http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36881724/ns/technology_and_science-space/
This article talks about a tourism firm who is planning on offering a ride to outer space for 102,000. An American space tourism company that arranges multimillion-dollar treks to the International Space Station for the ultra-wealthy has struck a new deal to offer suborbital spaceflights for nearly half the going cost. Virginia-based firm Space Adventures has signed an exclusive deal with Armadillo Aerospace, a Texas-based company founded by computer game entrepreneur John Carmack, to sell space tourist seats on new suborbital rocket ships that are currently in development at Armadillo. Flights aboard Armadillo's vertically-launched rocket ship in development will depart from a spaceport in the United States and take passengers to regions above 62 miles (100 kilometers), where space begins.
This is so awesome to me. I've seen some reports about this being offered to the mega elite like Richard Branson and felt I would never be able to afford such a thing. But, this price is nearly fifty percent less than the going rate that other companies provide this service for. Now I realize 102,000 is still extremely expensive and something still for the wealthy, but it's very encouraging to me that the price went down by that much. Who knows, maybe in 20 years it will only be 5000 for this opportunity. I for one would absolutely do this. I was never the kid growing up who loved space and wanted to be an astronaut, but the idea of seeing the world from outer space is absolutely fascinating to me. I can't even imagine what it would be like seeing the world from there. This is something even 20 years ago people thought was only possible in science fiction movies. Now, this is a reality.
The only thing that worries me is that as the market grows for this service, the precautions and standards may go down. This could result in a serious incident and all but likely death for anyone involved. This is all too common with other things such as food or car. There is such a demand for the products that more and more we see serious recalls on these items. I know that the two things are not very much related, but demand is demand. As we've seen in other space craft accidents all it takes is a single panel not being welded right or a screw not tight enough to cause a tragic crash. I think that is definitely something that could come about as a result of more tours being given.
http://www.spacetoday.org/Astronauts/SpaceTourists.html
This article talks more in depth about the idea of space travel in general. California millionaire investment fund manager and onetime NASA rocket scientist Dennis Tito, 60, was the first private space tourist selected by Russian space officials for a visit to the ISS. He paid $20 million for a ride up to Earth orbit aboard a Souyz craft for a 10-day round trip excursion. Currently, Russia offers a similar service that is extremely popular. The Russians have said they are holding seats for Space Adventures customers on four Soyuz flights to the ISS through 2015. Meanwhile, in July 2005 the U.S. space shuttle fleet resumed flights when Discovery flew to the station. However, further shuttle flights have been delayed by problems that cropped up during the 2005 flight. I can only hope before I die I am a position to do this.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Article Fourteen
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/25/israel.ipad.ban/index.html
This article talks about a recent issue regarding Ipad usage in Israel. When the Ipad was released, it quickly became illegal to use in Israel. They felt the devices advanced wi-fi technology would interfere with the communication capability of the country. Israeli authorities said the devices' Wi-Fi standard does not match Israel's standard, which is also used in Europe. In the past two weeks, Israelis and tourists entering the country at Ben Gurion Airport have had their iPads taken by customs officials. The country's communications ministry said it reached its decision after completing "intensive technical scrutiny." Many people across the world had publicly criticized the decision before the ban was lifted.
On the surface, this does not seem to be a big deal. However, this brings up an important principle that many people do not understand. Wi-fi is not universal. Yes, how it works is exactly the same, but the standards between a European Wi-fi capable device and an American capable device are much different. This is the reason why Israel placed the ban on the Ipad in the first place. These wi-fi differences make it easier for someone to hack into an important server and potentially do harmful things. On this regard, I completely back up Israel expressing concern over the device. They are not that developed of a country to begin with, so one can assume their internet security is not completely top notch. With Israel holding a huge stake in many governmental issues, the problem of hacking is extremely strong.
However, Israel also deserved some criticism for how they handled the situation to begin with. When the story originally broke, people were arriving into the country and with no real warning have their Ipads seized. They refused to go into specifics on plans other than they would be confiscating all Ipads due to internet security. Apparently the issue being discussed could easily be resolved just by tweaking a few things. When asked why they were refusing to do the simple tasks to fix the problem, they remained consistent on their stance. There are those who stand up with Israel with the idea that the world is backing up big business rather than a country's opinion. I have to say I can see where that argument is coming from as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/25/apple-ipad-ban-ended-israel
This article goes into more specifics on the decision to stop the ban on Ipads.
This article talks about a recent issue regarding Ipad usage in Israel. When the Ipad was released, it quickly became illegal to use in Israel. They felt the devices advanced wi-fi technology would interfere with the communication capability of the country. Israeli authorities said the devices' Wi-Fi standard does not match Israel's standard, which is also used in Europe. In the past two weeks, Israelis and tourists entering the country at Ben Gurion Airport have had their iPads taken by customs officials. The country's communications ministry said it reached its decision after completing "intensive technical scrutiny." Many people across the world had publicly criticized the decision before the ban was lifted.
On the surface, this does not seem to be a big deal. However, this brings up an important principle that many people do not understand. Wi-fi is not universal. Yes, how it works is exactly the same, but the standards between a European Wi-fi capable device and an American capable device are much different. This is the reason why Israel placed the ban on the Ipad in the first place. These wi-fi differences make it easier for someone to hack into an important server and potentially do harmful things. On this regard, I completely back up Israel expressing concern over the device. They are not that developed of a country to begin with, so one can assume their internet security is not completely top notch. With Israel holding a huge stake in many governmental issues, the problem of hacking is extremely strong.
However, Israel also deserved some criticism for how they handled the situation to begin with. When the story originally broke, people were arriving into the country and with no real warning have their Ipads seized. They refused to go into specifics on plans other than they would be confiscating all Ipads due to internet security. Apparently the issue being discussed could easily be resolved just by tweaking a few things. When asked why they were refusing to do the simple tasks to fix the problem, they remained consistent on their stance. There are those who stand up with Israel with the idea that the world is backing up big business rather than a country's opinion. I have to say I can see where that argument is coming from as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/25/apple-ipad-ban-ended-israel
This article goes into more specifics on the decision to stop the ban on Ipads.
The country had banned imports of the iPad, which was released in the US earlier this month, because of fears its wireless signal could disrupt other devices. At least 10 iPads were seized at the country's international airport. Israel's communications ministry said officials had determined that the iPad met local standards and, as of today, imports would be permitted. Although I understand Israel's original concern, they should of tried to resolve the issue before taking a drastic measure like they did.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Article Thirteen
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/13/graphing-internet-digg-google-trends/
This article talks about how interesting new ways that a person can look at trends on the internet. The first way talks about a program specifically for diggs. The program, known as arc, is a group of Diggs that move around a circle. Larger text sizes means hotter topics. Big Spy -- perhaps the least useful tool -- shows larger text sizes for the most popular topics. And Pics is all about popular photos and graphics. The second major program is Google Trends. This program allows you to compare two different subjects to see which is more popular. It shows one this information in bar and pie graphs. The last main program is known as microsoft pivot. This allows a user to read in depth about what they are searching, say Barack Obama. Pivot shows you he was the Time Magazine person-of-the-year. You can then "pivot" this data and see every person-of-the-year, or click filters to see only African-Americans. This type of data exploration just isn't possible otherwise.
Looking through this article, it's really neat what these technologies are capable of. This really does allow a user to "watch" the internet is a way never seen before. It will make the ability to expand searches seamless and much more satisfying. Also, if these technologies work properly it will be much easier to use the information for reports or other business projects. While doing this blog I tested out a couple of these things. I'll admit, before I went to try it I wasn't expecting much. I figured it would just basically be a search engine with a couple new tools. I figured it would somewhat interesting but nothing to write home about. I was 100% wrong. I could not believe how neat it was to see information presented in the way it was. It really gave me a lot of options I would never have with a simple google search.
