Encrypted Email: A New Hope

                The NSA’s metaphorical rampage over our rights and privacy expectations has only gotten worse as more documents are leaked to the public. Chief amongst the “victims” has been any expectation of privacy when using email. The founder of Lavabit, the encrypted email company Edward Snowden used before the service was forced to shut down, openly stated that if people knew what he knew about email they too would be fearful about using it. Silent Circle, a similar service, also shut down in an effort to avoid being forced to expose its users’ secrets. While all of this was going on, it seemed like any hope of regaining a modicum of privacy was non-existent. Luckily, the predictions appear to have been premature as efforts are ramping up to safeguard future internet users.

                Silent Circle and Lavabit, despite having shut down their respective operations, have joined forces to rebuilt email with privacy and security at its core. Called the DarkMail Alliance, it is a soon to be formed non-profit organization that would be in charge of maintaining and organizing a new email protocol. ArsTechnica reports that the organization seeks to replace the Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP), which is used for all current email communications, in its entirety. One of the main goals of doing this is to provide this as both an add-on and as a service for existing email providers. This way the protocol gets the most adoption and users are more likely to take an interest in the product. The founders are still looking into ways to deal with things like multiple device usage for the same account, but they are at least making an effort to fix things unlike other critics. There are plans for a Kickstarter campaign in the nearby future with the first large donors getting early access to the code to ensure they are the first to support the protocol.

                This is not the only effort I have heard of lately that tries to solve the email security problem we are facing. A Kickstarter campaign (which failed to my knowledge) was raising funds to create a peer-to-peer email network. It sought to provide encrypted end-to-end transportation of all of your data. Another, easier to use program, is Mailvelope. Mailvelope is a plugin for Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox web-browsers. The plugin generates secure cryptography keys for users that are stored locally on disk. The plugin then hooks into email clients like Gmail and offers to allow for easy encryption and decryption of emails at the click of a button. Or at least it does so long as you can locate someone’s public encryption key. Either way, the plugin works as expected and stays entirely within the browser. You can even use encryption keys you generate outside of the browser with other applications.

                I am hoping that DarkMail Alliance can match what Mailvelope is currently offering me, but I will be fine either way in the meantime. Having a secure email client, regardless of my lack of need for one right now, is important on the principle alone. I don’t like being spied upon. It feels weird and can seem to imply that I am guilty of some form of wrongdoing. The NSA has even gone as far as hijacking the fiber optic cables Google and Yahoo privately use to communicate between their different data centers. The NSA has no restraint and will keep trying to get ahold of our data. Even if I don’t need encrypted email, I like to think that my occasional use of it is my own little form of protest against what they are doing. 

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/silent-circle-and-lavabit-launch-darkmail-alliance-to-thwart-e-mail-spying/

Courts finally decides that Fifth Amendment Prohibits Compelled Decryption

Last February the US courts decided that it was illegal to hold a person in jail for not giving up his decryption password. When the grand jury asked him to provide the decryption password and he pleaded the fifth he was held in contempt and sent to jail. This was overruled by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and they agreed that forcing the defendant to give up his key. The program that he used is truecrypt that has foreseen this problem and has added a feature to have a hidden partition for these types of situations.

The thing about this ruling it was only ruled that you cant be held in contempt for not giving your password.

Now a new Court proceeding ruled that Compelled Decryption also falls under the fifth amendment and will also be protected.

IF YOU HAVE A SSL OR TLS KEYS YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK THE VALIDITY OF THEM.

In a recent paper using a collection of keys to validate the security of the keys compared the public keys of all of the sites on the internet. and found staggering results.

There is a web lookup table to verify you key here.

Swarm Robot Technology

Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently unveiled a project they have been working on called “M-blocks.”  At first glance the blocks look like nothing more than small cubes that magnetically attract to each other.  However, each individual block consists of a motor controller, fly wheel, braking mechanism, radio, and battery.  The M-blocks were built as an experiment and for research about a subject in current technology called swarm robotics.  The objective of swarm robotics is to have individual robots perform tasks that are oriented around a single goal that all the robots are collectively trying to achieve.  In order to study this, researchers have looked at various phenomena in nature.  Some examples of animals that work in ways very similar to this method are bees, ants, and termites.  These organisms have been given the term, “eusocial.”  They have fascinated swarm robotics researchers because of the ways in which they work together to establish small societies and survive.  Termites build large nests for their giant families, which consist of intricate pathways and chambers.  This is done without a single blueprint to go by, and their brains are very small.  This is what interests developers of swarm robotics the most.  They wish to give tiny robots the same central goal-oriented abilities in order to better the lives of human beings. 

