journal #5

From my point of view, drinking is an effective way to make new friends and communicate with others, especially in China. We have the drinking culture which is full of wisdom and philosophy. However, all of the above is based on reasonable drinking. The primary purpose of drinking is to communicate effectively instead of the major motivation is to get drunk. While from the article, we know that there are lots of alcohol-related deaths of college students and alcohol-related disruptions and injuries. It shows that drinking has become a serious issue on campus. We have to pay attention to eradicating binge drinking as Wechsler argues.

The first point that I am agree with Wechsler is that “student who become drunk and disorderly should be made to take responsibility for the messes that they have created”(21). It is known to us that the scene after drinking where everything is messed up and there are vomit all around the ground, and nobody wants to clean them up. So it will be a good way to ask the drunken students take responsibility for cleaning, which will help a lot for them staying away from alcohol.

Another point that I am insist on is that bars should be as far as possible to campus and the advertisement related to alcohol should be banned on campus. The author reports, “the problem is not alcohol itself; it is the avaliability of large volume of alcohol at a low price, usually to be consumed in a short period of time”(Wechsler 23). Just as my college in China, there are lots of bars right out of campus, which is the main position for us to have fun, especially for the happy hour and free drinks for women on certain nights. All of these advertisement and short distance are the reason that we drink there. Therefore, without advertisement and convenience, that will be a good policy to solve the problem.

All in all, drinking reasonable is a effective way to make new friend and have fun; While eradicating binge drinking will be harmful and should be banned. 

Journal 4----Qiyang Luo

Journal 4

According to Jon Gertner’s article “True Innovation?(Feb 25, 2012),”  how is the Bell Labs built and the process of its develops. This lab helps United State make an innovative environment by encouraging innovation between engineers and workers. After the lab built, a lot of inventor have been created.

As the society developed, technology become more and more vital in our regular life. This improves the company to make much more invention than before. However, how to hearten the staff to be much more creative is the first problem in industry. The way Bell Lab works will solve the problem we meet. For example, Mr. Kelly’s philosophy consider the company should be freedom and aspirational which I agree with so much.

Freedom is the basic factor and also a critical factor for the innovation, especially in research. The staff should work in a atmosphere where the leader do not disturb your idea’s birth. Here is an instance. Mr. Kelly dropped the assignment into lap of an engineer and let them do not be influenced. This method just let the staff get more freedom on their work. If the environment is not free, how do the staff get better idea? If the environment is full of obstruct, do you think it could product innovation. Hence the freedom is the vital factor for innovation.

Second, aspiration is also important in innovation. If you want to invent a new product, you must will face various difficulty. Some one will give up, some one will keep on going. Edison does a large number of experiment and then find the best material for the core of  bulb. If Edison do not have aspiration, do you think he will keep on doing the experiment? Absolutely not. The more aspiration you have, the more power could encourage you to keep on doing no matter how difficulty you meet. That is why Bell Labs could become an famous lab in the world.

There are still a lot of parts of Kelly’s philosophy. Freedom and aspiration are just some of them. If you follow the Kelly’s philosophy, you could do the industry below, like research, IT company and so on.

Journal 3----Qiyang Luo

Journal 3

According to Marcelo Gleiser’s article “Is an identical Copy of You, You?(January 20, 2015),” We do not need to construct a perfect copy of ourselves since that is impossible on moral field or scientific field.

As the biology developed, there is an idea came out” Do you want an perfect copy of you ”. Someone says excellent since it could make us live forever, but someone consider that it is pretty changeable for human society on moral field. I agree with the latter one.

It will be a unbelievable critic for human society if there is a perfect copy of yourself. Could you distinguish which one is your wife? Which one is real yourself? Absolutely not! We could copy ourselves, but not a perfect one since we are unique on our mind.  The definition of death is the brain died. If there is a identical copy of you, do you really died one day you are died in accident? It is a debatable problem. That measure will change our orders in human society no matter in biology or ethics. So we do not need to copy a identical one of ourselves.

It will make a chaos in personality confirmation. For example, if your copy go to crime, is that your problem or that one? We do not know and we do not have qualification to comment since it is a complicated problem. However, we could copy another one that just only could finish some basic missions, like driving, cooking or so on. This measure will make our society more advanced and convenient.

