An increasing number of people are using google to look for information instead of going to the library, and google might take over the position of the library in the future. However, to what extent can google do that? I agree that google turning books into e-books may reduce the number of people going to the library to look for information, but there would always be people who would prefer going to the library.
Even if google plans to digitise books, there are still notations which are not easy to express with the alphabet and numbers 0-9. We still need superscript, super-superscript (note that this is not a function of MS word), etc. to express math notations properly, and it is much more comfortable reading a math book than reading formulas and theories off the internet because half the time you are actually deciphering what the notation means.
People would also go to the library to find novels to read during leisure time. You seldom find people reading a google e-book on a bus or train, but only people with a novel in their hands. This is another area which google cannot take over as it is rather unconvenient to carry a laptop just to read a google book, and annoying too if your monitor goes blank when the computer runs out of power.
How effective would digital books be? If google digitise 15 million English books, it can only cater to countries that use English as their core language, and most other countries would still require people to go to the library. Hence, it is unlikely that a googlary would take over the position of the library in the near future.
Therefore, it still takes time before google can be used to such an extent as there are still many limits to technology and doing thing the traditional way might always be easier.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A gift of a programme
Majority of those who have contributed to Singapore's success may be from the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), but does that mean that the programme is successful? MOE may have launched the programme, but it does not have much control of it. Hence, how much more credit can we give to MOE besides giving support in terms of funding.
GEP, is simply a label. It has labelled the top 1% from the rest of the students, but does not necessarily provide better education. The GEP primary schools cannot cross the bounderies of preparing primary school students for PSLE in case some of then do not score well and are unable to get into a good secondary school. The results of PSLE each year have shown that the top scorers are usually not GEP students but from the mainstream. Hence, most GEP students do not end up much different from the mainstream students after PSLE because the schools are unable to stretch them further without proving that they can do the basis.
Most top secondary schools in Singapore are independent and has decided to start their own SBGE after in introduction of IP. However, how much different a curriculum can the schools offer these GEP students? One of the major problems is the lack of resources. GEP students have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the top secondary schools are forced to put them together with the mainstream students into science and humanities classes at Sec 3. It is also a complete waste of resources just to get a person to fix a set of syllabus for the lower secondary GEP as there is no one to evaluate it and decide if it's appropriate. It is completely out of MOE's control to decide what is taught to the students as MOE does not even know what is appropriate themselves, having a group of math professors complaining that there are more topics that are important and should be included into the syllabus.
Research has also shown that GEP students do not interact well with other students. GEP may have done its job in nurturing talents, but these talents have poor socializing skills, which are much more important than knowledge, as having good relationships with others would benefit you at times of need. Possessing good moral values and socializing skills have always been valued in Asian societies, and one cannot survive with IQ alone, but also need AQ, CQ, EQ and MQ.
Hence, the GEP may have nurtured top students, but they are already born with smart brains. We cannot give credit to the programme because it has selected the top students, but are unable to turn all of them into president scholars when there are already many from the mainstream.
GEP, is simply a label. It has labelled the top 1% from the rest of the students, but does not necessarily provide better education. The GEP primary schools cannot cross the bounderies of preparing primary school students for PSLE in case some of then do not score well and are unable to get into a good secondary school. The results of PSLE each year have shown that the top scorers are usually not GEP students but from the mainstream. Hence, most GEP students do not end up much different from the mainstream students after PSLE because the schools are unable to stretch them further without proving that they can do the basis.
Most top secondary schools in Singapore are independent and has decided to start their own SBGE after in introduction of IP. However, how much different a curriculum can the schools offer these GEP students? One of the major problems is the lack of resources. GEP students have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the top secondary schools are forced to put them together with the mainstream students into science and humanities classes at Sec 3. It is also a complete waste of resources just to get a person to fix a set of syllabus for the lower secondary GEP as there is no one to evaluate it and decide if it's appropriate. It is completely out of MOE's control to decide what is taught to the students as MOE does not even know what is appropriate themselves, having a group of math professors complaining that there are more topics that are important and should be included into the syllabus.