Researches plan to use this developing technology in many ways that I believe will prove to be extremely useful for mankind in the future.  One way they want to apply the idea of swarm robotics is to medical practice.  Imagine doctors being able to inject cancer patients with millions of tiny robots in order for them to fight off cancer cells in the body and eventually cure cancer.  Or, imagine that surgery no longer required the uncertainty of having another human, prone to mistakes or even shaky hands, to open you up and essentially sew you back together.  With swarm robotics, tiny artificial intelligent creatures can pinpoint the problem inside your body and fix it.  This wouldn’t involve scars, long healing processes, or even half the medical risk that surgery does today.  Another way in which researchers hope to use this technology is for space and deep-sea exploration.  Tiny robots working together in order to form essentially one robot would be able to shape themselves in different ways in order to get to places where humans could not.  In deep-sea exploration, there are small crevasses in the landscape.  There are also depths in which could be very dangerous for humans to travel, even with the use of high pressure-resistant vehicles.  We know little about the organisms that inhabit such places, but could potentially learn a lot more from the use of swarm robotics technology.

Though I do see how this technology can be put to use in order to achieve spectacular results in many positive ways, like most technological advancements, it could also be used for extremely dangerous tasks if put in the wrong hands.  Most swarm robotics researchers have the strong intention of using these developments for the betterment of mankind.  Though this may be true, I cannot help but to think about what also could potentially be done with this technology.  If surgery becomes possible with swarm robotics, so could many other deadly attacks on the human body.  Biological warfare could become biotechnological warfare.  It is said that Israeli defense forces are currently researching how to implement this technology to make tiny flying mosquito-like robots.  They’ve been studying mosquitoes and how they congregate, find prey, and many times feed while remaining undetected.  Say these tiny robots were invented with the capability to swarm and inject poison into an enemy.  This could prove to be extremely effective in warfare, but also devastating to human life.

            I believe that this swarm robotics can be extremely useful in the future.  Like most interesting or important topics of discussion, there are potential positives and negatives involving the development of this technology.  If kept in the right hands, millions around the world could one day be extremely thankful for the development of swarm robot technology.

A Crash Course in Plasma

Home theater television is officially taking a major step back. As of yesterday, Panasonic confirmed that two of its three plasma panel factories have stopped production, with the third closing within the month. This makes the death of plasma all but official, as Panasonic was the last quality manufacture in the space since Pioneer discontinued its Kuro line a few years ago. As a home theater enthusiast, this is almost criminal in my eyes. Be it the midrange Panasonic set I recently purchased for school, or the $7000 Kuro Elite I have back home, for years I have been using and advocating plasma over LCD sets to anyone who will listen. I want to do that one last time, in a desperate attempt to spread awareness about plasma before it is completely wiped from the face of this earth.
I'm going to try and keep this in as plain English as possible, so if there are any other hardcore plasma guys in class reading this, please forgive me if I dumb something down too much.

The advantages of plasma over LCD are numerous (although it may be more accurate to say that the LCD has far more negatives than plasma), but the one that stands out the most is black levels.

Creating true black on a television is hard, if not impossible. It is also arguably the most important color that a TV needs to recreate. LCD televisions cannot, and will never be able to, accurately recreate black on a television set. This is because of their inherent design.

Every LCD TV has a grid array of tiny liquid crystals which can each change shape. They twist to allow varying degrees of light that shines from behind them (usually an LED light) to come through and produce the image on screen. Each of these pixels is made up of three sub-pixel crystals, one for red, green, and blue. The amount of light that is allowed to pass through each of these colors will create the corresponding color of the pixel that is needed to create the image. The key thing here is the backlight. No matter what the color, the LCD television is shooting light out from behind it. This is terrible when you want to create something dark, and terrible when you want to have contrast between bright and dark areas on screen simultaneously.

In the above picture, compare the "blackness" on the plasma televisions, such as the Kuro's in the center, to the LCD sets on the right side. The difference is night and day (and what's supposed to be night may very well seem like day on an LCD TV).

Why can plasma perform so much better with the color black? There's no backlight.

Every plasma screen is made up of a grid array of tiny gas-filled cells. Each pixel contains a set of three phosphor-coated sub-pixels, one for red, green, and blue. When the plasma gas inside each cell is charged, the phosphor coating is light up and the relevant color light is produced. Whereas LCD is a backlight technology, plasma pixels have self-emitting light. When they want to produce black (thus, zero light) they just do not activate at all. The pixel is off, and a nearly true representation of black can be produced as a result. This makes movies look like they were intended, something LCD will never be capable of.