In the end, the technology of copying human in brain is a unprecedented progress on biology. It will make us understand our body more and help us defeat various disease. But it  just only permit copying on some elements of our body, absolutely not a human mind since spirit is a label between human beings and other animals.

Journal #4

In Jon Gertner’s article “True Innovation (2012),” the author claims that the Bell Lab aims to innovation which towards the most revolutionary inventions imaginable.  First of all, a number of achievements have been listed in this article to show the innovation made by Bell Lab. Then, the author states how Mr. Kelly worked for the innovation and some approaches he used to verify the innovation. Finally, the article shows that there are diverse methods to realize the innovation and the author concludes revolutions happened fast but success slowly.

I do agree that the Bell Lab has a highly influence on business. Due to the numbers of products produced by Bell Lab, most of companies got the benefits from them more or less. Such as the first communication satellites created by Bell Lab, it made the wireless communication realized. From my perspective, I do claim that companies like AT&T earn a lot from this progress. In sum, as far as I am concerned, the true innovation will always influenced business and make our lives better.

I am really approve of Mr. Kelly’s idea that he believed freedom was significant in research. First of all, people must have a freedom mind if they want to create something new. The requirement of the society is to find the innovation and made the old things new, then we can make progress. Like Brain Storm, an efficient method, both for scientific research and business, to help people find something new. The first step for Brian Storm is to have a freedom mind. After that, we are able to make true innovation. This philosophy work for diverse Internet companies like Amazon, Alibaba, or Face book. These companies need innovation all the time.

Journal 4

In Jon Gertner's article “True Innovation (2012),” the author states the conception of the true innovation by introducing the lessons of Bell Labs. First, the author listed many achievements of Bell Labs to verify the innovation. Then, the author moved to state the importance of a creative working environment and the strategy to approach the environment. Finally, the author concluded that the true innovation can be accomplished in different ways.

As the question is mentioning the way of Bell Labs, I think this kind of method can only benefit technology companies in some essential areas. Theoretic development and basic applications, which need a long time to update, are essentially products in technology companies. Those improvements are not acceptable for the companies that need a quick cash flow because basically most companies are aiming to get more money instead of producing innovation for the future. Even though the society is going faster and faster, the revolution of fundamental theory is hard to happen in a short time.

However, the innovation is very important for every company. The may not spend too much time and money on doing some basic research, but it is still necessary to have a group of creative people to expand the application of the technology. Nowadays new ideas mean money. The way of innovation in most companies is different from the way of Bell Labs, but it have a good efficiency, which is considered more significant in some companies that may not last for too long.

Journal 4

According to Jon Gertner’s article “True Innovation(Feb.25,2012)”, a problem that what the true innovation should be has been solved by the author through comparing the Bell’s Lab with some other traditional technology companies. He told us that the success of Bell’s Lab shows what is the true innovation like.

I think the way Bell Lab’s work is not good for a business. As in Bell Lab, what they finally want is some products or technologies new. The researchers are given enough time to step on their work and they don’t have to give any conclusion before a new result comes out. However, it’s quite different in business. The rhythm in market is so fast and changeable, people that are working in business should follow the demand of the market all the time to make profits. So it’s hard for them to run a plan that may cost several years. If the working style of Bell Lab is brought in business, it will be hard for them to be successful. For Kelly’s philosophy, I agree with that freedom is important in research. As we know, innovation is to find something new from the old things. It means people who is working on it should have a creative mind in everything. The demand of market should be the power to push it through, but not the pressure on the researchers. Working in science should not be in a hurry. They need time to get the most accuracy and realizable result.

Journal 4

In Jon Gertner’s article “True innovation,” (Feb. 25, 2012) he states that Bell Labs produce the true innovations by architectural, aspirational, organizational approaches, free environment, and enormous time. Bell Labs are important for American innovations because that innovative companies cannot contribute true innovations, and it was the most innovative organization around the globe. In Bell Labs, a relatively small number of scientists and engineers came out with such substantial innovations during a relatively short time. Mervin Kelly who took charge of the culture of creativity explained how his laboratory operated. Mervin Kelly used architectural, aspirational, organizational methods to practice his essential belief,” institute of creative technology”. Freedom and time are another two significant elements in Mervin Kelly’s innovation strategy. Bell Labs changed world through its own way of innovations.
 

