Form Factor

Many people don’t understand the design struggles that are associated with changing form factors. From the desktop to the now-emerging watch, screen sizes are constraining canvases that marketers, developers, and designers need to maneuver around in order to get into the heads of people who seek it. A popular term that has been tossed around with the advent of smartphones is “responsive design”, where the content of your application, website, or service are aware of the device they are running on and adapt accordingly. The ultimate goal of design should be to appeal and cater to the most people possible, and responsive design seems to be approaching that kind of With the Apple Watch approaching, it’s more important than ever to understand the dynamics that comes with serving the consumer in a way that is informative, responsive, and not overbearing.

Typically, web designers and application developers alike have moved towards the pushing of the envelope—what is the latest and greatest of technologies, and how can I shape my application to fit into whatever can run the best stuff? However, if you want your product to scale to the most amount of people possible, you have to think about the wide majority of people that don’t bother getting whatever can run the latest software—my grandmother doesn’t care about how many features her phone has as long as it does the basics of what she needs. And that is the world that we are now designing for—a place where the hot new technologies (watches, wearables, etc.) are just as powerful as the low-end smartphones and computers that a majority of the world is using. The Apple Watch (and others like it) are inadvertently making creators think about how to serve the under-served, which is definitely a turning point for the industry. Software and hardware are now getting to the point where speed is less likely to matter, and it’s more focused on getting the most amount of people the services that they want or need.

There is a huge emphasis to be ahead of the curve in our culture. To be involved in what is new and interesting. A lot of us chase after this dream without realizing all of the people they are alienating in the process. Sometimes, an underpowered (but popular) accessory needs to be created in order for people to think about the ones they’ve been leaving behind. The ones that haven’t upgraded their phones in 4 years but still want access to the good stuff. The ones that have no intention of trading up until their technology gives them a reason to. And I think we would all be better served if we think about these people more often than we think about the bleeding-edge. The scope that you can achieve by focusing on the many far outweighs the benefits of serving the latest and greatest to the privileged few that can take advantage of them. Build for the world, not just for your small group of tech-savvy friends.

Is Artificial Intelligence Something to be Afraid of?

Artificial Intelligence has always been a topic of controversy. Many scientists and big names believe that Artificial Intelligence can lead to great things, like machines doing complex tasks for us, etc. However, there are some big names that aren't so thrilled about A.I.

Here are some of the things the proponents of A.I. have said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "As long as we don't program emotions into robots, there's no reason to fear them taking over the world."

Justine Cassell said, "If you want to avoid the robot revolution, wait 20 minutes until it runs out of power and that will be the end..."

Michio Kaku said, "Will they be dangerous? Possibly. So I suggest we put a chip in their brain to shut them off if they have murderous thoughts."

Here are some of the things that people who don't support A.I. have said:

Stephen Hawking said, "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."

Steve Wozniak said, "If we build these devices to take care of everything for us, eventually they'll think faster than us and they'll get rid of the slow humans to run companies more efficiently."

Elon Musk said, "With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon."

Here are some of the things that people who are neutral on the topic have said:

Bill Gates said, "First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent... A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern."

Max Tegmark said, "On one hand, it could potentially solve most of our problems, even mortality... On the other hand, it could destroy life as we know it and everything we care about."

Now that we've looked at what famous people think, let's talk about my opinions on the matter. I think that artificial intelligence is a really cool concept. It would be awesome to get to play multi-player games against robots when no one else is around. It would also be cool to get robots to do all of our difficult tasks. However, I do understand the risk when it comes to artificial intelligence. What if we do too good of a job of programming them? What if they do take over? Here is the thing, though. I believe that humans are smart enough to set up fail-safes. Also, the robots will have a fixed power supply, which will run out eventually. If we are smart enough to program A.I. correctly, we shouldn't have to worry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/05/fear-artificial-intelligence_n_6941994.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology

Turkey Blocks YouTube & Twitter Over Hostage Photo

For this week’s blog post I wanted to cover a news story that reminded me a lot of what we read a few weeks ago about how websites like Yahoo are being censored in places like France and China. Last week a hostage crisis occurred at a central courthouse in Istanbul Turkey where a well-known prosecutor was held at gun point against his will. In an unsuccessful police raid, two militants and the hostage were unfortunately killed in the cross fire. However, the debate that is being raised isn’t so much about the wisdom of the raid but rather the publication of a photograph depicting one terrorist holding said prosecutor helplessly at gun point. Due to the image being circulated through Twitter and YouTube, the Turkish government immediately shut down both websites and any additional sites that portrayed the image. In addition, the Turkish newspapers that published the photograph were also barred from covering the prosecutor’s funeral. This raises the question; did Turkish authorities go too far with their rulings?

