Since one has discussed what others have viewed for technology, then it is imperative to make it as practical as possible. Here is the good for this particular issue. The education system transformed. According to the Washington Post, "their statistic states that 70,000 students just access their class online thru the nearest Internet-enabled gadget they have" (Stanislav, 2011). For example, anything phone related will stay near him or her at all times. "They can enroll through the school online, interact with their classmates through email and chatrooms, listen to their teacher's lecture via podcast, etc." (Johnson S., 2006). This also does include that of submitting assignments and tests as well as getting grades (Johnson D.G., 1998).

Education is not limited anymore with distance, neither does finance. Since the class is online, it eliminated the need for classrooms and other infrastructures, resulting to fewer expenses for schools. They can accept as many enrollees as they can manage by customizing the schedule. If the students get stuck, the teachers will assist them online or just record the lectures they have made (Stanislav, 2011).

Now it is important to discuss the bad and ugly sides of technology. This is important and worth mentioning because one becomes more self-aware through this process. Anything that was a new development became obsolete, especially anything that was one-year-old. As a result, they have to come up with upgrades as well as updates in order that issues do not arise in the future (Ahmad, 2011).

A number of studies have showed that by staying on a computer for an hour, one has a change in their brain cognitively. Somehow a person's thinking changes when on the computer for this length of time (Ahmad, 2011). "We have become more faster, more upbeat, and multi-tasker" (Ahmad, 2011). This means more dependency on technology, and that one cannot live without it.

One needs to discuss medicine and technology. "We don't have any good way of determining who should receive various medical treatments and diagnostic interventions" (Phelps, 2010, p.1). In essence, much confusion is present when it comes to those who need treated and how to do so in a proper manner (Chan & Lau, 2004). This is also true geographically (Ferguson, 2007).

For example, when looking at each location, one will notice that there are significant differences in how it is done on a daily basis, especially with technology. This is the case when it comes to individuals who do have insurances vs. those who do not. Much could get said about this particular set-up in the United Statse because of the lack of consistency (Dale, 1999).

In Boston as well as New Haven care is considered excellent with their technology and services (Far To Here, 2009). The people there do not question the quality provided to them; however, medicare patients located in Boston is twice as much compared to that of New Haven. Despite the cost differnce, not much is diverse about the outcomes of the matter with the patient (Hailpern & P., 2006). This demonstrates that those in New Haven are deprived good healthcare, but this is not the case (Greystone, 2010).

The upscale spending patterns begin at the primary-care level. Primary-care physicians in high-spending areas are more likely to make specialist referrals, order more expensive diagnostic tests (even with minimal potential value), and recommend more-frequent return visits. Even within a single region (and controlling for patient illness characteristics), doctors'