, smart phones, and PDAs, can access programs, storage, processing, and even application-development platforms over the Internet, by services offered by cloud-computing providers. Resources are kept on providers' servers, rather than on users' systems. Proponents like the technology's advantages, including cost savings, high availability, and easy scalability.

Industry observers say the technology's growth potential is enormous. Market-research firm IDC expects IT cloud-services spending to grow from about $16 billion in 2008 to about $42 billion by 2012. IDC also predicts cloud-computing spending will account for 25 percent of annual IT expenditure growth by 2012 and nearly a third of the growth the following year.

Using this technology, data is easily accessible over the network instead of just sitting on the users' devices. It is becoming easier and easier to do this, and will make information transfer and backup much easier. The future of cloud computing is promising, and will explode in the coming years.

Web 3.0

People are already looking at Facebook and saying "That is so 2008." It just goes to show how fast the world wide web is expanding and technology is helping it. Because these technologies are largely based on mashups that occur at the data, rather than application, level, and often involve the read-write nature of Web 2.0 applications, there has been a tendency to give this new evolutionary stage of the Web its own name: Web 3.0. We can basically view Web 3.0 as Semantic Web technologies integrated into, or powering, large-scale Web applications. The specifics of Web 3.0 technologies are difficult to define, the outline of emerging applications has become clear over the past year. Key enablers are a maturing infrastructure for integrating Web data resources and the increased use of and support for the languages developed in the World Wide Web Consortium (WWWC).

The base of Web 3.0 applications are in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) for providing a means to link data from multiple websites or databases. With the SPARQL query language, a SQL-like standard for querying RDF data, applications can use native graph-based RDF stores and extract RDF data from traditional databases. Once the data is in RDF form, the use of uniform resource identifiers (URIs) for merging and mapping data from different resources facilitates development of multisite mash-ups. With Web 3.0, the explosion of data on the Web has emerged as a new problem space, and the game-changing applications of this next generation of technology have yet to be developed.

Eventually people will be saying "That Web 3.0 application is so 2012!"

Technology, Wikipedia, and the Smart Mob

Stepping away from genre which seems to be touchy with some people, I wanted to talk more about what the topic says: technology, Wikipedia, and today's smart mobs. Do you remember when you were in elementary school and the teacher said to go research a topic? Where did you usually go? I went to the library, asked about my topic, and the librarian found the correct Encyclopedia. I would see what the Encyclopedia said, and use that for my research.

Step back and think about that for a minute. What do you do now for a research project? Google it. Google usually has a Wikipedia entry up near the top of the page. You go to it, browse it, and look through the sources. Surprisingly these sources contain relevant scholarly articles, new and breaking news on the subject, and even links to online encyclopedias. Why do this when the information could be incorrect? When something gets edited, the user is told it has been, and has yet to be reviewed. So you know it may not be true. But if something is cited, it is usually trustworthy.

Technology, specifically the internet, has created this pool of information. I call it a knowledge HUB where anyone can go, gain knowledge, contribute knowledge, all for free. Microsoft is now trying to pay people for their entries on Microsoft products, but this is not going over well. To help lighten the mood here is Stephen Colbert talking about the latest on Wikipedia and what he calls Wikiality. Excuse the stuff at the end, this guy is trying to get his message across through YouTube videos, but this is the only version online:



This technology has lead to the "smart mob," a self-structuring social organization through technology-mediated, intelligent emergent behavior. James posted a hilarious, yet enlightening, video on his blog where people all did the M.C. Hammer dance in a store at once. People were unbelievable confused. But it was funny. The internet birthed the knowledge HUB, but also the social HUB. You can not only look up an entry, you can look up and event, people, and even organize the people to come said event. Technology has evolved society as we know it. Computers, cell phones, iPods, etc, all contribute to these HUB's. I can post an event on Facebook that says "Party at my place - invite your friends" and invite everyone on my friends list. One person is bound to choose to attend, and invite their friends. Another may attend, and invite their friends. I now have two people attending, but roughly 500 people with that same invitation. More people decide to attend. They send the word out. They text their friends. Eventually my apartment is so full the party has to end. I created a smart mob.

