All Things Should Be Free

I’m not sure if this qualifies as an actual Blog post, or if it should be a comment somewhere, but I wanted to share this thought. I also realize that parts of it are terribly confusing and the grammar is not ideal. I’ve tried to be as clear as possible.

Researching for this class has made me realize something. Facebook and Google are worth billions. Their employees and CEO’s make unbelievable amounts of money. Yet, what exactly do they sell?

This gives me a completely ridiculous idea.

All things should be free. All companies, services and products should pay for themselves by advertising for other things (the way Google and Facebook do). ‘Name brands’ would be invaluable because only the things widely advertised would be consumed reliably. Other companies would then want to advertise themselves on the name brand items.

Eliminating cost would eliminate one of the main indicators of worth and value. People would have to turn to how well something was advertised and how much others wanted to advertise on that something in order to ascertain what it was worth. If someone wanted a car, they’d still want a good, reliable car, preferably the best. How would they tell? Yes, it should be shiny and look cool. But then they all would, wouldn’t they? How would one avoid buying a cheap knock-off that could be dangerous? One would have to look to the advertisements. Car companies would want to advertise on a Jaguar because it has a reputation. Car companies would want to advertise on a Honda because they’re everywhere and reliable. We would be left with the best cars, for free. The car companies would essentially vote for which other companies survived. These surviving companies would still strive for excellence, for once a company lost repute it would lose its advertising and thus its revenue.

I understand how implausible all this is. But wouldn’t it be cool? In a way, it would be like returning to Caveman days. There would no money, just someone’s word. It makes me think of potential jobs like wearing advertisements all day. It also would change the political landscape. One would only trust a politician who was visibly endorsed by trustworthy people/companies and who advertised on other worthy people and companies.

Thanks for listening to my silliness.

Stay Alive. Don't Use A Smart Car and Drive

Almost everywhere that you go, you are likely to see a campaign sign or bumper sticker that says "Stay Alive. Don't Text and Drive." Even when I took my driver's permit test last summer, one of the questions on the test was whether texting while driving is safe. The obvious answer is "no," yet there are a lot of people on the road who don't quite understand this concept. While not texting during driving is an important message, it's interesting to think that texting may be more dangerous on the road than any other distraction...Or is it?

In a recent New York Times article, columnist Maureen Dowd discusses how automobiles are now "smart cars" that possess the capability to read your text messages to you, manage and play your iPod, adhere to your emotional needs (i.e. you're having a bad day, so your car will cheer you up through vibrating seats or heated steering wheel), and even manage your email for you. All of this while you're driving! Is this safe? Perhaps the larger question is whether or not it's rational to countenance any distraction whatsoever. What happened to simply listening to the radio or having a conversation with yourself as you drive? Do our lives really demand that we be constantly connected? If so, where do we draw the line?

No research is available at the present time to offer a reference to the affect that these smart cars are causing on drivers, but there are many potential dangers to such technology. Sue Cishke, a Ford executive, argues:

Given that Americans are addicted to Web access and tech toys...It will never work to simply ban them. So we’ve got to figure out how we make people safer, and the more people can just talk to their car like they’re talking to a passenger, the more useful it would be.

Perhaps Ms. Cishke has a point. Maybe the automobile industry should serve consumers who demand smart cars. Or maybe the automobile industry should serve consumers with the need for boundaries regarding automobiles and technology that provide constant connectivity. Ultimately, safety is important, and it's wonderful to have automobile technology with vehicles that strive to protect and serve the driver. Still, there comes a point when too many bells and whistles pose a threat to overall security because of the fact that these same bells and whistles provide the most dangerous thing on the road: distraction.