My Online Shopping Cart is Chosen before I Know

Technology, the internet, and social media is exponentially becoming more and more advanced. There are a lot of things I've noticed on the web that were never in existence only a couple a years ago, but has quickly taken over the way we function. One of them being advertisements. "Back in the day" advertisements were just a quick blurb in the newspaper or a thirty second commercial on TV. Now, you can't go to a website without something on the sidebar or an ad popping up that you have to annoyingly sit through, even though you try to fast forward it anyways. What I find particularly interesting, and slightly disturbing, is the fact that the type of ads that pop up now are based on me. There are these complex algorithms going on in the internet, which can pick and choose what ads appear on my screen by tracking the websites I visit and what I purchase online. As stated by Alexis C. Madrigal, from The Atlantic, "Already, the web sites you visit reshape themselves before you like

a carnivorous school of fish, and this is only the beginning. Right now, a huge chunk of what you've ever looked at on the Internet is sitting in databases all across the world. The line separating all that it might say about you, good or bad, is as thin as the letters of your name. If and when that wall breaks down, the numbers may overwhelm the name. The unconsciously created profile may mean more than the examined self I've sought to build."  It even goes so far as to pick ads of things I may need in the future, before I even need it myself. For example, I know a person who just got married. After looking and buying everything for her wedding day, ads for baby items started popping up on her screen. Another example--my boyfriend loves chocolate milk. I was talking to him about how there's a type of mug with a stirrer attached specifically made for chocolate milk. The next day, an ad for that exact same mug showed up on his screen. The web is starting to predict the things I want to buy online, half of the time before I even know I do. I do understand why it is what it is. All of the internet tracking started as a security precaution, when terrorism started becoming more prevalent. When big named companies saw the opportunity to advertise more efficiently and make more money, they took it, which is understandable. To me personally, however, something about it just steps over the line a little bit too much. It  makes me wonder what information they have and how much they know about me, which I didn't personally give them permission to. Well, maybe I did by not reading those terms and conditions, but besides that. If this is the case now, how much more can they get from me in the next 5 years, or even 10 years. When and where is the line going to be drawn? Will this keep me from going on the web, as of now not really, but it does make me think.  

Chips Under the Skin: Do We Want to Be That Close to Technology?

The BBC News article that inspired this post, “Office puts chips under staff’s skin” by Rory Cellan-Jones, can be found here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31042477

It’s happened to many people who are part of the working world, particularly those who work in a large building or complex that houses many employees during the working hours of each weekday.  They’ll walk up to the entrance of the building, where the front door is meant to be unlocked by a scanner or card reader of some sort, and then they realize that they left their ID card/keycard/security badge at home.  Alright, to be fair, maybe this doesn't happen overly often, as I’m sure that many people with jobs eventually adapt to thinking of their workplace ID as another part of themselves, like their wallet, phone, or house keys, and as such remember to take it with them every day.  But the potential to forget is still there, such as if someone was running late for work and left their house in a hurry.  For this reason, people have been trying to come up with ways to simplify the workplace ID system – and as evidenced by the article I linked above, at least one alternative method has gained enough attention to warrant actually being implemented in the working world.

As discussed in the article, Epicenter, a new high-tech office block located in Sweden, has implemented a rather different method of providing employees with building access: a chip under the skin, located between the thumb and index finger.  Staff members are required to have such chips implanted; should they need to enter the building or utilize shared office equipment such as photocopiers or printers, they’ll simply need to wave their hand in front of the scanner, and they will be granted access.

As highlighted by the article’s author and narrator Rory Cellan-Jones, the implementation of this kind of system raises a big question: are people ready to become this intimate with technology?  Hannes Sjoblad, the chief disruption officer at Epicenter, argues that "We already interact with technology all the time…Today it's a bit messy - we need pin codes and passwords. Wouldn't it be easy to just touch with your hand? That's really intuitive."  But Mr. Cellan-Jones had such a chip implanted in order to understand this technology, and he pointed out that it really isn’t all that intuitive; he had to twist his hand at a weird angle just to make the office’s photocopier work.

I think it’s safe to say that to many people, having someone stick a small, hollow, pointy, almost scoop-like tube (I have seen them before) with a microchip at the end into your hand is a rather unsettling idea.  It’s amazing to see how much technology has grown, to see that a chip full of information can just be stuck in someone’s hand so that they can wave their way through the office door.  But the process, while allegedly simple, has to be done with some surgical precision, and there is plenty of room for error.  Plus, there’s Mr. Cellan-Jones’ observation that it doesn’t always work right away.  If I were to have someone stick a chip under my skin (which I would not want to do), I would be at least partially satisfied if I knew for sure that it would always work right.  Without such a guarantee, however, I would say it’s hardly worth it, and I’m sure most people would agree.

It is true that technology has become a part of us; at the beginning of this post, I listed cell phones in the category of things that people always take with them when they go out, alongside wallets and house keys.  Whenever there’s a power outage, people panic much more than they used to, because we have become much more dependent on technology to help give structure to our lives.  We are close to technology all the time – but I would never want to be THAT close.  It’s downright unnerving, and the means of inserting the chip is actually sort of barbaric.  I wouldn't want to spend my nights worrying about how I sleep, so as not to apply too much pressure to the microchip between my finger and thumb.  I wouldn't want to go swimming with the knowledge that there’s now a small quantity of electronics in my hand.  I wouldn't want to try cracking my knuckles to relieve tension, only to feel a little bump and remember that there’s a solid little block of silicon and plastic under my skin.  Would you?

