You Are Part Of Your Home

David O. McKay once said that "No success can compensate for failure in the home." This statement is often quoted in the church because of its truthfullness; but what does success in the home looks like? Does it mean that everyone in the family has what they need to survive? Yes. Does it mean that the family is spiritually strong? Yes. Does it mean that everyone in the home is a good person that contributes to society? Yes. Something we must realize is that success in the home includes everyone in it, including yourself. You have not succeeded if your entire family is great, but you're rotten. Also, if you are the only person in your home, this still applies to you. No success in life is worth becoming a bad person and losing your salvation. President McKay could have additionally said, "No success can compensate for being a rotten human being."

Introspection is the key

Many prophets and apostles have told us that technology is not inherently good or evil but how we use it can be. There are many ways what we do can be evil. The most obvious is to do something inappropriate, such as viewing pornography. When things like this are happening, it is usually pretty obvious that what we are doing is wrong. A slightly more subtle problem is using it too much. Most commonly this is playing video games or using social networking sites excessively.  To know if we are using technology we need to be in touch with the spirit. Make sure you can still feel its influence during the activity.  Also ask yourself if you would be willing to act on a spiritual prompting if one came while you were playing. There are many other problems that can come from the misuse of technology, we can only know that we are misusing it through personal introspection.

Technology makes us stupid? HOGWASH!!!

2^n Heads Are Better Than One

Many computer scientists have studied how to make software in a more efficient way. Possibly the most famous of the theories to come from these studies is Brooks's Law: "Adding manpower to a late project makes it later". This theory is based on the cost of bringing new guys "up to speed" and the cost of communication among programmers. With these factors in mind this theory holds true.

But what happens when those factors are no longer present? In this modern age, communication has become cheap. Since Frederick Brooks wrote his law, many new communication tools have come into being, namely email, forums, blogging, instant messaging, and many more. For example, it has become easier to share what's on your mind through Facebook, text messages and blogging; and now news often spreads more quickly among normal citizens than through professional media. This phenomena has affected the software industry as well. Open source software is written by many developers across the entire globe; but because of easier communication, they can easily share ideas. Also, since the new developers on the project bring themselves up to speed, nobody else looses time doing it. Clearly Brooks's Law does not apply to software projects like this.

We should keep in mind that corporations and open source groups have different goals. Corporations are trying to make money with their software, while open source groups just want to make software. Similarly professional media outlets expect money for providing news; the general public just want to spread the word. We have seen a huge cut of the market share taken about from the professional news reporters. The cut from professional software corporations hasn't been so big, and I doubt it will grow too much more. Building software is a more profitable business than sharing the news. It seems that when money is not a concern, more people do get the job done better. So I guess it is true that 2 (or maybe a lot more) heads are better than one.

Why My Field Is Dominated By Men

Different things attract the attention of a woman than that of a man. Significantly more guys like to play with computers than girls do. Isn't it logical then that more men study computer science than women? Apparently not. Society seems to have developed this idea that because men and women are equal there must be an equal number of men and women in each field. They believe that less women in the field can only happen if stereotypes drive women away from it. This logic would also dictate that less boys buy dolls than girls only because society says that's weird. Women are fully capable of studying whatever they want.  They can, and do, choose what to study based on what interests them. This is the main reason less women study computer science.

Low Pay + Paper Bags = Better Congress

Linux is a peculiar operating system.  Unlike its competitors, it is open source software. Yet, despite the lack of corporate structure surrounding its development, many argue that it is the most powerful and most reliable operating system on the market.  That's because its developers actually want to work on it.  They don't do it for the money or the glory, they do it because they like writing code. In truth, everything gets done better when the worker does it because of interest and not for money. I wish congress cared more about their work and less about getting re-elected. To help this happen, I suggest that congressmen wear paper bags over their heads and receive much less pay.  If that were the case, people would become politicians because they want to do politics and help their community, not to get rich or famous.  If congressmen cared about their work as much as Linux programs do about Linux, congress would be a much more effective political body.

Knowledge Precedes Proper Use

Since the dawn of the computer, technology has never stopped growing.  Debates rage whenever a new technology comes onto the market.  Is it safe?  Is it wholesome?  Most of these technologies can be good for us if used well, and damaging if used poorly.  Many times, these technologies come with a steep learning curve.  Many are daunted by this and simply don't use them.  As a result, people become skeptical of technology.  They find the excessive use of technology wrong, antisocial, and damaging.  Granted, if used poorly technology can be wrong, antisocial, and damaging; but so can sticking your nose in a book or writing everything down on paper in excess.  Education is the name of the game.  We need to proactively learn as much as we can about all these new technologies that emerge.  How can they benefit our lives?  How can they be used poorly and harm our lives?  If we learn all we can about technology, we will find our lives will be enriched by it.