ECS 188 - Assignments to Date - Winter 2004
Homework Assignments
- Assignment 17. Due: Mon, Mar 15
Finish Schmidt! You are done.
- Assignment 16. Due: Wed, Mar 10
On page 209 of Schmidt the author says:
In the eyes of the professional, those with authority at worst lack intelligence or information;
he dare not admit to himself that those he serves may be smart and well-informed but simply have
different class interests--that is, he cannot risk admitting to himself that he has been hired
to serve interests that conflict with his own.
Explore, in an essay of a page or two,
two or three points of conflict that you might expect to arise between
the University of California and a professor, like me, who works for them.
Would you expect areas of value-centered professor/university conflict
to be very visible or prominent? Why?
- Assignment 15. Due: Mon, Mar 8
Read up to and including Chapter 13 of Schmidt.
- Assignment 14. Due: Wed, Mar 3
Finish up to and including Chapter 9 of Schmidt.
- Assignment 13.
Due: Mon, Mar 1
Finish through and including Chapter 7 of Schmidt.
- Assignment 12. Due: Wed, Feb 25
Finish Part I (pages 1-94; Chapter 1,2,3,4,5,6) of Schmidt.
- Assignment 11. Due: Wed, Feb 18
Read Barbour, Chapter 9 (you're done!!).
Start reading Schmidt. You will need to finish Part I (pages 1-94) within two weeks,
by Feb 25. I may give intermediate landmarks so that we can begin discussions on
Schmidt before that date.
- Assignment 10. Due: Wed, Feb 11
Read Barbour, Chapters 7,8.
- Assignment 9. Due: Mon, Feb 9
Read Barbour, Chapters 4,5
- Assignment 8. Due: Wed, Feb 4
Review old readings for midterm. Get a good night sleep.
- Assignment 7. Due: Mon, Feb 2
(7.1) Read Barbour, Chapters 3 and 6.
(7.2) Fill in the survey I passed out about the readings we've done from Ermann and Shauf.
(7.3) Write a 2-page essay motivated by the following quote from
Barbour, p. 42: ethical reflection must always include
self-criticism. I would like for people to exercise this advice and be self-critical:
try to identify ways in which you feel that you yourself have been falling
short as an ethical individual.
(I understand if you feel that what I ask is too
"personal" a topic. In that case, feel free to agree or disagree more abstractly (that is, more
"impersonally") about this statement of Barbour's.)
- Assignment 6. Due: Wed, Jan 28
Read Barbour, Chapter 2 (about 30 pages).
- Assignment 5. Due: Mon, Jan 26
Read Barbour, Preface and Chapter 1 (30 pages). Catch up on any reading you fell
behind in. (Nah, I'm sure that didn't happen.)
- Assignment 4. Due: Fri, Jan 23
Read Ermann and Shauf, Chapters 16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 (about 100 pages).
For the eight people chosen: prepare a 5-minute summary of your assigned chapter,
then lead the discussion of that chapter.
- Assignment 3. Due: Wed, Jan 21.
Read Ermann and Shauf, Chapters 10,11,12,13,14,15,17 (about 70 pages).
- Assignment 2.Due: Wed, Jan 14.
Reading: read about the therac-25 (about 40 pages).
(here is some further
information and analysis that you don't have to read).
Think about who all did what wrong.
Scenario search: I found the scenarios in Chapter 5 uninteresting because, in each case,
the ethical issues seemed too clear-cut; there was always a "right answer".
I suspect that real life doesn't work that way.
Your job is to either find,
recall, or make up (your choice) an "interesting" scenario.
It should deal with an ethical question and touch upon technology. It should be something
that you can describe in a few sentences (at most a two or three short paragraphs).
It should be unclear what is the "right" answer.
Write down the scenario (one page maximum) and come prepared
to discuss it in the light of the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
(bring Ermann and Shauf to class on Wednesday, or
bring a printout from the ACM website of their Code).
If your scenario is something you found on the web, feel free to quote it verbatim
(with proper attribution, of course).
- Assignment 1. Due: Mon, Jan 12.
Read Ermann and Shauf, Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 (about 70 pages).
Then choose one of these chapters and write a brief
critique of it, focusing on what seems wrong in the article.
One or two pages, nicely-written. Don't summarize the article; I can read just fine.
I don't really care what you say about the article, but
make it clear and well-reasoned, and don't bore me.
One suggestion: argue that utilitarianism (chapter 1) is a stupid theory.
Phil Rogaway's homepage