With that being said, there are some things I didn't care for. For starters, it took a good bit of time to load up the information after I put it into the search engine. Also, although there was more information while searching this way, it often was somewhat confusing to try and figure out what was where. I would definitely only recommend this type of search for someone who is doing a report or heavy intensive research based project. Although this may seem like common sense, if these types of technologies get extremely popular people may get dragged in and forget about the simpler ways.
An article specifically regarding Digg Lab, found here http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/03/24/new_digg_app/, discusses the idea that although interesting it is still just another search engine. The interface is nice and clean, easy to use and it will be nice to have Digg to search. But to be honest, this is Digg and I was expecting a lot more. So it is a good app and good to have, but it will need to work hard to keep my interest.
These are definitely interesting pieces of technologies, but I will still just google what I need for now.
This article talks about how interesting new ways that a person can look at trends on the internet. The first way talks about a program specifically for diggs. The program, known as arc, is a group of Diggs that move around a circle. Larger text sizes means hotter topics. Big Spy -- perhaps the least useful tool -- shows larger text sizes for the most popular topics. And Pics is all about popular photos and graphics. The second major program is Google Trends. This program allows you to compare two different subjects to see which is more popular. It shows one this information in bar and pie graphs. The last main program is known as microsoft pivot. This allows a user to read in depth about what they are searching, say Barack Obama. Pivot shows you he was the Time Magazine person-of-the-year. You can then "pivot" this data and see every person-of-the-year, or click filters to see only African-Americans. This type of data exploration just isn't possible otherwise.
Looking through this article, it's really neat what these technologies are capable of. This really does allow a user to "watch" the internet is a way never seen before. It will make the ability to expand searches seamless and much more satisfying. Also, if these technologies work properly it will be much easier to use the information for reports or other business projects. While doing this blog I tested out a couple of these things. I'll admit, before I went to try it I wasn't expecting much. I figured it would just basically be a search engine with a couple new tools. I figured it would somewhat interesting but nothing to write home about. I was 100% wrong. I could not believe how neat it was to see information presented in the way it was. It really gave me a lot of options I would never have with a simple google search.
With that being said, there are some things I didn't care for. For starters, it took a good bit of time to load up the information after I put it into the search engine. Also, although there was more information while searching this way, it often was somewhat confusing to try and figure out what was where. I would definitely only recommend this type of search for someone who is doing a report or heavy intensive research based project. Although this may seem like common sense, if these types of technologies get extremely popular people may get dragged in and forget about the simpler ways.
An article specifically regarding Digg Lab, found here http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/03/24/new_digg_app/, discusses the idea that although interesting it is still just another search engine. The interface is nice and clean, easy to use and it will be nice to have Digg to search. But to be honest, this is Digg and I was expecting a lot more. So it is a good app and good to have, but it will need to work hard to keep my interest.
These are definitely interesting pieces of technologies, but I will still just google what I need for now.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Article Twelve
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/04/09/cnet.nasa.new.programs/index.html
This article talks about the new programs that NASA is trying to get into production for 2011. The NASA programs will center on commercial manned rockets and technology for deep space exploration. However, The new plan for NASA does not specify a long-range target for exploration. This new program will cancel out President Bush's previous plan, Constellation, which will result in thousands of lost jobs. Under this new fiscal plan, roughly $6 billion more dollars will be put into NASA research and development. This is somewhat controversial given the current state of the economy, but president Barack Obama feels it is vital for NASA research to go on stronger than ever.
I am on the fence when it comes to money being spent of space exploration. On the one hand, I realize there are many vital reasons to explore space. Understanding how space works helps us to predict patterns of behavior for Earth. Also, knowing about the distant planets and the solar system is very important to know for our future. There is also an obvious need for things such as satellites and defense systems. However, the other half of me wonders how much money is going to waste on programs that mean nothing for Earth. The most recent thing that comes to my mind is the project NASA implemented to try and find water on Mars. The cost of the project was roughly $450 million dollars. I do realize understanding the composition of other planets is important, but was this completely necessary? It certainly seems to me that our society has much more pressing needs than seeing if there water vapor on a distant planet.
I know a lot of people would argue with me that $450 million in an economy such as United States is not a whole lot, but think how many times similar money has been used on such projects. I'd guess billions upon billions of dollars have been pumped into programs that probably weren't needed. This money could be used to fuel failing government programs that need more assistance. Maybe I don't understand how important some things NASA do are, but it seems to me that the money could be a lot better spent in America
http://www.financialnewsusa.com/more/47-tech/14252-nasa-unveils-sweeping-new-programs
This article puts into better perspective the cost of the new policy broken down into more specific. It also talks more about how the new program will completely eliminate many of Bush's prior programs which will cost thousands of jobs. Looking through the costs, I see many many things that from an outsider view look superfluous. I suppose I will always wonder if only that money were used differently how it could affect society differently.
This article talks about the new programs that NASA is trying to get into production for 2011. The NASA programs will center on commercial manned rockets and technology for deep space exploration. However, The new plan for NASA does not specify a long-range target for exploration. This new program will cancel out President Bush's previous plan, Constellation, which will result in thousands of lost jobs. Under this new fiscal plan, roughly $6 billion more dollars will be put into NASA research and development. This is somewhat controversial given the current state of the economy, but president Barack Obama feels it is vital for NASA research to go on stronger than ever.
I am on the fence when it comes to money being spent of space exploration. On the one hand, I realize there are many vital reasons to explore space. Understanding how space works helps us to predict patterns of behavior for Earth. Also, knowing about the distant planets and the solar system is very important to know for our future. There is also an obvious need for things such as satellites and defense systems. However, the other half of me wonders how much money is going to waste on programs that mean nothing for Earth. The most recent thing that comes to my mind is the project NASA implemented to try and find water on Mars. The cost of the project was roughly $450 million dollars. I do realize understanding the composition of other planets is important, but was this completely necessary? It certainly seems to me that our society has much more pressing needs than seeing if there water vapor on a distant planet.
I know a lot of people would argue with me that $450 million in an economy such as United States is not a whole lot, but think how many times similar money has been used on such projects. I'd guess billions upon billions of dollars have been pumped into programs that probably weren't needed. This money could be used to fuel failing government programs that need more assistance. Maybe I don't understand how important some things NASA do are, but it seems to me that the money could be a lot better spent in America
http://www.financialnewsusa.com/more/47-tech/14252-nasa-unveils-sweeping-new-programs
This article puts into better perspective the cost of the new policy broken down into more specific. It also talks more about how the new program will completely eliminate many of Bush's prior programs which will cost thousands of jobs. Looking through the costs, I see many many things that from an outsider view look superfluous. I suppose I will always wonder if only that money were used differently how it could affect society differently.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Article Eleven
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/02/navy-developing-cyber-weapons-shoot-data/
This article talks about the U.S. Navy trying to create a remote control plane that could shoot data beams instead of actual attacks. According to the report, the navy expects to spend around $400 million dollars over the next eight years to try and accomplish this feat. The practical uses could include jamming an enemy's radar signal, or cut of communications of a buildings. This plane would be a completely unmanned aircraft vessel controlled by remote control at a central command base. There would be a defensive weapons system on the plate as well. The use of nanotechnology would be vital to recognize distinct radio and wave signals as well as antenna signals. The Navy cites that this airplane is currently only in the planning phase and still needs approval from other government outlets before the construction begins.
This is such an interesting piece of technology that would be amazing for use in the wars of the future. Imagine a plane that would be able to shut down communications and jam computers. Ground forces would be able to gain a strategic advantage before having to risk their lives invading a building or area. It's simply amazing that we have come this far in society today. Not only can we use this in war, but the fact that it will be unmanned is so great to save lives. I really hope that this idea gets pushed through and the project gets completed. A lot of times sadly these great ideas do even get approval yet never get finished due to lack of resources of man power. If the Navy decides to stick this one out and put it into production for use in future wars.
