“Another issue is pure hazard. Medical researchers at the University of Michigan have already developed nano-scale devices that selectively destroy certain cancer cells. These devices are not ready for use, however, because they pierce holes through cell walls, leaving the cells vulnerable to infection.”
David, Kenneth, What Can Nanotechnology Learn From Biotechnology. Ed. Kenneth David and Paul B. Thompson. New York: Elsevier, 2008, Print.
The main exploration of my paper is whether or no nanotechnology is an legitimate and beneficial use of our research time. This quote would be good support to why Nanotechnology could prove more trouble and cause more problems then it actually helps. This will help to further the counterargument that Nanotechnology is a greater hindrance than benefit and provide credible support, since the author has graduated from the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. and should prove to be a very strong support for the issues that I am exploring.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Jib Fowles Advertisement Appeals
This advertisement can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Rd-xQgU-g&feature=related
We enter upon the scene of a professional looking man driving down the road. He is a wearing a button up shirt, dress pants, and dress shoes. He looks down at his hand where a he is holding a latte, and begins to migrate it towards his mouth, when something catches his eye. His heart stops and a panicked look comes upon his face. Flash to the scene of the mans foot, dressed in nice classy shoes, thrusting violently on to the brake peddle of his vehicle. Que a deep and assuring voice. A voice that is well known by all and is easily recognizable. As the camera pans out and we see the car moving in slow motion towards the camera, and a man walking in from the right in real time. He walks along side the with the slow moving car and begins to speak, addressing the camera. He say “all season radial tires,” as the camera flashes to the tires splashing through a puddle of water, and sliding across the pavement. “Anti-lock brake” he says next, as we see the professional looking man within the car drop his latte, spilling it all over his passenger seat, as he grasps desperately on to the steering wheel with both hands. We flash to a rear view of the scene, as we see the man outside the car walking in real time, in front the slow moving car. We also see on the other side, a line of cars stopped only a couple feet in front of the moving car. The man then say, “Electronic stability control,” as he makes his way to the other side of the sliding vehicle. We see a quick top view of a scene of the moving car, no more then three feet from a stopped one and the man, walking in between the two. Then, as he emerges on the opposite side of the vehicle he came in on, the camera changes to a side view of the two vehicles and the man looking on from the behind them, saying “we made everything about the automobile better, except the driver.” Que the time lapse back into real time speed again, as we see the moving car, crash violently into the rear end of the stopped car. Glass shatters, as the hood of the moving car bends upwards as it comes to a violent and jerky stop. We see the airbag deploy and a shocked looking driver, as he is trying to take in what has just happened. Whilst this is happening we hear the deep assuring voice of the man again, saying, “Introducing the safe driving bonus, new, from Allstate. With cash off your renewal bill, for every six months you don't have one of these,” quickly flashing to a view of the front end of the vehicle, the hood completely bent upward, and the front end completely totaled. The man continues speaking saying, “it's time to make the world a better place.” Quickly, the camera changes views again, this time showing us a close up of the face of the man who is talking, where he finishes saying, “This is Allstate's stand, are you in good hands.”
Within the advertisement, many of the appeals that Fowles describes within his piece are used. The need for aesthetic sensation, being one of the major ones. They try to make it seem like a very death defying and cinematic scene, to draw the attention of the viewers and to stimulate their minds in order for them to better remember the commercial and the name of the company. Also, it uses the need to feel safe, in a less apparent way. The speaker, more importantly then that, Dennis Haysbert, the one speaking, speaks with a very calm and reliable tone in his voice. This quells us into a false sense of security, even upon witnessing such a destructive and dreadful scene as this. They want to be safe and protected from these kinds of incidents and “Allstate” is “right there next to you,” giving you that safety and protection that you are looking for. The need for guidance is also addressed, using Dennis Haysbert, as a symbol of peoples admiration, they are more inclined to take advise from or be persuaded by a man that they can more readily connect to. Overall I was really impressed, not just by this commercial, but by almost all of the Allstate commercials that are featured. Honestly, I think it is the friendly atmosphere and the security, that gets me the most. Geico and those other companies only take about how they can save you money, and how they are so much better then the competition, but honestly, I think I would rather pay a bit higher price, then be in the hands of an unreliable insurance company that might revoke coverage as soon as I'm in an accident. Also, it is said within many of their commercials that not just reliability, they offer good rates and often better then the competition. So it seems only natural that if I can get the best reliably as well as good rates, isn't that more appealing then, cheap coverage, that doesn't actually count for anything. Once I get a car of my own, the first place I will probably look into is “Allstate.” Their claim of reliability and safety, has definitely drawn me in. This doesn't necessarily mean that I will sign with them, depending on what they offer, but it is definitely a nudge above the competition as far as my opinion is concerned.
