The new tin-foil hats could be... shiny glasses?

The government is watching, your boss is watching and your friends are helping them. Every time someone takes your picture and posts it to Facebook or wherever it gets posted on social media some sort of facial recognition software is watching. Pictures are scanned and attempt to automatically tag you when your face is recognized in a picture and that makes it easier for people to watch you and know what you've been or are currently doing.

So for all the tin-foil hat types out there a solution may be on the horizon. AVG (the same AVG that makes the anti-virus software that Stevens puts on our laptops) has been experimenting with glasses that will mess up facial recognition software. The glasses currently have infrared LEDs for messing with a camera's light filter and a reflective coating to combat flash photography, both of these aspects concentrated around your eyes should mess up facial recognition software pretty bad.

The glasses are currently a prototype and different types of cameras produce varied results and there probably will not be a consumer product very soon. But is there something more behind this? Is the automatic facial recognition the real enemy? Judging by the pictures in the article I link to the glasses will not completely obscure your face, in fact it hardly seems to. So even if it does beat the automatic tagging it will not stop people from recognizing you in pictures, and it will not stop your friends from manually tagging you.

What is so wrong about being tagged though? Being tagged in photos lets your friends see the pictures of you. This is probably a good time to check your privacy settings, make sure you know who can see what about you. Also, it's probably a good time to check who you are “friends” with and why. If you are “friends” with your boss ask yourself why and if you really want him or her to be able to see pictures of you the same as your real friends.

Now there will always be exceptions to the situation I have suggested, but the basic idea is the same and will be valid for everyone. If you have something embarassing or incriminating that you want to hide from people, the internet is probably not the best place for it. But if you really want to put it on the internet (or if your friend did without your permission) then you should make sure you know who will be able to see it. All of this goes for future employment situations too, some people feel the need to look you up either at some point in your selection process for a job (and sometimes for good reason, security jobs should definitely be filled by trustworthy people) but if there is something that should not be seen then it either should not be on the internet or should be locked behind some privacy settings.

The glasses are a really neat idea, but they will not make you invisible, and to the real people who can recognize you, they will probably make you look pretty goofy too (depending on the setting of course).

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/01/avg-invisibility-specs/

Google+ is a failure?

Google+ is a very complex social networking platform, consisting of many features. The fascinating fact about Google+ is that nobody seems to like it. It's reported to have over 2 billion profiles, but fewer than 6 million accounts show activity. How could a social network that offers so many services be so unsuccessful? An interesting fact of this mishap is that Google refuses to outwardly speak of its defeat. It is however, pretty obvious that Google has given up on Google+. Google is stripping Google+ of many of it's popular features, and offering them as separate services.

When Google first launched Google+, it was obvious that their aspirations for the software were high. They tried to mimic so many of today's popular software services, and smash them all together. They acquired Yelp, created hangouts, and even allowed users to post status updates, like Facebook and Twitter. In my opinion, this is the main reason why Google+ has been a failure thus far. When looking at the more popular social networks today, they all have a unique aspect that "keeps them in demand". When you want to look at photos, you go on Instagram. When you want to let all your friends about something dumb you just did, you send a tweet on Twitter. What aspect of Google+ "keeps them in demand"? The answer is nothing.

Today I spent some time on Google+ just to give it a shot. First of all, The interface is rather confusing. I found the home page to be extremely bloated. The drop down on the left is overfilled with features. The update stream looks like a cheaper version of Facebook. One thing that other successful social networks offer is their ability to keep the users entertained. I got bored using Google+ in about 15 minutes. Don't get me wrong, some of the offered features are very good. Hangouts, for example, is one of the best digital communication systems available. Google should figure out how to integrate these programs into Google services that people readily use, like Gmail. Yes, you can click two icons and you're brought to hangouts, but having everything offered on one page is much less cumbersome.

I am a huge fan of Google, but Google+ just doesn't cut it for me. Google should continue to develop services, just like they always have. Their user friendly tools are amazing and they integrate extremely well with everyday life. Unfortunately, social networking is not included in that.



http://qz.com/354015/google-proving-it-still-hasnt-figured-out-social-it-will-strip-google-for-parts/

Everything on the Internet Doesn’t Have to be True: an age-old argument influencing a new idea

The article that inspired this post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/03/02/google-has-developed-a-technology-to-tell-whether-facts-on-the-internet-are-true/

DISCLAIMER: The statement that makes up the title of the article, “Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true”, is ironically (and hilariously) false.  I’ll explain in the post.

Not everything on the internet is true.  This is one of the first things children are told when they are introduced to the internet.  People post misinformation on the internet all the time, whether they don’t know what they’re talking about but want to sound smart, or they just want to misinform people just because they think it’ll be funny.  Sometimes, people online post misinformation just to get attention; this is especially true with many news outlets, whose writers will lie in the very titles of their articles just to get more people to read what they have to say.  There’s an immediate example the form of the article I chose to base this post on: the title of the article is “Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true”, but in the body of the article, they immediately acknowledge that it’s “100 percent theoretical: It’s a research paper, not a product announcement or anything equally exciting”.  With that example of my point aside, however, the article (and the research paper that it mentions) brings up an interesting prospect.