A lot of the time I see people talking about how the government wastes money on projects like this. This really frustrates me and makes me realize that people are ignorant to the world around. We are arguably the most technologically advanced country in the world, and in order for that to stay this way we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. If we do not spend the necessary funds to stay on top of the game, another country will gain the edge over us. I think Americans take for granted the fact we have never been truly invaded by another country on our mainland. This is largely due to the fact that we have spent the money to create a defense system that is cutting edge. Without this defense, who knows what could possibly happen to the America we all live in.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,212940,00.html
this article is a direct link from the military discussing the specifics on how the airplane would function and its uses again. It goes into good detail on the exact radar technology that would be used and each step of the production throughout the eight year process. The director of the process told the reporter that this type of technology is slowly becoming vital to warfare of the future. Without these types of technologies America could fall behind and be susceptible to attack. Although people may disagree that this money is being spent inappropriately, its obvious to me that this type of advanced digital fighting is necessary for our country.
This article talks about the U.S. Navy trying to create a remote control plane that could shoot data beams instead of actual attacks. According to the report, the navy expects to spend around $400 million dollars over the next eight years to try and accomplish this feat. The practical uses could include jamming an enemy's radar signal, or cut of communications of a buildings. This plane would be a completely unmanned aircraft vessel controlled by remote control at a central command base. There would be a defensive weapons system on the plate as well. The use of nanotechnology would be vital to recognize distinct radio and wave signals as well as antenna signals. The Navy cites that this airplane is currently only in the planning phase and still needs approval from other government outlets before the construction begins.
This is such an interesting piece of technology that would be amazing for use in the wars of the future. Imagine a plane that would be able to shut down communications and jam computers. Ground forces would be able to gain a strategic advantage before having to risk their lives invading a building or area. It's simply amazing that we have come this far in society today. Not only can we use this in war, but the fact that it will be unmanned is so great to save lives. I really hope that this idea gets pushed through and the project gets completed. A lot of times sadly these great ideas do even get approval yet never get finished due to lack of resources of man power. If the Navy decides to stick this one out and put it into production for use in future wars.
A lot of the time I see people talking about how the government wastes money on projects like this. This really frustrates me and makes me realize that people are ignorant to the world around. We are arguably the most technologically advanced country in the world, and in order for that to stay this way we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. If we do not spend the necessary funds to stay on top of the game, another country will gain the edge over us. I think Americans take for granted the fact we have never been truly invaded by another country on our mainland. This is largely due to the fact that we have spent the money to create a defense system that is cutting edge. Without this defense, who knows what could possibly happen to the America we all live in.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,212940,00.html
this article is a direct link from the military discussing the specifics on how the airplane would function and its uses again. It goes into good detail on the exact radar technology that would be used and each step of the production throughout the eight year process. The director of the process told the reporter that this type of technology is slowly becoming vital to warfare of the future. Without these types of technologies America could fall behind and be susceptible to attack. Although people may disagree that this money is being spent inappropriately, its obvious to me that this type of advanced digital fighting is necessary for our country.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Article Ten
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/a-new-look-at-spam-by-the-numbers/
This article talks about the ever prevalent problem of spam. A recent research venture done by Twitter showed that only 1% of posts were spam. This may seem encouraging, but in regards to email only 10% are not considered as spam. On average, an email address receives 100 spam messages a day. This is most likely a direct result if hackers setting up "phantom computers", or computers that simply send out mass spam email. Shockingly, according to a survey conducted by CNN nearly half the people still click on these links despite them realizing it is spam. To try and fight this battle, the government has put out a list of tips and tricks to try and avoid falling for spam. Twitter has also taken the same initiative to try and get less people to possibly give up personal information.
I find it shocking how many people can possibly fall for the spam emails we all get every day. Sure, on the surface it sounds great. "Fill out a survey and get a $500 gift card of your choice!" or "email submit for a new LCD TV!". Really people, does this even sound realistic. I understand it can be sometimes hard to sway away from these ads, but clearly this is a case of too good to be true. It's almost sad to hear these stories because typically it tends to be those who are in need of money or have some sort of mental disability. I feel badly for these people, but especially those in need of money have to realize the impossibility of these things being true. I suppose that is always going to be human nature though. Any time something is easy to do and ends in what seems to be a high payout, people will do it.
I guess the thing I still don't understand is how the major email clients have not been able to stop the flow of spam emails. I realize they are impossible to stop, it just seems that in today's society we would be capable of making a process to let these fake emails even hit the spam folder. I can personally say that my yahoo email receives roughly 75 spam emails a day. Although i never pay more attention to them other than to delete them, that is definitely too many for a email service as popular as Yahoo!
http://erictric.com/2010/03/26/twitter-cuts-down-spam-to-under-1-of-total-daily-tweets/
This article briefly talks about the attempt of Twitter to reduce the serious problem of spam they had in early and mid 2009. They were able to reduce the spam count from roughly 11% of posts to under 1% now. They did this by specifically targeting the programs and ways spammers hit the site and stopped it. If Twitter was able to do this, I find it amazing that google and yahoo! aren't able to get on board in regards to email. I realize that these emails are not technically illegal to send, but the average of 100 is incredible to me. Even more than 5 makes me feel as though Yahoo is not doing a good enough job to prevent it's user from dangers. Yahoo and other email clients need to step up their security and limit the number of spam emails sent to it's user. I know they aren't literally forcing anyone to click these sites, but they have to realize people will. Human nature will trump common sense.
This article talks about the ever prevalent problem of spam. A recent research venture done by Twitter showed that only 1% of posts were spam. This may seem encouraging, but in regards to email only 10% are not considered as spam. On average, an email address receives 100 spam messages a day. This is most likely a direct result if hackers setting up "phantom computers", or computers that simply send out mass spam email. Shockingly, according to a survey conducted by CNN nearly half the people still click on these links despite them realizing it is spam. To try and fight this battle, the government has put out a list of tips and tricks to try and avoid falling for spam. Twitter has also taken the same initiative to try and get less people to possibly give up personal information.
I find it shocking how many people can possibly fall for the spam emails we all get every day. Sure, on the surface it sounds great. "Fill out a survey and get a $500 gift card of your choice!" or "email submit for a new LCD TV!". Really people, does this even sound realistic. I understand it can be sometimes hard to sway away from these ads, but clearly this is a case of too good to be true. It's almost sad to hear these stories because typically it tends to be those who are in need of money or have some sort of mental disability. I feel badly for these people, but especially those in need of money have to realize the impossibility of these things being true. I suppose that is always going to be human nature though. Any time something is easy to do and ends in what seems to be a high payout, people will do it.
I guess the thing I still don't understand is how the major email clients have not been able to stop the flow of spam emails. I realize they are impossible to stop, it just seems that in today's society we would be capable of making a process to let these fake emails even hit the spam folder. I can personally say that my yahoo email receives roughly 75 spam emails a day. Although i never pay more attention to them other than to delete them, that is definitely too many for a email service as popular as Yahoo!
http://erictric.com/2010/03/26/twitter-cuts-down-spam-to-under-1-of-total-daily-tweets/
This article briefly talks about the attempt of Twitter to reduce the serious problem of spam they had in early and mid 2009. They were able to reduce the spam count from roughly 11% of posts to under 1% now. They did this by specifically targeting the programs and ways spammers hit the site and stopped it. If Twitter was able to do this, I find it amazing that google and yahoo! aren't able to get on board in regards to email. I realize that these emails are not technically illegal to send, but the average of 100 is incredible to me. Even more than 5 makes me feel as though Yahoo is not doing a good enough job to prevent it's user from dangers. Yahoo and other email clients need to step up their security and limit the number of spam emails sent to it's user. I know they aren't literally forcing anyone to click these sites, but they have to realize people will. Human nature will trump common sense.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Article Nine
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/19/voice.recognition/index.html
This article discusses voice recognition technology in use for every day items. Specifically, it talks about the capability of cell phones to take in what someone is saying and convert it into text messaging form. If this were to be implemented in cell phones, the article discusses the many practical uses that could follow. The main idea talked about is for use in the car. It has been proposed that through voice recognition technology and the car's audio it could decipher a text, say it through the speakers, and allow the user to voice back what they want to say. There are already some applications for the Iphone that do this, but the the author of the article notes they are very choppy and often convert things wrong. There is currently a serious push to get more funding to create a better system.
