Source: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_facebooks_new_privacy_changes_will_affect_you.php
Support: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/dec/02/digital-media-facebook-privacy-settings-open-letter-mark-zuckerberg-350-users
This article introduces Facebook’s new privacy changes and how it will affect you if you are currently a member. The social networking giant has improved its privacy settings, while making it easier for its members to understand what type of privacy setting is best for them. Facebook is going to make three key changes in the upcoming update of the website. The first being “No more regional networks”, which basically means that Facebook is going to demote all cities and regions from being considered networks because there were certain cities and regions that were millions strong. This is a good thing because it would mean that less people are able to view your profile that you were trying to share with your “network”. The second transition is going to be the ability to “Control who sees each piece of individual content you add or upload”. This essentially gives you an option of who can or cannot see your “status updates”. This is good because you can now choose whether you want a group of people to know where you are at or what you are doing, or have everyone know. The final key change is, “A simplified privacy page”. The privacy settings on Facebook can be tricky to get around, and can be a downright pain in the butt. According to CNN, “To make privacy simpler, Facebook's controls will be changed to permit sharing with three groups: "only friends," "friends of friends," or "everyone." In addition, the Privacy Page itself will be simplified to combine some settings which currently overlap” (cnn.com). Facebook is taking this privacy thing serious because they want to keep a positive public image.
I think that Facebook has made a good move by creating these new privacy updates, and I think that it can only affect the website in a positive way. The fact that they are the largest social networking site around, with over 350 million members, goes to show you just how much power they have over their competitors. MySpace, another social networking site, used to be the top dog until it got a bad name from rumors of having sexual predators lurking around. Facebook made a wise move by doing something about their privacy problems before it was too late, and even though it is usually the user that puts too much information up on the website. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, had this to say about the upcoming updates, “We'll suggest settings for you based on your current level of privacy, but the best way for you to find the right settings is to read through all your options and customize them for yourself” (guardian.co.uk). As Zuckerberg said, it is up to you to decide what kind of privacy settings is the right one for you, and the websites suggestions can only do so much.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Article Blog #13
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/technology/22distracted.html?ref=technology
Support: http://www.nationwide.com/newsroom/dwd-facts-figures.jsp
The article at hand talks about how using your cellular phone while driving is usually dangerous and a hands-free headset is not the answer either. One possible remedy to this problem was “ZoomSafer”, which is a free service that uses a phone’s GPS sensors to disable the phone when a certain speed is reached. The best solution is to actually turn off your cellular phone according to the article, “but going cold turkey is hard for many Americans who have become addicted to their gadgets” (cnn.com). Ford and Microsoft also offer a system that uses voice commands to dial your contacts. Nationwide is offering discounts to drivers who actually use call-blocking services while driving to encourage people to put safety first. Aegis Mobility and obdEdge, also use the same type of features that “ZoomSafer” use, “any incoming calls are then routed to voice mail or a message explaining that the phone’s owner is driving. Exceptions can be made for certain numbers” (cnn.com). Some employers are also participating in this service in order to make sure their drivers abide by the cell phone rules. Studies have shown that drivers are four times more likely to get into a car accident when talking on the phone, whether or not they use a hands-free headset.
I think that it is cool how insurance companies are lowering people’s rates for being safe while using a call-blocker. However, it is difficult for someone to not have their phone readily available while driving, especially if they are using their phone for business. According to CNN, “Once a conversation begins, we don’t see a difference between hand-held and hands-free” (cnn.com). I agree with the quote because I think that once we get into a conversation, we go ahead and put driving as a second priority whether or not we realize it. I use my cell phone while driving sometimes but it usually is not for something important at all. I would like to think of myself as a great driver, but I do not think that anything is safe about putting your life and the life of others at risk while using the phone. We as a society usually do not think it is a big deal, but “distraction from cell phone use while driving (hand held or hands free) extends a driver's reaction as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent” (nationwide.com). The statistics alone should put some sense into a person, and the last thing anyone needs on their conscious is a wreck because of a silly conversation over the phone that caused a fatal accident. Think smart.
Support: http://www.nationwide.com/newsroom/dwd-facts-figures.jsp
The article at hand talks about how using your cellular phone while driving is usually dangerous and a hands-free headset is not the answer either. One possible remedy to this problem was “ZoomSafer”, which is a free service that uses a phone’s GPS sensors to disable the phone when a certain speed is reached. The best solution is to actually turn off your cellular phone according to the article, “but going cold turkey is hard for many Americans who have become addicted to their gadgets” (cnn.com). Ford and Microsoft also offer a system that uses voice commands to dial your contacts. Nationwide is offering discounts to drivers who actually use call-blocking services while driving to encourage people to put safety first. Aegis Mobility and obdEdge, also use the same type of features that “ZoomSafer” use, “any incoming calls are then routed to voice mail or a message explaining that the phone’s owner is driving. Exceptions can be made for certain numbers” (cnn.com). Some employers are also participating in this service in order to make sure their drivers abide by the cell phone rules. Studies have shown that drivers are four times more likely to get into a car accident when talking on the phone, whether or not they use a hands-free headset.