We enter upon the scene of a professional looking man driving down the road. He is a wearing a button up shirt, dress pants, and dress shoes. He looks down at his hand where a he is holding a latte, and begins to migrate it towards his mouth, when something catches his eye. His heart stops and a panicked look comes upon his face. Flash to the scene of the mans foot, dressed in nice classy shoes, thrusting violently on to the brake peddle of his vehicle. Que a deep and assuring voice. A voice that is well known by all and is easily recognizable. As the camera pans out and we see the car moving in slow motion towards the camera, and a man walking in from the right in real time. He walks along side the with the slow moving car and begins to speak, addressing the camera. He say “all season radial tires,” as the camera flashes to the tires splashing through a puddle of water, and sliding across the pavement. “Anti-lock brake” he says next, as we see the professional looking man within the car drop his latte, spilling it all over his passenger seat, as he grasps desperately on to the steering wheel with both hands. We flash to a rear view of the scene, as we see the man outside the car walking in real time, in front the slow moving car. We also see on the other side, a line of cars stopped only a couple feet in front of the moving car. The man then say, “Electronic stability control,” as he makes his way to the other side of the sliding vehicle. We see a quick top view of a scene of the moving car, no more then three feet from a stopped one and the man, walking in between the two. Then, as he emerges on the opposite side of the vehicle he came in on, the camera changes to a side view of the two vehicles and the man looking on from the behind them, saying “we made everything about the automobile better, except the driver.” Que the time lapse back into real time speed again, as we see the moving car, crash violently into the rear end of the stopped car. Glass shatters, as the hood of the moving car bends upwards as it comes to a violent and jerky stop. We see the airbag deploy and a shocked looking driver, as he is trying to take in what has just happened. Whilst this is happening we hear the deep assuring voice of the man again, saying, “Introducing the safe driving bonus, new, from Allstate. With cash off your renewal bill, for every six months you don't have one of these,” quickly flashing to a view of the front end of the vehicle, the hood completely bent upward, and the front end completely totaled. The man continues speaking saying, “it's time to make the world a better place.” Quickly, the camera changes views again, this time showing us a close up of the face of the man who is talking, where he finishes saying, “This is Allstate's stand, are you in good hands.”
Within the advertisement, many of the appeals that Fowles describes within his piece are used. The need for aesthetic sensation, being one of the major ones. They try to make it seem like a very death defying and cinematic scene, to draw the attention of the viewers and to stimulate their minds in order for them to better remember the commercial and the name of the company. Also, it uses the need to feel safe, in a less apparent way. The speaker, more importantly then that, Dennis Haysbert, the one speaking, speaks with a very calm and reliable tone in his voice. This quells us into a false sense of security, even upon witnessing such a destructive and dreadful scene as this. They want to be safe and protected from these kinds of incidents and “Allstate” is “right there next to you,” giving you that safety and protection that you are looking for. The need for guidance is also addressed, using Dennis Haysbert, as a symbol of peoples admiration, they are more inclined to take advise from or be persuaded by a man that they can more readily connect to. Overall I was really impressed, not just by this commercial, but by almost all of the Allstate commercials that are featured. Honestly, I think it is the friendly atmosphere and the security, that gets me the most. Geico and those other companies only take about how they can save you money, and how they are so much better then the competition, but honestly, I think I would rather pay a bit higher price, then be in the hands of an unreliable insurance company that might revoke coverage as soon as I'm in an accident. Also, it is said within many of their commercials that not just reliability, they offer good rates and often better then the competition. So it seems only natural that if I can get the best reliably as well as good rates, isn't that more appealing then, cheap coverage, that doesn't actually count for anything. Once I get a car of my own, the first place I will probably look into is “Allstate.” Their claim of reliability and safety, has definitely drawn me in. This doesn't necessarily mean that I will sign with them, depending on what they offer, but it is definitely a nudge above the competition as far as my opinion is concerned.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Roberts - Research topic and what to explore
Question: Is the investigation of stem cells or nanotechnology a legitimate hope for the future, or is there too much risk and opposition for its success?