This wouldn’t be the first time that the Turkish government had pulled such a move under the leadership of President Recep Erdogan as they have become somewhat notorious for aggressively cracking down on expression in a battle between the state and the press. In fact, due to this history they have only further distanced themselves from joining the European Union, which they have long aspired to do. As such, everyone, including myself, generally agrees that Turkey’s censorship of websites such as Facebook and YouTube are simply stupid. However, this case is slightly different in my opinion in that I believe a debate should be raised as to whether or not the image should have been posted without any alterations. This point was raised by another Turkish reporter, Ahmet Sik, who believed that the photo should have been published, but the prosecutors face should have been blurred out as he was confined against his will and it’s important to respect his family. I completely agree with him for these reasons; however, some people might disagree with that notion.

My main concern is that a website like Twitter did nothing to control the circulation of the photo. I’m not saying that people’s freedom of speech should be confined, as I certainly do not agree with the Turkish governments recent actions. However, I feel that it would be ideal if Twitter for example, had some way of analyzing the pictures that users post, and alerting them if they contained inappropriate or sensitive content. While this system sounds a lot like the “are you sure you want to click this button” option, whose effectiveness is a topic of debate in itself, I believe it would help users think twice about circulating images that could hurt the families of those involved.

Reference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/world/europe/turkey-blocks-twitter-youtube-and-sites-that-published-hostage-photo.html?ref=technology&_r=0

Google to eliminate international calling charges?

Google is not only going to be providing a wireless cell service, it could be trying to provide a more cost effective one. There have recently been deals made that show that the company may be making efforts to provide a wireless service that costs the same no matter where in the world you are. Google has stated that it does not want to compete with wireless giants like AT&T and Verizon, but nevertheless this venture could put significant pressure on them. This project could pressure the wireless market into lowering prices in much the same way Google Fiber is trying to put pressure on ISPs to provide faster internet for the same or lower prices.

Recently, Google seems to be starting projects that it doesn't intend to become the new standards but instead to put pressure on the current standards. The projects I am thinking of are: Google Project Zero, Google Fiber and this new and so far unnamed Google wireless service. Project Zero is pressuring the industry to release critical patches faster and in turn increase the overall security of software. Google Fiber is pressuring ISPs to provide faster internet and the same or lower prices as many people currently pay, and this new wireless service seems to be trying to eliminate roaming charges or special international cell service plans.

Some members of my family have recently asked me if I think Google is spreading itself too thin, are they getting involved in too many things that are not related to internet searches? Well... I don't think so. Google makes so much revenue that the probably don't even care if some of these projects fail completely, but the goal isn't really for them to succeed. Like I have already pointed out, these projects seem to be designed to make a change in the way things are done, once it accomplishes this Google may well shutdown some of these services with little to no warning to the average consumer (RIP Google Reader).

Is Google going to take over the world? They certainly seem to be getting their hands in a lot of different markets. They have the internet (searches, email, Chrome browser), computers (ChromeOS), phones (Android), internet service (Fiber, project Loon), cars (self driving car project) and soon cell network service. This may actually be a "when" question instead of an "if" question. Is that bad? Google has thus far not been "evil" in the eyes of many consumers, but what do we do if they suddenly flip the switch one day? I like Google services as much as the next guy, but every time I read about an interesting new Google project it makes me think more about what will happen if Google takes over the world. I like a lot of what Google is doing, and if they continue to "not be evil" then I think I would be alright with Google taking over the world. But the real question is has Google already taken over the world? Do they already own our lives?

http://www.eweek.com/mobile/google-wireless-service-could-offer-global-roaming-at-no-added-cost.html