Research has also shown that GEP students do not interact well with other students. GEP may have done its job in nurturing talents, but these talents have poor socializing skills, which are much more important than knowledge, as having good relationships with others would benefit you at times of need. Possessing good moral values and socializing skills have always been valued in Asian societies, and one cannot survive with IQ alone, but also need AQ, CQ, EQ and MQ.
Hence, the GEP may have nurtured top students, but they are already born with smart brains. We cannot give credit to the programme because it has selected the top students, but are unable to turn all of them into president scholars when there are already many from the mainstream.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Integrated Resorts - Beneficial?
Building an integrated resort can boost Singapore’s economy and maintain Singapore’s competitiveness. This idea is supported by the government and some of the people. However, the casino, playing the biggest role in the IR, has drawn the attention of many local Singaporeans because of the benefits and the potential risks.
Would the casino really benefit Singapore? One thing that we must know is the mindset of tourists. Can we be certain that the tourists would go to the IR? If tourists do not go to the IR, it would be a waste of resources and manpower, considering the amount of electricity used and the number of workers. If I were a tourists coming to Singapore, would I be coming to gamble, or would I be coming to get a taste of Singaporean culture and lifestyle? Furthermore, most tourists come with the aid of travel agencies planning their trip for them. Would any of these travel agencies have IR as one of its destinations?
If we consider the actual situation, the IR has a great potential to boost the Singapore economy. In recent years, 10 million tourists came to Singapore. If every one of them goes to the casino and gamble, and the casino earns $15 from each of them, that would mean Singapore can earn $150 million from the casino each year. Even if we multiply that sum of money by 15% we still get $22.5 million. Hence, it is likely for the casino to benefit us.
The locals are more concerned about there being more local gamblers. Even if we do not build the casino, people would still gamble by buying Toto or 4D. Moreover, it is rather unlikely for people to make an effort to go to the IR, not only because of the time spent on transport, but also the way one wins. Toto and 4D give a person a minute chance of striking a fortune, whereas the IR gives him a 50-50 chance of doubling his bet. Would anyone go through all the trouble of getting to the IR just to get a higher chance of winning less and a lower chance of losing more?
If one has to go through all the trouble to gamble legally at the IR, people might still prefer to gamble illegally due to the convenience. Furthermore, if the government is to charge an admission fee on the locals, then it would also prevent those who are moderately wealthy to go into the IR. Supposing that I have $200 and have to pay an admission fee of $100 to get into the IR, I have already lost $100 to the government before I can place my bet. Hence, there is practically no point discouraging the locals from going because it is simply not worth it.
Therefore, the issue about the IR posing a potential threat is just an assumption because we do not know whether people would go to the IR. We have to evaluate the consequences by understanding the way people think. Only then we can know whether the IR would benefit us or harm us.
Would the casino really benefit Singapore? One thing that we must know is the mindset of tourists. Can we be certain that the tourists would go to the IR? If tourists do not go to the IR, it would be a waste of resources and manpower, considering the amount of electricity used and the number of workers. If I were a tourists coming to Singapore, would I be coming to gamble, or would I be coming to get a taste of Singaporean culture and lifestyle? Furthermore, most tourists come with the aid of travel agencies planning their trip for them. Would any of these travel agencies have IR as one of its destinations?
If we consider the actual situation, the IR has a great potential to boost the Singapore economy. In recent years, 10 million tourists came to Singapore. If every one of them goes to the casino and gamble, and the casino earns $15 from each of them, that would mean Singapore can earn $150 million from the casino each year. Even if we multiply that sum of money by 15% we still get $22.5 million. Hence, it is likely for the casino to benefit us.
The locals are more concerned about there being more local gamblers. Even if we do not build the casino, people would still gamble by buying Toto or 4D. Moreover, it is rather unlikely for people to make an effort to go to the IR, not only because of the time spent on transport, but also the way one wins. Toto and 4D give a person a minute chance of striking a fortune, whereas the IR gives him a 50-50 chance of doubling his bet. Would anyone go through all the trouble of getting to the IR just to get a higher chance of winning less and a lower chance of losing more?