Smartphones and iPads: How Did Parents Distract Us Before Technology?

Have you ever noticed a toddler walking around with an iPhone? Or kid in a stroller playing some game on an iPad? Nowadays it seems to be increasingly popular to distract/entertain young kids with digital technology in the form of phones and tablets. A lot of young kids even have their own cell phones (presumably in order to text/call their parents maybe? Because what do 8 year olds really have to talk about with each other?) It is interesting to see how parents have changed the ways that they entertain their children as technology has evolved over the past decade or so.

When I was a kid, cell phones didn't really exist commercially (beepers, anyone?) and smartphones weren't even almost a thing, so obviously parents back then (when did I get old?) did things a little differently. If we were out and about, or even sitting at home, and my parents wanted to keep me occupied so that they could tend to other things, I usually had a picture book, or crayons, action figures, obviously legos because I'm an engineer, and naturally good ole Nickelodeon. Not to mention books like the Bernstein Bears and whatnot...do kids really read that much anymore? Hm. While the television still exists as a means of occupying a child while they're at home, you seldom see kids actively playing with things for extended periods of time anymore. 

Not only does it seems like the digital babysitters are the preferred method of entertainment, but that when real toys are used, the kid seems to get pretty bored pretty quickly. For example, when I'm up at my grandparent's house visiting, we always hang out with the people next door with whom we are very close. They're a younger couple (she actually used to babysit me), and they have a son who is 4 or 5, still in pre-school. So when they come over to hang out with my family, they sometimes bring some toys for their son (he also has a little toy bag at my grandparents' house) to occupy him so the adults can have some sort of conversation with one another. Now, these toys do get played with, but within a few minutes he's on the iPad showing me a bunch of TMNT or dragon games that he likes to play, along with a few of his other favorites. It's also worth noting that he's more proficient with that iPad than my aunt...

This new wave of children and technology begs us to consider its influence on parenting. Is it positive or negative? Are parents now lazy, impatient and uncreative, or is it just the way that culture has progressed and this is now just the new norm? It could be a little bit of both, but talking about that is what the comments are for. 

Humans of New York

Humans of New York

http://www.businessinsider.com/humans-of-new-york-raises-money-for-mott-hall-bridges-academy-2015-1

                Many of us have never heard of the name Brandon Stanton but most of us have seen his photos.  He is the man behind the camera who posts on the “Humans of New York” Facebook page.  While “mindlessly” scrolling through my Facebook news feed, I came upon an article that caught my eye that a friend of mine had shared.  The title read “The Guy Behind ‘Humans of New York’ Raised over One Million Dollars After This Photo Went Viral.” So I clicked on the link and began to read.

                The title of the article says it all doesn’t it? That Brandon Stanton took a picture, posted it, and raised one million dollars.  What is the big deal right? We see things like this all the time right? No.  I got to thinking about what he did for the students that go to that school and how he directly impacted all of those students’ lives.  I began to think about how if he didn’t have social media or is social media and the internet didn’t exist would that be possible?

Brownsville, Brooklyn is generally considered a place that not many of us would like to live or visit since it has the highest crime rate in New York City.  However, Mr. Stanton went there and met this young boy and a teacher that both inspired him to try to do more.  The principal of the school seems to genuinely believe in all of her students and try to inspire them to be better.  I believe these attributes contributed to Mr. Stanton wanting to help.

I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe social media can be a great thing.  Look at what it has done for those kids at Mott Hall Bridges Academy.  Instead of mindlessly scrolling through the internet like we have discussed in class maybe we should all be a little more cognizant of what is actually there.  When we scroll through our news feeds on Facebook or go through our Twitter pages or like something on Instagram we shouldn’t turn our minds off, but stay aware of what we are looking at.  The people who donated to the school certainly did not just scroll by like many of us do.

I am NOT saying that donating to any and all causes is a must.  I am NOT saying that everyone who posts a sad story or something bad that is happening we should support unconditionally.  What I am saying is that there is genuine suffering and injustice in America and abroad and not enough people pay attention.  I am saying that maybe just once instead of scrolling through your Facebook news feed, Twitter, or Instagram maybe look for something that could be thought provoking.  Maybe think about something other than the funny cat video your best friend just posted and become aware of what is going on.

Humans Need Not Apply

Humans Need Not Apply by CGP Grey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Last Year I watched a YouTube Video entitled “Humans Need Not Apply”. The Video was created by CPG Grey who has a fantastic YouTube channel that I would recommend to anyone interested in learning. The premise of the video is that machines and computers are doing more and more of the work that humans do. Grey warns us to think about a future where there will be few jobs left for people. While watching this the first time I was extremely resistant to the idea. Despite my original resistance I think it is a good thought experiment. Try to imagine a world in which we have built robots to be better than humans at everything. I am assuming that it is possible to build a machine better than a human. You may fundamentally disagree that such a machine could be constructed. You may believe that there is something special about humans that cannot be recreated into a machine. While I do believe humans are pretty amazing, I don’t think that it is impossible for us to create a machine better than us. No one would argue that we have developed machines that are better than us at specific tasks.  For example I don’t think anyone can calculate square roots of 10 digit numbers as fast as wolfram alpha. I believe that machines will be better than us at much more than just tedious computation.