Major of people would say that Bell Labs is so old fashioned and cannot keep up with the business. However, I claim that what Bell Labs does can always influence the business because it is hard to realize how true innovations happen.
 

Everyone is talking about innovations now. If an enterprise goes bankrupt, people will say this enterprise is short of innovations. This comment is right. Innovation is the most crucial thing in any enterprise, especially in technical field. Nevertheless, many American companies like Google, Facebook turn innovation into “fast food”. They have new products every quarter and give their products a title of “all new”. How many parts of their products are new? Maybe the only thing new is name because these enterprises only use the concept of innovation not the substance of innovation.

On the contrary, the true innovations in Bell Labs have a huge difference.  From my perspective, time is the most critical element in innovation. Roman was not built in a day. Innovations are a spark of thought but before the spark, it needs long-time accumulation and incubation. For instance, the invention of the laser can be dated to 1958, and the first DVD which had a laser appeared in 1995. It take almost 40 years to make the innovation Bell Labs came out into business. The time has an undeniable effect on innovations.
 

It is easy to understand that companies put profit on the first place. Indeed, innovation is the best way to make profit. For large-scale companies, they have enough money but don’t have enough patience. If more companies would pay more time not more money, they will achieve the true innovations like Bell Labs did.

Journal 4

In Jon Gertner’s article” True Innovation”, it is reporting what makes Bell Labs outstanding in the technology industry. Mervin Kelly, the chairman of the board of Bell Lab, has brought unique philosophy and approaches to run the company. For example, “move deliberately and build things” serves as a base of his belief. Building on that, architechtural, aspirational, organizational, freedom of time and trust are the key factors are the key factors put “institute of creative technology” into practice.

It is unbelievable to hold a slow-down philosophy to manage a technological company in a fast pace society. Interesting enough is that Mr. Kelly take an opposite value of motto of these: fast and breaking it down. It take strong courage to stabilize the business and to persuade the workers and member of the shareholders to believe what he believes.

Personally, I am highly amazed with the philosophy of freedom and trust because that is one thing I can never be sure of. Freedom is a desire of each individual: a child wants to be free from parenting, students want to be free from tests and assignments, labors wants to be free from working days, etc. It was mentioned that he assigned a project of the transistor over two years before the product was brought up. Two years? I bet no one would dare to risk the business in this way, consuming without profit for two years. Consequently, that will lead to another issue of trust. If I were Mr. Kelly, I would probably send a spy to monitor of what they were actually doing; and confrontation might be unavoidable as well.

I am truly amazed Bell Lab turns out to be its excellence. There must something about Mr. Kelly’s ideas towards his value of business, which I would say: trailblazing vision.

Journal 4

In Jon Gertner' s article (2012) “True Innovation,” he argues what is the true innovation. He wants to use Bell Labs as an instance to show the difference between itself with other prevail technology companies. Especially, he concluded Bell Labs could invent so many startling innovations, because it sticks to its firm mottoes. The leader of Bell Labs believed architectural, pure scientific understanding; aspiration, organizational and the inventive time are the important elements of seeking harmony and balance in the process of creations. The true innovation should not seek profits; it should pursue the understanding of technology and impact to society.

 For Bell Labs, I’m not supposed that the way Bell Labs works is good for business. I think the aspirational and organizational will good for the innovation business. It can get more profit from creating new productions. However, the innovation is not making more money merely. The ultimate purpose is making people more efficiency and convenience, so I agree the last two philosophies of Kelly- freedom and time. These two approaches can find out a new and entire difference technology. If we only focus on profit that this innovation bring, there are only the inventions what used less time and what can bring maximum profits. That is not true meaning of innovation yet. These philosophies not only suit the development of science, but also matching with art and academic. As we give up bother about time and advocate freedom. It will create a colorful art and academic. That is why the difference makes that area more wonderful. In the Renaissance Period, all people only wan to spend their time on how to create a new painting or a new article, their idea was freedom and unconstrained. So in the period, the art and academic are thriving.