This quality has many other consequences compared to LCD. Contrast ratios are the most obvious. I'm sure when you bought your LCD set from Best Buy you got it because it has a 20,000,000 to 1 "dynamic contrast ratio", but unfortunately that sort of statistic is a marketing gimmick. Those numbers are given by the manufacturer comparing the ratio of a completely white screen (the brightest it can be) to a completely black screen (the darkest it can be). It is meaningless. Plasma sets contrast ratios are rated based on the difference between black and white on a television set simultaneously. Since light on plasma is constrained to individual pixels, plasma's excel at this statistic.

The list goes on and on, from response time to cost of ownership, plasma excels in just about every category. I could write a book about it and bore you to death, but I suggest you go do some research yourself if you consider yourself a movie, television, video game, or sports fan. Plasma is king. I highly recommend you purchase one of the last Panasonic sets before it is too late.

Why the Cheapest Contractor is not always the best.

As we all know, the Healthcare.gov website seemed like an absolute, miserable failure within the first few weeks of it launching. Although Healthcare.gov was launched on October 1^st, the same day as the government shutdown, it was still one of the few federal government websites that remained open. However, visitors were met with a substantial amount of errors, and numerous technical problems. Some estimates stated that only “1 percent of the 3.7 million people who tried to register on the federal exchange in the first week actually managed to enroll.” (Source) You can’t always blame a service for not working perfectly on its first few days of launch, but 1% is just abysmal, and unacceptable for a government service. One of the main reasons Healthcare.gov was almost a complete failure was because of the unexpected high traffic during the first couple of days of launch. The U.S. Chief Technology Officer Todd Park said that the government expected to draw 50,000 – 60,000 simultaneous users, but instead drawn more than 250,000.  However, the former national coordinator of health care information technology stated “Whoever thought it would draw 60,000 people wasn’t reading the administration’s press releases. The Medicare Part D site was supposed to have 20,000 simultaneous users and was (built for) 150,000, and that was back when computing was done on an abacus. It isn’t that hard.”(Source) I can continue further in listing the various ways why the Healthcare.gov website was initially a train wreck, but I think the public’s attention would be better focused towards the process behind getting a project like this started. In particular, I am more upset with the government’s process of contracting the companies to set up a service like this.

It’s no secret that the government relies heavily on contractors to handle its larger projects, which is something I am not always fond of. To handle the back end systems of Healthcare.gov, the government contracted the fairly unknown IT company CGI Federal  back in 2011. CGI Federal had an initial bid of $93.7 million, but today, government records show that to fix the numerous problems with Healthcare.gov, the government had to pay CGI Federal more than $600 million. (Source) There is no better proof to show that the cheapest service is not always the best, and although the initial set up fees might be low, the resources needed to maintain a poorly set up service increase exponentially over time. In an article that addresses this issue from a developer stand point called What Developers Can Learn from healthcare.gov, the author states:

The biggest takeaway though, is that the way that the federal government bids out software is fundamentally broken. There are clearly companies in the industry who understand exactly the kind of problems that healthcare.gov needed to address. Intuit’s online TurboTax is much more complicated than the sign-up process for healthcare, and it works under heavy load. Amazon and Google both handle crushing loads gracefully as well. Why can’t the government draw on this kind of expertise when designing a site as critical to the public as healthcare.gov, rather than farming it out to the lowest bidder? (Source)

The way in which the federal government hires contractors needs to be drastically changed, and there needs to be some element of accountability. With a service already so poor at close to $100 million, why should the government have to pay an additional $500 million? Moreover, imagine the in house development team you can hire with $600 million? Not only would it create more jobs, but the government would no longer have to pay for additional maintenance since it is all done in house. I feel that the government should take this approach for a lot of other projects as well. By offering competing salaries against popular contractors, the government can acquire better talent to handle its in-house development. It would cost a substantial amount to begin with, but I feel that you would save more time, resources, and money in the long run, as well as creating new fields for the work force. I agree that there are probably fields where contractors would be best, but for developing new technologies or software, where the requirements change constantly, new ideas are being passed around, and all-around maintenance is required, I feel the government can only benefit from allocating the necessary resources to create their own in house development teams. 

Google's Robot Cars Already Outperform Humans

Chris Urmson, head of Google's self-driving car program has made the claim at a robotics conference in Santa Clara that its self-driving Prius and Lexus cars are already safer steering themselves than with a human behind the wheel.  He presented the results from two studies on data collected from hundreds of thousands of miles driven by the vehicles on public roads in California and Nevada in the last three years.  Urmson mentioned that in his regular contact with automakers, he has found that many of them are working on self driving cars themselves.   Urmson believes that legal and regulatory problems will not pose much of a threat because states like California, Nevada, and Florida have adjusted their laws to allow testing to take place and he believes that the data will be able to prove their safeness to people.  At the conference, Urman showed data from the only Google Car that had been in an accident.  The car's annotated map of its surroundings showed that it had correctly halted before it was rear-ended.  Use of this data could make it much easier to tell what had happened in an accident without having to rely on unreliable eye witness accounts.