I've had an opportunity to use this technology but on the computer. My dad's company had paid the outrageous price and let him use it at home. On a base level, it was very entertaining. I attempted to use it to write a paper for school, and the thought of not having to type up a whole lengthy paper sounded great in my head. However, the actual functionality of the device was much different. It misunderstood nearly a quarter of the words I said and sometimes did not even write the words I was saying. Also, it was not really able to delete things I said and wanted to change. I ended up becoming so frustrated with the process that I quit using it. I had to scrap what I hardly wrote and start fresh. Looking back, I realize that I misused the technology and now realize that it should only be used for quick, simple things. And what is quicker than a text?
I think it'd be really great if researchers could get this to work out well. More and more in our society, people are getting into car accidents as a result of looking down at a text. This would severely decrease those accident numbers and make every thing safer. This would also just make sending a text better and easier. I personally as I've stated a few times now hate text messaging. If i get into a text conversation my fingers tend to strain and hurt. This would obviously cease if I were able to just state out loud what I want to say, then have it go. I would use it all the time and I'm sure many other people would as well.
the article posted here http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14514306 discusses the advancement of the voice recognition software. He explains that essentially they are in a place to make the software almost error free soon. Although it is much better than before, it is still not perfect. He notes that he sent his wife what was supposed to be "How's it going hun" but it was sent as "acetone hon". There's clearly room to improve for this technology, but it's great where it can lead. I'm sure in the not so distant future everyone will be using Voice recognition for all their basic needs.
This article discusses voice recognition technology in use for every day items. Specifically, it talks about the capability of cell phones to take in what someone is saying and convert it into text messaging form. If this were to be implemented in cell phones, the article discusses the many practical uses that could follow. The main idea talked about is for use in the car. It has been proposed that through voice recognition technology and the car's audio it could decipher a text, say it through the speakers, and allow the user to voice back what they want to say. There are already some applications for the Iphone that do this, but the the author of the article notes they are very choppy and often convert things wrong. There is currently a serious push to get more funding to create a better system.
I've had an opportunity to use this technology but on the computer. My dad's company had paid the outrageous price and let him use it at home. On a base level, it was very entertaining. I attempted to use it to write a paper for school, and the thought of not having to type up a whole lengthy paper sounded great in my head. However, the actual functionality of the device was much different. It misunderstood nearly a quarter of the words I said and sometimes did not even write the words I was saying. Also, it was not really able to delete things I said and wanted to change. I ended up becoming so frustrated with the process that I quit using it. I had to scrap what I hardly wrote and start fresh. Looking back, I realize that I misused the technology and now realize that it should only be used for quick, simple things. And what is quicker than a text?
I think it'd be really great if researchers could get this to work out well. More and more in our society, people are getting into car accidents as a result of looking down at a text. This would severely decrease those accident numbers and make every thing safer. This would also just make sending a text better and easier. I personally as I've stated a few times now hate text messaging. If i get into a text conversation my fingers tend to strain and hurt. This would obviously cease if I were able to just state out loud what I want to say, then have it go. I would use it all the time and I'm sure many other people would as well.
the article posted here http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14514306 discusses the advancement of the voice recognition software. He explains that essentially they are in a place to make the software almost error free soon. Although it is much better than before, it is still not perfect. He notes that he sent his wife what was supposed to be "How's it going hun" but it was sent as "acetone hon". There's clearly room to improve for this technology, but it's great where it can lead. I'm sure in the not so distant future everyone will be using Voice recognition for all their basic needs.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Article Eight
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/04/lip-reading-cell-phone-hit-german-tech/
This article talks about a new technology created in Germany, a lip reading cell phone. According to it's developers, attaching the device to the phone and then the lips allows for a user to only mouth the words without actually voicing them out loud. The device would then decifer what was said through electromyography, the acquisition and recording of electrical potentials generated by muscle activity. They plan to show off this new device on a German show soon. The picture on the article shows the two developers with the device attached to their mouths, with many wires shown.
Personally, I think this is awesome. I honestly find it unbelievable that this is even possible to do, yet they have a found a way. This could have so many potential uses in our society. The article jokingly references the idea of being able to "talk" during a movie. Another thing that it really could do is allow for the user to enter in personal information with much greater security than before. However, the largest thing I could see this helping the world is those who are mute for a particular reason. A fair amount of mute individuals can mouth the words without being able to vocalize them. With this device, they could talk on a cell phone with no problems. I realize that in many instances they would not be able to hear a response, but for an emergency situation this would greatly impact a mute person's life.
Another article found here http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/03/05/new-lip-reading-cell-phone-system-can-allow-for-silent-conversations/ goes into further discussion on the same device. It gives much of the same detail, but also adds that this device could allow for a user to be able to speak in a native tongue and have it translated into English or another language. It also goes into greater detail on how the device works and the tests that have been done on it.
The only potential problem I could see with this is the bulkiness of the object. Both articles show the picture with the device attached to the mouth. It is about nine wires all over the mouth and face. This is obviously something people would not use in every day life. I would likely not even think about buying this type of thing. It is just great that technology is coming out that will greatly help society as a whole. When this becomes cheaper as well, more people will use it for the convenience. I can't wait to see where this technology goes in the future and if it ever hits the mainstream markets
This article talks about a new technology created in Germany, a lip reading cell phone. According to it's developers, attaching the device to the phone and then the lips allows for a user to only mouth the words without actually voicing them out loud. The device would then decifer what was said through electromyography, the acquisition and recording of electrical potentials generated by muscle activity. They plan to show off this new device on a German show soon. The picture on the article shows the two developers with the device attached to their mouths, with many wires shown.
Personally, I think this is awesome. I honestly find it unbelievable that this is even possible to do, yet they have a found a way. This could have so many potential uses in our society. The article jokingly references the idea of being able to "talk" during a movie. Another thing that it really could do is allow for the user to enter in personal information with much greater security than before. However, the largest thing I could see this helping the world is those who are mute for a particular reason. A fair amount of mute individuals can mouth the words without being able to vocalize them. With this device, they could talk on a cell phone with no problems. I realize that in many instances they would not be able to hear a response, but for an emergency situation this would greatly impact a mute person's life.
Another article found here http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/03/05/new-lip-reading-cell-phone-system-can-allow-for-silent-conversations/ goes into further discussion on the same device. It gives much of the same detail, but also adds that this device could allow for a user to be able to speak in a native tongue and have it translated into English or another language. It also goes into greater detail on how the device works and the tests that have been done on it.
