It Was Nice Knowing You

At last, the day has come. Today is the final day of classes, and so this shall be my final farewell post. This blog was fun to maintain. I learned a lot about new Information Technologies and tech news in general. A lot of which I don’t think I would have discovered otherwise, at least not as soon as I did.

To my fellow bloggers, it was nice to read your posts, and I thank all those who read and responded to mine. I learned some interesting things from all your blogs as well.

I hope you all do well in your final exams, and enjoy your summer. It was a pleasure.

-----

“We only part to meet again.” – John Gay

Project Glass - Technology with Style

Google has just recently revealed its latest project: Project Glass. It’s a pair of “augmented reality glasses that connect with your whole Google experience.” The glasses wrap around your head and include a small electronic screen / display for you to view through. It essentially allows you to sync the benefits of Google’s services with your daily vision. If this technology comes to fruition, you can expect to see weather widgets in your peripherals, or updating pointers / arrows giving you directions. (I find this similar to some video games, like in quests which provide pointers telling you where to go or having your health bar displayed.) For a better understanding of this technology I've included a link to a video below.

Link to Project Glass Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4

The developers at Google are also attempting to fit this concept into the minuscule space of a contact lens allowing pixels to sit atop your eye! Personally, the first thing that comes to mind is the expense in creating and maintaining these. Contact lenses tend to be a disposable product. It’d be a shame to throw out a mini computer every time you need to switch lenses...

With this new technology, automatically you need to consider the pros and cons at play. Of course, there is the benefit to instant information and integrating it with your daily routines. It has the possibility to make tasks and general life easier on so many levels. However, as amazing as this concept may sound or the video may appear, I can’t help but be critical about the whole idea. To be honest, I do find the idea intriguing and capable of immense potential, but there’s always going to be aspects that bother me.

First off, with the contact lens, I feel like there would be no censorship in what you view. You won’t exactly be able to “look away” as the image is pressed up against your eye. Also, no one else can see what you’re viewing, I imagine, which wouldn’t exactly have much social benefit.

With both technologies, the lens and glasses, I wonder how the aspect of sound may come into play. Maybe with the glasses they can include speakers or ear buds, but for the contacts I’m just baffled. Also, how would you ‘click’ on things? How would you communicate with these devices so that they know what you want to do with them (other than voice command)? There’s the idea of maybe head tilts or blinks at play, but those can be involuntary or necessary human gestures depending on the situation.

As for the aspect of privacy, in order for many of the Google applications to work, the device needs to know your location and information. This means you’re always being tracked, and as the video shows, you have the potential of tracking others as well. Although this can be convenient at times, I find the concept a bit unsettling.

With new technologies there comes risks we need to decide are worth taking or not. Yes, the technology may be helpful and / or popular, but do we really need it? What will happen when technology gets to the point that is becomes an extension of our selves and becomes so integrated into our appearance and behaviours? Google says this project has the ability to be possible in the near future. I’m curious to see how that will play out, and the innovations that will occur as an inevitable result.

-----

“Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them.” – Alfred North Whitehead

-----

Sources:

- http://www.slashgear.com/google-project-glass-smart-glasses-revealed-04221528/
- http://www.pcworld.com/article/253259/googles_project_glass_eyewear_next_big_google_flop_or_hit.html

Best Buy is Closing Down Stores!

Apparently in the U.S., Best Buy, one of the largest retail electronics stores, has announced to closing down 50 of its current locations. Due to significant profit loss last year, likely by the rise of new technologies and mediums, individuals aren’t as compelled to shop at the physical stores as much as they used to. Sales of tablets, smart phones and e-readers seem to be winning out over those of televisions, cameras, and video game consoles. That’s not even to mention the competition provided by online stores such as Amazon and eBay.

Not to fear those of you who prefer to look at and buy your electronics in person! This electronics store isn’t dying as some would assume, it’s evolving. To replace the 50 stores that it closed, Best Buy is setting up 100 smaller mobile stores, cutting their costs by $800 million. Essentially, instead of having the large physical stores that carry big, bulky television sets and other technologies, these smaller stores are going to focus on smart phones and other smaller devices.