The fact that many automakers are developing their own self-driving cars along with Google's history of innovation makes it very likely that this technology will hit the consumer market in the future.  How soon will depend on what policy makers and their constituents deem as the minimum metric for safety to allow them on the road.  The expensive Lidar (laser rader) systems that are installed in these self-driving vehicles allow them to map out the area around them and will paint a picture of what happened before an accident.  The manufactures are liable for any crash that their vehicles cause which gives plenty of incentive to make sure that their vehicles work as flawlessly as possible.  Insurance companies will greatly influence drivers to use the new technology as AI will always beat human cognition.  Drivers likely will be penalized for switching into manual driving mode and I bet there will be conflict over someone not trusting their car in a a situation and causing a crash manually.  It will take time for people to adjust like any technology, except everyone on the road will be effected whether they like it or not.  Production has greatly been increased for many of the parts required by the autonomous vehicles.  One company, Continental projects that it will more than double its production of radar systems from 4.5 million to 10 million units by the year 2015.  The rise of the autonomous car is imminent, it will be interesting to see how the public and policy makers react to the new technology. 

Google Glass v2

We can speculate all we want about how much damage technology is doing to our human nature and cognitive skill, but companies are going to keep innovating whether we like it or not. One such innovation, Google Glass, has been the subject of a ton of scrutiny ever since it was announced. It's a mini computer and camera on your face. It seems unnatural. It's distracting. It's crazy.  It's also innovative. It's risky. It's futuristic.

Glass has also been an "invite-only" project for almost a year now, and I've been using it for the better part of 6 months as part of the Explorer Program. The Explorer Program is invite-only, and once you're invited it costs $1500 and a private visit at a Google Office to pick up the specs. It's quite an experience, but it's not for everyone.

Now we know that Google is working on Glass Version 2, this time for the public. If it's going to be a product they want to fly off shelves, there are some improvements that need to be made based off of feedback from members of the Explorer program.

So here's what I want to see in Google Glass v2

Internals
Internally, Glass has about the same amount of computing power as a 2 year-old smartphone packed into the frame on the side. Overall speed and fluidity when flipping through the UI is pretty solid, but graphics performance could use some work. I'm crossing my fingers for an improved spec sheet with the next generation of Glass.

Externals/Design
I know almost nothing about design, but I do know that people want Google Glass to be as unobtrusive as possible. Right now Glass is pretty small; the biggest part of the chassis is actually the battery in the back. Unfortunately the battery life is pretty weak already, so it wouldn't make much sense to shrink this part. You can kill the entirely battery of Glass with an hour of video recording.

There's also the issue for people who already wear glasses. It's unlikely Google will want to take orders of Glass to fill prescriptions, so it would be smarter to work with partners (similar to the way they do with the Nexus program)

Software
This is something Google is definitely already working on - there have been nearly a dozen major software updates since Glass was first releases. Every software update adds new features and improvements to the user experience. This is critical to keeping Glass both usable and relevant.

The one thing that hasn't been added is an "App store." There's a small, private community for members of the Glass Explorer program where there is some application development going on, but the total number of applications available is relatively small. Just like any new form factor, the functionality of wearable tech like Glass will depend on the developer support it gets. There needs to be shining spotlight on the application support for Glass or it'll never catch on.

Price
This is absolutely the most important part of Google Glass v2. The current version of Glass is $1500. That won't work at all. This is the first iteration of Glass that's supposed to be designed for consumers, so it needs to be priced for consumers to buy off the shelf. And that's the exact vision for Glass. This is something Sergey Brin himself has said that he wants Google Glass to be an on-the-shelf retail product by the end of 2013.

The video I made about Glass has a few thousand comments suggesting the maximum price they would pay for Glass with its current functionality, with suggestions ranging from $200 USD to near $1000. I think a sweet spot for this to catch people's eye on retail shelves us $399. I wish I had an idea of how realistic this is, but I have no way of making an accurate prediction. I can only cross my fingers. What would you pay for Glass? Would you pay for it at all?

Autonomous Businesses

What happens when businesses don't have owners? Just like self driving cars, there may be a day with self driving businesses. As described by the bitcoin wiki it is possible for a program to run it's own business. The basic concept is, by using APIs and automated payment methods, a program may be able to purchase server space and collect its own payments.

This form of running a service has very little overhead. A programmer could design an entire business and have it algorithmically buy and sell services. And with competing businesses you could even have them compete against each other. Programmers could compete to see who could make the most algorithmically fit business. This is similar to how high frequency trading occurs, when the two different algorithms can try to "game" each other. Competition would be rampant in an environment where people are trying to out compete each other for business.