You may think we will at least need humans to build and repair these machines. That may be true at first, but is seems likely to me that we will be able to build robots who are better at designing robots then we are. Someone may respond to that saying we will stick to creative endeavors, but I also think it is likely that we will build robots who will be able to more creative than any human. Imagine a computer program that could make the most amazing music, paintings, and sculptures. Or imagine an AI that is the best philosopher in the world and can beat anyone at an argument. What is scary to me is what happens when we make a computer program that is not better than us at any particular task but a computer program that is better than us at being human. A computer program that is more self-aware then we are, that still understands and appreciates our flaws more than us, and that can write plays and make jokes better than anyone has before. A computer program so great people want to hang out with it more than with other humans.

It is interesting to imagine how society would structure itself in world where human work had virtually no value relative to the work done by machines. It seems like we may end up living in some sort of welfare state. This world is so different from ours I think it is hard to imagine what exactly would happen.  I think that’s what made me resistant to the idea when I first watched the video. I could not wrap my head around all the implications and that is scary. I am not really scared of some sort of terminator machine takeover. I am scared of not knowing what the future holds for society if we have technology better than us at everything we do. Hopefully these machines will be so smart we can ask them the best possible way to go about living meaningful lives. 

Is Google Making Us Omniscient?

            In the future, I will try to stick to articles outside of the ones assigned for class, but the “Is Google Making Us Stupid” article was very interesting to me. It discussed a few points that I enjoy thinking about within the topic of the exponentially growing information age. The main idea of the article was that using computers changes the way we think and that this expanding use may bring about important societal and behavioral changes within our species as a whole. On top of that, I think that this synthesis between our own consciousness and the vast wealth of knowledge known as the Internet can bring about biological and evolutionary changes for humanity as well.

            The author of the article, Nicholas Carr, opens and closes his piece with a connection to the artificial intelligence system from 2001: A Space Odyssey, HAL 9000. Carr writes that through the fast paced absorption that comes with learning on the web, he is unable to stay focused on lengthy works of writing and in general, learn the way he used to. He feels his brain changing, much like the death of the AI in Stanley Kubrick’s film. Now that so many people have smartphones and social media accounts, practically all of the world’s knowledge is at our fingertips. For those who are wary of this advanced technology, they say that this easy access to infinite knowledge will make us lose the importance of remembering anything at all. In opposition of the naysayers, and with the growing technology of Google Glass, cybernetic implants, and nanocomputers, the next logical step for ease of access to the Internet would be to directly sync it up to our consciousness and thought processes.

            Brain computer interfaces (BCIs) are a relatively common technology nowadays, mostly used for neuroprosthetic devices meant to restore lost or damaged hearing, sight, or movement. While the medical applications of BCIs towards repairing sensory-motor functions are astounding, its uses for altering cognitive functions can be just as extraordinary. Imagine being able to Google anything with just a thought. There are many different ways that this process would be able to be implemented. One way is to replace the common computer desktop outputs, such as the monitor and speaker system, with direct outputs into your own biological inputs, i.e. eyes and ears. Within your field of view, signals from a chip can interact with your occipital lobes and impose a computer screen on top of your vision. Whatever you would normally hear in that moment could be overlapped with music or whatever other sound effects occur when you are interacting with the desktop in your mind. Another way to implement BCIs is to more directly connect our thoughts to the internet so that we can browse different web pages as if we were browsing our own thoughts. This version of implementation is a bit more complicated, but would provide the user with a more streamline connection to the Internet’s vast arrays of data.

            Both of these BCI implementations have their pros and cons. Obviously, the psychological effects of having an entire world wide web attached to your mind could be catastrophic to any mere human. But if our species were to somehow connect our conscious minds to the Internet, it would be one step closer to the singularity, an event predicted by computer scientists and mathematicians where artificial intelligence would either merge with our own collective human intelligence and radically alter the evolution of our species, or completely exceed human capacity and control and eradicate our civilization. Either way, the increasing expansion of our technological ability and dependence is a very concerning subject that could have a wide array of consequences for our society. 

ESPN Enters the E-sports Arena

Link to Article


What are esports? By wikipedia definition they are "Organized competitive video games". This includes all games with competitive scenes. However, there is one game that has pushed esports to the front pages of newspapers and magazines. That is League of Legends, which is published by Riot Games. But it would not be wise to not mention the other games that helped pave the way for Riot Games' biggest and only title.

Before esports were truly big, there were many local tournaments, and even tournaments at a national level for esports that went unnoticed by the greater majority. Only those truly devoted to the games would know the schedules and where to find the few broadcasts that existed of these events. Games like Counter Strike 1.6 (now CS: Global Offensive), Super Smash Bros. Melee, and the Call of Duty franchise. All these games had their own competitive scenes that went unrecognized until esports truly became popular recently.

But what exactly separates League of Legends' competitive scene from the rest of esports? The best way to observe this is by looking at one of Leagues' number one competitors, Dota (Defense of the Ancients). Dota is a very similar game but has a much higher learning curve to get into, while the competitive scene requires somewhat similar skills to League. However, because of that steeper learning curve, Dota is a much worse spectator sport per say. In other words, it is much harder to follow what is going on in a competitive game of Dota as compared to League. In addition, the way the competitive scene is set up very sloppily in Dota. There are multiple matches in the professional leagues that are at the same time or there are large gaps where there are no matches whatsoever. In addition, the way this information is presented on Dota's website is very hard to follow and even avid fans have complained about this on both the Dota and League of Legends subreddits on Reddit.