I think that it is cool how insurance companies are lowering people’s rates for being safe while using a call-blocker. However, it is difficult for someone to not have their phone readily available while driving, especially if they are using their phone for business. According to CNN, “Once a conversation begins, we don’t see a difference between hand-held and hands-free” (cnn.com). I agree with the quote because I think that once we get into a conversation, we go ahead and put driving as a second priority whether or not we realize it. I use my cell phone while driving sometimes but it usually is not for something important at all. I would like to think of myself as a great driver, but I do not think that anything is safe about putting your life and the life of others at risk while using the phone. We as a society usually do not think it is a big deal, but “distraction from cell phone use while driving (hand held or hands free) extends a driver's reaction as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent” (nationwide.com). The statistics alone should put some sense into a person, and the last thing anyone needs on their conscious is a wreck because of a silly conversation over the phone that caused a fatal accident. Think smart.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Article Blog # 12
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/facebook.alibi/index.html
Support: http://www.marketing-jive.com/2007/09/11-business-benefits-of-using-facebook.html
This article is a perfect example of why social networking sites such as Facebook can be beneficial. The article at hand is about a man who found himself in a sticky situation that had no part in. For Rodney Bradford was charged for robbery in the first degree for a situation in which two men were robbed at gunpoint just 12 miles away from his father’s house. Rodney was at home posting an update on his Facebook account when this situation occurred. The next day Bradford, who was facing separate charges for a 2008 indictment, found out that police were looking for him and decided to turn himself in knowing that he was innocent. Unfortunately, the victims picked him out of the lineup and he was sent to Rikers Island, the New York City jail. Bradford spent the next 12 days talking to his attorney about how he was innocent, and how his Facebook would help out the trial. Lucky for Bradford, Facebook had a timestamp on his “status update” which ended up being the deciding factor of his release from the prison. The only problem with this case is that the prosecutors believe that anyone can be on a person’s Facebook account, but it is nearly impossible to really prove whether it is the actual user.
I think that this is an interesting case of how technology helped give a man back his freedom. It is crazy how a simple status update kept Mr. Bradford from facing some serious jail time, and I think that it just goes to show that Facebook is not all that bad. "We're in a much more trackable world, and for better and for worse," said attorney Jonathan Handel. "The extent to which it means that the right people get prosecuted and the innocent get their cases dropped, that's all of the good" (cnn.com). I am glad that the judge actually accepted the Facebook alibi, and I think that the only downfall to a more “trackable world” is the fact that people may feel like their privacy is being breached. However, I do think that search engines can be a negative to some people who don’t want their Facebook information searchable, “Your Facebook profile can now be indexed in the search results and as a result can provide another favorable listing in the organic search results of the engines” (marketing-jive.com). All in all, social networking sites can actually be beneficial for more than marketing yourself.
Support: http://www.marketing-jive.com/2007/09/11-business-benefits-of-using-facebook.html
This article is a perfect example of why social networking sites such as Facebook can be beneficial. The article at hand is about a man who found himself in a sticky situation that had no part in. For Rodney Bradford was charged for robbery in the first degree for a situation in which two men were robbed at gunpoint just 12 miles away from his father’s house. Rodney was at home posting an update on his Facebook account when this situation occurred. The next day Bradford, who was facing separate charges for a 2008 indictment, found out that police were looking for him and decided to turn himself in knowing that he was innocent. Unfortunately, the victims picked him out of the lineup and he was sent to Rikers Island, the New York City jail. Bradford spent the next 12 days talking to his attorney about how he was innocent, and how his Facebook would help out the trial. Lucky for Bradford, Facebook had a timestamp on his “status update” which ended up being the deciding factor of his release from the prison. The only problem with this case is that the prosecutors believe that anyone can be on a person’s Facebook account, but it is nearly impossible to really prove whether it is the actual user.
I think that this is an interesting case of how technology helped give a man back his freedom. It is crazy how a simple status update kept Mr. Bradford from facing some serious jail time, and I think that it just goes to show that Facebook is not all that bad. "We're in a much more trackable world, and for better and for worse," said attorney Jonathan Handel. "The extent to which it means that the right people get prosecuted and the innocent get their cases dropped, that's all of the good" (cnn.com). I am glad that the judge actually accepted the Facebook alibi, and I think that the only downfall to a more “trackable world” is the fact that people may feel like their privacy is being breached. However, I do think that search engines can be a negative to some people who don’t want their Facebook information searchable, “Your Facebook profile can now be indexed in the search results and as a result can provide another favorable listing in the organic search results of the engines” (marketing-jive.com). All in all, social networking sites can actually be beneficial for more than marketing yourself.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Article Blog # 11
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/02/kids.social.networks/index.html
Support: http://www.geekwithlaptop.com/online-social-networking-is-it-bad-for-kids
The article depicts a popular topic that may or may not have a truly correct answer. The article talks about social networking and kids, and how young is too young for a kid to be on popular social networking sites such as Facebook, and MySpace. It is difficult for the social networking sites to monitor whether or not a kid meets the required minimum age limit of 13 because so many kids are pretending to be older than they really are. One argument for why young children should be on these networking sites is that, “Some scientists worry that pre-adolescent use of the sites, which some therapists have linked to Internet addiction among adults, could be damaging to children's relationships and brains” (cnn.com). However, many people do not think that this social networking craze is as bad as some parents make it out to be, and that most of these young kids tend to do the same things that they would in their offline lives. A huge concern for parents is that, “these technologies are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment” (cnn.com). Many parents do believe that this we must accept the fact that this is a new time and that we just need to get over the fear, and try to monitor our children the best we can.
I think that this article really addresses a popular issue that many parents are aware of, but just do not know how to handle. I personally have been using social networking sites ever since I was 12 years old, now I am 20 and continue to go on my networking sites regularly. I do not think that these social networking sites were such a bad thing, but I do think that of parents do not monitor their kids, it could get bad. We have to face the fact that there is no running away from these networking sites, and that eventually your children will be on sites similar to Facebook, or MySpace. I believe that it just depends on how you prepare your child, and it is up to you to educate them on why not to put up certain information on their profile pages. According to a psychiatrist at West London Mental Hospital, “kids are likely to find the real world boring and will look to more extreme types of behavior to get a kick out of life and that in the virtual world things happen much faster, relationships are begun and ended with the click of a mouse and you can reinvent yourself in your online profile whenever you want to” (geekwithlaptop.com). Kids are always going to find ways to get around things, and it is up to us as adults to help guide them through this process of online social networking while giving them to opportunity to practice it under a controlled environment.
Support: http://www.geekwithlaptop.com/online-social-networking-is-it-bad-for-kids
The article depicts a popular topic that may or may not have a truly correct answer. The article talks about social networking and kids, and how young is too young for a kid to be on popular social networking sites such as Facebook, and MySpace. It is difficult for the social networking sites to monitor whether or not a kid meets the required minimum age limit of 13 because so many kids are pretending to be older than they really are. One argument for why young children should be on these networking sites is that, “Some scientists worry that pre-adolescent use of the sites, which some therapists have linked to Internet addiction among adults, could be damaging to children's relationships and brains” (cnn.com). However, many people do not think that this social networking craze is as bad as some parents make it out to be, and that most of these young kids tend to do the same things that they would in their offline lives. A huge concern for parents is that, “these technologies are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment” (cnn.com). Many parents do believe that this we must accept the fact that this is a new time and that we just need to get over the fear, and try to monitor our children the best we can.