I remembered an example of a campus smart mob that happened the past two years. It started with posters pinned throughout the halls. A Clemson Silent Rave. What was it? Then I saw the Facebook event. A pre-finals stress-reliever where everyone plugged in their headphones and just had fun raving in the library. No noise or disruption, just fun. It spread throughout campus, and before you knew it, this thing was actually going on. Someone decided to do this, and convinced others. They talked to their friends, who made posters. Someone made an event. A chain reaction occurred that turned into a full on event in the library. Just take a look:



Technology was a catalyst for extensive information exchange. This lead to Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, etc. Those lead to smart mobs, creating things from nothing by the will of one. In this day in age, technology rules, and when we write, it has to keep up with the times.

Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen Debate Web 2.0

Jimmy Wales has created what could be considered the one encyclopedia to rule them all. It has more entries and less errors than Britannica, a pretty big accomplishment. This is all due in part to the Web 2.0 revolution.

On the other side of the coin, Andrew Keen brought up some good points. Who are posting these articles? How accurate are they? And how can an outsider know what is more important, Pokemon or Shakespeare?

Web 2.0, in my opinion, has brought society to a new level. And I think it is a good thing. I can get on Facebook and find old friends from elementary school. I can post links to my friends that I find funny. It's a social HUB that most people are on. People can Tweet what they're doing and millions of followers instantly know. It is a social and cultural revolution.

When I want to find information on a topic, my first stop is Wikipedia. Because it's reliable and I know it's all true? No. Because I know hundreds of people have reviewed that article and it has plenty of sources at the bottom. I can go to those sources and see corresponding information that helps me back up the information I was looking for. Just as Facebook is a social HUB, Wikipedia is a knowledge HUB.

Andrew Keen has good points about anonymity and not knowing who exactly is contributing, but I disagree in that they NEED monetary compensation. If they wanted it, they would ask. Wikipedia is not "dumbing down" users. Articles are based on sourced documents. Wikipedia is just a compilation of information.

I have to side with Jimmy Wales, especially since he is doing this non-profit, not even charging people to access this plethora of information. What harm has Wikipedia done?

Groups: Good or Bad?

As I continue to catch up on my blog I did want to touch on what we spoke about in class: groups. Helpful or harmful? It usually depends on the person, but I have to say the overall structure of a group can lead to much better things than an individual person can produce. Someone can prefer to work alone, but the potential a group has can lead to more productivity and ultimately better results. This is of course dependent on who is in your group.

Based on my experience in Computer Science, if you know who is in their group, what they have done, and what they are capable of doing, the group context is perfect. For example a project I had just last week, our group knocked it out within a few hours. We laid it all out, what needed to be done, who should do what, and how we should do it. We knew each other's strengths and weaknesses and helped each other along the way.

Had I done that project alone, I would have not only had a huge workload, but been confused and had no one there to help me figure it out. I would have no one to bounce ideas off of, ask opinions, and give me advice. I probably would have gotten frustrated and just given up.

A group is a valuable asset, but given the group can work together efficiently and without confrontation. Debate is welcomed as that is how you can come to conclusions, but pure confrontation does nothing but hurt a group.

The reading... Or poem?

Ok so I just need to read these authors...

NEXT CLASS:

What? This is a poem? Ok, time to decode this riddle... 

So it looks like a cross... Religious?

Religious names... Ok we got something here.

Rose, vine? Definitely got something going on...

How can a list of authors become a religious poem? Point of view. How you look at something, based on your background. People told that it is a list of authors they need to read see it as that. People told that it is a poem, think that it is a poem (Religious, specifically). So how did they actually see it as a poem?