The crippled Audi SQ5

As it may be observed, I am a big automotive fanatic. I follow Formula 1 instead of baseball (long live Ferrari), go to the racetrack instead of the beach and read about cars instead of doing my homework...sometimes. Anyways, one of the biggest topics for me is about autonomous cars and although I have brought it up previously, new evidence has finally begun to open a pandoras box to issues posed by autonomous cars.
This past weekend, right in time for the New York City Autoshow, a company decided to do a little bit of an experiment; drive from the west coast towards the NY autoshow. Now that in itself is impressive task because hell, even I wouldn't drive across the country. But they did it in an Audi SQ5 which must've been very relaxing and had a lot of punch in the road to overpass those pesky slow drivers and burn some rubber. But wait, there's more! The beautiful SQ5 was moving on its own, because it is autonomous. So you buy a perfectly asphalt-marking, road-griping, lean machine and retrofit it so it drives itself? Where's the logic in that? Apparently, Delphi found the logic
A few hiccups they encountered were that the car completely resisted going around a construction site and it's strict desire to drive at the posted speed limit. Yes, speed limits are posted there for "safety" but mostly so we don't have this huge cloud of smoke above us and because there's plenty of very stupid drivers, just look at any BMW driver, especially the blue ones. But driving at the limit can be especially dangerous if the flow of traffic demands for a higher speed. If everyone around you is going 65mph, to be modest, and you insist on keeping it under 45mph, boy are you looking for trouble. That is just asking to be cursed at, but the machine won't care anyways. But it poses threats such as causing confusion amongst other drivers who have to slow their speed and fight to change into the other lane while not a single jerk lets them go.
The first hiccup is what scares me the most. If this autonomous car wont go near constructions sites, then they are in for a surprise when it hops on the Pulaski Skyway. This is problematic because it is an instance where it refuses to move, requiring a manual override. What will the car do in such a case when everyone is going 55mph? Will it stop in the middle of Route 1&9? And what if the operator is fast asleep? Will it blast music until the person wakes up? Or what if the customer sends out for it (because I'm sure that would eventually be integrated. Your own car that picks you up)? Sure, a software update might try to correct it but again I stand strongly on the belief that some software update won't always do the right thing.
Besides, buying a fast car and not driving it to its full potential is like ordering lobster from Red Lobster and receiving it only to eat the small legs; useless.

Hoboken to be the next smart city

Recently, the concept of "smart cities" has come into discussion with the growing popularity of things such as cloud computing, the Internet of Things, smartphones, smart meters, and real world-user interfaces. Basically, a smart city (in my definition, which is similar to most common definitions) is a city that uses these technologies in order to monitor things like infrastructure (traffic, people congestion at a train/bus station, provide alerts to citizens about potential related issues, send data to the city government about the same. In fewer words, a smart city integrates the people, the government, and the physical city itself with a collection of digital networks.

This idea seems like it could be very useful. Imagine getting a notification on your phone or email or what have you telling you to wait an extra few minutes/leave a few minutes early for you train because there are so many people at the station that you wouldn't be able to get your usual train. Or that Washington Street is so backed up that you should take an alternate route to work. Seems pretty cool. Smart cities could also use things like motion sensitive lights in public places in order to reduce electricity consumption (recently I saw these same type of lights in target freezer sections that turn off when the freezer door is not open, just like your home fridge, and I wondered what it would be like if all stores were like that, but with their entire lighting system). It could also monitor things like water pressure in various manes to alert the city to potential breaks, really anything you can think of could probably be incorporated into the capabilities of a smart city.

Now, despite how cool and useful I thought all of this sounded, I couldn't help but think it's also a little strange. Yeah, at first the motion sensor technology would just sense edge flow and use an algorithm to convert that data into a rough number of people present in a certain area (that's how the current technology actually works). But how long would it take before the potential case of the city/tech companies/whoever to try to integrate personal devices like a smartphone gps or a fitbit into the system, which would allow for the smart city to know where individual people are as opposed to just a person density in a given area? Would it then just be impossible to be totally off the grid? I'm sure Ron Swanson would be pretty upset about this.

So I bring this up because one of my roommates, an Art&Tech here, recently gave a presentation (along with the rest of his group) to the mayor about this edge flow technology which Stevens students recently helped Bell Labs integrate into an interactive ad at the W hotel. They gave this presentation because the Mayor (and her people) are interested in using the technology to make Hoboken a smart city, as was made apparent in her address prior to their presentation.

So what do you guys think? Smart cities: Kosher? Not so much? Would it be weird/exciting/invasive feeling to live in one? Is the government going to take over like in '1984'? Did I use a solid gif? Find out next time on DragonBall-Z.