That is why I said the freedom and times are important. They will make them to be the truly innovation, art and academic. They will make them colorful and wonderful.

Journal 4

In Jon Gertner’s article (2.25.2012) “True Innovation,” he states that the culture of innovation is very important for America. He compares the Bell Lab with many other companies. Then the author introduces Mervin Kelly, the chairman of Bell Lab. Mervin Kelly run the lab perfectly.

I think the way that Bell Lab works is good for a business. The lab researches something that will be needed in the future, so that the researcher could spend more time on innovation. Business will be benefit by these innovations. Many companies could supply much more products for us.

Mr. Kelly believed that freedom was crucial, especially in research. He gave his researchers not only freedom but also time. I think his philosophy about research is very useful. When Researcher does some research, it will need much more time than we predict. If Researcher wants to get an ideal result, researcher must have enough time. Researcher can’t get an actual result in hurry. Another thing that is very important is freedom. The researcher needs to check every result that is possible. They can’t be restricted by many demands. Freedom is a necessary element to research activity.

I think this philosophy work will work in some science research. Science experiment is a hard process during researching. After thousands of experiments, Scientist might get an actual result that seems reasonable. To make sure the result is reliable, they need huge time work on it. 

Journal#4

In Jon Gertner’s(Feb.25,2012) article ”True Innovation,” he states that today’s innovation in America is not the true innovation. Firstly he introduces some of those great contributions Bell Labs made to the whole world. Then he tells the reason why Bell Labs could make these achievements. Finally he says that people today in America should learn from history and make a real innovation.

It is hard to judge if the way Bell Labs works is good or bad for a business, because it somewhat depends on what the business is and what goals the runners want to achieve. Let us focus on time, one specific part of Kelly’s philosophy. Is it an essential element in a business? Probably. If we roughly divide all the business into two groups based on their history, we have the olds one that people have been doing for decades or even longer, such as restaurants and car wash, as well as the new ones that have a history of ten years or less, such as smartphones. For the former ones, I do not think lots of time would make sense. Considering their relatively long history, what could have been done have been done, so it is unnecessary to spend plenty of time trying to have something new. However, as for the latter ones that are so young that you can even feel the beating heart of them, people have to donate time to discover the numerous potential possibilities hidden beneath them. Another kind of business I can think of that acquires time is medical industry, as it takes plenty of time to do experiments to get those important statistics.

Journal 4

In Jon Gertner’s article “True Innovation (2012),” he states that Bell Labs, which changed the world a lot in science and technology, is the symbolism of true innovation in America. Mervin Kelly, the man who captured the culture of creativity at Bell Labs, had two elements to make the place perfect, one was architecture and the other was aspirational. He made the Bell Lab well organized and let scientists there have access to true freedom which helps ensuring them enough time to work on the projects they are interested in.

However, I hold the belief that the way Bell Lab works is not good for a business. As is known to all, running a business is much more than individual work. Instead of working alone, everyone in the organization have to work together as a team. I have to admit that the scientists there are true genius in the world, and it is true that Bell Lab has already made a large number of inventions and discoveries, but I am not sure if the organization has made full use of its resources. As was mentioned in the article, Bell Lab not only provide researchers with freedom, but also time. This kind of method seems persuasive which can guarantee researchers’ passion to work, but this also might made people absent minded and lack of targets. If all the people at Bell Lab focus on the same thing, maybe they can make more changes to the world. As far as I am concerned, the way Bell Lab works might be a good approach for rocket scientists who devote all themselves to the field they are interested in. But this philosophy can never be a good solution for normal people who work in a common organization. 

In Jon Gertner’s article “True Innovation,” he states the importance of being innovative by introducing Bell lab as an example. First, he said that Bell lab did a great job in innovation. Second, he gave us a successful example of Mervin Kelly, who is in charge of the innovative activities in the lab. In a conclusion, he made a comparison between Bell and some other commercial companies.

Personally, I agree with what Mervin believes. I think that is what innovation all about and that’s a good way for a company to do innovation work. The things or concept he insists are: architectural, aspirational, and organizational. These are the basic idea for a company to go well. If it doesn’t have any architectural stuff, there is no basement for the innovation to set. If there are no aspirational there won’t be any ideas come up. And also, if there is no organizational order for people to follow, too much innovation element won’t get well connected and well used.