I think that this article really addresses a popular issue that many parents are aware of, but just do not know how to handle. I personally have been using social networking sites ever since I was 12 years old, now I am 20 and continue to go on my networking sites regularly. I do not think that these social networking sites were such a bad thing, but I do think that of parents do not monitor their kids, it could get bad. We have to face the fact that there is no running away from these networking sites, and that eventually your children will be on sites similar to Facebook, or MySpace. I believe that it just depends on how you prepare your child, and it is up to you to educate them on why not to put up certain information on their profile pages. According to a psychiatrist at West London Mental Hospital, “kids are likely to find the real world boring and will look to more extreme types of behavior to get a kick out of life and that in the virtual world things happen much faster, relationships are begun and ended with the click of a mouse and you can reinvent yourself in your online profile whenever you want to” (geekwithlaptop.com). Kids are always going to find ways to get around things, and it is up to us as adults to help guide them through this process of online social networking while giving them to opportunity to practice it under a controlled environment.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Article Blog #10
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/30/online.rejection.defriending/index.html
Support: http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=29104&w=5&cn=1
The article at hand depicts a person’s feelings after being rejected or “defriended” on social networking sites such as Facebook, or Twitter. The article begins with a story of a woman who uses Likedln, a professional social networking site, to extend invites to people who appear to have the same career interest as her. Until one day a woman denied her friend request stating that; “I only connect with people I know, and hopefully our paths will cross one day” (cnn.com). Experts say that rejection on social networking sites is just as painful as rejection face-to-face. The article also explains how some people have a harder time dealing with rejection, or even being the rejecter. Many people find it difficult to defriend a person, while others do it very often with the intention of keeping there “friends list” short, while having friends that they actually talk to. The article has people explaining the importance of having friends that you actually know, as opposed to having a friend of a friend. Limiting your friends will allow you to have stronger relationships with them, and eliminate all those awkward rejections and hurt feelings.
I think that we people should not get too emotional when dealing with online rejections via social networking sites. Some people tend to get very emotional when it comes to being rejected online, while others do not take social networking sites as serious. It is hard to get rejected no matter the situation, and I understand why people get so upset when being defriended or unwanted be another. Rejection can really change a person forever, “Very often, the prior experience of rejection causes people to avoid socializing in the future, avoiding it like the child whose hand has been burned by a hot stove and avoids kitchen all together” (mentalhelp.net). We as a society shouldn’t take this online rejection so personally though, after all, many people are not who they are face-to-face as they are online. Therefore, it may be easier for someone to simply reject a Facebook invite without learning about the person. You don’t need to have 1,000 plus friends on Facebook or Twitter in order to be cool, because as long as you have real friends, numbers don’t matter.
Support: http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=29104&w=5&cn=1
The article at hand depicts a person’s feelings after being rejected or “defriended” on social networking sites such as Facebook, or Twitter. The article begins with a story of a woman who uses Likedln, a professional social networking site, to extend invites to people who appear to have the same career interest as her. Until one day a woman denied her friend request stating that; “I only connect with people I know, and hopefully our paths will cross one day” (cnn.com). Experts say that rejection on social networking sites is just as painful as rejection face-to-face. The article also explains how some people have a harder time dealing with rejection, or even being the rejecter. Many people find it difficult to defriend a person, while others do it very often with the intention of keeping there “friends list” short, while having friends that they actually talk to. The article has people explaining the importance of having friends that you actually know, as opposed to having a friend of a friend. Limiting your friends will allow you to have stronger relationships with them, and eliminate all those awkward rejections and hurt feelings.
I think that we people should not get too emotional when dealing with online rejections via social networking sites. Some people tend to get very emotional when it comes to being rejected online, while others do not take social networking sites as serious. It is hard to get rejected no matter the situation, and I understand why people get so upset when being defriended or unwanted be another. Rejection can really change a person forever, “Very often, the prior experience of rejection causes people to avoid socializing in the future, avoiding it like the child whose hand has been burned by a hot stove and avoids kitchen all together” (mentalhelp.net). We as a society shouldn’t take this online rejection so personally though, after all, many people are not who they are face-to-face as they are online. Therefore, it may be easier for someone to simply reject a Facebook invite without learning about the person. You don’t need to have 1,000 plus friends on Facebook or Twitter in order to be cool, because as long as you have real friends, numbers don’t matter.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Article Blog #9
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/19/social.networking.crimes/index.html?iref=newssearch
Support: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/phishing.html
Facebook, Twitter, and many of your favorite networking websites that you love looking at day in and day out could prove to be harmful to your personal information and your computer. This is all because,
“more cyberthieves are targeting increasingly popular social networking sites that provide a gold mine of personal information, according to the FBI” (cnn.com). There have been thousands of these social network accounts captured by hackers using them for fraud. Internet phishing is, “The act of sending an e-mail to a user falsely claiming to be an established legitimate enterprise in an attempt to scam the user into surrendering private information that will be used for identity theft” (webopedia.com). This has been a powerful way for people to get a lot of your personal information, and it is being used a lot to lure social networkers into giving away private information on a fake website. These social networking sites have seen massive growth, which only means that there are tons of cybercriminals trying to attack. The article also talks about how many sites encourage their members to change their passwords constantly to avoid the chance of being attacked. During this decade, the most common form of malware attack has been through audio downloads, and while surfing around sites like Google or Yahoo. Social networking sites have tried to answer these complaints from their members by making their systems more secure, while having a complex automated system to avoid the ease for hackers to hijack your accounts.