One of the biggest things that League of Legends has is its format. Riot Games copied one of the most popular professional sports in America in order to optimize its appeal to fans, football. Riot Games created the LCS, League of Legends Championship Series, in order to mimic the NFL's layout for the most part. There are two different LCS Leagues, EU (Europe) and NA (North America). However, there is also a third series called OGN, (OnGameNet) that covers the Asian teams. In the LCS, 10 teams compete in NA LCS as well as another 10 in EU LCS. There are preset "Splits" in the spring and summer followed by an international "Worlds" tournament in the fall. This regimented schedule allows viewers to know exactly what is going on when. All matches are broadcast through Riot Games' official channel on both Twitch.tv and Youtube.com. In addition, by just watching the streams, you can see how professionally the casters act and speak. In a lot of the other esports, the fan base consists mostly of younger individuals who have no experience with appearing on video at such popular events and sometimes don't have the confidence necessary to provide good commentary during the game. However, because everything is done in-house at Riot Games, they are able to put together a very professional ESPN-like experience for the viewers.

These few points are the reason behind why Riot Games was able to make such a new game like League of Legends truly stand out in the public eye and in turn, be shown on ESPN. Like the article stated, ESPN is working with the major names in esports to really have a presence at well known sporting events such as the X Games. However, as League and other esports grow in popularity, it is possible that there will be dedicated time slots for professional gaming events much like there is now for baseball, football, soccer, etc.

A broken game and a million broken hearts

Being a game developer can be an incredibly rewarding job, financially and socially; however, the rewards do not come without hard work. Some may look down upon gaming as just a hobby or a silly way to pass time, but big blockbuster games with multimillion dollar budgets have much more to offer than that. There are global tournaments with real cash prizes, large communities where people, including myself, can make real lifelong friendships (and rivalries), and, yes, gaming is also a fun way to pass time. But what happens when the release of one of those big blockbuster titles does not go as expected?

Such was the case with Halo: The Master Chief Collection, a game developed by 343 Industries. It is the culmination of all the previous Halo titles, games that shaped first person shooters as we know them starting 13 years ago, all remastered and upgraded to run smoothly on the current generation Xbox One console. Sounds great, right?

It should have been. The game shipped with numerous game breaking issues, and it is currently assumed that the developers knew it was broken when it went gold (they have denied this, but evidence to the contrary makes their claims hard to believe). The most notable failure is the matchmaking system. Matchmaking is where you can go online, solo or with friends, and be matched up with other players around the world based on skill for competitive gaming. At any time of day or night, no matter what my friends are up to, I can go online and play intense competitive team or solo games, big or small, whatever I want. Not only that, but it allows for me to make new friends with some of these random people I've been matched with and foster the community element of the game. In the case of the Master Chief Collection, this was impossible. The game would most often search indefinitely for matches, producing no results. When the search was actually successful, there would be uneven teams, the game would crash, load improperly, or (best case scenario) you would be matched with people way more (or less) talented than you, making the matches fast and boring.

The matchmaking was not the only issue with the game. There were other issues, one of which being the person who came in first place would see “1th Place!” on their screen, a glaring error that made people wonder how much effort really went into testing this $60 product for which millions of people were buying a $500 console.

The community was hopeful for a quick fix at first, but when update after update came and went and the game was still cripplingly broken, players began losing hope that their purchase would ever fully work. Many people demanded refunds from Microsoft, or sold the game back to the retailer. Others just stuck it back on the shelf to collect dust and returned to the last game they were playing. Others gave up and just started working on their homework.

You may ask, so what? Big deal, it’s just a game. It will probably be fixed eventually. What does this have to do with society?

The whole situation gives birth to a range of new questions and topics separate from the technical details of the game. First, the community wonders why it is okay for these developers to (allegedly) knowingly ship a broken product when everyone else in the world simply gets fired when they do not meet their deadlines. Why should exceptions be made for game developers? There were most certainly missed deadlines at 343. People also wonder why it is okay to have spent $60 on a product just to find out that it does not work as advertised, and then to get hassled when trying to get their money back. Would people be happy if they bought a new coffee machine which just happened to drip all the grind into their mugs? No, they would fight for their money back. Same goes for Halo.

It also brings to question the topic of preordering. Preordering is when you can pay for a game long before it is released to be guaranteed a copy on the release date. There is now a large initiative among gamers to stop preordering games, because so many people paid for Halo under the assumption that it would work come release. They think preordering allows for developer laziness, since they have already been paid for the product before it is even finished. What incentive does this give them to finish on time? They argue that if nobody preordered, word would have spread about the status of the game before people got around to buying it. Since money talks, the community is confident this would have resulted in a quicker fix.

Today, significant progress has been made towards repairing Halo, and a big overhaul update is going to be made in the coming weeks that should (hopefully) get everything working as it should have been in November. The developers have compensated the community with a free month of Xbox Live and tons of new in game content. As for the game itself, however, gamers are worried that the damage already done to the community is irreparable. The fear is that most people have already moved on to greener grass, and that when (and if) the Master Chief Collection works problem-free, nobody will care. People say that they paid $60 for the community and experience of Halo, and that even once the bugs are worked out, if the experience is not there, they have not gotten what they paid for.

I'm confident that the game will be fixed and there will still be other people to play with when that time comes. There are definitely quite a number of drama queens in the gaming community, but in this case, they raise valid points. I have learned to be a little more cautious about paying for things before I'm sure they're going to work. Especially as a college student, $60 is a lot of money to pay for grinds in my coffee.