I think, this philosophy work for most of the companies. Mostly technology company with great competitions would need this kind of qualities to support them to organize all the things.

journal 4

Summary

In John Gertner’s article “True Innovation,”he clarified the significance of innovation,and make lots of cases with bell labs when he worked in bell labs. On the other hand,he make some contrast between bell labs and other commerce company in manage and develop,he is very appreciate for Mr.Kelly,and give a prefect apprise to him,eventually,he have analysis the successful value between company and bell labs.

I agree with the theory of writer ideas that bell lab works is good for a business,the reason is very brief,efficient of bell labs is worth for every company to study or think deeply.especially Mr.Kelly’s word,time is important for us,if we have time ,we can do lots of things,the second reason is bell labs is comfortable for engineer to work ,there is no pressure in heart in every researchers.please try to imagine,if every company have this circumstance or pheromone,the capacity and efficiency will be developed.

So i agree with a specific part philosophy that more fast and break things by Kelly,we do anything must have a accurate mind and action,time can be squeeze by us. For example you can write a sentence by one minute,also ten minutes,but the different means is the former can do ten sentences,he can do more works,he is more suit live in this society. So the theory of bell labs is suit for some company in specially atmosphere.

I think last question is particle.labs is different for company,so other ways maybe make company uncomfortable. But the efficient is suitable for any team.

journal #4

John Gertner’s article “True Innovation,” he introduce the Bell Labs and compare the Bell Labs with other commercial company on innovation.

Firstly, the author emphasize the importance of innovation and point out the great performance of Bell Labs in innovation.

Then the author shows how Mervin Kelly, the one who is most responsible for the culture creativity runs the labs.

At last, the author compares the Bell Labs and other commercial company on innovation. 

After reading the Kelly’s philosophy for Bell Labs, it seems reasonable that they have so many magnificent innovation. They have enough income and enough time to accomplish all their ultimate aim and they have many smart and experienced genius work together. The accomplishment they have achieved will be a huge technological leaps for all human beings.

However, if we apply all these philosophy to business, this company may go into bankruptcy instantly. The first policy of a commercial company is to get profit, which means they have to use limited investment to gain profit as soon and much as possible. While the innovation itself will not lead to profit, only when make the innovation into product, it will help to get money. All of this is just the small technological steps compared with the innovation which is called huge leaps.

The characteristics showing above determine the company’s technology companies and the commercial companies impossible to use the exactly same philosophy, however, some of which can be learned from Bell Labs to commercial companies. Thinkers and doers under one roof, which means mixing together on one project with all involved staff together to communicate and help each other to make the project into real. Thinkers and doers always have different version on the same issue. Doers always feel mad with thinkers that they make the product to complicated to finish, while thinkers always unhappy with the doers’ works not follow their mind. If they can communicate on time, the efficiency will promoted a lot, in which way, the commercial company can gain more profit.

Its not only for the commercial company, all kinds of business project involved more than one person should communicate efficiently to avert the unnecessary lost. Effectively communication is very important for us. This philosophy can be applied to all area.

Summary

In Marcelo Gleiser’s article” Is an Identical Copy You, You?” he states it is impossible that existing identical people and people give up instinctive reaction in terms of a copy of himself or herself.

Journal 3

It is awful that I saw myself not in mirror but in reality. However, as Marcelo Gleiser said, it is impossible to construct an “identical copy” of myself. Moreover, I do not think an identical copy of myself would actually be myself.

Admittedly, we can get another ourselves by technology, for example cloning, genetic modified organism. In some regard, the copy resembles the host just in appearance, but taking mind and emotion into consideration, there is a big gap between a person produced in lab and the person grown up in reality, for environment around people varies; that is, environment is another important factor that shapes people after people come to this world.  

As for the second question, I am absolutely reluctant to live with the copy because I have to share everything I own with him. In addition, it is unavoidable that he will affect my daily life. If we live together, we are more likely to become very similar with each other. I am scared that one day I will be the substitute of him rather than he is my identical copy.