The power of internet has grown so rapidly over the years that, traditional thick books could very well be the next thing to have its "soft" twin. In a few years time, you could be carrying as many as 100 thousand-page books everywhere you go. Yet, you will not break a sweat for this is the strength and dominance of the computer in our lives. While it is true that e-books is more convenient in many ways, i do not think that the benefits would outweigh that of traditional reading methods. Yes, they are easy to distribute and have extremely low production costs. However, i do not foresee a takeover of googlary over our libraries. By doing so would mean losing the sentimental value and joy of reading, which is in fact the whole rationale of a book.
Traditional books are often kept as a collection, the pride of the owner. E books on the other hand, are stored in an expensive device, say a PDA or laptop. Some may argue that e books could also be part of one's collection. However, much to their dismay, analysts have revealed that e books will constantly be inaccessible, since future electronic devices will prove incompatible. Furthermore, paper has proved to be able to last one for his lifetime, whereas the rapid development of computer systems will eventually kick e books out of contend. Hence, to take pride in one's book collection would mean forgoing the use of technology and reverting to the traditional reading methods, which is actually not inferior to begin with.
You may not buy my argument, but i am sure you would relish the advice of your family doctor. Doctors and opticians have repeatedly warned customers of the dangers of over-exposure to electronic devices. For many years and many more years to come, the screen glare and eyestrain had been and will continue to remain as the major concern for potential users of the e book. The resolution and lucidity of computer screens can never touch that of paper. You certainly will not want to have your eyes or your body treated for indecent exposure to the UV from screen. If you think you are saving on convenience, think again.
It may be wise to be ahead of digital times. However you can be sure it will not be the case for e books.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
HOTA
HOTA (Human Organ Transplant Act) refers to the law that covers the removal of any organ from the body of a dead person into the body a living person. In other words, when a patient passes away, his organs are immediately taken away to save the life of another. While I cannot agree more on how beneficial this system is to patients in need, I am against the act simply because it does not respect the opinion of the donor. The recent amendments to the Human Organ Transplant Act resulted in an uproar in Singapore, with the major change being that unless one opted out of this scheme, once declared “brain-dead”, his organs would be harvested to give others. Though the benefits of this act are undeniable, the way this act is packaged from top to bottom to me is unreasonable. The minister of health may be willing to donate all his organs, but can he speak for the rest?
First and foremost, the lack of basic information is what makes this act really unfair. You cannot expect just a few articles on the Straits Times to reach out to the masses. I for one am completely unaware of such an act till today. As a student, I understand how it feels to have my handphone confiscated and then to be accounted for that the school informed us the day before handphones are not allowed. If this act is not coming to light, then why should it be carried out? I do agree that HOTA is an excellent proposal, only however, if it is made known to everyone. Then again, how many people actually know of an opt-out form? I find it absolutely ridiculous to carry out this act without first informing the public.
Another flaw in HOTA is the certification of brain death. In the case of a brain death, his organs will be harvested to be given to others. While it is theoretically impossible for someone brain dead to revitalize, there are families who cling on to the bleak hope that a miracle will happen. It is painful to pull the plug on your loved ones, even crueller to watch helplessly at doctors extracting their organs. With HOTA in place, we can be absolutely sure the miracle will not happen; too bad if it was going to.
We do not live in a utilitarian state. We cannot evaluate the usefulness of an action just by the extra lives saved. By forcefully removing someone’s organs, it is a form of disrespect. Not to mention, if the deceased was against it. Instead of pushing people to opt out of this organ donation, why not encourage otherwise? A very feasible solution to a potential uproar over this issue in the future is to remove the act, then through the means of media, influence people to donate their organs when they pass away. Make them feel they are doing it for a good cause, then “opt-in” forms will start to flow in.
First and foremost, the lack of basic information is what makes this act really unfair. You cannot expect just a few articles on the Straits Times to reach out to the masses. I for one am completely unaware of such an act till today. As a student, I understand how it feels to have my handphone confiscated and then to be accounted for that the school informed us the day before handphones are not allowed. If this act is not coming to light, then why should it be carried out? I do agree that HOTA is an excellent proposal, only however, if it is made known to everyone. Then again, how many people actually know of an opt-out form? I find it absolutely ridiculous to carry out this act without first informing the public.