The only potential problem I could see with this is the bulkiness of the object. Both articles show the picture with the device attached to the mouth. It is about nine wires all over the mouth and face. This is obviously something people would not use in every day life. I would likely not even think about buying this type of thing. It is just great that technology is coming out that will greatly help society as a whole. When this becomes cheaper as well, more people will use it for the convenience. I can't wait to see where this technology goes in the future and if it ever hits the mainstream markets
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Article Seven
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/25/cashmore.twitter.phishing/index.html
This article delves into the ever present struggle to limit phishing attacks on the internet. This article specifically brings up Twitter and the recent phishing attack it had. Many people were hit by getting an email that seemed to be from a friend. This email would look inviting and prompt the user to click the link in the email into what they thought was Twitter's login page. However, once the info was sent, the user ID as well as the password to get in were sent to the phishers. The writer explains that there are two main reasons people fall for these attacks other than email. The first reason is the shortening of the url to click on certain pages. What occurs is that people click the link without seeing the whole URL, which often will give away the fact it is a hacking tool. The other main dilemma is the fact that Twitter allows users to use information to gain access to third party sites such as Wall Street journal. This again sets users up to go to a page that is stealing their information.
I have never used Twitter in my life and I never plan to. However, speaking generally about phishing, I realize that it is a much bigger issue than people let on. It is extremely simple for someone to gain your information, granted you fall for their tricks. I find it pretty incredible that people fall for certain scams and attempts to gain personal information. Does anyone really think that the great grandson of a deceased African King really wants you to have 3 million dollars? The first time I heard someone tell me this attempt to take personal information I laughed and wondered who would actually fall for something that ridiculous. To humor myself, I searched on Google and found not one or two, but thousands of links depicting how people fell into the trap and had their bank account info stolen and used.
We all get the emails that the main article referred to almost on a daily basis. It's usually something like "click here to claim your 500 dollar gift code" or "follow this link to learn how you can make 1000's of dollars just using your computer!" When these happen to slip past my junk folder, they do not even get opened. Yet more and more, especially in our current economic times, people follow these traps and can't understand why weeks later their computer won't turn on or their bank account has no money in it. The sad truth is this just human nature. Before the internet, these same types of operations were occurring, just on a more personal level.
Another article refferring to the Twitter phishing problem, http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=223100861&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News discusses how a UK cabinet member and even a bank fell prey. The same email that the main article above discussed got these two powerful men into trouble. It goes to show that phishers are not just looking for the average person, they are looking for everyone. The article also talks about Twitter's attempt to stop this problem. They have posted everywhere that Twitter will not ask to follow links, and that certain emails are not from them.
It amazes me that even high powered people such the bank chair and a cabinet member could fall victim to this. Did they not think that a link saying "lol is this you" probably wasn't a good idea to follow? The truth of the internet though is that although government agencies are working nonstop to stop phishing, it will never be stopped. People will always be drawn into too good to be true links or links for social sites that don't even cross their mind of being suspicious. Until the world gains more common sense, phishers will profit.
This article delves into the ever present struggle to limit phishing attacks on the internet. This article specifically brings up Twitter and the recent phishing attack it had. Many people were hit by getting an email that seemed to be from a friend. This email would look inviting and prompt the user to click the link in the email into what they thought was Twitter's login page. However, once the info was sent, the user ID as well as the password to get in were sent to the phishers. The writer explains that there are two main reasons people fall for these attacks other than email. The first reason is the shortening of the url to click on certain pages. What occurs is that people click the link without seeing the whole URL, which often will give away the fact it is a hacking tool. The other main dilemma is the fact that Twitter allows users to use information to gain access to third party sites such as Wall Street journal. This again sets users up to go to a page that is stealing their information.
I have never used Twitter in my life and I never plan to. However, speaking generally about phishing, I realize that it is a much bigger issue than people let on. It is extremely simple for someone to gain your information, granted you fall for their tricks. I find it pretty incredible that people fall for certain scams and attempts to gain personal information. Does anyone really think that the great grandson of a deceased African King really wants you to have 3 million dollars? The first time I heard someone tell me this attempt to take personal information I laughed and wondered who would actually fall for something that ridiculous. To humor myself, I searched on Google and found not one or two, but thousands of links depicting how people fell into the trap and had their bank account info stolen and used.
We all get the emails that the main article referred to almost on a daily basis. It's usually something like "click here to claim your 500 dollar gift code" or "follow this link to learn how you can make 1000's of dollars just using your computer!" When these happen to slip past my junk folder, they do not even get opened. Yet more and more, especially in our current economic times, people follow these traps and can't understand why weeks later their computer won't turn on or their bank account has no money in it. The sad truth is this just human nature. Before the internet, these same types of operations were occurring, just on a more personal level.
Another article refferring to the Twitter phishing problem, http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=223100861&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News discusses how a UK cabinet member and even a bank fell prey. The same email that the main article above discussed got these two powerful men into trouble. It goes to show that phishers are not just looking for the average person, they are looking for everyone. The article also talks about Twitter's attempt to stop this problem. They have posted everywhere that Twitter will not ask to follow links, and that certain emails are not from them.
It amazes me that even high powered people such the bank chair and a cabinet member could fall victim to this. Did they not think that a link saying "lol is this you" probably wasn't a good idea to follow? The truth of the internet though is that although government agencies are working nonstop to stop phishing, it will never be stopped. People will always be drawn into too good to be true links or links for social sites that don't even cross their mind of being suspicious. Until the world gains more common sense, phishers will profit.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Article Six
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/12/author-the-web-is-among-worlds-most-destructive-technologies
This article talks about the opinion of one man, Sam Harris, who wrote the famous book "End of Faith" regarding the internet. His opinion is firm and contrarian to many in our society. He feels as though the internet is among the most destructive technologies in the world today. He references two main points to back up his claim. His first is the idea that internet crime and security issues are running rampant, with no real to police or stop it. His next main point is that the Internet is a venue which can inspire "psuedoscience" and other extremely fictious information that many believe to be true. He also talks about how jihadists and other terrorist organizations have used the internet to expand terrorism. Although he does take a moment to talk about how the internet is not all bad, it is clear his main opinion.
Let me start off by saying that on the base level, his points do have merit. Internet crime is an enormous problem in the global society, and currently it is a train that cannot be stopped. Also, it is true that many things on the internet are opinions posed as facts, or simply erroneous information. However, I feel as though Mr. Harris is a very narrow minded person who can't see past his blinders. The internet is basically a global free speech emporium. I could write on this blog right now that Bill Cosby was the 37th president and present it as fact. If someone were to cite me on that, that shows their stupidity, not the internet. What Mr. Harris is saying about false information spreading is true, but an indiviual needs to take the extra time to research a topic before accepting the first thing they see. It is the fault of the person for being to lazy to realize "Justin Balser's blog" may not be the best source of information.
Another thing that really bothers me about this article is his opinion that increased terrorism is a direct result of the web. This is an extremely ignorant statement that although i'm sure is supported by data doesn't express the truth. Does Mr. Harris truly want me to believe that if terrorists did not have the internet they would have NO means to spread the message? This is simply ridiculous. This is the way of technology, and Mr. Harris does not see that. He wants to live in a time where snail mail and word of mouth were the main ways to talk to people. That's not how life works, technology will always make things easier for people. If the terrorists didn't have the internet, i'm sure another piece of technology would be there making it just as simple. This is way of the world.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/allen-the-internet-is-destructive_1125539
This article poses an interesting view on how the internet can destructive in an entirely different way. Lily Allen, a singer, talks about how the internet became her outlet for depression. She has now given up the internet because she constantly looked for negative comments about herself on fan forums and twitter. She said she did this to "substantiate how (she) was feeling." She has now completely given up the internet and does not even own a computer. I feel sorry for her situation and realize that a lot of people are probably in this position. I'm sure people are the other way around, having to fish for compliments in order to feel happy. However, I would again say this is on the person rather than the internet. If they were not looking for comments on Twitter or facebook, they would be asking friends in school. The internet did not form these personalities in people, they did. Although the internet does have some "destructive" tendancies, the overall good it produces is greater.
