The Messenger Pigeon

Amidst this pandemic, jokes are circulating online that schools are cancelled to give them time to switch out the birds. Where does this joke come from? The idea that the birds are spies! Or... CARRIER PIGEONS!

They are sometimes called homing pigeons or messenger pigeons, and the very first one was used by Noah! Early on, these birds were mainly used for delivering results of games in early Roman games, as well as to deliver news and stock prices in the 1800's. Now, I know I wouldn't want to be the "bird of bad news!" Then, the use of these tiny messengers expanded into more important things, like war. That is a lot of trust in a bird, huh? The French pioneered using messenger pigeons, but they weren't the only ones to catch on to the opportunities opened up with this technology.

So, how did it work? Well, pigeons are a homing bird, meaning they know where home is and always fly back to it. So, militia would sent the pigeon, often by train or personal escort, to a designated person that may need to send a message in the near future. Perhaps, bringing one of the birds to someone that was going on a secret mission and would need to let the base know the status, and fast. Then, that person would let it go and the pigeon would just, well, go home. They'd often have bells at their home base to let the recipient know they have a message. Sort of like when your phone rings. It is interesting how far we've come, yet how similar the whole idea is.

Halftone Print: an Optical Illusion

If you zoom in on the photos that you come across on your smartphone, you will find that you see tiny squares that make up the image. Today, these tiny squares of color that make up what seems to be a seamless image are referred to as pixels. They are tiny cubes of color, organized to come together and create a meaning. Even the words we see typed out on this screen are made up of pixels.  Looking at how far technology has come, we can see how early imaging technology paved the way for the advanced image quality seen all around us.

In 1852, William Talbot pioneered the use of a screen, consisting of a grid of holes for ink to pass through, to create an intentional pattern. This technique, known as halftone printing, was used to print black dots, varying in distance apart, size and shape to create an image that appears to have dimension, shadows and detail. For example, black dots that are closer together may be used to create the darkest part of an image, while distant dots create a lighter effect. The most common type of printing used today, will only print one color of one tone, or no ink at all, though it may seem to appear lighter in some areas. There are currently three types of halftone printing: conventional, stochastic and color/moire. Conventional printing consists of printing in which the dots vary in size, but not distance between the center of each dot. Stochastic printing consists of dots that are randomly places in no pattern or certain distance apart. The dots may also be different sizes. Meanwhile, in color printing, the overlap of a few basic colors is used to create more colors, and therefor portray an image more similar to what we see in real time.

Check out the image below. As one of the earliest images created using the screen halftone process, it appears that the dots vary in size and distance apart. Doesn't the hand look closer to you than the rest of the image? That is a result of lack of ink, used in a way that creates depth. Now, go into your phone and look at an image with depth. Upon zooming in, you will notice that the depth is created by clarity in the image, meaning more pixels to create more detail in the foreground of the photo. This technology began with half toning and will continue to evolve. Also, the better the printer, the better the image quality, so maybe one day the images we print will be as clear as the photo on the screen!

Anti-War Media

Anti-war arguments originate back to the commencing historical structure of the world, cumulatively beginning and ending with each war that shaped the organizational structure of humanity, today. Though reasoning has evolved with time in accordance to pertaining circumstances, today a progressive anti-war activist bases their argument on specific actions and impacts of armed conflict. One of these arguments includes the risk of enemy capability. This implies the consideration to consequences of violent action, which may include further danger to Americans. I noticed much of this articulation on Antiwar.com. Though the interface is cluttered and difficult to navigate, upon entering the site every given user is inundated with articles negatively speaking on the decisions and actions made by the government. For example, one article link was titled, "US Troops Back to Saudi Arabia - to Provoke Iran?" The purpose of such article, and organization nonetheless, is to get the reader to think about the reciprocating threat that violent action threatens to impose. Another downfall that is said to be a result of war is financial drainage. According to CNBC, the United States has spent over $6.4 trillion on wars in Asia and the Middle East, since 2001. Anti-war activists argue that this expense could be better distributed in efforts to solve crises within the country or even at a global level. However, the most powerful and most broadcasted argument is casualty rate. With just shy of 1,000 military related deaths per year, it could be contended that such a considerable number outweighs the reasoning for engaging in war. From my perspective, both sides are reflect exceptionally vindicable persuasions, though, anti-war alignment is not something we often see vocalized by main-stream media.