If one has to go through all the trouble to gamble legally at the IR, people might still prefer to gamble illegally due to the convenience. Furthermore, if the government is to charge an admission fee on the locals, then it would also prevent those who are moderately wealthy to go into the IR. Supposing that I have $200 and have to pay an admission fee of $100 to get into the IR, I have already lost $100 to the government before I can place my bet. Hence, there is practically no point discouraging the locals from going because it is simply not worth it.
Therefore, the issue about the IR posing a potential threat is just an assumption because we do not know whether people would go to the IR. We have to evaluate the consequences by understanding the way people think. Only then we can know whether the IR would benefit us or harm us.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
National Service - How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?
People dodge national service because they feel that it is a waste of time and an obstacle which hinders them from pursuing their dreams. However, Singapore is the only SEA country with a non-muslim majority and it is important to have a strong military in order for Singapore to be invulnerable to attacks. Therefore, there is a need for national service. If people like to dodge it, how are we able to change the mindset of Singaporeans such that they serve the country willingly.
Unlike other countries, there is a lack of Singaporean pride. Many of those who were on scholarships migrated to other countries because they feel that the environment there is more comfortable, where there is a better pay or living conditions. If Singaporeans choose to stay out of the country, then why should we even bother talking about Singaporeans going for national service? Furthermore, you can hear people saying, "Singapore sucks." on the MRT, and taxi drivers complaining about the government. Therefore, if the government can do something to make Singaporeans feel proud of their country, there would naturally be less people who dodge national service.
Now it boils down to feeling Singaporean pride, but what can Singaporeans be proud of? Living in a tropical country? Speaking Singlish? No, those are part of Singaporeans culture. In fact, most people only feel the pride when Singapore has something that is better than other countries. However, no one actually feels proud when Singapore has the best airport and airlines, the top university in Asia, the highest standards of living in Asia, etc. This may be because people do not really value these things but value feats that normal people are not able to perform. For example, winning prizes at international competitions or designing a new technological device that is far better than the existing ones. In a small island of 4.5 million people, there is not enough competition for the country to pick out the talented among the talented. Therefore, it is rather difficult to create a sense of nationalism.
How about reducing the amount of time in national service? Currently, Singapore has the longest conscription period and it takes 2 years for a typical young Singaporean to complete his national service. Furthermore, students are unable to enter university immediately after national service and that takes up more time. Why should Singapore have such a long conscription period if it does not plan to invade other countries? Moreover, how long would it take for another country to wipe out the whole of Singapore with modern technology? Therefore, it would be wise to shorten the period of conscription. 1.5 years would be wise as students would be able to go to university one year earlier.
In conclusion, national service has to be amended to appease Singaporeans more so that less people dodge it.
Unlike other countries, there is a lack of Singaporean pride. Many of those who were on scholarships migrated to other countries because they feel that the environment there is more comfortable, where there is a better pay or living conditions. If Singaporeans choose to stay out of the country, then why should we even bother talking about Singaporeans going for national service? Furthermore, you can hear people saying, "Singapore sucks." on the MRT, and taxi drivers complaining about the government. Therefore, if the government can do something to make Singaporeans feel proud of their country, there would naturally be less people who dodge national service.
Now it boils down to feeling Singaporean pride, but what can Singaporeans be proud of? Living in a tropical country? Speaking Singlish? No, those are part of Singaporeans culture. In fact, most people only feel the pride when Singapore has something that is better than other countries. However, no one actually feels proud when Singapore has the best airport and airlines, the top university in Asia, the highest standards of living in Asia, etc. This may be because people do not really value these things but value feats that normal people are not able to perform. For example, winning prizes at international competitions or designing a new technological device that is far better than the existing ones. In a small island of 4.5 million people, there is not enough competition for the country to pick out the talented among the talented. Therefore, it is rather difficult to create a sense of nationalism.
How about reducing the amount of time in national service? Currently, Singapore has the longest conscription period and it takes 2 years for a typical young Singaporean to complete his national service. Furthermore, students are unable to enter university immediately after national service and that takes up more time. Why should Singapore have such a long conscription period if it does not plan to invade other countries? Moreover, how long would it take for another country to wipe out the whole of Singapore with modern technology? Therefore, it would be wise to shorten the period of conscription. 1.5 years would be wise as students would be able to go to university one year earlier.