The Distraction Addiction, Her, and other musings

 I've only been in this class a week and some of the things I've learned about myself already make me uncomfortable. Over the weekend, I printed out the reading assignment so I wouldn't have to be on a computer to read it - because duh I would get distracted. I even put my computer in another room and had my mind set to get the reading done in a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, I forgot to put my phone in another room. I noticed that and just told myself that I know how to buckle down if I need. The phone shouldn't be a distraction. I know you already see what happens next coming, but I honestly didn't. A friend of mine started talking to me about the movie "Her"(10/10 would recommend.) I wasn't being distracted; instead, I was being a friend. It would have been incredibly rude of me to just ignore her. So I didn't. I even told her that I was working on something and couldn't talk for long, and yet I talked - at least for another 45 minutes. 45 precious minutes. It's uncomfortable to realize how addicted I am to distraction. While reading about the various software that exists to help people focus, I thought about how cool the idea was but how I would never use it for myself. All the programs the he talked about required the strong will of the user to actually work. January 26th Reeba does not have that type of will, and that's a sad thought. 

So I had to ask, "Why am I so addicted to distraction anyway?" The answer's simple. I don't view my most frequent distractions as well distractions. Friendship, conversation, dialogue about a topic of interest - those are all things I value. That's what I was doing instead of reading "The Distraction Addiction." My texts were enhancing my human experience. What I fail to see is that I was avoiding key aspects of what make up that human experience, mainly being responsible with academics. Bare with me as I try and make the following connection. In the movie "Her" the main character Theodore Twombly falls in love with his operating system who calls  herself/itself(who knows?) Samantha. I like a good love story so of course some part of me thinks it's kinda charming. However, I couldn't shake the underlying discomfort I was feeling while watching the movie. Here was a man who essentially convinced himself that technology enhances the human experience to the point that he relied on technology for one of the most important connections we as humans enjoy. He enhanced his experience, but really he was just escaping it. He was distracting himself. And what better distraction than the voice of Scarlett Johansson. As real as Samantha felt, at the end of the day she was a piece of technology. The real world and love in the real world seemed hopeless to him. Therefore, he essentially distracted himself with Samantha. 

So what the heck am I trying to say about distraction anyway? At least for me personally, I think distractions are what we use to trick ourselves. We tell ourselves that we absolutely have to do something now. Who cares if there are 80 pages to read? My friend's watching a movie and obviously she needs my attention more than school work. We tell ourselves that it makes us better friends or smarter individuals (for when I spent hours clicking through Wikipedia articles). Technology and all its methods of distraction are obviously positive enhancements to our lives, and not purely excuses used to avoid homework. Essentially, distraction is a form of escape we've convinced ourselves is a form of enhancement. 

Sorry Teddy. Samantha didn't enhance your life, but it did help you escape. 

How the Car Keeps Getting Smarter

            Cars keeps getting more and more advanced but as they get more advance, we seem to notice it a little less each time. I remember being ecstatic as a kid when my Mom’s new van had an automatic sliding door. To me, that was revolutionary. Many cars now possess collision avoidance, lane guidance, sensor-driven driving correction, WiFi-hotspots, and smart cruise control. But most of these features are hidden away and we hardly even realize they are there until we need them. The big thing that isn’t hidden are these tablets or minicomputers right smack dab in the center of your car’s dash. Referred to as “telematics” systems, these systems house most of the features you would use on a daily basis, i.e. navigation system, radio, climate control. Many cars come standard with a back up camera (soon to mandatory in all cars by 2018) that either shows up in a little screen right on your rear view mirror or on your dashboard. Some cars even offer more cameras, which allow you to see from all angles and can even assist in parking and other features.

            Most of these telematics systems house a navigation system in them too but unfortunately they are not like the navigation systems most of are use to; Google Maps and Apple Maps. Luckily for you, these phone based navigation systems will soon be available in cars with the integration of Apple CarPlay and Google Auto. Basically what these do is allow your car’s in-dash display to show apps from your phone. “CarPlay takes the things you want to do with your iPhone while driving and puts them right on your car’s built-in display. You get directions, make calls, send and receive messages, and listen to music, all in a way that allows you to stay focused on the road.” With Apple CarPlay, you can control your dash through voice or touch. CarPlay features Siri voice control that is specially designed for driving scenarios. Another great feature is being apple to uses Apple maps. Not only does it predict traffic conditions and adjusts for them, but it can also predict where you most likely want to go using addresses from your email, text messages, contacts, and calendars.

            So how smart are cars getting at this point? Well we can look at Google and, although they are still in their testing phase, they have been quit successful with their self-driving cars. Google hopes to have their car fully operationally within a year or so and to make the self-driving car a reality for everyday drivers. Google is only one of the many companies working on self-driving cars with plenty of others applying for permits to make their cars street legal too. It is still not clear when the general public will be able to use them though since the DMV will not allow the general public to use self-driving cars until it’s certain they are safe to the public.

            Possibly in the next few years we can all be tweeting, instagraming, and watching live sports as we zip around in our WiFi-hotspot self-driving cars spending more time using the technology that we barely realize we have and take for granted.  Best part, they’ll just take you to where you want to go without you saying because your car will know everything about you.