Why is that? In my opinion, we do not see a this side of the topic in the media in the same way broadcasting outlets acknowledge both sides of any other given scenario. Media and reporting outlets thrive off of an engaged audience, by showing them what they want to hear. As an anti-war standpoint is an extreme one, we are unlikely to be targeted via the media we use, by indoctrination of the sort. Based of recent studies, the Chicago Council concluded that 69% of Americans are in favor of the US being "an active part in world affairs." In other words, to the disadvantage of anti-war  activism, in order to maximize the success of a media outlet, they must fair what the majority wants to see. So, why do some oppose the anti-war position? If you think about the palpability of the devastating impact war can have, you will realize that it does not apply to the vast majority of Americans. There is no draft threatening to dismantle families, and the death of military personnel only prevails defoliation to some. In addition, when people support a position, they are supporting a change. The lack of solution conferred by anti-war organizations results in a lack of reinforcement. With such compelling argument against engagement in war, considering the opposing position is crucial. Without an considering and understanding the reasoned position established, we would not be able to take an educated stance on the topic.




 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on-middle-east-wars-since-2001-study.html

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2019/09/do-americans-really-want-end-forever-wars-survey-says/159760/

https://www.antiwar.com

https://www.theamericanconservative.com

Antitrust Probing of Facebook

In September of 2019, it was announced that the attorneys generals of eight states and the District of Columbia will be pursuing an antitrust investigation on Facebook, whom has agreed to comply with the investigatory process. The premise of the investigation is based on Facebook's previous acquisition of Instagram, WhatsApp, and others. Additionally, the investigation will look at whether or not "Facebook's actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers' choices, or increased the price of advertising," as stated New York Attorney General Letitia James. However, Facebook is not the only platform facing investigation under these conditions. Google, Amazon and Apple are all to be investigated for similar issues. According to Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III, the investigation was put into place with the hope of seeking "structural change driven by the government."


On this blog, we have previously looked into Facebook and complications that this platform brings to users. In my opinion, advances in technology are beneficial, though they are the root of issues. When we have access to advance and to utilize new technologies, we do it. I believe that Facebook and the other tech companies under investigation are exercising the advances they have made. Having been using the platforms since they came out as such simple platforms, we have neglected to pay attention to the changes that have been made and how they impact us as consumers. Recently,
people have noticed targeted advertising that lead us to think we are being listened to or even watched. When this began to occur at such a high level, is in my opinion when people became aware of how much power these tech companies have over us. These tech companies have shifted the market from a need and buyer-driven market, to a seller-driven market, by using our information.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/tech/facebook-antitrust-investigation/index.html

The Supreme Court: History & Workings

In 1789, the passing of the Judiciary Act, the Supreme Court was established under the US Constitution. Thus, 200 years ago a group of politicians created a set of guidelines that could shape the way the court makes decisions. What began with six justices, as set by Congress, now consists of nine members that consult on cases from a lower court and determine whether or not the ruling was per the Constitution.  Today this court stands as the most powerful judicial entity on Earth.