The way I see it, these large electronics stores will either need to adapt to their growing competition or eventually die trying to keep up. I don’t think physical stores in general will die off because there is always going to be those people that want to test a product out before they buy it, like myself. So there may be fewer, or different kinds, but the physical retailers will always be there. Personally, I'm fond of Best Buy. I'm glad to see it adapting.

-----

"Electronics is clearly the winner of the day." - John Ford

-----

Sources:

- http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/story/2012-03-29/best-buy/53852802/1

Marketing at Its Finest

Personally, I'm not much of an Angry Birds fan. It's a game wherein you launch a number of birds via slingshot into some kind of breakable construction harbouring green pigs. The goal is to hit all the pigs, which explode on impact. I've played the game, and I don't find it all that challenging or stimulating. Regardless, the game seems to have an immense fan base following. It has been downloaded over 200 million times across all platforms. There's a considerable amount of marketing and merchandising geared towards it, and I feel a lot of the game's support is due to proper / good advertising.

One fantastic example of advertising is the Angry Birds ad put up by T-Mobile in Terrassa near Barcelona. The general idea was that from an android device, individuals had the ability to play a live version of the Angry Birds game. In a booth, people were encouraged to control and launch the birds while a larger screen in front of them mimicked the movements. Once each bird was released, a live version was shot out behind the screen and interacted with some set-up containing the green pigs. I found it fantastic. The creators even included the exploding aspect of the pigs and it appeared as though the launched birds were up for grabs with whomever retrieved them afterwards. I've placed a link to the ad below. Feel free to check it out. You'll want to watch it multiple times.

What I liked most about this ad is that the creators turned the game into a reality. Not only that, but the community was allowed to interact with it. As mentioned, I'm not too fond of the game, but after watching that ad a few times, I felt like giving it another try for a bit.

That is... until I found out the ad was fake. I also managed to find some behind-the-scenes footage of the ad, and it turns out the entire thing was scripted. After I found that out, I guess it made more sense to me since I had been wondering how the sets were managed. For it to have been real, it must have taken a considerable amount of time to set up each pig contraption between 'levels', especially with such a large crowd watching. That aside, I thought it to be a shame the ad was fake. It really would have been a good publicity stunt to let people actually play.

My question to you would be whether or not you still find the ad to be successful even though the depicted event didn`t actually take place. On the one hand, it still involved the community and was a fantastic show, but on the other, we’re lied to as the people didn’t actually play the game in real-time as depicted. Feel free to leave other comments as well.

-----

Links:

T-Mobile Angry Birds Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzIBZQkj6SY
Behind the Scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgsyCHdIiPg&feature=player_embedded#!

-----

Sources:

- http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20070580-1/t-mobile-puts-on-life-size-angry-birds-show/
- http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-18/tech/29972670_1_ipad-app-android-smartphone-app

-----

"Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising." - Mark Twain

Women in Programming

There seems to be an issue regarding the number of women in programming. There just isn't that many. At least not that many compared to the number of males. From looking up this topic, the key concepts I grasped were that:

- Women are extremely underrepresented in computing;
- Increasing women’s participation in computing would be desirable;
- Higher women participation would involve specific ‘inclusive’ behaviours.

As a woman in programming, I have noticed the small ratio of women to men in the classroom and the workplace. I found it intriguing, but not so much alarming. I understand support the desire for more female programmers. Much like any other creative jobs, diversity in employees allows for diversity in the work. You can gain new perspectives and insight that a single gender can't provide.

I don’t, however, agree with any emphasis on comparing the two genders. Yes, there are fewer women, but that doesn't mean women as a whole are any less capable. Capability doesn't rely on gender, but interest. I feel that an equal number of women have the ability to become programmers; they may have just chosen an alternate career path. It's possible that because programming is male dominated, it is viewed as a male career. Similar to construction, physical labour aside. As a result, fewer women attempt to enter that world. This is simply a boundary to be broken through proper advertising. I think through highlighting current female programmers, it can inspire other women that can relate to their works. Programming needs to come across more desirable. Again, maybe these capable women are just choosing alternate career paths either because they are more suited or desired. Either way, it seems like the female to male ratio in computing is rising, however slowly. Once it has evened out, I feel like a steady / consistent number of women will start choosing that career path as it becomes less gender dominated. Much like any other nongender dominate career.

-----

In my attempts to research this topic, I stumbled upon an amusing website comparing women to programming languages. It describes the pros and cons to each language as if each were an individual type of woman. I found it quite amusing. If you have the time, feel free to check it out.