I think that this issue is very difficult to solve, and I am unsure of how long it will actually take to handle this situation. Hackers are very intelligent, and trying to stop them is a task that is extremely hard due to their ability to stay two steps ahead all the time. The chance of viruses ever going away is not likely in the near future in my opinion. The only way I think that we can stop these hackers is to bulk up the internet security while having more people looking for suspicious behaviors within these popular websites. Many phishing frauds use fake website addresses to try and trick users into believing that something about them is being said on another website and gives the use a link to “check it out”. A lot of these hackers get paid for how many people they can get to click the links. The these phishing tactics are very clever in the way they lure people in, but it is up to the individual to be careful and double check that what they are actually clicking will lead them to where they want to go. It will be hard to stop these frauds and viruses, and it will only get worse before it gets any better, but I think that over time we will be able to do it.
Support: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/phishing.html
Facebook, Twitter, and many of your favorite networking websites that you love looking at day in and day out could prove to be harmful to your personal information and your computer. This is all because,
“more cyberthieves are targeting increasingly popular social networking sites that provide a gold mine of personal information, according to the FBI” (cnn.com). There have been thousands of these social network accounts captured by hackers using them for fraud. Internet phishing is, “The act of sending an e-mail to a user falsely claiming to be an established legitimate enterprise in an attempt to scam the user into surrendering private information that will be used for identity theft” (webopedia.com). This has been a powerful way for people to get a lot of your personal information, and it is being used a lot to lure social networkers into giving away private information on a fake website. These social networking sites have seen massive growth, which only means that there are tons of cybercriminals trying to attack. The article also talks about how many sites encourage their members to change their passwords constantly to avoid the chance of being attacked. During this decade, the most common form of malware attack has been through audio downloads, and while surfing around sites like Google or Yahoo. Social networking sites have tried to answer these complaints from their members by making their systems more secure, while having a complex automated system to avoid the ease for hackers to hijack your accounts.
I think that this issue is very difficult to solve, and I am unsure of how long it will actually take to handle this situation. Hackers are very intelligent, and trying to stop them is a task that is extremely hard due to their ability to stay two steps ahead all the time. The chance of viruses ever going away is not likely in the near future in my opinion. The only way I think that we can stop these hackers is to bulk up the internet security while having more people looking for suspicious behaviors within these popular websites. Many phishing frauds use fake website addresses to try and trick users into believing that something about them is being said on another website and gives the use a link to “check it out”. A lot of these hackers get paid for how many people they can get to click the links. The these phishing tactics are very clever in the way they lure people in, but it is up to the individual to be careful and double check that what they are actually clicking will lead them to where they want to go. It will be hard to stop these frauds and viruses, and it will only get worse before it gets any better, but I think that over time we will be able to do it.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Article Blog #8
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/10/16/online.university/index.html
Support: http://www.bachelorsdegreeonline.com/blog/2009/50-terrific-itunes-u-lectures-to-get-you-through-the-economic-crisis/
The article at hand discusses the plans of more and more universities putting their lectures up on the internet for everyone to download. Hundreds of universities and many business schools are providing lectures online via Youtube and iTunes U, which is a part of the iTunes online store. According to CNN, “those whose budget won't stretch to a two-year MBA can simulate the experience at home -- or at work, in the gym or anywhere else they choose. And even better for money-conscious learners, the iTunes U content can all be downloaded free of charge” (cnn.com). Some schools have already been doing this, such as the French business school HEC Paris, They have been running podcast of lectures since 2006. Some professors use this online approach to answer commonly asked questions in masses rather than answer questions individually. iTunes U isn’t the only one that has had this idea of putting lectures online, others include Youtube EDU, Academic Earth, and other universities have their own Open Course Wear site. Nevertheless, it is iTunes U that is attracting all the attention and drawing the most interest.
I think the idea of online lectures is a great way to help students study and give them something helpful to listen on walks to class or car rides during test weeks. This would help students out a lot because they will have a chance to actually listen to the lecture for the second time and also give them the ability to start, pause, and stop the lectures in order for them to takes notes without being rushed. I personally have a hard digesting everything while copying notes at the same times, which makes it hard to comprehend the key points of the lecture. “One teacher noticed that each year his MBA students would ask the same questions after his end-of-course summary, so he made a podcast of recurring questions and answers. After encouraging students to come up with new questions, he is now recording responses to those in an effort to compile a video archive of questions and answers” (cnn.com). If our university had every professor provide this luxury to its students I am sure each student would deeply appreciate it while having to deal with less stress of trying to figure out what the professor expects the students to understand. Although this may be very student oriented, non-college students can download and appreciate it the same way. According to bachelorsdegreeonline.com you can, “Visit iTunes U for free access to helpful courses that will enlighten you to the state of the economy, inspire you to start your own business, and give you a little more perspective on what you should be doing with your money”. If time is an option for you, than the new iTunes U could definitely help you out.
Support: http://www.bachelorsdegreeonline.com/blog/2009/50-terrific-itunes-u-lectures-to-get-you-through-the-economic-crisis/
The article at hand discusses the plans of more and more universities putting their lectures up on the internet for everyone to download. Hundreds of universities and many business schools are providing lectures online via Youtube and iTunes U, which is a part of the iTunes online store. According to CNN, “those whose budget won't stretch to a two-year MBA can simulate the experience at home -- or at work, in the gym or anywhere else they choose. And even better for money-conscious learners, the iTunes U content can all be downloaded free of charge” (cnn.com). Some schools have already been doing this, such as the French business school HEC Paris, They have been running podcast of lectures since 2006. Some professors use this online approach to answer commonly asked questions in masses rather than answer questions individually. iTunes U isn’t the only one that has had this idea of putting lectures online, others include Youtube EDU, Academic Earth, and other universities have their own Open Course Wear site. Nevertheless, it is iTunes U that is attracting all the attention and drawing the most interest.
