The common thought in most of the world today is that technology simply progresses and we accept it and let it change the world around us. Therefore a consequent line of thought is that we have no choice but to accept technological change. Some people, however, see a lack of need for some technological advancements. Take the iPod or cell phone for example, some people are perfectly happy with their old music player, like a Walkman, or their old non-smartphone instead of giving in to the current iCraze. Some people don't see the need to have a phone that does everything a computer does since they may already have a computer at home. Therefore, a person or culture must first accept a technology before it can change the world they live in; and culture is able to adapt technology to meet its specific needs. According to Nye in his article “Technology Controls Us,” the term “impact” suggests that “machines relentlessly force change in society” (Nye 11). Many technology users see technology as something that, according to Nye's definition, impacts society without the consent of the population. However, Nye also states that communities have the choice to adopt powerful technology or resist it (Nye 2). Take the Mennonite and Amish cultures for example. Both of these cultures have refused to accept technologies because they do not want to risk giving up the quality of life and community they have created. In this case and others like it, technologies like smartphones, tablets and Facebook do not alter their lives as much as they alter the lives of those who have chosen to let them impact their lives. Sawyer wrote an article about his findings in the field of social computing. One of his findings states, “The design, implementation, and uses of ICTs have reciprocal relationships with the broader social context” (Sawyer 3). Applying this result to a