Originally, I thought that I wanted to write about stem cells and the moral debate on that, but after reading the Roberts article, I thought that it was very bland and dry to write about simply a moral debate, so I thought about other means. I think that is when I came across nanotechnology. It isn't talked about as much as stem cells and is less controversial in its usage, but that makes it a more interesting topic. If there is less of idea about it in the mind of the reader, there will be a greater impact about whether or that is a significant issue for our society. I haven't completely given up on the idea of stem cells, if necessary I might fall back on that if there isn't enough information or opposition to the idea of nanotechnology. I think that it would be interesting to try and protest the new technology, since it seems like such an impeccable advancement, free from the allegation of inhuman that stem cells seemed to be accused of. This mean that it will be all the more convincing if I argue against rather then for it, since there wont be any real logical counter-arguments prepared. The greatest obstacle will be the lack of sufficient and credible data backing up my point. The field of nanotechnology, just like stem cells, is more theory then actual data. Though tests have been run and they look promising, nothing large scale or ultimately deciding can be used as precedent to support the claims made. But like Roberts said, “One rather simple way of getting interest into your paper is to take the side of the argument that most citizens will want to avoid,” which sometimes means taking a harder topic or approach to a paper. One topic that I want to explore is the idea of nanotechnology becoming an environment and health hazard. Like in the industrial revolution with asbestos. Nanotechnology could become just the same, and once released into the world, it is almost unidentifiable, so could become a major health risk. With this I could investigate how technological changes correlate to particular health or environment problems. But overall the paper wont be on the direct facts that nanotechnology has produced since it hasn't advanced enough to tell for sure, but on how its production and use could inversely affect people and society.
Originally, I thought that I wanted to write about stem cells and the moral debate on that, but after reading the Roberts article, I thought that it was very bland and dry to write about simply a moral debate, so I thought about other means. I think that is when I came across nanotechnology. It isn't talked about as much as stem cells and is less controversial in its usage, but that makes it a more interesting topic. If there is less of idea about it in the mind of the reader, there will be a greater impact about whether or that is a significant issue for our society. I haven't completely given up on the idea of stem cells, if necessary I might fall back on that if there isn't enough information or opposition to the idea of nanotechnology. I think that it would be interesting to try and protest the new technology, since it seems like such an impeccable advancement, free from the allegation of inhuman that stem cells seemed to be accused of. This mean that it will be all the more convincing if I argue against rather then for it, since there wont be any real logical counter-arguments prepared. The greatest obstacle will be the lack of sufficient and credible data backing up my point. The field of nanotechnology, just like stem cells, is more theory then actual data. Though tests have been run and they look promising, nothing large scale or ultimately deciding can be used as precedent to support the claims made. But like Roberts said, “One rather simple way of getting interest into your paper is to take the side of the argument that most citizens will want to avoid,” which sometimes means taking a harder topic or approach to a paper. One topic that I want to explore is the idea of nanotechnology becoming an environment and health hazard. Like in the industrial revolution with asbestos. Nanotechnology could become just the same, and once released into the world, it is almost unidentifiable, so could become a major health risk. With this I could investigate how technological changes correlate to particular health or environment problems. But overall the paper wont be on the direct facts that nanotechnology has produced since it hasn't advanced enough to tell for sure, but on how its production and use could inversely affect people and society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)