I think the idea of online lectures is a great way to help students study and give them something helpful to listen on walks to class or car rides during test weeks. This would help students out a lot because they will have a chance to actually listen to the lecture for the second time and also give them the ability to start, pause, and stop the lectures in order for them to takes notes without being rushed. I personally have a hard digesting everything while copying notes at the same times, which makes it hard to comprehend the key points of the lecture. “One teacher noticed that each year his MBA students would ask the same questions after his end-of-course summary, so he made a podcast of recurring questions and answers. After encouraging students to come up with new questions, he is now recording responses to those in an effort to compile a video archive of questions and answers” (cnn.com). If our university had every professor provide this luxury to its students I am sure each student would deeply appreciate it while having to deal with less stress of trying to figure out what the professor expects the students to understand. Although this may be very student oriented, non-college students can download and appreciate it the same way. According to bachelorsdegreeonline.com you can, “Visit iTunes U for free access to helpful courses that will enlighten you to the state of the economy, inspire you to start your own business, and give you a little more perspective on what you should be doing with your money”. If time is an option for you, than the new iTunes U could definitely help you out.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Article Blog #7
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/07/language.facebook.google/index.html
Support: http://www.bloglingua.com/google-and-facebook-release-new-translation-tools
The article shows two ways of trying to achieve one common goal, which is internet translations in order to create a true “world wide web.” Two of the top leaders trying to tackle this task are Google, and the social networking giant, Facebook. Both sides are taking different approaches in achieving this goal, and both believe their way is probably the best way. It’s a competition between humans and machine, in this objective to create a internet for everyone. “Facebook aims to translate the Web using an army of volunteers and some hired professional translators. Meanwhile, Google plans to let computers do most of the work” (cnn.com). Facebook currently has more than 65 functioning languages with at least 30 more on the way soon. Whereas Google has 51 languages with over 2,500 language pairs. Facebook uses real people who suggest translation phrases and vote on others submitted translations. Google’s computers use its search engine to examine text that is already on the web, as well as from professional web translations on the web. However, both come with its own flaws that are still being worked out. Google’s computers have a hard time recognizing slang terms, whereas Facebook is geared more towards common talk, but their translators do not touch on wall post, photo’s or comments making it hard for someone communicate with a new friend with no common language.
I think that Google and Facebook both have great ideas on how to make the internet truly global and for everyone. It is about time that someone tries to connect different countries and cultures together by making it easier for people to communicate with each other. Many people would really like to understand the idea of other’s but there are times when the language barrier is too difficult to translate, which is where Google and Facebook come in. However, both lack in certain areas with their programs, but they still have helped many people out so far. My thing is why not join forces? Think about it, wouldn’t it be quicker if Google and Facebook were to join forces and create a perfect program to translate any language? On the other hand, many people think that an online translation still cannot compare to a professional. “Automatic translation is convenient and helps people get a quick gist of the page. However, it’s not a perfect substitute for the art of professional translation” (bloglingua.com). Overall, we still have a lot of time before either Google or Facebook completes its goal, but at least we are headed in the right direction on something that should have been done a long time ago.
Support: http://www.bloglingua.com/google-and-facebook-release-new-translation-tools
The article shows two ways of trying to achieve one common goal, which is internet translations in order to create a true “world wide web.” Two of the top leaders trying to tackle this task are Google, and the social networking giant, Facebook. Both sides are taking different approaches in achieving this goal, and both believe their way is probably the best way. It’s a competition between humans and machine, in this objective to create a internet for everyone. “Facebook aims to translate the Web using an army of volunteers and some hired professional translators. Meanwhile, Google plans to let computers do most of the work” (cnn.com). Facebook currently has more than 65 functioning languages with at least 30 more on the way soon. Whereas Google has 51 languages with over 2,500 language pairs. Facebook uses real people who suggest translation phrases and vote on others submitted translations. Google’s computers use its search engine to examine text that is already on the web, as well as from professional web translations on the web. However, both come with its own flaws that are still being worked out. Google’s computers have a hard time recognizing slang terms, whereas Facebook is geared more towards common talk, but their translators do not touch on wall post, photo’s or comments making it hard for someone communicate with a new friend with no common language.
I think that Google and Facebook both have great ideas on how to make the internet truly global and for everyone. It is about time that someone tries to connect different countries and cultures together by making it easier for people to communicate with each other. Many people would really like to understand the idea of other’s but there are times when the language barrier is too difficult to translate, which is where Google and Facebook come in. However, both lack in certain areas with their programs, but they still have helped many people out so far. My thing is why not join forces? Think about it, wouldn’t it be quicker if Google and Facebook were to join forces and create a perfect program to translate any language? On the other hand, many people think that an online translation still cannot compare to a professional. “Automatic translation is convenient and helps people get a quick gist of the page. However, it’s not a perfect substitute for the art of professional translation” (bloglingua.com). Overall, we still have a lot of time before either Google or Facebook completes its goal, but at least we are headed in the right direction on something that should have been done a long time ago.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Article Blog #6
Source:http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/28/dcot.socialmedia.privacy/index.html
Support: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_that_facebook_app_have_a_privacy_policy_probably_not.php
The article at hand addresses the fact that we must be careful about how we use the social network giant “Facebook”. It talks about how we must guard ourselves, and stray away from potential danger on the networking site. According to Robert Siciliano, CEO of IDtheftsecurity.com, “It’s all about providing the bad guy with intelligence”. The piece of writing also depicts how hackers can use information posted on a person’s profile that can help lead to figuring out their passwords. Twitter was also discussed in the article at being a possible problem of danger because of its constant status updates of some users. CNN reports that Facebook has over 350,000 applications that are used by approximately 70 percent of its members. Some of these applications include “quizzes” some of which can include personal information depending on how far into that some people may get. Facebook defends it case by stating, "We enforce this policy through spot checks and have disabled apps that we've found to be in violation. No app can access the most sensitive information like contact info." (cnn.com)
I think that Facebook is a great way to stay in touch with family and friends, but I do agree that if you are not careful then you could become a victim to hackers. I personally do not think that it is a good idea at all to put your information that you would not want everyone to know anywhere on Facebook. It is very easy these days for hackers to get into your account and destroy it without your knowledge. The social networking site has been under a lot of heat recently, “Facebook is busy defending itself against accusations that they're using user data for advertising purposes, but it seems that the real danger on Facebook may be the access to this same user data from unknown companies outside of the social network” (readwriteweb.com). However, you can’t completely blame Facebook because it really is up to the individual to decide how much information they are going to provide to their “friends list”. All and all, Facebook is a great place to network yourself and keep it touch, but no one can tell you where to draw the line on what you post on your profile or how you answer “quiz” questions. Your profile is yours so maintain it and help avoid the potential for harm.