This article talks about the opinion of one man, Sam Harris, who wrote the famous book "End of Faith" regarding the internet. His opinion is firm and contrarian to many in our society. He feels as though the internet is among the most destructive technologies in the world today. He references two main points to back up his claim. His first is the idea that internet crime and security issues are running rampant, with no real to police or stop it. His next main point is that the Internet is a venue which can inspire "psuedoscience" and other extremely fictious information that many believe to be true. He also talks about how jihadists and other terrorist organizations have used the internet to expand terrorism. Although he does take a moment to talk about how the internet is not all bad, it is clear his main opinion.
Let me start off by saying that on the base level, his points do have merit. Internet crime is an enormous problem in the global society, and currently it is a train that cannot be stopped. Also, it is true that many things on the internet are opinions posed as facts, or simply erroneous information. However, I feel as though Mr. Harris is a very narrow minded person who can't see past his blinders. The internet is basically a global free speech emporium. I could write on this blog right now that Bill Cosby was the 37th president and present it as fact. If someone were to cite me on that, that shows their stupidity, not the internet. What Mr. Harris is saying about false information spreading is true, but an indiviual needs to take the extra time to research a topic before accepting the first thing they see. It is the fault of the person for being to lazy to realize "Justin Balser's blog" may not be the best source of information.
Another thing that really bothers me about this article is his opinion that increased terrorism is a direct result of the web. This is an extremely ignorant statement that although i'm sure is supported by data doesn't express the truth. Does Mr. Harris truly want me to believe that if terrorists did not have the internet they would have NO means to spread the message? This is simply ridiculous. This is the way of technology, and Mr. Harris does not see that. He wants to live in a time where snail mail and word of mouth were the main ways to talk to people. That's not how life works, technology will always make things easier for people. If the terrorists didn't have the internet, i'm sure another piece of technology would be there making it just as simple. This is way of the world.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/allen-the-internet-is-destructive_1125539
This article poses an interesting view on how the internet can destructive in an entirely different way. Lily Allen, a singer, talks about how the internet became her outlet for depression. She has now given up the internet because she constantly looked for negative comments about herself on fan forums and twitter. She said she did this to "substantiate how (she) was feeling." She has now completely given up the internet and does not even own a computer. I feel sorry for her situation and realize that a lot of people are probably in this position. I'm sure people are the other way around, having to fish for compliments in order to feel happy. However, I would again say this is on the person rather than the internet. If they were not looking for comments on Twitter or facebook, they would be asking friends in school. The internet did not form these personalities in people, they did. Although the internet does have some "destructive" tendancies, the overall good it produces is greater.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article Five
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/08/rosen.texting.communication.teens/index.html
This article discusses what the title refers to as "generation text". The writer states that he has a nineteen year old daughter who he tried contacting via phone and email, and finally text her and immediately got a response. The rest of the article discusses the specifics of text messaging, namely how many texts are sent on average per teenager. He talks about how phone conversations and face to face interactions are becoming a dying form of communication. He makes a great point in saying that while the phone took fifty years to reach fifty million users, while myspace and facebook took four and two years respectively. The writer finishes the article by stating that this may be not be all bad however. He understands that this new way of communication is a way of life and may help kids in their technological futures.
Even as a twenty year old kid, I completely understand the frustrations and argument the writer is representing here. I am a dying breed of youth that really dislikes text messaging. Sure, it is nice to ask a friend a quick question and not have to worry about getting into a long conversation. It also can really help if I know my girlfriend or relatives are in a position to not be able to hold a phone conversation and I need to get a hold of them. But to me, that's where text messaging should end. from a strictly physical standpoint, my fingers get very tired from typing on my mini keyboard. It also gets very tiring when someone is trying to explain to me a situation which in no way can be expressed via text.
I came across this article, http://indyposted.com/10814/lets-stop-dating-okay-50-percent-of-breakups-now-happen-over-text-message/ that states over 50% percent of breakups happen via text messages. I would call this incredible and unbelievable, but in today's society it doesn't surprise me at all. It really puts home what the CNN writer was trying to say about today's generation. We are afraid to have face to face or physical conversation so we revert to using our thumbs. I know the times I've had to call it off with a girl I would of never considered using text messaging. That seems so degrading to the person that they aren't even worth the time to talk in person.
But what am I supposed to do other than give in? I know for a fact that the only way I can contact half the people in my phone book is through text message. I've tried calling them several times, and ten minutes later I will get a response not by phone, but by text. It seems incredible to me that my own close friends don't call me back, but that is what our society. Sure sometimes it may be more "convenient" but that doesn't mean that's how we should talk. . It won't be much longer till people will be teaching exercises for one's thumbs as to not strain them while texting. I just can't wait to see what inevitably takes over text messaging as the next way to avoid the old phone call. It really bothers me, but everyone has to accept we are becoming a text messaging society.
This article discusses what the title refers to as "generation text". The writer states that he has a nineteen year old daughter who he tried contacting via phone and email, and finally text her and immediately got a response. The rest of the article discusses the specifics of text messaging, namely how many texts are sent on average per teenager. He talks about how phone conversations and face to face interactions are becoming a dying form of communication. He makes a great point in saying that while the phone took fifty years to reach fifty million users, while myspace and facebook took four and two years respectively. The writer finishes the article by stating that this may be not be all bad however. He understands that this new way of communication is a way of life and may help kids in their technological futures.
Even as a twenty year old kid, I completely understand the frustrations and argument the writer is representing here. I am a dying breed of youth that really dislikes text messaging. Sure, it is nice to ask a friend a quick question and not have to worry about getting into a long conversation. It also can really help if I know my girlfriend or relatives are in a position to not be able to hold a phone conversation and I need to get a hold of them. But to me, that's where text messaging should end. from a strictly physical standpoint, my fingers get very tired from typing on my mini keyboard. It also gets very tiring when someone is trying to explain to me a situation which in no way can be expressed via text.
I came across this article, http://indyposted.com/10814/lets-stop-dating-okay-50-percent-of-breakups-now-happen-over-text-message/ that states over 50% percent of breakups happen via text messages. I would call this incredible and unbelievable, but in today's society it doesn't surprise me at all. It really puts home what the CNN writer was trying to say about today's generation. We are afraid to have face to face or physical conversation so we revert to using our thumbs. I know the times I've had to call it off with a girl I would of never considered using text messaging. That seems so degrading to the person that they aren't even worth the time to talk in person.
But what am I supposed to do other than give in? I know for a fact that the only way I can contact half the people in my phone book is through text message. I've tried calling them several times, and ten minutes later I will get a response not by phone, but by text. It seems incredible to me that my own close friends don't call me back, but that is what our society. Sure sometimes it may be more "convenient" but that doesn't mean that's how we should talk. . It won't be much longer till people will be teaching exercises for one's thumbs as to not strain them while texting. I just can't wait to see what inevitably takes over text messaging as the next way to avoid the old phone call. It really bothers me, but everyone has to accept we are becoming a text messaging society.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Article Four
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2010-02-04-baig04_ST_N.htm
This article is discusses the functionality and content of 3-d laptops being developed by Asus and Acer. The writer had the opportunity to use these computers for basic functions as well as playing the video game Avatar based on recent movie by James Cameron. He goes into good details about how the 3-D is noticeable, however is not great yet. He feels this product is definitely suited for gamers who are looking for an experience that's never been created. He goes on to say that although the technology is indeed impressive, there probably is not a high demand in main street market yet. The last of the article discusses the specs of the laptop such as RAM and hard drive space.
I think it's incredible we are coming to a point in society where 3-D will be a mainstay in the home. I remember being a kid with the plastic multicolored glasses thinking it was coolest experience of my life. Now, 3-D is almost a common place with movies. Anyone can see that the latest movies, Avatar and Michael Jackson's This is it to name a couple, are offered in 3-D. I know for a almost certain fact sooner than later nearly every movie will have a 3-D component.