Another flaw in HOTA is the certification of brain death. In the case of a brain death, his organs will be harvested to be given to others. While it is theoretically impossible for someone brain dead to revitalize, there are families who cling on to the bleak hope that a miracle will happen. It is painful to pull the plug on your loved ones, even crueller to watch helplessly at doctors extracting their organs. With HOTA in place, we can be absolutely sure the miracle will not happen; too bad if it was going to.
We do not live in a utilitarian state. We cannot evaluate the usefulness of an action just by the extra lives saved. By forcefully removing someone’s organs, it is a form of disrespect. Not to mention, if the deceased was against it. Instead of pushing people to opt out of this organ donation, why not encourage otherwise? A very feasible solution to a potential uproar over this issue in the future is to remove the act, then through the means of media, influence people to donate their organs when they pass away. Make them feel they are doing it for a good cause, then “opt-in” forms will start to flow in.
National Service
While the rest of the children are so eager to grow up, Singaporean boys aren't. By saying this you know the side i am on. While it is indeed unfair to say so, i am certain there is the other fifth of a million boys who share the same sentiments. I for one, dread National Service. I ain't unfit. So are many of those who go overseas to skip National Service. But it is two wasted years of your life, you could see it that way. Hence, it is not surprising that throughout the years National Service was implemented, a significant number of people dodged national service.
For the many of us who dread it, we know one day we have to face it. The problem is with those who are persistent with their belief that NS is harmful and are already deciding which country to migrate to. The irony of this is many of the dodgers are in fact highly educated people. While the government tries so desperately to retain these local talent, National Service appears to be the stumbling block. A few years ago the government realized that relying only on foreign talent is not the way to go. Yet, the continuous reinforcing of the need to go National Service seems to be encouraging our young talents to continue their studies elsewhere. This problem of dodging has pushed the government to mete out even stiffer punishments, unwary that this might possibly backfire.
If going to jail is not a deterrence strong enough, what suits then? For a scholar, going to jail would mean a completely ruined future. The increase in intensity of the punishments hence serves no purpose at all. In fact, it deters those who are considering of coming back after spending years studying abroad. Perhaps, the only reason for such an action is to justify for those who endured the brutal training. But, is this what we want? Driving away talents and give an account to those who stayed?
Yes, I agree unreservedly that the rationale for this whole system is such that we have an army strong enough to prevent a possible invasion. However, if this were to stay, the government can get set to bid goodbye to more of our young citizens. I do not see a possible attack in the years to come, but if there were to be one, we can be sure we will not be fighting alone. While it is ridiculous to remove National Service entirely, an approach to reduce the number of dodging cases is to cut down its duration. I believe a full year of National Service is sufficient to provide a decent army, while instilling loyalty to the homeland. Only then, together with a lighter punishment, will we see a more productive system breeding strong, smart young men.
For the many of us who dread it, we know one day we have to face it. The problem is with those who are persistent with their belief that NS is harmful and are already deciding which country to migrate to. The irony of this is many of the dodgers are in fact highly educated people. While the government tries so desperately to retain these local talent, National Service appears to be the stumbling block. A few years ago the government realized that relying only on foreign talent is not the way to go. Yet, the continuous reinforcing of the need to go National Service seems to be encouraging our young talents to continue their studies elsewhere. This problem of dodging has pushed the government to mete out even stiffer punishments, unwary that this might possibly backfire.
If going to jail is not a deterrence strong enough, what suits then? For a scholar, going to jail would mean a completely ruined future. The increase in intensity of the punishments hence serves no purpose at all. In fact, it deters those who are considering of coming back after spending years studying abroad. Perhaps, the only reason for such an action is to justify for those who endured the brutal training. But, is this what we want? Driving away talents and give an account to those who stayed?
Yes, I agree unreservedly that the rationale for this whole system is such that we have an army strong enough to prevent a possible invasion. However, if this were to stay, the government can get set to bid goodbye to more of our young citizens. I do not see a possible attack in the years to come, but if there were to be one, we can be sure we will not be fighting alone. While it is ridiculous to remove National Service entirely, an approach to reduce the number of dodging cases is to cut down its duration. I believe a full year of National Service is sufficient to provide a decent army, while instilling loyalty to the homeland. Only then, together with a lighter punishment, will we see a more productive system breeding strong, smart young men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)