In conclusion, national service has to be amended to appease Singaporeans more so that less people dodge it.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Advertising - Beneficial?
Advertising works to our benefit in many ways such as providing information in a certain area so as to persuade its customers to buy the company's product. However, the reliability of an advertisement is certainly questionable as companies have to persuade and tell the truth at the same time. Providing false facts in an advertisement may increase the profit of a company in the short-term, but the company's reputation is at stake because people would not trust it anymore after finding out the truth. Hence, most companies usually promote the benefits of their product and hide the negative side effects.
Companies like Vitagen promote their products by informing us the content of the drink so that we would buy the product after we know that it is good for our health. These advertisements tells what substances are good for our body, and work to our benefit by providing us with knowledge. We can use this knowledge to come up with other healthcare products in the future. It does not only provide us with a chance to make a fortune, but also helps us determine whether certain types of food are safe to eat. Hence, advertisements work to our benefit.
Companies such as Coca-cola have no way of providing information because Cola is bad for health. Hence, they can find alternatives. Commonly used techniques are getting famous people to show how refreshed they feel after getting a sip. Although some advertisements may not be promoting products beneficial to our health, they do not provide false facts that may mislead people into thinking that more Cola is good, such as having a slogan like, "A can a day keeps the doctor away". Hence, advertisements poses no harm to us.
For the case of a tabacco company, it is certainly difficult to advertise products because tabacco is bad for a person's health. However, they must remember that since the government discourages people to smoke, it would not be wise to get more people to smoke. They can only compete with other tabacco companies and get more customers. To do so, the company has to prove that its tabacco is better than other types of tabacco by comparison. For example, they can prove that the smoke produced is less harmful to the human body, thus attracting more people to buy their kind of tabacco. This would encourage smokers to smoke tabacco that is less harmful to them, which can minimize the number of deaths caused by diseases such as lung cancer.
In conclusion, companies do not dare to provide false information because their reputation is at stake. They can only try to get more people to buy their product using various means. These methods do not pose any harm to us. Hence, although only some advertisements work to our benefit, other has no negative effects and thus advertisement benefit us on the whole.
Companies like Vitagen promote their products by informing us the content of the drink so that we would buy the product after we know that it is good for our health. These advertisements tells what substances are good for our body, and work to our benefit by providing us with knowledge. We can use this knowledge to come up with other healthcare products in the future. It does not only provide us with a chance to make a fortune, but also helps us determine whether certain types of food are safe to eat. Hence, advertisements work to our benefit.
Companies such as Coca-cola have no way of providing information because Cola is bad for health. Hence, they can find alternatives. Commonly used techniques are getting famous people to show how refreshed they feel after getting a sip. Although some advertisements may not be promoting products beneficial to our health, they do not provide false facts that may mislead people into thinking that more Cola is good, such as having a slogan like, "A can a day keeps the doctor away". Hence, advertisements poses no harm to us.
For the case of a tabacco company, it is certainly difficult to advertise products because tabacco is bad for a person's health. However, they must remember that since the government discourages people to smoke, it would not be wise to get more people to smoke. They can only compete with other tabacco companies and get more customers. To do so, the company has to prove that its tabacco is better than other types of tabacco by comparison. For example, they can prove that the smoke produced is less harmful to the human body, thus attracting more people to buy their kind of tabacco. This would encourage smokers to smoke tabacco that is less harmful to them, which can minimize the number of deaths caused by diseases such as lung cancer.
In conclusion, companies do not dare to provide false information because their reputation is at stake. They can only try to get more people to buy their product using various means. These methods do not pose any harm to us. Hence, although only some advertisements work to our benefit, other has no negative effects and thus advertisement benefit us on the whole.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Science – A menace to society?
Despite the technology advancement that has improved the quality of our lives, some people claim that science is a menace to the society because they feel that science has not created much of difference in their lives. I feel that this is because those people do not cherish what they have and always think that the grass is greener on the other side. If they get a chance to experience life in the past, they would definitely realise that the life nowadays is much better. Hence, it is incorrect to say that science is a menace to society.