We see certain things in content that does not contain said certain thing. Example: We tend to see faces in scrambled images, because faces are ingrained in our mind. This class of students see the list as a poem because it is not only what they thought, but what they have been told. They use what they have been taught, what they know, and apply it to what is in front of them. It may not make total sense, but their elder, the teacher, tells them that this is a poem. When someone gets an idea, others go with it, it's a simple follow the leader mentality. 

So why is it a poem? I am told so. I see some evidence of religious poem in it, and my peers agree. Why would I go against that? The power of persuasion.

I have fallen behind...

Senior Year has lived up to it's reputation as being extremely busy, with ridiculous projects constantly thrown at me. So I have fallen behind a few blogs. But we did speak about something recently that I have had some experience with...

Copyright. It's not your's, it's mine. It's not mine, it's yours. Wait, whose is it? It's a sticky issue, especially on the brink of today's technology where a song or movie that costs so much money to create can be downloaded free of charge. I have personally learned about it by getting a letter from NBC after illegal downloading one of their shows. Call me a pirate, but I missed the show and this was before Hulu. Keep in mind it was a warning, but a warning like that lets you know just how serious something like this is. 

People have gone to jail over downloading an album. People have been sued for downloading a song. It has gotten to a point where copyright is the name of the game, and if you don'e play by the rules, you are out. But how is something copyrighted? Any original piece of material you create is automatically copyrighted. But use an image on the internet, and you are in violation. Why? IT'S NOT YOUR IMAGE! You MUST cite where the image came from or you are illegally using someone else's photograph. 

In Computer Science we learned that depending on the programming language we use, our program can be copywritten just by creating it, otherwise we have to submit it to a specific license to have it copywritten. So not everything you make has a copyright, but watch out. If you download movies and music, might want to think twice, because seeing a movie a few months before it hits DVD is not worth a $10,000 fine.

Audience and Instructions

When we usually think of audience we think of who is listening or reading what we produce. While this is true, it changes how you should speak or how you should write. What you produce needs to be aimed at the audience and have intention for them. As Lannon tells us in the reading, you need to ask yourself questions like "Are the readers superiors or subordinates?", "What do they already know about the topic?", "How much do they care?", and some important questions like "How may cultural differences play a role?"

Instructions are a specific type of rhetoric in that there is no need to persuade, the intent is to instruct. This also changes how the document needs to be prepared. The intention is to teach the audience how to do a specific task or how to use a product. Lannon mentions that for ethical and legal reasons, companies want people to use the product ethically and safely. One must also know why people want this information and how they will use it. Do they need step-by-step instructions or is the information something they can read and instantly understand?

While taking the audience into consideration, one must think about the technical background of those reading the instructions. For example, if you wanted to instruct someone on how to upgrade RAM in a computer, you wouldn't just say "Open your computer and remove the old RAM" because although some computer-savvy people may know how to do that, the everyday computer user would have no idea where to begin. Culture also needs to be considered as different cultures have different ways they like to obtain information. Lannon gives us the example of German people and how they value thoroughness and complexity.

Finally, Lannon gives us a checklist to ensure our instructions are right for the audience.

• Content - too much or too little?
• Organization - is it hard to follow?
• Page design - Too much going on? Too many steps? Too big paragraphs?
• Ethical/Legal/Cultural considerations - Cross-cultural problems? Distortion of facts?

If we follow Lannon's guidelines, instructions should not only appeal to the audience, but help them through the process easily without any distortion of facts and making it easy to follow.

Obama's Speech: A Look into Rhetoric

In class we read Obama's speech on the Muslim occasion of Ramadan. It was an interesting speech in that it had a specific audience, but was meant to reach much farther than that. While he addressed it to the Muslim people, being the President, he knew the nation would hear him. He took this opportunity to express his opinions on the "Ground Zero Mosque" which he explains is about eleven blocks away from Ground Zero and is a mosque for Muslims, who have lost more lives to Al Queda than Americans have.