One of the first questions I can think of how could this be regulated? This method could eventually be used to run a service that authorities may want access to, such as a file server. Since the program is autonomous, there might not be a clear source of contact. Unfortunately this usually not an appropriate way to run a business in our modern society. One could even have the program report back to a server that is hosted on an anonymized network.

As cool as this idea is, it might not be very practical. If there are any bugs in your program, they could result in significant losses. Someone could even hack into the service and literally steal all incoming funds. It would be difficult to convince users to submit any personal information to a service that has no clear person in charge. Especially since It would be terribly difficult to recover from a catastrophic service disruption. What happens when a service loses all of its data? Autonomous businesses will probably not be a reality until someone is able to determine how the logistics of running such a business would work.

Image source:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bitcoin_logo.svg

FUTURE BABIES

F U T U R E   B A B I E S

This week’s readings got me thinking about how the Internet generation's brains have been molded by technology, and what the future of humanity will be like. And when I say “the future of humanity” I am referring to the scores of toddlers across the world that are being raised by tablet computers, social media, and Internet articles.

The problem with being raised by computers is twofold – the first problem with it is minor, and somewhat unintuitive. I believe that raising our children with computers will make them worse at using technology, not better. The second and more dangerous problem is that children who are raised from infancy by computers and the Internet may never develop critical thinking skills at any point in their lives.

1. When we see a 3-year-old child playing on a tablet computer, our knee-jerk reaction is to assume that she will grow up being comfortable around computers and use them effectively. This is not a baseless assumption, as it is easy to argue that the Millennial generation is more comfortable around technology than their parents. However, there is no guarantee that “comfort” with technology amounts to “skill” with technology.

I argue that the computer scientists who built the Internet, although they did not grow up using technology that did not exist yet, have far superior programming skills than I do. Furthermore, I’m sure their knowledge of the inner workings of computer hardware surpass my own. Just because I grew up using the Internet and computing technology, that does not give me some distinct advantage over them just because they are older. In fact, I have been coddled throughout my lifetime by Internet browsers that display information in a pleasing way – and full-blown operating systems that make using computers easier. I believe that, as interfaces become more intuitive, future generations will know less about the “guts” of computers and understand them only superficially for most of their lives.

2. The more worrisome effect that Internet technologies will have on the babies of the future is the deterioration of critical thinking and focusing skills. If Professor Gary Small is correct in saying that “the current explosion of digital technology not only is changing the way we live and communicate, but is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains,” what effect will it have on developing minds? This technology is so new that we have never seen the results of raising children this way before, and it has this blogger concerned.

Since I am a future game developer, please don't flood this post with comments about how I am arguing against children playing iPad games – I’m not. That’s not the technology I’m talking about, and I believe that games targeted towards young audiences are probably the only appropriate content for young users. Really, I am concerned by the notion of toddlers growing up using the Internet and other technologies where in-text linking abounds, and the ways that will shape their thinking skills. I predict a large number of “false positive” autism cases, where children show all of the symptoms of autism even though they do not have the condition in their genes, but rather learned it from being shaped by technology. Or perhaps the future will be filled with young, angry trolls who never learned to critically analyze information and instead can be whipped into a frenzy with the slightest push.

As much as I would love to end this blog post with some kind of “call-to-action” to stop this trend, I don’t have any ideas on what to do. I’m not going to stop using the Internet, as much as it changes my neural pathways and redefines how I think. I’m addicted, and the work I do (as well as the field I want to be in) requires that I latch onto the Internet and never let go. I will, however, attempt to introspectively analyze my own thinking habits and reading patterns. If that means actively ignoring website advertisements and in-text links, I think it is worth the effort.

Computers in the Classroom

   After class last week and reading the article by Nicholas Carr, I have been thinking about the prevalence of computers in our learning environments.  When I was a freshman here at Stevens, iPads and tablets were not that common.  Now as a senior, far more people have them and those who do not want to buy one.  Even in my hometown tablets were just approved by the Board of Education for classroom use in the high school - if a student owns a tablet, they are allowed to bring it to school to use as an 'educational aid' (I'm putting this into my own words).
    I may be old fashioned, but I really do not see the benefits of having computers in the classroom.  While they do make taking notes easier because most people can type much faster than they can write, let's be real ... no one is going to only take notes if they have their laptop on their desk and they are connected to wi-fi.  I usually do not bring my laptop to any class because I know I will be distracted.  Even when I look around at my classmates who do have their laptops in class, almost every single time at least 3/4 of the class has their windows split between Facebook and some other word processor to take notes.  Even though they seem to be taking notes, how efficient can they be if they have Facebook open and are scrolling through their news feeds or chatting with friends?
   Even when professor post their notes on Moodle in a PowerPoint, I find that I become a lazier student.  Why go to class when I can find the notes later today and go over them (I'm pretty sure I never actually go through them)?  I'll tell myself I don't need to take notes because I can access them later when I need to study for a test.  I know I'm not the only student that does this and I think it renders our classes pointless.  Everyone ends up tuning out because they know they can access the information later.  While there may be some benefits, I think I learn better when I am engaged listening because I have to rely on my handwritten notes.
    I believe that our society is in a period of transition when it comes to technology and education -- or hopefully it will be soon.  I think our education system needs to shift in order to accommodate technology so that it is a productive tool and not one that gives us shortcuts in our education.