Firstly, people say that science had not made any significant improvements on our lives. However, the statement does not stand because technology advancements allowed farmers to increase their production rate, hence resulting in the abundance of food which we have in the modern world, compared to the past when people suffered from famine. Furthermore, science has also allowed us to store our food when we cannot finish them and also provided more hygienic food for us. After the refrigerator was invented, we no longer have to throw our leftover food away, while feeling that it is rather wasteful. The use of pesticide allowed us to enjoy fruits which are not infested by insects and worms. Thus, science provided us food which is fresh and widely abundant, which can be stored when we are unable to consume then in one day. The advancement of agricultural technology has also lengthened our lifespan due to the improvement in hygiene.
Secondly, science has left the hard labour done by peasants and animals for machines to do. Hence, this helps to save the Earth’s resources as machines can be turned on and off anytime without consuming food regularly. For example, people use horses to pull their carts in the past, and use vehicles for transport now, which is not only saves time, but also saves money. Imagine every household in America owning two horses instead of a car, I think it would be very likely to cause problems to the society as we have to cater to the needs of these animals. Hence, science has not only created a better living environment for us, it is also saving the Earth in its way, just that we do not realise it.
Next, science has also shrunk the world. It has become much more convenient for people to travel to another country, and we are also updated on the world’s most recent news simply by surfing the internet at home. We can inform our family members or friends immediately if there are any urgent matters, especially during a crisis. For example, when there is a disaster, warning systems can inform us that we are in danger, such as in a case of a tsunami. Hence, people can evacuate in time and lives could be saved. Thus, there would be less grief for the victims while reducing the problem of pollution in the sea at the same time. If science has given us such a great convenience such that we can know what we want in an instant in what way is it a menace to the society?
In conclusion, science has improved our lives significantly, but poses a threat to our lives at the same time. This is often due to the abusage of technology such as developing new military weapons of mass destruction. However, these problems can be prevented. Therefore, as long as we are able to use technology wisely, there is no reason why science is a menace to the society.
Firstly, people say that science had not made any significant improvements on our lives. However, the statement does not stand because technology advancements allowed farmers to increase their production rate, hence resulting in the abundance of food which we have in the modern world, compared to the past when people suffered from famine. Furthermore, science has also allowed us to store our food when we cannot finish them and also provided more hygienic food for us. After the refrigerator was invented, we no longer have to throw our leftover food away, while feeling that it is rather wasteful. The use of pesticide allowed us to enjoy fruits which are not infested by insects and worms. Thus, science provided us food which is fresh and widely abundant, which can be stored when we are unable to consume then in one day. The advancement of agricultural technology has also lengthened our lifespan due to the improvement in hygiene.
Secondly, science has left the hard labour done by peasants and animals for machines to do. Hence, this helps to save the Earth’s resources as machines can be turned on and off anytime without consuming food regularly. For example, people use horses to pull their carts in the past, and use vehicles for transport now, which is not only saves time, but also saves money. Imagine every household in America owning two horses instead of a car, I think it would be very likely to cause problems to the society as we have to cater to the needs of these animals. Hence, science has not only created a better living environment for us, it is also saving the Earth in its way, just that we do not realise it.
Next, science has also shrunk the world. It has become much more convenient for people to travel to another country, and we are also updated on the world’s most recent news simply by surfing the internet at home. We can inform our family members or friends immediately if there are any urgent matters, especially during a crisis. For example, when there is a disaster, warning systems can inform us that we are in danger, such as in a case of a tsunami. Hence, people can evacuate in time and lives could be saved. Thus, there would be less grief for the victims while reducing the problem of pollution in the sea at the same time. If science has given us such a great convenience such that we can know what we want in an instant in what way is it a menace to the society?
In conclusion, science has improved our lives significantly, but poses a threat to our lives at the same time. This is often due to the abusage of technology such as developing new military weapons of mass destruction. However, these problems can be prevented. Therefore, as long as we are able to use technology wisely, there is no reason why science is a menace to the society.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Censor Pornography?