Technology and Relationships

This post is in regards to my opinion on how technology affects relationships. I think is it awesome that technology allows us to remain connected with loved ones, friends, and family even when we are thousands of miles apart. Things like texting, Facebook, email, Skype and Snapchat keep us all connected. This is great for couples who are long distance they can remain in contact, see what the other one is up to, and even see each others faces though video. However, I feel that technology can also negatively impact relationships. I think that sometimes we feel responsible to stay connected at all times and this can lead to a clingy or even in the extreme situation an abusive relationship. Someone basically can keep tabs on you at all times, or at least try to. As humans I think it is important for us to have our privacy and alone time, time to unwind and relax with out contact with others. But, a significant other could text, call, email, Skype, Snapchat, Tweet, Facebook message or post to try and get your attention when your are just trying to relax. Staying in constant communication is glorified when really I think it makes us all too dependent on constant contact and makes people afraid of being a lone. I have so many friends who hate staying in on a weekend night just because they feel like they are missing out or are being left out. They see all the things their friends or significant other is posting and get upset or even jealous that they are not out doing something. Really they could be taking this time to do something they enjoy rather than get their head wrapped up in something insignificant. The ability to constantly communicate also creates conflict if a person does not answer quick enough.  People get all freaked out when someone does not answer a phone call or message or text when really they could just be busy not ignoring you. So while I think is it great that people can communicate half way across the world I think that just like with diet, everything in moderation, it is always a great feeling to "unplug" on occasion.

Cablevision's Service Shift

Lately, it seems that we have been shifting our means of phone communication from cellular service, to wi-fi. New operating systems for Apple and other companies let users text, send data, and most recently, talk on the phone through a wireless internet connection. Less and less often we have to worry about bad cell reception because many places including homes, schools, and businesses have wireless networks for people to use their smartphones to talk and text. Emily Steel stated in her New York Times article that more than half of smartphone browsing comes from internet connection. In that same article, Steel presents Cablevision's new addition to this phenomenon, Freewheel.

Freewheel is a service that gives customers unlimited talk, text, and data for a much lower rate than wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T. The catch is that this is only available when the user is on wi-fi and is only compatible with a Motorola Moto G smartphone. With wi-fi in homes and "more than 1.1 million hot spots for both indoor and outdoor access in the New York metro region" this service seems awesome with the only downside being traveling because wi-fi is not consistent or everywhere. But, for someone like a stay-at-home mom or retiree, this is all they need since they are basically always on wi-fi in their homes.

While the service itself is great, a big point to note is the future building on Cablevision's revolution. Other cable providers are sure to jump on this train and release their own versions of wi-fi exclusive phone plans and this will become a competition among the cable companies. But further than that, wireless companies will have to combat this release that threatens their own business. If they lose a large sum of customers due to virtually the same service for a cheaper price that appeals to a specific market, they will need to retain the customers they've had for years. These wireless companies would be smart to work with the cable companies for a few reasons. Freewheel and its eventual similar services are simple and inexpensive and the downsides are fewer than those of wireless phone service. With Freewheel, you are either on or off wi-fi, so you know where you can and can't use your phone, which is convenient so you can stay in areas that are wi-fi friendly. For wireless, cellular service is always up and down, not to mention it is falling off in popularity. If companies like Verizon and AT&T were to work with cable companies, the joined forces could perfect the spotty presence of wi-fi and make it more widespread so most, if not all, of the country is wi-fi friendly, much easier than fixing and improving cellular coverage. It is no secret that wi-fi is taking over, so why not focus on improving expediting the eventual monopoly?

Internet Infrastructure's Fallacy

There's a problem in this country that no one aside from the millennials and the tech-savvy seem to care about: the telecoms blatant disregard for customer satisfaction and keeping up with international technology standards. Between data on cellular and bandwidth on home internet, telecoms screw the user over with a high price for mediocre speeds. The FCC's lack of backbone or independence doesn't help the matter at all. Recently, the cable lobbying known as the National Cable and Telecommunications Association made a new FCC filing claiming that the average internet consumer doesn't even need an internet connection speed of 25Mbps, let alone 1Gbps offered by Google Fiber. This is outrageous. Between Verizon failing to hold their end of a deal with Pennsylvania made in 1994 to this I honestly believe that no one with authority really seems to care about the consumer. If the FCC does not take serious action, the development of the internet will be seriously hindered. We are currently being thrust into a new market of streaming-only content (from discs and tapes) cloud-hosting services, and new internet telecommunications that many people, and soon everyone, will be using every day. If telecoms do not upgrade their infrastructure and do not stop readjusting their monocles, the internet will become bland and unusable. Those who use it to create new wonderful things will be restricted by the poor performance of the infrastructure. Another problem is that telecoms cannot continue to charge a high amount for something that is becoming a necessity for everyone. Access to the internet cannot continue to be considered a luxury. It is the ultimate tool for the 21st century.  I cannot think of one profession or industry today that has not adopted the internet as a tool to improve their performance. For the student, it's the ultimate research tool.  The consumer considers it the ultimate shopping center. We have become so dependent on the internet, and the telecoms know this, so they charge drastically high for sub par service. The internet should be classified as a utility, because that is just what everyone uses it as. A century ago, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was used to break up several energy monopolies, namely Big Oil and Coal. They were unfairly gaming the system for a resource that the nation had become dependent on for growth. By defining energy utilities, the nation did not have to worry about stagnation. I fear that we might stagnant growth if telecoms go unchecked. If you don't make something cheap for everyone and everything, it cannot become widely accepted and adopted in forms not yet thought of. Electricity is the perfect example of this. how can a telecom justify its high prices?  Surely the major operating costs of a telecom must be upgrading their infrastructure, but we don't see that. We promise tax breaks for those that do and yet we receive nothing in return. Consumers, it's time we take back the true internet.

Black Mirror

          Good morning to all of you who are reading the articles and (fingers crossed) enjoying a snow day! Take a seat back, relax, and turn on some black mirrors. What are black mirrors, you say? Well, each time you stare into a laptop monitor, a smartphone, or a TV, you're looking at a reflection of yourself through the black mirror of technology. Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror is up on Netflix, and after binge-watching all seven episodes (please note that the Christmas episode is strangely absent from Netflix) I thought it was the perfect topic to blog about.