I would absolutely love to get my hands on this laptop and try the aspect of video gaming. I can only imagine how amazing it would be to play all my favorite games in 3-D. However, I get the sneaking suspicion that the 3-D craze will overstay it's welcome and fast. I'm a huge sports fan. My t.v. is almost exclusively on ESPN or ESPN2. When I saw that ESPN would be broadcasting games in 3-D, I cringed. Does anyone truly want to watch a game like that? I can only imagine how big of a distraction that would be. Before we know it, all the major stations will be offering a 3-D service. We'll be watching 24 and Lost with glasses on our eyes. Ultimately, 3-D will become a over hyped fad instead of the awesome experience it should be.
A British article posted here: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/01/28/review_laptop_asus_g51_j_3d_notebook/ is testing the same laptop from the above article. They also pretty much agree that although it is impressive, there are some things that hurt the laptop's chances to sell. They state the specs are not much different to similar laptops coming out today. For the price these will sell for, around $3000 American, they clearly expected top of the line hard drive space and RAM. Also, like the above author, they feel as though people aren't ready in society for this 3-D gaming experience. This will definitely sell, but not in the quantity a company like Asus would want.
I can only hope the price goes does significantly so I can try it out. I would love to get 3-D computing a whirl, but for $3000 I will sit on the sidelines and hope my friends buy one.
This article is discusses the functionality and content of 3-d laptops being developed by Asus and Acer. The writer had the opportunity to use these computers for basic functions as well as playing the video game Avatar based on recent movie by James Cameron. He goes into good details about how the 3-D is noticeable, however is not great yet. He feels this product is definitely suited for gamers who are looking for an experience that's never been created. He goes on to say that although the technology is indeed impressive, there probably is not a high demand in main street market yet. The last of the article discusses the specs of the laptop such as RAM and hard drive space.
I think it's incredible we are coming to a point in society where 3-D will be a mainstay in the home. I remember being a kid with the plastic multicolored glasses thinking it was coolest experience of my life. Now, 3-D is almost a common place with movies. Anyone can see that the latest movies, Avatar and Michael Jackson's This is it to name a couple, are offered in 3-D. I know for a almost certain fact sooner than later nearly every movie will have a 3-D component.
I would absolutely love to get my hands on this laptop and try the aspect of video gaming. I can only imagine how amazing it would be to play all my favorite games in 3-D. However, I get the sneaking suspicion that the 3-D craze will overstay it's welcome and fast. I'm a huge sports fan. My t.v. is almost exclusively on ESPN or ESPN2. When I saw that ESPN would be broadcasting games in 3-D, I cringed. Does anyone truly want to watch a game like that? I can only imagine how big of a distraction that would be. Before we know it, all the major stations will be offering a 3-D service. We'll be watching 24 and Lost with glasses on our eyes. Ultimately, 3-D will become a over hyped fad instead of the awesome experience it should be.
A British article posted here: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/01/28/review_laptop_asus_g51_j_3d_notebook/ is testing the same laptop from the above article. They also pretty much agree that although it is impressive, there are some things that hurt the laptop's chances to sell. They state the specs are not much different to similar laptops coming out today. For the price these will sell for, around $3000 American, they clearly expected top of the line hard drive space and RAM. Also, like the above author, they feel as though people aren't ready in society for this 3-D gaming experience. This will definitely sell, but not in the quantity a company like Asus would want.
I can only hope the price goes does significantly so I can try it out. I would love to get 3-D computing a whirl, but for $3000 I will sit on the sidelines and hope my friends buy one.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Article Three
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/28/apple.ipad.publishers.reaction/index.html
This article is a comprehensive review of Apple's new Tablet PC, the Ipad. Apple is trying to expand it's reach past the the popular Macbook and Ipod to offer customers a completely new type of computing experience. The media feels this will be such a success because it will revoltionize the way people buy things online. It will be able to provide users, for a small fee, access to thousands of books and online literature similar to Amazon's Kindle. The article also explains that some people do see the Ipad as a technological breakthrough, but not neccesarily groundbreaking. Another huge argument is the damage print media will take. With print media already facing serious downturn, the Ipad might finally sink the ship.
I'm in the group of people who feel the Ipad, although a technological wonder, has some serious issues and flaws that may be overlooked. I feel as though people in today's society race to buy anything with an Apple logo without knowing anything about how it works. As I stated, there are some serious flaws with this new Mac that people will not see as they are tearing them off the shelves. For starters, there are going to be no usb ports on the system. This means that one cannot plug anything external into the computer. I feel as though this is just a ploy to make people have to buy more Apps and online materials, but who knows for sure. Also, there is a serious problem with the amount of Ram and Hard Drive space these have. I think Apple is giving people a misguided idea that this is a full encompassing computer when truly other than the size and functionally it works no different than the Ipod Touch or Iphone.
Another article, posted here http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/28/ipad.irpt/index.html is also in the group of people who aren't crazy about the Ipad. The author of the article states that, "I think this is kind of a waste right now, especially for people who already have iPhones and iPod Touches, because it does the same things." He does go on in the article to explain why the Ipad might be useful. He claims could be "great for high school students and textbooks" and "e-reading capabilities". He does admit perhaps his expections were too high, however he feels Apple could have done a lot more with this tablet and failed to deliver.
Does apple really need to establish a dominant piece of machinery to sell the product like crazy? you put a lower case i in front of most anything in society today and it sells. Steve Jobs knows he doesn't necesarrily have to create a groundbreaking item for him to make a high profit. I'll admit, my views are somewhat biased because I have and always will be a PC person outside the Ipod. I've never understood why people are so in love with the Apple product when they hardly use anything on it. It honestly seems having the latest Apple product is more a trend setter than with consumer. One can only be "in" with the technology crowd if they are chatting with people on the iPhone, listening to music on the iPod touch, and now reading books on the iPad. Oh, the power a half eaten apple and a lower case i has on our society.
This article is a comprehensive review of Apple's new Tablet PC, the Ipad. Apple is trying to expand it's reach past the the popular Macbook and Ipod to offer customers a completely new type of computing experience. The media feels this will be such a success because it will revoltionize the way people buy things online. It will be able to provide users, for a small fee, access to thousands of books and online literature similar to Amazon's Kindle. The article also explains that some people do see the Ipad as a technological breakthrough, but not neccesarily groundbreaking. Another huge argument is the damage print media will take. With print media already facing serious downturn, the Ipad might finally sink the ship.
I'm in the group of people who feel the Ipad, although a technological wonder, has some serious issues and flaws that may be overlooked. I feel as though people in today's society race to buy anything with an Apple logo without knowing anything about how it works. As I stated, there are some serious flaws with this new Mac that people will not see as they are tearing them off the shelves. For starters, there are going to be no usb ports on the system. This means that one cannot plug anything external into the computer. I feel as though this is just a ploy to make people have to buy more Apps and online materials, but who knows for sure. Also, there is a serious problem with the amount of Ram and Hard Drive space these have. I think Apple is giving people a misguided idea that this is a full encompassing computer when truly other than the size and functionally it works no different than the Ipod Touch or Iphone.
Another article, posted here http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/28/ipad.irpt/index.html is also in the group of people who aren't crazy about the Ipad. The author of the article states that, "I think this is kind of a waste right now, especially for people who already have iPhones and iPod Touches, because it does the same things." He does go on in the article to explain why the Ipad might be useful. He claims could be "great for high school students and textbooks" and "e-reading capabilities". He does admit perhaps his expections were too high, however he feels Apple could have done a lot more with this tablet and failed to deliver.