Fans in the Middle, and Always Losing

Fans in the Middle, and Always Losing

by: Andrew Mason

Imagine your favorite band is coming to town.  Not the band you occasionally hear on the radio whose catchy pop melodies and formula written lyrics occupy the minds of many, but the band whose music has stuck with you in the high times as well as the low.  The band whose lyrics, so smartly crafted and carefully placed, seem to resonate long after the song has finished.  The band, whose shirt you've worn to bits, style you've tried to emulate, and lyrics you've completely memorized.   The artists whose music you've been listening to for the better part of five years has finally decided that they have been dragging you on for too long.  Your town has somehow found its way onto a long list of tour stops around the country.  Whats your first order of action? Acquiring tickets of course!  In today's day and age, more and more tickets are being sold exclusively over the internet by online ticking providers such as Ticketmaster.  Nothing beats the instant convenience of printing out the tickets in the comfort of your own home.  Through the bands website, Twitter feed, Facebook page, etc, you find out when the online tickets become available.  Several minutes prior to the online release time you log into your Ticketmaster account with your credit card information already stored and your cursor hovering over the page refresh.  The one minute prior to the hour seems like it goes in slow motion as you eagerly await a swift click of the mouse.  You refresh the page seemingly simultaneous to the advent of the new hour.  Loading screens soon follow claiming that "they" are trying to find you the best available tickets.  The page finally loads only to display the agonizing message "This is a popular event.  All available tickets have been purchased."  You continue to refresh the page in disbelief, wondering how a venue that seats a couple thousand could have sold out in less than 15 seconds.  The horrible truth then becomes apparent as you check Stubhub and find countless tickets for the show available for 400% face value.  The scalpers have won.



Ticket scalpers, ticket touts, or the more politely phrased ticket "brokers," all have one common goal in mind: buy tickets to popular concerts, sports matches, or events and turn around and sell these tickets for a handsome profit.  Scalpers work under the risk that the event to which they bought several tickets for will not sell out. The premise of the whole operation works under the simple concept of supply and demand.  If tickets become unavailable to an event many people want to attend, the amount of money an individuals will pay for the ticket increases.   Scalpers take advantage of this lucrative trade and "secondary ticketing," a phrase coined Jeff Fluhr, the founder of Stubhub, generates over $12 billion a year.  But isn't this activity illegal?  I mean the scalpers have no intention of attending the event and their buyout only increases the cost for those who actually want to attend.  The answer is no, most states do not have strict laws that prohibit the resale of tickets, mainly laws that regulate with specific stipulations.  (For state to state laws regarding ticket resale, click here).  In the US, 38 states allow the resale of tickets as long as the sale does not take place at the sight of the event while 12 other states have varying degrees of regulation.  For those states that do regulate and prohibit, efforts are becoming more and more strained as ticket resale has moved from the streets to the internet.

Stubhub is an online marketplace that provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets.  The company, now the largest secondary-ticket vendor in the world, was founded by Eric Baker and Jeff Fluhr in 2000 and is now owned by eBay.  The site allows sellers to post available tickets on the site at any price they choose and then charges commission on both the buyer and the seller.  Those looking for tickets to a sold out show may use the sight to find available tickets posted by the sellers.  So whats the problem with system?  Individuals looking to turn a quick profit are supplementing their annual income at the expense of those looking to enjoy a concert or sporting event.  The site allows sellers to be digital middlemen, their only job: transferring the possession of the ticket from themselves to the fan.  And even then, Stubhub does most of the work.  Sometimes the site is beneficial to the buyers.  If an event does not sell  out or a fan posts tickets because they genuinely cannot attend the event, the buyer might actually save money.  The real problem comes when a majority of the tickets for a sold-out event fall into the hands of scalpers, which is many times the case.  Sellers will oftentimes utilize scalp seeding, a method where scalpers will wait for a specific time to begin selling the tickets, to maximize the profits associated with supply and demand.  