In the research paper, a team of computer scientists at Google proposed a new method of ranking search results.  This new method would be based on the factual accuracy of the web page, as opposed to its popularity, and its inner workings are detailed in the article.  This is an interesting prospect: to be able to distinguish websites containing accurate factual information from those filled with lies would definitely help people come up with more accurate and reliable Google searches.  This would be a boon for people who use Google for research, and for anyone who wants factual information.

But it wouldn’t be without flaws, and at any rate, it’s probably a long way off.  This sort of filtering and identification process would require a massive database for cross-referencing information.  And then, of course, there’s the matter of minute details: small, barely noticeable points hidden in blocks of text.  Barely noticeable, that is, unless someone’s actually reading the page in depth.  Depending on how much detail there is on the webpage, there can be so many words, so many ways those words can be used, and so many things that they can mean depending on context, I just don’t believe it’s possible that every detail on every page can be verified.  That probably isn’t entirely necessary; Google’s theoretical truth-finder should be cross-referencing keywords and headline words, and should help show people the most truthful results based on those things.  But the point is, if such a system is put in place, there’s no way it’d be completely foolproof.

The Trials of the Geek Girl

Girls and women have always been into stereotypically geeky things. We've always been reading comics, playing video games, studying computers, all of it. Maybe not all of us, just as not all men are interested in football, but geeky women exist, and we have existed as long as these mediums have been there for people to enjoy.
Fun fact: women were the first computer programmers. Besides Ada Lovelace, who was the first computer programmer, the job of a "computer" in the 40s was largely a female profession: the job required mathematical calculations to be done by hand. When machines were invented to perform these calculations, the human computers took over the job of programming them. Back then, hardware was valued over software, so men in the industry left the "unimportant" job to women, but when the industry shifted to focus on software, women were ousted from the positions they'd already occupied for years. Ironically, the shift was a result of the invention of the COBOL programming language, invented by a woman: Grace Hopper.
That tangent aside, nowadays, if a woman, particularly a teenager, expresses interest in comics or games, she is rejected by many members of that community. Accusations of just liking these things for the attention, or not truly knowing the inner details of whatever thing she likes, whereas a male geek wouldn't have to justify his preferences. It's as though there's some sort of geek cred bar exam that only women have to pass.
I will never understand the sort of thought process that leads people to think that this is an okay way of behaving. First of all, if someone is trying to do something for attention, who cares? Accusing them of doing so is, in fact, giving them attention. That aside, what is the point of actively trying to keep people out of this space? Shouldn't you want to expand a community that focuses on this sort of media in order to foster discussion and to produce even  more media?
I do not at all think that people with this sort of mindset are a majority, but nonetheless, this sort of state of mind bothers me. I strongly believe that people should be able to enjoy whatever they want without fear of backlash from within the community in which they are participating, so attempting to oust someone because they aren't "really" interested is absolutely abhorrent to me.

Solar Powered Streets Instead?

       I remember reading an article so similar to this a while back, and I'm so glad I found it again.  In Sagle, Idaho, there's a 53 year old electrical engineer named Scott Brusaw who thinks he has a solution to driving in bad weather conditions.  He thought of an idea for a solar powered road made from strong glass instead of asphalt or concrete.
       These glass pannels would be pieced togehter and would collect energy from the sun.  It could display lines, warnings, and other messages on the roads without having to go over with trucks and paint.  It would also eliminate the need for a lot of snow removal equipment, including plows and salt trucks.  If these roadways become big across our country, it is believed that it could "eventually generage clean electricity around the world, eliminating the need for fossil fuels and saving the planet from global climate change" (Patterson, CNN)
       There was another idea across the country similar to this but a little bit more of a simple concept.  Instead of glass, they are trying to develop stronger, heat-absorbing pavements with half-inch pipes filled with fluids that resists freezing in each of them.  This invention would pay for itself in energy production and savings in just 6 years.
       It is also speculated that these roads will be much safer as we would get sufficient traction while supporting the weight of the car.  It would be costly, and it would definitely be a huge change compared to what we are so accustomed to, but I think this could be a huge investment that we should consider.  It would be saving money, and helping a lot of people commute to where they need to go despite what the weather throws at us.
       Would we want this type of technology?  Or would this be taking it too far?  As always, where do we draw the line?