Support: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_that_facebook_app_have_a_privacy_policy_probably_not.php
The article at hand addresses the fact that we must be careful about how we use the social network giant “Facebook”. It talks about how we must guard ourselves, and stray away from potential danger on the networking site. According to Robert Siciliano, CEO of IDtheftsecurity.com, “It’s all about providing the bad guy with intelligence”. The piece of writing also depicts how hackers can use information posted on a person’s profile that can help lead to figuring out their passwords. Twitter was also discussed in the article at being a possible problem of danger because of its constant status updates of some users. CNN reports that Facebook has over 350,000 applications that are used by approximately 70 percent of its members. Some of these applications include “quizzes” some of which can include personal information depending on how far into that some people may get. Facebook defends it case by stating, "We enforce this policy through spot checks and have disabled apps that we've found to be in violation. No app can access the most sensitive information like contact info." (cnn.com)
I think that Facebook is a great way to stay in touch with family and friends, but I do agree that if you are not careful then you could become a victim to hackers. I personally do not think that it is a good idea at all to put your information that you would not want everyone to know anywhere on Facebook. It is very easy these days for hackers to get into your account and destroy it without your knowledge. The social networking site has been under a lot of heat recently, “Facebook is busy defending itself against accusations that they're using user data for advertising purposes, but it seems that the real danger on Facebook may be the access to this same user data from unknown companies outside of the social network” (readwriteweb.com). However, you can’t completely blame Facebook because it really is up to the individual to decide how much information they are going to provide to their “friends list”. All and all, Facebook is a great place to network yourself and keep it touch, but no one can tell you where to draw the line on what you post on your profile or how you answer “quiz” questions. Your profile is yours so maintain it and help avoid the potential for harm.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Article Blog #5
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/24/snooping.software.efootrprint/index.html
Resource: http://www.antamediabandwidth.com/control-or-spy-on-employee-internet-use/
This article is about a program created by a U.S. firm called Cataphora, which states on their website that their program “encompasses a large number of techniques for analyzing emotive tone in electronic communications” (cnn.com). The program is basically a way for companies to spy on employees to see their effectiveness while at work. It’s goal is to separate productive workers from slackers. The only problem is that some employees feel as if a big brother is watching over their every move. There are mixed opinions from employees who know that their employers use this tactic. CNN states that, “What Cataphora does is look at the patterns an individual creates and how they fit in the general patterns of communication in the office in order to discern who are the effective workers and managers.” The idea of employers spying on employees has caused a sense of distrust in the work field, and has also lead to a bit of paranoia within companies. Another argument against this program is that; how much can we really trust these computers, and that people tend to believe what their computer tells them more than they should.
I think that people’s outlook on this topic will depend on which side they are on. I can see the benefits of having it if I were the head of a company because I would want to know who is being productive and who is falling short of expectation. The computers that people use at work do not belong to them, and if I am a business owner and want to know how my supplies are being used, then by golly I will. “If you own the equipment you have a right to know what people are doing with it. If you’re responsible for employee behavior you are also entitled to know just what that behavior is” (antamediabandwidth.com). However, how can employees learn to trust employers show signals of distrust, "It is a powerful signal that you do not fully trust the people you are paying or perhaps don't invest the time and care to properly manage them” (cnn.com). Employee’s could become afraid of the extra surveillance that is being focused in the work place, and possibly lose their creativity due not being able to explore the web for idea’s. Who is a computer to judge whether or not a person is being productive. There are a number of ways a company can deal with this situation, but the best way in my opinion is to block certain websites that may have no use in helping your company. “The next stage is to block named websites…This completely avoids and privacy concerns while achieving the basic aim, which is reducing time and bandwidth on such visits or “web-surfing” (antamediabandwidth.com). This topic is a double-edged sword, and both sides have valid arguments.
Resource: http://www.antamediabandwidth.com/control-or-spy-on-employee-internet-use/
This article is about a program created by a U.S. firm called Cataphora, which states on their website that their program “encompasses a large number of techniques for analyzing emotive tone in electronic communications” (cnn.com). The program is basically a way for companies to spy on employees to see their effectiveness while at work. It’s goal is to separate productive workers from slackers. The only problem is that some employees feel as if a big brother is watching over their every move. There are mixed opinions from employees who know that their employers use this tactic. CNN states that, “What Cataphora does is look at the patterns an individual creates and how they fit in the general patterns of communication in the office in order to discern who are the effective workers and managers.” The idea of employers spying on employees has caused a sense of distrust in the work field, and has also lead to a bit of paranoia within companies. Another argument against this program is that; how much can we really trust these computers, and that people tend to believe what their computer tells them more than they should.
