Vincent A Ronzano

This is a very interesting situation. I think that in my case, I can’t imagine myself needing a surgery that is so specific that a doctor thousands of miles away would have to do it. I think that this is an interesting concept that definitely has huge benefits in niche cases, such as rare, specialized surgeries or emergency situations, but I can’t see a situation where this takes over the status quo. I would be surprised if 30 years from now any more that 1-3% of surgeries are performed using this concept. This is because I know that the medical industry usually is reluctant to change, and I can imagine that many patients would be uncomfortable having their surgery done remotely when it is just a routine surgery. Overall, I’d be hesitant to use this but it does have a place in the future of hospitals. Thank you for sharing Vinnie!

This is a tricky situation. I personally wouldn’t sign up for a remote surgery at this point or be an early adopter. However, developing this technology is very relevant and important because this technology could be used for other applications. For this surgical application, I would be concerned about the multi-tasking of the person performing the surgery as well as the network connectivity. Are we at a point where internet connectivity is reliable enough that we can be under the knife for 3 hours without disruption. Another concern would be security protocols and infrastructure to support technology like this. What if someone was able to perform an attack during a surgery and cause harm to the patient, who is at fault or how do you protect against this? While this advance in technology is fascinating I am extremely skeptical and curious how one might consider all the implications to the connected systems. Great find!

I disagree with these employees because other companies would also provide similar technologies to U.S. military or other countries’ army. Thus, their reactions because of their personal feelings won’t change any thing. However, they make bad affects to the company’s operation. By the way, the military also use other products and services from Microsoft, such as Xbox controller : ) “US Navy submarines are getting Xbox 360 controllers to control their periscopes” https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16333376/us-navy-military-xbox-360-controller

I understand why the employees are upset. I do agree that the technology is going to exist whether it’s created by Microsoft or by another company/government.. It’s probably nearly impossible to work in the tech industry doing R&D and never create or improve anything that could be used for military purposes. The technology may be able to help US soldiers differentiate between enemies and non-combatants, or to recognize targets who may otherwise escape detection. It may be a truly positive development, and the technology might actually make the world safer. On the other hand, it is somewhat reminiscent of the Black Mirror episode “Men Against Fire”, which depicts a dystopian future where the US military uses a similar, albeit much more sinister and advanced, technology for horrific purposes. I think it will be interesting to see how companies navigate the technology sector as developments increasingly overlap between consumer and military applications.

I would have to disagree with Microsoft’s employees. I think the idea of the “HoloLens” and using AR for the military is a great idea to help prepare our American soldiers for war. If Microsoft doesn’t create this product for the US military, another company would. The “Hololens” and AR is supposed to help troops make a better decision to help protect our soldiers. I do think Microsoft should keep the contract with the US Military as well because this technology could help save American soldiers, I also think this technology would be more helpful than harm especially to new soldiers in this generation because the newer generation grew up with technology.

This is very interesting ethical conversation. I liked your point that it’s not only designed to kill people, but it’s more about it can save more people with the right people behind the HoloLens. I think that if the US military is using these glasses for good which they are and always should be instead of what terrorist do its ok. I can see where the employees are coming from but I think they should go along with the point on they are helping/saving more than killing people. I think that Microsoft should keep their contract because technology is becoming so important in todays world and the more exposure that these soldiers get the better off the world will be.