I don't have a problem buying a ticket near face value from an individual that, due to unforeseen circumstances, cannot possibly to a concert.  I do however have a problem giving a large portion of the ticket's value to the individual who had no intentions of going to the show, and more often than not, this is the case.  When checking Stubhub, I often see multitudes of tickets (10 to 20) being sold by one individual.  How did they acquire all these tickets when Ticketmaster limits the amount of tickets each card holder can buy?  Digital scalpers employ an army of ticket snatching bots, software that is capable of making thousands of transactions a second, that buy up all the tickets before the human fans have a chance to hit refresh.  Not only do scalpers consume a large portion of the tickets sold, they also make it near impossible for humans to buy tickets at face value right from the source.  The New York Times reported that bots buy up 60% of all online tickets sold by Ticketmaster.  A well known, and highly controversial debate over ticket bots arose after thousands of real people lost the chance to see LCD Soundsystem's final show at Madison Square Garden.  The fact that many of his fans felt cheated and outraged at the prices they would have to pay made lead singer James Murphy lash out at the scalpers.  Murphy wrote a heated blog post depicting his disgust for what had transpired and ended up scheduling 5 more shows at Manhattan's Terminal 5 venue to decrease the value of the scalpers tickets and also allow his fans to see the band perform. (Murphy's heated Blog).  In a similar fashion, Arcade Fire, Coldplay, and Mumford and Sons have had thousands of tickets sold out in a matter of seconds thanks to the ticket bots.



Many times it's up to the band itself to decide how they are going to distribute tickets and they are starting to employ new methods to beat the scalpers.  I have attended a few shows where it was necessary to present a drivers license the credit card used to buy the tickets.  Arcade Fire recently had a 'secret' show in Brooklyn, NY and sold over 75% of their tickets in pre-sale.  Each pair of tickets required a pre-sale code that could only be obtained by pre-ordering the album.  This, however, did not prevent people from selling the tickets on craigslist and Stubhub.  Some of the tickets reached upwards of $2000.  Although these systems seem to help put tickets straight into the hands of the real fans, there are some drawbacks.  If a fan who initially planned on attending the event suddenly cannot, there would be no way to sell, or even give away his or her tickets if the credit card and driver's license of the buyer is required at the door.

Ticket scalping, especially with its proliferation over the internet, is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by lawmakers and fans.  More and more, true fans are subjected to paying way over face value and also steep fees in order to see their favorite entertainment.  Unfortunately, whether its from the excessive fees and mark-up or by the strict regulations the band places on the tickets in order to thwart scalpers, the fan seems to lose.

Watch Dogs

Video games has been a big presence in my life since as long as I can remember. From the first time I played Super Mario 64 to when having Halo 4 marathons with my friends. Gaming as been an aspect of my life that I enjoy and that allows not just me, but millions of people worldwide to experience the innovation, creativity, and the "Imagination" of the worlds best creators. Video have definitely come a long way, especially in the last decade. Games are more realistic, more immersive, and more complicated and continue to grow each day. Video games are an Art, it evolves, it challenges, it inspires. Grand Theft Auto V is such a game. It broke records on its release date, it was filled with controversy, and it was a big satire of what it is to be "human". I want to focus on an upcoming game that has been on my list of "MUST BUY". And that is Watch dogs


This game takes a modern approach on being a "Hero" or how most authority figures call them "Vigilantes". The main character Aiden Pearce is a combination of our favorite non super powered comic book heroes like Batman, Green Arrow, Nightwing, Black Canary, or even the Robins. But as we all know this kind of "heroism" can only be in our imaginations. Reading or watching their exploits is the best we have to "the super hero phenomenon", What this game does or what it is trying to do (in my eyes) is making these beloved hero characteristics and put this in a world that is the closest thing to our real life. Pearce has one super power, and it is smartphone. Yup, a smartphone, but not just any smartphone, this phone give him access to basically anything he wants as long as it can connect through internet. He can hack phones to access bank accounts he can trip security alarms, he can get away from the cops by shutting down the power in a sector. All of this is achieved through his phone.

What I love about this game is the fact, most of these ideas are not that far fetched. Our phones are purposed to do a variety of things, people can train and become skillful into hacking systems or integrate technologies together. Technology is so embedded in our lives that the architects of these systems have tremendous power. Smart people aren't feared or revered because they are smart, they viewed as the people that can do extraordinary things whether its for good or for malice. I know that the people like this exists, but I also know that they are outnumbered. But I can see someone program his Nexus 4 into a tool that will allow him to do the things in this game. And I'm no saying that it will be easy, but it is not impossible. The skill and technology is out their to make it happen. What we should be looking into is how this will effect the dynamic of our societies. I think there are two possible routes, one in which all of us move forwards and embrace this new technical prowess, or the other where a good portion of us will be left behind while others prosper.