          As the name suggests, Black Mirror is a look at the darker side of technology. As Brooker himself stated, ""If technology is a drug – and it does feel like a drug – then what, precisely, are the side-effects?" As such the show dives quickly into shocking twists and turns with each episode focusing on a different aspect of technology and its effects on us.

          One episode deals with a world in which every person has a camera installed into their eyes which makes privacy nearly extinct.

          Another tackles the issue of artificial intelligence and how "human" a piece of code can become.

          Yet another deals with the criticism of bystanders who eagerly stand by and film tragic events instead of offering aid.

          Finally, the Christmas episode showcases a world in which one person can block another person in real life the same way that we can in social media.

          The format of the show is reminiscent of The Twilight Zone in that each episode is a stand-alone and take place in completely different universes. It is also not for the faint of heart. Brooker makes sure that Black Mirror is constantly fiddling between the lines of delight and discomfort. The first episode alone will likely weed out most viewers - which involves the Prime Minister being forced to have sex with a pig on national TV for the safe return of the royal Duchess who is held hostage.

          The scariest part of the show is that some of the technology seen on the show is not too far off from current society. Public surveillance may soon make anonymity a thing of the past. Artificial intelligence is improving with each passing year. People already stand by idly as accidents unfold before them and can block people on Facebook or Instagram. Yet I argue that once you get past the discomforting and depressing aspects of the episodes, you can dive down to the social commentary that makes the show well worth watching.

With Lemons, Make Lemonade: Google Fiber and the FCC's Impending Net Neutrality Decision

     Oh boy, everyone's favorite discussion topic!

     Google is one of the largest companies on the planet. They've expanded far beyond their original scope as a search engine provider and are now involved in all sorts of things: robotics, cell phones, computer operating systems, you name it. Pretty recently, Google also previewed their take on providing an Internet Service, in the form of Google Fiber. Google Fiber saw a very limited deployment, only being tested in three places: Austin, Texas, Provo, Utah, and Kansas City, Kansas. While most current Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide download speeds ranging from 5-50 megabits* per second depending on how much you pay, Google promised to deliver 1,000 megabits per second, essentially a gigabit per second, for the same price. Not only that, but they made an even simpler offer: if you paid an initial setup price, they would give you the average 5 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up that other companies offer at high prices for free. For around $300 you could have free internet access with your current speed and upgrade to their full service at a later time.

     Because it is trying to get involved in the Internet Service market, Google is now involved in the Net Neutrality argument. Is Net Neutrality good? Bad? I'm not equipped to answer those questions, but I can try. Currently, many people are advocating for the FCC to classify ISPs as Title II utility providers, which would subject them to the same laws as Water and Electric companies. These laws are outdated, and don’t perfectly apply to the current internet economy, but they are the best option currently available. At a minimum, this reclassification would prevent ISPs from “mak[ing] any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services;” a definite improvement from the current situation we’re in.

     Google Fiber sounds incredible. Its biggest issue is its severely limited deployment. One of the reasons it's so hard for Google to deploy is because they have no access to public utility poles and the like. AT&T has been very protective of these poles, and obviously sees Google as a big threat to them (Google Fiber also comes with TV and Phone services.) If the FCC does reclassify ISPs as Title II utilities, it will open the door for Google to lobby to be recognized as a utility, and would be allowed access to the poles that they currently aren’t allowed to use.

     Regardless of the FCC’s decision, I have no doubt that Google will press forward with their deployment of Google Fiber, and their ensuing interruption of the Internet Service industry. Hey, if they're gonna be taking over the world anyway, they may as well give us Gigabit internet speeds while they do it.

*Megabits. The "bit" is important. There are 8 bits in a byte. By measuring data in megabits, which nobody uses when tracking actual data at all,  marketers can put numbers 8 times larger than the megabyte per second speeds of their services on advertisements. This is the only reason megabits are used at all.

Sources:

Google's Official Page for Google Fiber

Wall Street Journal: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note With FCC on Title II

The Daily Dot: Title II is the key to net neutrality—so what is it?

Altering the Real World Experience

Every minute of every hour someone is brainstorming about a new gadget or simply just imagining how much easier life would be if a certain device existed. Like a device that you could hold in front of your stomach, press a button and instantly lose 10 pounds. I really hope someone is developing a device like that right now. In the meantime, we take to thinking of the grandiose. Always thinking of something to make our lives easier, faster, stronger, better.

I like to think that this new mindset, that technology is meant to make our lives easier, all started during the industrial revolution, when newly invented machines started to essentially replace people. Today, machines, robots, and new technologies don't only replace people but alter their real world experience altogether. What were once mediocre ideas of new technologies in movies and films are now real and functioning and in our own homes. For example, the idea of interactive holograms has been featured in movies ever since I can remember. It was always an idea but today it is no longer just an idea. It is the real thing.

Microsoft recently released news of their new HoloLens, a holographic computing headset. With this new headset, Microsoft aims to seamlessly connect our digital lives with our personal lives by creating a whole new world, through a set of glasses. On their website, http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us, it says, "When you change the way you see the world, you change the world you see." There is no attempt to hide the fact that this new gadget is supposed to alter our real world experiences. And while some may deem this new device revolutionary, I like to think otherwise.

The truth is, we don't really need this. I feel like the smarter technology gets, the dumber we become. While, yes, there are technologies that simply make things more convenient, there are many more that aim to facilitate everything we do. We rely too much on these gadgets that make our lives easier. We have become sedentary. We have become a race of people, who for the majority, don't do anything without the use of technology. Some people no longer read books, they'd rather skim through web articles. Some people don't even know what a chalkboard feels like. 