I think that people’s outlook on this topic will depend on which side they are on. I can see the benefits of having it if I were the head of a company because I would want to know who is being productive and who is falling short of expectation. The computers that people use at work do not belong to them, and if I am a business owner and want to know how my supplies are being used, then by golly I will. “If you own the equipment you have a right to know what people are doing with it. If you’re responsible for employee behavior you are also entitled to know just what that behavior is” (antamediabandwidth.com). However, how can employees learn to trust employers show signals of distrust, "It is a powerful signal that you do not fully trust the people you are paying or perhaps don't invest the time and care to properly manage them” (cnn.com). Employee’s could become afraid of the extra surveillance that is being focused in the work place, and possibly lose their creativity due not being able to explore the web for idea’s. Who is a computer to judge whether or not a person is being productive. There are a number of ways a company can deal with this situation, but the best way in my opinion is to block certain websites that may have no use in helping your company. “The next stage is to block named websites…This completely avoids and privacy concerns while achieving the basic aim, which is reducing time and bandwidth on such visits or “web-surfing” (antamediabandwidth.com). This topic is a double-edged sword, and both sides have valid arguments.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Article Blog #4
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/18/3D.home.television/index.html
Support: http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/press_release_detail.asp?id=11686
TV makers are in the process of creating a three-dimension television that you can watch anytime you want in your own home. The article talks about how Panasonic and Sony are creating new televisions that can show two-dimension or three-dimension picture. You will of course have to wear special glasses in order for the 3-D to take effect, but the experience is very realistic. Switching to this new technology is not easy as one may think. It requires a new television, broadcasting content and 3-D glasses specifically for the television. The price for this bad boy has not released, but is expected to be just a little bit higher than some high-definition televisions on the market now. The idea behind this wonder can be complicated, “Two images, one for the right eye and one for the left eye, alternate quickly on the TV. Shutters on the 3-D glasses swap the viewer's vision from right eye to left eye at the same rate: 120 hertz, or 240 hertz for the images together” (cnn.com). It is unclear how society will feel about this transition, or whether or not it will be a hit. CNN reports that 3-D broadcast would require twice the data of regular HDTVs, and gobble up an unworkable amount of television bandwidth. You will see 3DTV in stores by 2010
I think the idea of 3DTV is interesting, and I myself would love to purchase one after they derail all the kinks. I could not even imagine having one of these TVs in my house and experiencing the realistic images coming out of the screen. I can see why people may be opposed to it because who really wants to wear 3-D glasses every time they want to watch 3-D TV. In addition, what would people watch other than sports? It would not make sense to try to watch your eleven o’clock news in 3-D (although it would be cool). This can be hard for some to soak in, but it is bound to happen, “Perry (executive VP at Panasonic) compared the 3-D transition to the switch from black-and-white to color television and the shift from standard- to high-definition images” (cnn.com). I do not think that this is going to be as successful as HDTV is/was, but I do think that people will be open to it once they get used to seeing it. “The more experience people have with 3-D technology, the more interested they are in having more 3-D options, according to a new joint study from the Consumer Electronics Association” (ce.org). Technology is changing so rapidly that it is impossible for us to predict where television will be in 10-20 years, and we should welcome this change and embrace it. This is only the beginning of a new television era.
Support: http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/press_release_detail.asp?id=11686
TV makers are in the process of creating a three-dimension television that you can watch anytime you want in your own home. The article talks about how Panasonic and Sony are creating new televisions that can show two-dimension or three-dimension picture. You will of course have to wear special glasses in order for the 3-D to take effect, but the experience is very realistic. Switching to this new technology is not easy as one may think. It requires a new television, broadcasting content and 3-D glasses specifically for the television. The price for this bad boy has not released, but is expected to be just a little bit higher than some high-definition televisions on the market now. The idea behind this wonder can be complicated, “Two images, one for the right eye and one for the left eye, alternate quickly on the TV. Shutters on the 3-D glasses swap the viewer's vision from right eye to left eye at the same rate: 120 hertz, or 240 hertz for the images together” (cnn.com). It is unclear how society will feel about this transition, or whether or not it will be a hit. CNN reports that 3-D broadcast would require twice the data of regular HDTVs, and gobble up an unworkable amount of television bandwidth. You will see 3DTV in stores by 2010
I think the idea of 3DTV is interesting, and I myself would love to purchase one after they derail all the kinks. I could not even imagine having one of these TVs in my house and experiencing the realistic images coming out of the screen. I can see why people may be opposed to it because who really wants to wear 3-D glasses every time they want to watch 3-D TV. In addition, what would people watch other than sports? It would not make sense to try to watch your eleven o’clock news in 3-D (although it would be cool). This can be hard for some to soak in, but it is bound to happen, “Perry (executive VP at Panasonic) compared the 3-D transition to the switch from black-and-white to color television and the shift from standard- to high-definition images” (cnn.com). I do not think that this is going to be as successful as HDTV is/was, but I do think that people will be open to it once they get used to seeing it. “The more experience people have with 3-D technology, the more interested they are in having more 3-D options, according to a new joint study from the Consumer Electronics Association” (ce.org). Technology is changing so rapidly that it is impossible for us to predict where television will be in 10-20 years, and we should welcome this change and embrace it. This is only the beginning of a new television era.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Article Blog #3
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/01/iphone.wireless.carriers/index.html#cnnSTCText
This article depicts AT&T’s future with its exclusive rights over Apple’s trendy iPhone, and the rumors of Apple possibly releasing the iPhone for other wireless providers. The iPhone has brought AT&T a lot of revenue, and many new customers. According to this article, “About 40 percent of AT&T's 10 million iPhone customers switched to AT&T from another carrier, the company said.” The rates for customers lost since the iPhone’s release has gone down, and left other companies trying to figure out how to gain their former customers back. Apple ended their exclusive deal with Orange, a wireless provider in France, and opened their device up to multiple carriers. By doing so, Apple saw its marketshare go upward about 40 percent. Apple has done the same thing in China, and expected to sell 3 million iPhones in China next year. The iPhone was suppose to have exclusive rights with Apple until 2012, but has recently been having a hard time keeping Apple’s interest only on them. Verizon is the front-runner in talks with Apple, and if things go as plan, Verizon could be the first to carry the iPhone on a 4g network.
The rumor of Apple possibly expanding its popular iPhone onto other wireless companies is probably one of their brightest ideas. By getting rid of their exclusive rights with AT&T, Apple will generate plenty of revenue and millions of people will definitely invest in the phone that has taken the smart phone to a completely new level. Many iPhone users have had complaints about the AT&T network, but remain to stay loyal to their handheld device. The article states that, “iPhone users regardless of whether they are satisfied with AT&T or not have been forced to stay on the network as long as they want to continue using their iPhone.” Ending its exclusive rights with AT&T will also help other wireless providers gain some revenue, and will level the playing field between the top wireless companies. There are many people using the iPhone on networks other than AT&T, though it is not supported by Apple or other wireless providers. Hackers have found ways to get around the barriers AT&T and Apple have set, and have hacks that allow anyone who wants to use an iPhone the ability to use it. Therefore, Apple should most definitely do this not only for the money, but also for its loyal customers. The iPhone faithful have made the phone what it is, so they should give back to their loyal customers.
