Benefits and Problem with Globalization

Today, the world is connected through quick telecommunications. American doesn’t feel as far as it used to be back in Josun Dynasty than it does today. People can be physically apart, but feel grouped at the same time. As the term globalization suggest, it means to bring individuals or each nations to a global network as a whole. While some people have positive perspectives on globalization, some have negative perspectives on it. One outstanding benefit of globalization from the point of view of a university student as a consumer is the availability of highly efficient products (reasonable price, and high satisfaction and utility) (Pettinger, 2012). This can be explained through my past experience. I used a product from a Korean facial product brand called Lanoa. The positive changes it made to my face was stunning, so despite the overwhelming price, I continued to use it. However, recently, I found a brand called Clinique. After using products from Clinique for a month, I have come to a conclusion than I will be shfting my consumption from Lanoa to Clinique because it is slightly cheeper and works better than Lanoa. Like this, globalization has allowed me to make broader and better choices.

Stepping aside from the economic perspective and moving on to cultural perspective, it is remarked that globalization has created serious problem for conserving cultures and traditions (Ikerd). Because the interaction between each nation is very active, their cultures and traditions may get shared and possibly blend in with one another. This is what created the word “melting pot”, meaning that each culture is blending in with each other and creating a single culture and community. This can be a problem for those who are conservative about this kind of issue. Some people just want to keep their colors for memory, pride etc.


Works Cited

Ikerd, J. (n.d.). The Real Costs of Globalization. Economics.Help. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from

Pettinger, T. (2012, November 27). Costs and Benefits of Globalisation. Economics.Help. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from


Digital Private Information :: Who’s responsibility is it?

Individuals or organizations shouldn’t be responsible for reporting any digital security failures on an assumption that the business of an individual or an organization is affected financially. If it wasn’t for the money and them losing their customers, organizations and individuals wouldn’t feel a need for digital private information leakage of their customers. But without such assumptions, they will report digital private information leakage, otherwise they will either be sued or lose customers. In my opinion, I believe such action taken is the norm for all situations regarding digital private information leakage.

Apart from the clear cutting and square world of financial and law perspective, I believe that as a paying customer, I have the right to know if my private information has been accessed. Being a customer simply does not mean purchasing; the transaction takes place because the customer has credit for the person or an organization to an extent. So by making purchase, you’re saying you believe the merchant. And because the customer has provided their faith, they should have the right to know if their private information has been accessed in return.

Anyhow, the untold private information accessing by organization happens all the time (Dorsey, 2011). With this in mind, a rational behavior of customers would be cutting down on online shopping; however, my action will be different. My behavior simply wouldn’t change. I make on and off-line purchases from large organizations mostly, but it is inevitable to not make purchases through them, so I just have to ‘suck it up’ and try to be positive and appreciative about the benefits of comfort efficiency it gives. My behavior and though would not change but on one condition. If I am reported that my private information is being used by someone and that I am prone to future damages such as financial, and defamation, I will have to cut severely down on online shopping (Dorsey, 2009).

Works Cited

Dorsey, Michael. “Leakage of Private Information from Popular Websites is Common, New Study Finds.” . Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2 June 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <;.

Dorsey, Michael. “Online Social Networks Leak Personal Information to Third-Party Tracking Sites.” . Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <;.



Illegal Downloading

There are tons of illegal downloading websites on the internet, Torrent being one of the most well-known of among them. The problem with web contents downloading sites such as Torrent is that they sometimes, or most of the times provide copyrighted contents for free or at an unreasonably low price. It seems everyone is gaining what they want except for one group, the providers, or the ones that have rights to the contents they have contributed in producing. Therefore illegal downloading is not a victimless crime; it has a victim, the producers. It ignores the right of the producers to claim their share for providing the contents they have produced. In simple terms, the producers are not receiving money for what they have created.

Illegal downloading is something people should stop, however it is not because illegal downloading is an act of stealing, but an act of copying. To be exact, there is slight difference between the two. If illegal downloading was considered stealing, it would make the producers of contents worse off. This is not an accurate description of what producers go through. Their work is not stolen, but copied to other users for less or no cost. This would grant lesser income for the producers than how much it would have been if their product wasn’t copied, but they will still gain for the contents they have created. Nevertheless, stealing or copying, I believe that illegal downloading is an immoral act.

Davis, M. (2012, June 10). Illegal downloading a victimless crime. Retrieved from

DeGroote, M. (2012, April 111). Digital piracy wrong but not ‘theft,’ professor says. Retrieved from

MOOC :: Sebastian Thrun

MOOC is a massive open online source (“What is mooc,” 2013). Through quick development of internet, learning online has become possible. This method of learning can be effective for a limited set of learners. I believe that all learnings require social interaction and a certain level of environment for learning. After all, most if not all, people are going to use what they have learned for the society and with the people of society. If there is no face-to-face interaction involved in learning, A person may not have the ability to communicate about academics even though he/she has the knowledge just because they lack experience in interacting with others. After all, humans are social animal and sitting alone at the computer learning is not going to help people socialize. Also, many students or learners may fail to set up the learning environment for themselves. Because there is zero or low presense of order and dictatorship, online learning users can easily get distracted and end up wasting time doing something else in front of computer.

When Sebastian Thrun found Udacity, he said “we have found the magic combination for online learning” and “in the future there will be only 10 universities.” After Udacity’s publish and run throughs in high educational facilities, he changed his mind and said “We were on the front pages of newspapers and magazines, and at the same time, I was realizing, we don’t educate people as others wished, or as I wished. We have a lousy product…It was a painful moment.” According to ELEARNSPACE, “he put his fate too early to Venture Capital funding” and now the company aims to make revenue and not for the innovation of their technology (gsiemens, 2013).

Works Cited

gsiemens. (2013, Nov 15). The failure of udacity. Retrieved from

What is mooc. (2013, Aug 01). Retrieved from