...but no, comment below iff'n ya like.

The Death of OnLive (and what it can teach us)

The articles that inspired this post can be found here:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/you-re-basically-screwed-if-you-used-onlive/1100-6426392/

http://www.cnet.com/news/sony-pulls-the-plug-for-onlive-cloud-gaming/

http://kotaku.com/onlive-the-first-big-streaming-games-service-is-dead-1695386223

            Once upon a time, there was this newfangled gaming thing called OnLive.  OnLive was somewhat of a unique specimen in the video game industry: it is referred to as a pioneer in the world of “cloud gaming” services.  It was a video game streaming service, and probably the first big one; it’s sort of like Netflix, but instead of movies and television shows, it offered games.  It was an interesting prospect, but one that raised plenty of questions and doubts.  Streaming movies and TV was one thing; you were just being fed video and audio as fast as the internet could provide it to you.  But games are something different.  You constantly have to control what happens in games (for the most part; games come in all sorts of varieties, after all), and that is a complete non-issue when you have the full game at your disposal; whether it’s gently nudging a disc into your PS3, downloading games from Steam onto your PC, or blowing the dust out of your NES cartridges until they work, video games are, traditionally, “all there” when you’re playing them.  But a streaming service is feeding you bits and pieces of…well, whatever it is you’re streaming…directly from the internet.  If you’re getting bits and pieces of a game at a time, and something goes wrong with your connection, or even if there’s the slightest hiccup, the experience can be ruined.  Sure, there’s playing PC and console games with friends over the internet.  Everyone knows that while playing online, games can succumb to lag and freezing; but even then, you still have the full game at your disposal.  This kind of service wouldn’t even give you the whole game at one time, so a lot of people were wary about this new format; as a result, not too many people paid mind to OnLive.  The things you stream don’t really take up space on the hard drive of your computer or console, so that’s a plus, and applying this to games would sure be fancy; but maintaining constant control over the type of entertainment that REQUIRES constant control can’t really be guaranteed with the streaming format.

            If you look around on the internet, you can see that OnLive has had quite an interesting history, and has lasted a surprisingly long time, even despite the fact that not too many people seemed to utilize it.  But just recently, it was announced that the service would be discontinued – and since the service revolved entirely on streaming, that means that everything must go.  Like with the Netflix queue, OnLive users could amass libraries of the games they enjoyed playing on their account; now, all that money put into the monthly subscription fee, and all the hours put into those games (some of which were actually full, modern games, also available on PC and consoles), will be gone forever.  They also had some original hardware, an eponymous microconsole with a wireless controller; and with the death of the service, this hardware effectively will become useless.

            OnLive was an interesting experiment in its own right; but now that the time has come for it to stop receiving support, its greatest flaw – the flaw inherent in all streaming technology – has fully manifested itself.  If your access to it is cut off, the Cloud is completely intangible to you.  When they stopped making cartridge- and floppy-based games for the Commodore 64, did your console suddenly implode?  When Nintendo stopped releasing games for the Wii, and only left the Wii Shop Channel open so Wii U users could still buy things from it while operating in a special backwards-compatible mode, did all of your game discs disintegrate, and did all of the games you downloaded delete themselves from your console?  Of course not.  Because the games were “all there”.  Whether on a variation of the compact disc, a cartridge, a floppy disk, a cassette tape (look up the Starpath Supercharger add-on for the Atari 2600; I always thought these were a funny concept), or the hard drive of your computer or console – or heck, even your phone – you bought the game, so it was given to you in its entirety.  Streaming from the Cloud won’t give you the game in its entirety.  Furthermore, the contradictory wording I’ve come across makes the details kind of fuzzy, but it seems to me like some OnLive games could be – or had to be – purchased in full before being streamed.  Apologies in advance if I’m mistaken on this, but if this is indeed the case, this is a huge problem; and if not, then the money blown on subscriptions and dedicated hardware isn’t really insignificant either.

            The thing I take away from this is the fallibility of relying on streaming services.  They can discontinue, but whatever digital copies you have of movies, TV episodes, and video games will live on as long as your computer or console does, and whatever hard copies you have will continue to carry out their function for ages until they somehow physically expire.  Streaming isn’t entirely unreliable; I don’t think Netflix will be going anywhere.  But the truth of the matter is, while your computers and consoles will belong to you for as long as you want, the Cloud will never be yours to own.