Does apple really need to establish a dominant piece of machinery to sell the product like crazy? you put a lower case i in front of most anything in society today and it sells. Steve Jobs knows he doesn't necesarrily have to create a groundbreaking item for him to make a high profit. I'll admit, my views are somewhat biased because I have and always will be a PC person outside the Ipod. I've never understood why people are so in love with the Apple product when they hardly use anything on it. It honestly seems having the latest Apple product is more a trend setter than with consumer. One can only be "in" with the technology crowd if they are chatting with people on the iPhone, listening to music on the iPod touch, and now reading books on the iPad. Oh, the power a half eaten apple and a lower case i has on our society.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Article Two
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/20/haiti.amateur.radio/index.html
This article talks about a man in Haiti using minimal technology, in this case a basic radio and a generator, to let others know he survived the earthquake. This man was fortunate enough to have the basic luxuries of today, including a computer with facebook, Twitter etc. and a cell phone. When the earthquake struck, these things were all taken away from him. However, by using a basic ham radio, he contacted a United States radio station and relayed information.
Another similar article posted here http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-amateur-radio-haiti-story,0,6166562.story discusses how amateur radio operators are leaving their lines open for those in Haiti. They explain in the article how although there is a communications blackout currently in Haiti, these very basic radios are keeping people informed. It's very encouraging to see this type of technology benefiting those in need.
This article is great for two reasons. Firstly, it shows a very good and simple way for many Haitians to reach their families. If the world could provide these radios to outlaying villages and poorer parts of Haiti, more people could contact loved ones and let them know they are safe. Secondly, it's a perfect example of how we as a society can get lost in high dollar and fancy electronics and forget about the basics. I'm sure many people in our society including myself do not have a corded phone or a radio in case of a emergency. We assume that all our nice new things will always be there, but they easily could not.
It should scare you as much as it scares me how unprepared our society is for a national disaster. Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of this. Despite being in arguably the most advanced and technological savvy country in the world, the lack of high tech communication devices brought New Orleans down. Many people with loved ones had no way of knowing where they were and if they were alive. If more people in society had the knowledge and capability to run radios, many of those in Katrina would have been heard and even saved. The only question that really remains is if people would take the time to buy and learn how to use radios. I would hope after reading the potential life saving benefits it had the answer would be yes, but I fear people would not. Although I am not capable of running the equipment, these articles have enlightened me to learn. I hope others feel the same way I do.
This article talks about a man in Haiti using minimal technology, in this case a basic radio and a generator, to let others know he survived the earthquake. This man was fortunate enough to have the basic luxuries of today, including a computer with facebook, Twitter etc. and a cell phone. When the earthquake struck, these things were all taken away from him. However, by using a basic ham radio, he contacted a United States radio station and relayed information.
Another similar article posted here http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-amateur-radio-haiti-story,0,6166562.story discusses how amateur radio operators are leaving their lines open for those in Haiti. They explain in the article how although there is a communications blackout currently in Haiti, these very basic radios are keeping people informed. It's very encouraging to see this type of technology benefiting those in need.
This article is great for two reasons. Firstly, it shows a very good and simple way for many Haitians to reach their families. If the world could provide these radios to outlaying villages and poorer parts of Haiti, more people could contact loved ones and let them know they are safe. Secondly, it's a perfect example of how we as a society can get lost in high dollar and fancy electronics and forget about the basics. I'm sure many people in our society including myself do not have a corded phone or a radio in case of a emergency. We assume that all our nice new things will always be there, but they easily could not.
It should scare you as much as it scares me how unprepared our society is for a national disaster. Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of this. Despite being in arguably the most advanced and technological savvy country in the world, the lack of high tech communication devices brought New Orleans down. Many people with loved ones had no way of knowing where they were and if they were alive. If more people in society had the knowledge and capability to run radios, many of those in Katrina would have been heard and even saved. The only question that really remains is if people would take the time to buy and learn how to use radios. I would hope after reading the potential life saving benefits it had the answer would be yes, but I fear people would not. Although I am not capable of running the equipment, these articles have enlightened me to learn. I hope others feel the same way I do.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Article One
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/world/americas/16iht-currents.html
This article confronts the idea that in today's society perhaps the advancement of the digital world is causing harm rather than help. The author gives examples such as Mcdonalds offering Wi-fi in all restaurants and Google offering internet at certain airports. He goes on to talk how cell phone companies are battling not for who has the best cell service, but rather the best wireless coverage and smart technology. He makes the claim that human's need for instant gratification is being granted, but there is a rising cost that many people do not want to see.
I could not agree more with the writer of this article. It amazes me how people use cell phones in today's society. I'll admit that I browse the internet and check my email, but that's where it ends. People use their cell phones for so much more: facebook, Twitter, Myspace and Youtube to name a few. We are going into an age that not only wants but demands instant and constant information no matter the location. People go camping in the woods and cannot understand why they can't update their Facebook status when they get there. I feel as though people are losing key values to the digital age. It is extremely common to look around a college class and see students either texting or browsing the internet with their high speed blackberry. Meanwhile, the professor is discussing very difficult information with these students not paying any attention. These students yell and complain when they fail tests, only to tweet during the class how mad they are.
Another current article located here, http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/university/article_7835ca65-b347-53c1-b04b-42d90be6d5cb.html describes this upcoming problem as well. A media expert working at UW-Madison explains that, "If e-mail came in I felt a need to read it right away. Or I’d go to look up one thing on the Internet, and I’m so curious I’d get distracted and spend time reading all these interesting articles." She goes on state that all the devices and growing information made her feel "cluttered"and caused her to "never get work done". This cannot be more accurate in the world today. I find myself even now working on this assignment being side-tracked with a Youtube video and text messaging. If my generation of men and women become more and more distracted with the growing digital world, we will face an incredible challenge for the future. If someone loses their cell phone or internet connection, it is as though they are lost and confused. They have no idea what to do with themselves and become extremely frustrated. No one can understand how our parents got through life without a laptop or a smart phone. I worry and hope this trend changes, or the future might be different for all of us.
This article confronts the idea that in today's society perhaps the advancement of the digital world is causing harm rather than help. The author gives examples such as Mcdonalds offering Wi-fi in all restaurants and Google offering internet at certain airports. He goes on to talk how cell phone companies are battling not for who has the best cell service, but rather the best wireless coverage and smart technology. He makes the claim that human's need for instant gratification is being granted, but there is a rising cost that many people do not want to see.
I could not agree more with the writer of this article. It amazes me how people use cell phones in today's society. I'll admit that I browse the internet and check my email, but that's where it ends. People use their cell phones for so much more: facebook, Twitter, Myspace and Youtube to name a few. We are going into an age that not only wants but demands instant and constant information no matter the location. People go camping in the woods and cannot understand why they can't update their Facebook status when they get there. I feel as though people are losing key values to the digital age. It is extremely common to look around a college class and see students either texting or browsing the internet with their high speed blackberry. Meanwhile, the professor is discussing very difficult information with these students not paying any attention. These students yell and complain when they fail tests, only to tweet during the class how mad they are.
Another current article located here, http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/university/article_7835ca65-b347-53c1-b04b-42d90be6d5cb.html describes this upcoming problem as well. A media expert working at UW-Madison explains that, "If e-mail came in I felt a need to read it right away. Or I’d go to look up one thing on the Internet, and I’m so curious I’d get distracted and spend time reading all these interesting articles." She goes on state that all the devices and growing information made her feel "cluttered"and caused her to "never get work done". This cannot be more accurate in the world today. I find myself even now working on this assignment being side-tracked with a Youtube video and text messaging. If my generation of men and women become more and more distracted with the growing digital world, we will face an incredible challenge for the future. If someone loses their cell phone or internet connection, it is as though they are lost and confused. They have no idea what to do with themselves and become extremely frustrated. No one can understand how our parents got through life without a laptop or a smart phone. I worry and hope this trend changes, or the future might be different for all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)