We are revolutionizing the technological world and in the same way altering our experiences as human beings. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right, but I think that some technologies are doing more harm than they are doing good and this new Microsoft HoloLens might be one of them.

Internet Permanence

I spent what felt like far too long deciding what the topic of this blog post would be. For some reason, knowing that this assignment would be published online caused me to treat it differently from other writing assignments. That isn’t to say I put less effort into the other assignments, but after handing in a paper assignment, I’m free to delete the digital copy and destroy the physical. This assignment, however, will essentially remain forever, and even associated with my name.

I started to wonder how far back my internet activities were recorded. Recalling that my first interaction with the internet was in 2005 or so, I revisited the websites I used to frequent. Sure enough, my account on a popular Pokemon forum still exists, along with everything I’ve ever written since I joined in January 2006. I learned things about my 12-year-old self that I had long forgotten, such as my short-lived interest in spriting, the products of which are also still available on Photobucket (although not the ones I uploaded to Imageshack). The private forum my online friends and I created for our video game alliance still exists; its predecessor, however, which had been abandoned after a mutiny against the leader, has been lost to time.

Now I’m much more cognizant of the permanence of the Internet. Fortunately my 12-year-old writings were largely innocent, but of course some were embarrassing. Some content escapes archival, like my previously-mention forum, but as a general rule, the Internet never forgets. This has important implications for children who have grown up with the Internet. Prior to the advent of the Internet, childhood opinions were quickly forgotten, and the only reminder of our mistakes was that one who relative who will never let you live down that ridiculous hairdo you had in high school. Now, the Internet is that relative.

Of course, everyone has had skeletons in the closet. Every politician has done something career-ruining at one point, but until now, there was no record of it. This point in time is the most dangerous because it’s a transitional period. People now have a host of new information at their disposal with no standard for how to use it. People are not held responsible for their actions as an infant or toddler; it isn’t until we enter “adulthood” that our actions become our own. This adulthood is not defined by law, but by society. Currently, a generation of children that has grown up with the Internet is entering a world where the majority of people have not. Generations from now, when everyone’s past is publicly available, the age at which we become accountable for our actions may be pushed forward. If everyone’s embarrassing teenage opinions and images are available online, it won’t necessarily raise any red flags. Mistakes that everyone make are easy to forgive. Childhood mistakes might be viewed as a product of their time, in the same way older generations’ opinions on issues of race or gender must be viewed in context of their time. However, until then, when all information on all generations is equally available, it would be wise to carefully consider the consequences of content posted to the Internet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/eric-schmidt/10080596/Hay-Festival-2013-Teenagers-mistakes-will-stay-with-them-forever-warns-Google-chief-Eric-Schmidt.html

Another Crack at Bitcoin

An article from the NY Times technology section caught my attention this morning. In the fall of 2013, I spoke with my uncle regarding the rise of Bitcoin prices and its legitimacy as a cryptocurrency. It was a currency that had been around for a few years, but only recently started to get noticed by the mainstream population. I was a bit headstrong during this conversation, believing that Bitcoin would soon be a new online mechanism to purchase goods and services, while he insisted that in the near future Bitcoin would be no more. Well, it turns out that we were both wrong.

Since that discussion, the value of the Bitcoin has taken a tremendous plunge from it's strong value a year and a half ago. It is down, but definitely not out yet. The Winklevoss twins, who were in a legal dispute with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, are interested in reviving the cryptocurrency. They intend to create a Bitcoin exchange: something that would resemble an electronic exchange system like the NASDAQ. The Winklevoss twins have begun working with engineers, banks and regulators to help develop this exchange. They wish to name it “Gemini” and have it open in the upcoming months.

The twins are funding Gemini themselves: they argue that there needs to be a stronger foundation for the cryptocurrency to be successful. At this time, Bitcoin is extremely volatile; prices rise and fall drastically in short intervals of time, which, right now, doesn't make it a viable currency solution. This is why the twins believe a solid foundation is paramount to Bitcoin's success. They have a preliminary version of Gemini running and are awaiting approval from a New York financial regulator to make it available to the public.

If the Winklevoss twins can get approval from the NY regulator, this might be a fresh spin on the management of Bitcoin. They are intent on regulating Bitcoin, which is something the cryptocurrency has not utilized in any of the previous exchanges: it was always decentralized and outside of the government's hands. Currency that is not regulated might sound like a good idea on paper, but that's not necessarily the case. An example of such an unregulated exchange was one that the twins themselves invested in; in 2014, one of the executives of that exchange was arrested due to money laundering.

I believe that Bitcoin has the potential to be a stable, digital, mainstream currency. With the proper funding and financial experts, the Winklevoss twins can create a regulated Bitcoin exchange with proper financial backing and trustworthy exchange owners. Bitcoin can become another mode of payment, such as PayPal, and also another type of currency, like the dollar or euro. The regulation and stabilization of Bitcoin could very provide a new type of currency that can join the ranks of the US Dollar as the go-to choice for online currency. The major hurdle that Bitcoin faces now is its perception in the media; a recent breach in Bitcoin exchanges and bankruptcy of another aided in the plummet of its value. This attempt by Winklevoss twins, if implemented properly, could propel Bitcoin into a mainstream currency; if implemented improperly, it could spell the end of the cryptocurrency.

Source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/winklevoss-twins-aim-to-take-bitcoin-mainstream-with-a-regulated-exchange/?ref=technology