This article depicts AT&T’s future with its exclusive rights over Apple’s trendy iPhone, and the rumors of Apple possibly releasing the iPhone for other wireless providers. The iPhone has brought AT&T a lot of revenue, and many new customers. According to this article, “About 40 percent of AT&T's 10 million iPhone customers switched to AT&T from another carrier, the company said.” The rates for customers lost since the iPhone’s release has gone down, and left other companies trying to figure out how to gain their former customers back. Apple ended their exclusive deal with Orange, a wireless provider in France, and opened their device up to multiple carriers. By doing so, Apple saw its marketshare go upward about 40 percent. Apple has done the same thing in China, and expected to sell 3 million iPhones in China next year. The iPhone was suppose to have exclusive rights with Apple until 2012, but has recently been having a hard time keeping Apple’s interest only on them. Verizon is the front-runner in talks with Apple, and if things go as plan, Verizon could be the first to carry the iPhone on a 4g network.
The rumor of Apple possibly expanding its popular iPhone onto other wireless companies is probably one of their brightest ideas. By getting rid of their exclusive rights with AT&T, Apple will generate plenty of revenue and millions of people will definitely invest in the phone that has taken the smart phone to a completely new level. Many iPhone users have had complaints about the AT&T network, but remain to stay loyal to their handheld device. The article states that, “iPhone users regardless of whether they are satisfied with AT&T or not have been forced to stay on the network as long as they want to continue using their iPhone.” Ending its exclusive rights with AT&T will also help other wireless providers gain some revenue, and will level the playing field between the top wireless companies. There are many people using the iPhone on networks other than AT&T, though it is not supported by Apple or other wireless providers. Hackers have found ways to get around the barriers AT&T and Apple have set, and have hacks that allow anyone who wants to use an iPhone the ability to use it. Therefore, Apple should most definitely do this not only for the money, but also for its loyal customers. The iPhone faithful have made the phone what it is, so they should give back to their loyal customers.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Blog Article 1
Article: http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/28/bandwidth-hogs-iphone-and-other-smartphones/
Supporter: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090611-712962.html
AT&T is one of the most powerful wireless providers in the nation, and they are the only carrier to provide their customers with Apple’s iPhone. The iPhone, first introduced in 2007, is one of the most popular and technologically advanced phones that is available today. With all the revenue that generates from the iPhone, there comes a problem. Like most smart phones, they attract customers who are willing to spend big money on unlimited text messaging, and data plans. This is great for people who are using the plans, but there is no phone that competes with the iPhone in terms of data usage. The average wireless subscriber uses about 120 megabytes each month, while owner of the iPhone use four times that. Why does not AT&T just upgrade its operating system with all the revenue it is bringing in? Because like many things in life, it is difficult, and requires permission in order to do it. The future for wireless providers will more than likely be; to raise the price or get rid of the whole “unlimited data” and charge owners for data that they actually consume every month.
Let’s face it, the iPhone is the most powerful smartphone that is available to the public. Just take a walk around UNC-Charlotte and you are bound to see someone texting, talking, or surfing the web on their iPhone. I purchased one myself to see what all of the craze was about, and why people are so glued to it. Now I understand. Like most owners of this dominant device, I spend many hours throughout the day text messaging, “youtubeing”, or surfing the web. It is hard to go back to any other phone once you have had the iPhone (trust me I tried), and thanks to my unlimited data plan, my bill is always the same price every month. The idea of increasing the data plan prices makes me quiver, and if anything, AT&T should lower its $30 unlimited data plan. Nevertheless, I do understand why the iPhone plan is so expensive. The Wall Street Journal reports that, “AT&T has to balance the growing number of iPhone users with the amount of traffic they take up in the network” (online.wsj.com). However, I do not think it would be right for AT&T to follow the Europe and charge users per usage instead of offering a unlimited plan. It would not be fair for them to turn their back on customers that have been faithful to them, especially now during the downturn of the economy. The future for the iPhone seems to be limitless and only time will tell where this magnificent device will do next.
Supporter: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090611-712962.html
AT&T is one of the most powerful wireless providers in the nation, and they are the only carrier to provide their customers with Apple’s iPhone. The iPhone, first introduced in 2007, is one of the most popular and technologically advanced phones that is available today. With all the revenue that generates from the iPhone, there comes a problem. Like most smart phones, they attract customers who are willing to spend big money on unlimited text messaging, and data plans. This is great for people who are using the plans, but there is no phone that competes with the iPhone in terms of data usage. The average wireless subscriber uses about 120 megabytes each month, while owner of the iPhone use four times that. Why does not AT&T just upgrade its operating system with all the revenue it is bringing in? Because like many things in life, it is difficult, and requires permission in order to do it. The future for wireless providers will more than likely be; to raise the price or get rid of the whole “unlimited data” and charge owners for data that they actually consume every month.
Let’s face it, the iPhone is the most powerful smartphone that is available to the public. Just take a walk around UNC-Charlotte and you are bound to see someone texting, talking, or surfing the web on their iPhone. I purchased one myself to see what all of the craze was about, and why people are so glued to it. Now I understand. Like most owners of this dominant device, I spend many hours throughout the day text messaging, “youtubeing”, or surfing the web. It is hard to go back to any other phone once you have had the iPhone (trust me I tried), and thanks to my unlimited data plan, my bill is always the same price every month. The idea of increasing the data plan prices makes me quiver, and if anything, AT&T should lower its $30 unlimited data plan. Nevertheless, I do understand why the iPhone plan is so expensive. The Wall Street Journal reports that, “AT&T has to balance the growing number of iPhone users with the amount of traffic they take up in the network” (online.wsj.com). However, I do not think it would be right for AT&T to follow the Europe and charge users per usage instead of offering a unlimited plan. It would not be fair for them to turn their back on customers that have been faithful to them, especially now during the downturn of the economy. The future for the iPhone seems to be limitless and only time will tell where this magnificent device will do next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)