After diligently watching Davis Stephens' interview with US Supreme Court Justices, I learned mostly about the process in which I did initially not understand. Based on what I gathered, the process has been around for years, and has evolved to efficiently review only necessary cases. The Supreme Court receives over 5,000 Petitions for Writ Certiorari per year. In other words, requests for the decision from a case seen through by lower court to be reviewed by Supreme Court Justices. Of these 5,000 annual requests, 100 are accepted. Appeals are reviewed by Justices, to then deliberate in private whether or not it will be seen through by the higher court. If the Justices find that the original decision of a lower court may need to be revised in accordance to the US Constitution, it will be accepted. When the Justices go to conference to deliberate a case, they first enter the Old Supreme Court Chamber, and shake hands between all nine members. The appealing party is given the opportunity to pose a 30-minute oral argument, during which the court asks questions that the initial petition may have brought up. As stated in the video, each member has the chance to voice their opinion, each member speaking once before any member speaks twice. It may occur that a Justice changes their original position during conference. After reaching a decision, one Justice is assigned to write an explanation of the decision. Though, any member may submit and opinion draft to explain any of their opposing opinions regarding the decision or reasoning. The case is then revised and finalized. After this period, the decision and reasoning is submitted to the press, carrying the potential to impact millions of citizens.


 I also learned that there are various common confusions held by the people of the United States regarding the Supreme Court. Among these confusions, is the belief that Justices come in with a case that they have found and see a problem with and that decisions are often made at the opinion of the Justices. However, it is not their job to impose their opinion, but to uphold the law. During conference, Justices do not try to sell a certain side, but try to bring in all points of consideration to the court. Additionally, it is crucial to remember that the Justices are there at the hands of the people, and they are in a position of trust from the people to apply the Constitution from an unbiased standpoint. As stated in the video, "For this court to intervene, there ought to be something more than just a sense that one of these parties didn't get quite what they should have gotten under the law." This means that the premises of what shall be considered by the court is predetermined and systematic based on the Constitution, not opinion. Another confusion, likely a result from lack of public knowledge, is what occurs when a case is not accepted by the court. In the case of a denial of certiorari, the decision of the Court of Appeals upholds the final decision. However, this does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with the decision, not that they demand it be upheld.  By understanding the process and the premises on which decisions are made, we can ultimately conclude that the doings of the Supreme Court Justices are to be reflected on with trust that they have upheld the duty of diligence in applying fair law.

The Luka Magnotta Facebook Manhunt

Social media communication has been rapidly expanding and evolving, giving humans access to things they may or may not want access to. Some of us find it addicting, the ability to engage and be a part of something we see or read online. After watching a documentary on a 2012 murder case, I concluded that our ability to interact and say what we want online, can and has been taken too far.

In early 2012, a young man, Luka Magnotta, posted a video of himself murdering cats, sparking outrage from animal activist communities. This community created a Facebook page of people dedicated to figure out who the currently unknown culprit was. Modern technology enabled them to download his video in a frame-by-frame manor, to find any clues that could lead to a suspect. They went as far as figuring out where the vacuum in the back was sold, and even further details that the public took the liberty of investigating. The suspect then posted another video killing more cats, likely a result from the attention and outrage he received, they he so enjoyed.

The Facebook group found a lead, and ended up publicly accusing a man of the crimes committed. While he proved not the be the suspect, the messages and posts about him via Facebook did not come to an immediate halt. During this time, that man committed suicide. Though this view was never addressed, my immediate thought, was did these self-appointed investigators go too far? And does their freedom of speech protect the words that could have motivated a man's self-inflicted death? Another issue that I noticed, after the suspect anonymously posted a video of a Facebook member leader's workplace as a threat, was the issue of privacy. When users are given access to information that they can't resist to become involved in, specifically an intense and dangerous one as such, is this platform and access to information endangering users? Magnotta's final video, before getting caught and detained, was of himself murdering a man named Jun Lin. I would argue that the progression from one video, which brought him attention, to the second cat video, increasing the attention and the hunt that drives a killer, played a huge role in motivating Magnotta to kill a human. The entire purpose for posting the initial video, was a cry for attention, to which prevailed. Therefor the question is whether or not the Facebook community acting as investigators, commenting however they please,  and giving him the attention he lived off of, lead to Jun Lin's murder.

Ultimately, the Facebook page members ended up assisting law enforcement in naming the suspect, all through intense screening of videos and posts, enabled by Facebook. However, they persisted in locating Magnotta, but ultimately played no part in his capture.