Pornography is a form of entertainment which serves to arouse sexual pleasure in its audience. However, it is only introduced in recent years and hence we are still unable to determine its impact on the society. Should we ban pornography? Different people have different opinions, those who agree with the statement are those who are unable to accept pornography due to various reasons such as cultural ideology or the mistrust of one's life partner due to pornography as it gives people the idea that having sex with anyone is alright, but these opinions are usually based on one's own assumptions. Personally, I would say that we should not ban pornography before we are assured that pornography causes problems.
Firstly, we should not act based on our assumptions as the actual result may be much different from what we think. When we do scientific experiments, it is rather likely to obtain a result different from our hypothesis because we did not consider one or two factors which affected the result. Similarly, we cannot simply assume that porn is bad because we do not have any evidence. Hence, I feel that we should not ban porn for the moment to give ourselves a chance to prove or disprove our assumption of the effects of porn to the society, but at the same time, the government should be prepared to take measures in case anything happens.
Secondly, how can pornography be censored? If there was a video that shows frontal nudity scene but has the genitals censored, would that not arouse sexual desires in the audience but at the same time preventing the audience from getting what they want? For example, when an adult tempts a child by giving him a taste of a lollipop but does not give the lollipop to him, it would cause the child to get a lollipop in one way or another. On the other hand, if the adult does not tempts the child or give him the lollipop directly, would the child mention about the lollipop anymore? It would only result in a rise of rape cases if some people are unable to get the sexual pleasure that they want through non-violent means. Therefore, we can only ban porn completely or do not exercise any censorship as partial censorship would only cause the situation to be worse.
Furthermore, would the banning of pornography be beneficial to the society in a way such as decreasing the number of rape cases? If humans are born to mate with the opposite sex such that they can reproduce, there should be a natural tendency to have sex, regardless of whether one does it legally or not. Hence, it is still unclear whether banning pornography would make a difference. In Japan, porn is legal and it is not uncommon to find porn material along any street. However, rape cases are low compared to Africa where people do not have access to porn, although part of this may be due to Japan being a more civilised society. Therefore, pornography should not be banned.
In conclusion, there is no reason to ban pornography because we are still unsure about its effects on the society. Censoring porn partially would likely result in a rise of rape cases. Hence, porn should not be banned for the moment but we have to be prepared to take action if any problems arise.
Firstly, we should not act based on our assumptions as the actual result may be much different from what we think. When we do scientific experiments, it is rather likely to obtain a result different from our hypothesis because we did not consider one or two factors which affected the result. Similarly, we cannot simply assume that porn is bad because we do not have any evidence. Hence, I feel that we should not ban porn for the moment to give ourselves a chance to prove or disprove our assumption of the effects of porn to the society, but at the same time, the government should be prepared to take measures in case anything happens.
Secondly, how can pornography be censored? If there was a video that shows frontal nudity scene but has the genitals censored, would that not arouse sexual desires in the audience but at the same time preventing the audience from getting what they want? For example, when an adult tempts a child by giving him a taste of a lollipop but does not give the lollipop to him, it would cause the child to get a lollipop in one way or another. On the other hand, if the adult does not tempts the child or give him the lollipop directly, would the child mention about the lollipop anymore? It would only result in a rise of rape cases if some people are unable to get the sexual pleasure that they want through non-violent means. Therefore, we can only ban porn completely or do not exercise any censorship as partial censorship would only cause the situation to be worse.
Furthermore, would the banning of pornography be beneficial to the society in a way such as decreasing the number of rape cases? If humans are born to mate with the opposite sex such that they can reproduce, there should be a natural tendency to have sex, regardless of whether one does it legally or not. Hence, it is still unclear whether banning pornography would make a difference. In Japan, porn is legal and it is not uncommon to find porn material along any street. However, rape cases are low compared to Africa where people do not have access to porn, although part of this may be due to Japan being a more civilised society. Therefore, pornography should not be banned.
In conclusion, there is no reason to ban pornography because we are still unsure about its effects on the society. Censoring porn partially would likely result in a rise of rape cases. Hence, porn should not be banned for the moment but we have to be prepared to take action if any problems arise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)