According to Blitzer, the exigence in this speech would be the controversy surrounding the mosque being built. There are many opposed to it, but most of them are misinformed and only hear "Ground Zero Mosque" which they think means "Terrorist Memorial at Ground Zero." Little do they know the mosque is for Muslims, who despite what they might think, were not in any way involved in the 9/11 attacks. Constraints are people or events that can alter the exigence, in this case it would be those building the mosque, as well as various other people. Obama is actually not a constraint as he can not change the outcome, only inform people about the situation.

Blitzer's last part was audience, which as discussed earlier, the audience in this situation is complicated as it is directed at Muslims, with the entire nation, and world for that matter, in mind. Obama is trying to convey to the American people and those opposed to the mosque that there is nothing to be upset about.

I think this was a good assignment, I can definitely see how rhetoric was used in this situation, and how Blitzer's analysis of rhetoric fits in here.

Aristotle's Rhetoric

Aristotle seems to have a love hate relationship with rhetoric. He believes that it should be used only for good, and never for bad. For example, in the text, he talks about trials and how lawyers use rhetoric to sway the judge to let guilty people walk free. He does not think rhetoric should be used to twist the truth and convince people of falsehoods. He thinks it should be used as an art form of oratory which he puts into three groups: political, forensic, and ceremonial. As mentioned before, forensic involves things like trials where rhetoric should be used to speak truth, not twist it into something to convince people otherwise. Political rhetoric either convinces us to do or not do something. Finally ceremonial rhetoric deals with the present and finds it useful to bring up the past and guess the future.

In class we also spoke about syllogism, enthymemes, and their relationship to rhetoric. Syllogism boils down to the simple mathematical principle called the transitive property. Basically, if a = b, and b = c, then a = c. Again, the example we spoke of in class was "If Plato is a man, and man is mortal, then Plato is mortal." If we used the transitive property in this example it would be Plato = man, man = mortal, Plato = mortal. The difference between this and an enthymeme is the middle step, or b = c. You then must assume that fact to come to a conclusion. With the math example that is easy, if a = b and a = c, then obviously b = c for that to work. When it comes to actual English phrases, it becomes harder to determine the connecting principle.

So how is an enthymeme like rhetoric? It is not a clear cut process like a syllogism, we know this because people use rhetoric to twist the truth, like people defending convicted murderers. They essentially insert their own connecting step to make their enthymeme a false syllogism. But when rhetoric is used for good, the connecting step can be the correct statement, or one that is appealing to the audience. The audience appeal can come in three flavors: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Logos is essentially logic. A professor uses logos to convey information that the student can then interpret and understand. Pathos deals with emotion, so when used in rhetoric it appeals to the audiences emotions, whether it is negative or positive. For example a story or movie may make you cry, which is playing off your emotions. The same for if you were to laugh. Finally, ethos deals with the moral side of rhetoric. A speakers character and moral is an example of ethos. John Leopold says "The personality of the orator outweighs the issues."

First Post!

Last year here at Clemson! It's a bittersweet feeling, but for all I know I may end up here for Grad school. This first post will be short as I don't have too much to talk about. I do want to express some thoughts on the reading we have done thus far.

Technology has reached a point in society where the boundaries of communication are blurred. You can go buy a phone, and a newer version of that phone will be out in a month. Things are faster, more complicated, and newer ways to communicate with this technology are constantly rolling in. Gone are the days of writing a letter, putting it in an envelope, and sending it off in the mail. In today's age, we can send someone information within seconds. From instructions on how to work a computer, to a simple hello, technology has now created a new level of communication. This extends from businesses all the way to friends talking to each other. From a proposal to a text message.

Most young people today know what LOL and BRB mean, as these are common abbreviations given to words sent through text message in today's youth. Most people in general know how to get on a computer and send an email to someone. Documents and proposals are now being created on a computer and emailed to others. But the problem begins when these get interwoven. A proposal would never have LOL in it, just as a text probably would not have full grammar and punctuation. Today, the audience is one of the most important factor.

One thing overlooked by most people is the human element. As technologically advanced as we become, humans remain the most important role, as it is we who give meaning to all information conveyed and received...