Are We Technology?

From my perspective, I feel this phrase from a source I came across gives an accurate answer to the question above.

According to the source,

"Cyborg, a compound word derived from cybernetics and organism, is a term coined by Manfred Clynes in 1960 to describe the need for mankind to artificially enhance biological functions in order to survive in the hostile environment of Space. Originally, a cyborg referred to a human being with bodily functions aided or controlled by technological devices, such as an oxygen tank, artificial heart valve or insulin pump. Over the years, the term has acquired a more general meaning, describing the dependence of human beings on technology. In this sense, cyborg can be used to characterize anyone who relies on a computer to complete their daily work."

From the above, there an indication to the fact that we are not technology itself.
The basic idea here is that to simply use technological device for biological functions, we have extended the usage to a complete reliance on these technologies. Consequently, everything about us seem to become technologised and we appear to live and behave as though we are technology.

Can A Robot Be Human?

It's quite amazing what the world is turning into.

Imagine a robot looking like a human being with the ability to think , reason and in some cases, give us some dancing steps.

One wonders what technology has made of us.

What Do We Mean By The Term Cyberspace?

Came across a definition of cyberspace which I kind of explains my view about cyberspace.

According to my source, "Cyberspace is a domain characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures. This term originates in science fiction, where it also includes various kinds of virtual reality experienced by deeply immersed computer users or by entities who actually exist inside computer systems."

A notable example of this is seen in the film - "The Matrix"

Is The News Still News If It Has Already been Told To Us By Someone Else?

Firstly, I see news as the dissemination of new pieces of information for public use and benefit(s). News deals with information, ideas, events, occasions from all works of life as the

N stands for the Northern part of the world
E stands for the Eastern part of the world
W stands for the Western part of the world and
S stands for the Southern part of the world

Most journalists agree that defining the term 'news' is quite a difficult task. However,one major factor deeply associated with news is the issue of time. News is a time dependent phenomenon.
In addtiton to this, I also see news as a media concept that deals with details.
A news story, although concise, yet must be very detailed in order to be regarded as news.

A scanty and shallow news information (first heard from an incomposed source) is as good as a fairy tale. On the other hand, a more detailed, information loaded and juicy news message will no doubt be regarded as a news message.

So, I feel that news is still news even if it has been told to us by over two people, as long as it is more detailed, more informative, and more educative than that which we may have previously heard.
Such type of news message, due to its nature, would always be relevant in the society.

More often than not, political news about past Presidents, Prime Ministers, political happenings (e.g 911 bomb blast in America) are news messages that have their relevance and still retain a form of freshness (because of its long lasting effects) in the minds of the audience.