 http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/01/19/smart.roads/

Out with tradition, in with innovation

     Options will always be something the consumer is open to; different colors, variations, designs, specifications. When you go to McDonalds, you come to the conclusion that you want a Big Mac not so much as because you love the Big Mac but simply because it will fill you more than the healthy caesar salad. We have that same mentality with technology. We believe that more memory in a computer will make us happier and so we shell out the extra money for that two terabytes of storage versus that skimpy one terabyte hard drive. We want bigger phones or better yet, bigger phablets, so we can read our books casually at the beach whenever we do end up going to the beach. Oh and we want more power in our cars, because we need to be able to safely pass that Prius thats always lingering around the neighborhood. More has become directly related to better.
     Just last year, Western Digital created the first 10 terabyte hard drive; yes that 10000 gigabytes to fill with whatever you please. 6 terabytes was simply not cutting it from Seagate. I understand publicity factors such as wanting to be the best and most innovative in the market since that is was creates breakthroughs through competition. But that much memory? Upon reading through the comments of the article, even some of the technologically inclined people say that it is a bit too much for them. I purchased my iMac in 2010 with 1 terabyte of storage and it has yet to reach half of it's capacity. This is mostly due to using services like Dropbox, Google Drive or Snapfish to keep files out of the computer that I don't immediately need and it saves me a ton of space.
     More does not always equal better though because as many know, SSD's which generally store less information than HDD's are much faster to load and run a computer with and so many people, now being able to understand how hard drives work, are purchasing computers with SSD's rather than HDD's because they get it, they finally get it that more is not always really more.
     Ford Motor Company, renowned for its American muscle, has left some of its grassroots. During the 60's we saw prime examples of Ford opting for more cubic inches of displacement on examples like their Cobra Jet and Windsor engines and even more recently, their GT with a nice rumble of American V8. But times are changing and for the new Ford GT, they're adopting a V6 with turbos on it. Sure, it will probably be faster than the old one, but it will never have the same tune of 'Murica.
     Android recently released their new software called Lollipop, which is supposed to fix issues with their old software and of course attract more customers. Androids have always been about customizing and colorful layouts and apps that pop out at you but they've played it conservatively this time. Their layout takes pages from the concept of minimalism which is something that Apple has tried to stay true to for the most part in its design. Why mimic ideas from Apple when they hold the largest OS market? Because you want to get all the Apple users on your side.
     As technology progresses, we are seeing both awareness by customers in terms of technology increase, shifts in customer trends, and breaking of traditions from companies because the old is just not working anymore. People want to move quicker with their lives and their money goes to whoever can do that for them and to if it means breaking out of character for some of these companies, then that's what they will do to obtain more people on their side.



http://www.extremetech.com/computing/189813-western-digital-unveils-worlds-first-10tb-hard-drive-helium-filled-shingled-recording

https://social.ford.com/content/fordsocial/en/articles/autoshow/all-new-ford-gt-sets-new-standard-for-ford-innovation.html

http://www.knowyourmobile.com/mobile-phones/android-lollipop/22329/android-lollipop-vs-android-kitkat-new-features-material-design

The Bionic Hand

The Bionic Hand

http://www.wsj.com/articles/patients-in-new-study-are-able-to-use-thoughts-to-control-bionic-hands-1424826002

This past week news of a revolutionary bionic hand was released by the Wall Street Journal.  Contained within the article was information regarding a new device combined with an existing method to restore the use of an individual's limb.  Three Austrian men were taken and used to perform tests.  Within the tests the men had their damaged nerves replaced by using nerves from the leg.  Using the signals that were then able to be transmitted through these nerves the subject's hand was amputated and replaced with the new "bionic" hand.  The subjects were tested prior to amputation with a hybrid hand to ensure amputation was not unwarranted.

The amputation of a limb should never be taken lightly but what happened next was nothing short of a revolutionary feat.  Following the amputation and replacement of the hand the subjects were able to use their new hands once more.  After not being able to use their limbs for 5-20 years, depending on the subject, this was a remarkable and life changing device.

I know many of you are thinking "who cares?" or "okay... So aren't there already other prosthetic hands?"  The answer is most certainly yes there are other options for limb replacement.  However, most prosthetic arms or hands are very difficult to make close to a real one.  Some problems are signal transduction, precision, and issues pertaining to delay time for the signals to be processed by the robot.  To compensate for signal transduction issues some devices have been developed to receive signals directly from a chip implanted in the brain.  These however are only bio-compatible for maximum approximately two years then must be replaced.  In addition the chip cannot be replaced an infinite number of times.  The software used in the devices is extremely sensitive due to the very small signals that the devices receive from the nerves or brain.  Moreover the reaction time of most devices is very slow which is somewhat inadequate for the everyday person's daily tasks.

When I saw this prosthetic it seems like it has some promise.  It looks like it would be a viable option for people to consider if they were in a similar position as the men the tests were performed with.  In the video provided it seemed as if the new hand had fixed some of the problems I have mentioned.  Having said that, is this the best solution that we can make? Or could we try to make a procedure to replace the nerves to make the biological hand work again?  Do we rely too much on exterior computers and such to fix these problems?  I think this is a great use of our resources and that it could solve many people's problems and give new life to some.  However I think we must be wary of the efficacy of this device and see if it works for a larger pool of people before we start transforming into Inspector Gadget.