Taking away the capes and the tights, a true modern hero doesn't seem that appealing. This game will truly challenge our views on how we think our technologies are "helpful" and really make you think. "There is a lot of good that can be utilize, but so many 'What if's'". I;m really excited to get this game and play it but I do think of its practical applications. This "Virtual" world is not to far off into what our world can become., the question is, will we embrace it, or go against it.

Here's a link to actual gameplay!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPYgXvgS6Ww

Usage of Symbolism

Symbolism is when an object is used to convey meanings and ideas greater than the object's physical existence alone. For example, the color blue can represent sadness; despite the scientific fact that blue is simply a wavelength of light that the human eye can perceive. However, when symbolism is used in art, the symbol can take on different meanings. Going back to the color blue, it can also represent freedom as in the open skies or vast oceans. These multiple meanings need to be defined in the context that surrounds the symbol.

Amateur art can often fail at this and leave the viewer wondering what it is that the artist is trying to convey. The viewer could become either bored out of his mind or blindly say that it is a good use of symbolism to avoid embarrassment in front of his peers. That second type of person mostly only appears in an artistic community, honestly. If you were to take a group of engineering students (who in general aren't very artistically minded) to the museum of modern art and point them at a plain colored piece of "art" on the wall, they would laugh at it or openly agree there is nothing to it.

Art with an ambiguous meaning does have a place, but only if used well. There must be many hints in place that allow viewers to make conclusions based on their own logic. This could lead to different viewers seeing different things and debate over the true meaning. The resulting debate is what can make ambiguous art good.

There are times when it seems like art has symbols just thrown in that are clearly designed to symbolize something but aren't clear because they weren't properly integrated. This leaves viewers confused and angry at the art. Major symbols in an art piece can require the viewer to have extensive background knowledge of mythology and common usage of the symbols to make any sense. Art should be able to tie everything together on its own or make it clear what its target audience is and cater towards it.

Part of the fault for symbolism being used poorly so often may fall with the viewers. Everyone knows that hardcore art critics and teachers love going on about the symbolism behind the works (even if they weren't intended). This pressures artists and writers to cram in any symbols they can find or draw odd connections between objects and ideas (“This picture of a simple chair totally represents the depths of the human psyche”). I think artists are better off avoiding the usage of symbolism if there is no place for it or if it would be used poorly. Symbolism is just a tool that can have great effect only if used creatively and properly.

The Fate of Earth’s Civilization

            Through world history courses we have learned about the different types of civilizations that have existed on Earth, but where exactly does the planet stand as a whole. Several decades ago an astronomer Nikolai Kardashev designed a scale on how different civilizations should be ranked which are either a Type I Civilization, Type II Civilization, or Type III Civilization. A Type I Civilization is known as a planetary civilization where the planet works together as a whole and are able to harness its star’s energy and even control its planets energy allowing it to control weather and natural disasters. A Type II Civilization is described as a stellar civilization which is able to control the energy radiating from a star, such as our Sun, and colonize several planets. A Type III Civilization is able to control the energy from an entire galaxy and maybe even black holes.

            So where exactly do we stand? Our planetary civilization as a whole can be classified as a Type 0 Civilization. A Type 0 Civilization is in the process of evolving into a Type I Civilization and uses fossil fuels for energy. According to Dr. Michio Kaku we are about a hundred years from becoming a Type I Civilization, but this can change due to several factors. The Internet is seen as a Type I Civilization communication system since it is able to reach all corners of the globe. English has become an additional language to many people so it is seen as a Type I language where it could became the main language of the planet within the next century. The United Nations and the European Union are seen as Type I government and economy since they unite several countries who in the past and maybe even now dislike each other. Current fashions, cultures and the Olympics can be seen as Type I Civilization aspects since they are able to unite a large percent of Earth’s population. According to Dr. Michio Kaku a Type I Civilization is scientific, pluralistic, multicultural, and it is tolerant since it is global.

Even though we see the birth of several Type I Civilization features there are many aspects of planet Earth that try to slow down or even prevent us from achieving Type I status. Currently politicians and government officials with their thirst for power and money slow down the process for achieving a Type I Civilization. With the chance for wars always around the corner, countries would fear communicating with each other. Terrorism as well causes a negative trend when trying to achieve a Type I Civilization, since any actions taken by leads to war and violence.

            Now comes the question if other planetary civilizations have reached a Type I Civilization or even a greater status? Right now the answer is no. It is believe that if there is life on other planets they could have destroyed themselves when reaching Type I status probably while trying to harness their star’s energy and failing. There is also the possibility that other civilizations are not advanced as we are and are most likely centuries behind us, but the moment alien life are visit our planet they would be classified as a Type I Civilization.