Programming Languages are Like Women:

http://www.columbia.edu/~sss31/rainbow/prog.lang.html

-----

"That's the thing about people who think they hate computers. What they really hate is lousy programmers." - Larry Niven

-----

Sources:

- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~women/resources/aroundTheWeb/hostedPapers/Syllabus-Camp.pdf
- http://www.itworld.com/business/80001/women-programming
- http://www.rcss.ed.ac.uk/sigis/public/documents/SIGIS_D08_05_computing.pdf

Internet Killed the Television Star

To further indulge my previous post, I wanted to mention the adaptation the world of marketing must be taking to compensate for today’s generation of On Demand consumers. The concept of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ marketing was mentioned in class the other day wherein consumers are more likely to ‘pull’ in information relevant to them rather than consider the unrelated advertisements ‘pushed’ onto them.

I mentioned before how with modern technology audiences have the ability to skip over commercials with ease. Most prefer to either stream video content or would rather wait an extra 10 minutes before watching something on their PVR just to avoid commercials. Now that advertisers have a decline in ‘pushing’ their ads onto television viewers, alternative methods must be taken.

Some of these methods include product placement, viral advertising, collecting user information for mobile or internet advertising, etc. Probably the most effective method is tapping into social media. An individual is more likely to try out a product if others say how good it is rather than the creator / company do so. (Of course the company will say it’s great; they’re the ones who made it and want you to buy it.) Advertisers are starting to realize this by cutting down on add champagnes and increasing free samples to individuals that will do the advertisements for them. This may include advocates for that product, well-known youtubers, celebrities, etc. By doing this, they can attract more members of their target audience for fractions of the cost.

It’s amazing how information spreads when you tell one person, who tells three of their friends, who do the same, and it goes on and on. Imagine utilizing social networking mediums like facebook, youtube, or twitter where one advocate sings their praises to your product and their 1000+ friends / subscribers read the post. Then half of them spread the word to their own 1000+ friends / subscribers. I find this form of marketing to be brilliant. I think it annihilates the need for commercials entirely.

The question however remains, how long will commercials stick around now that less and less people are watching them? Have they become a dying breed of advertisements that just refuse to give up? Maybe they continue out of habit / persistence. Though, would we miss them the day they cease to air?

-----
“Radio killed variety and TV killed radio, and the internet will kill television and it will go on and on.” - Victoria Wood
-----

Sources:

- http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/~csc300h/winter/12/lectures/Week9.pdf
- http://www.alajrami.com/blog/

Media on Demand

I feel like the people in today’s culture are subconsciously consumed with media on demand. Once upon a time individuals had to work around schedules to see the content they wanted. There were limited times and channels on television for watching the news, cartoons, movies, etc. I remember watching ‘The Zone’ from 3pm-6pm every weekday after school. If there was ever a movie I liked that was going to air, I made sure I set up my VCR to catch every minute so I could rewatch it again and again. If you missed it, you missed it. You would have to wait until it aired again, whenever that would be.

Today, media schedules have become a thing of the past. Now we work media around us. With the introduction of PVR, TiVo, Digital Cable Boxes, On Demand movie providers, video streaming, etc. there's no longer a reason to wait for the content we want. If you’ve missed an episode of your favourite show, or simply just want to watch it later, you can stream it from somewhere off the internet. Everything has become so accessible.

A question I want to raise with this is, does media on demand save or waste our time? Yes, now we can skip over the commercials and watch a relaxing tv show or movie when it’s convenient for us, but with everything so accessible, we’re tempted to watch more than we would have when it was limited. Rather than watching an episode per week as intended, some people watch entire seasons in a day. Personally, before I only had the time to keep track of at most maybe 4 different shows, because that was what fit my schedule. Now with internet video streaming, I keep track of at least 10.

With that in mind, does making everything more accessible to the public really in their best interests? I’m not sure. Though with the services they provide, I’m tempted not to ask.

-----

“The Internet lives where anyone can access it.” – Vinton Cerf

Calling all G-Mail users! ...Continued

It was mentioned in my previous post that “users have been reassured their private searching information will be used only for advertising.”

Something to remember is that in order for these beloved services to remain free, advertising is necessary. Google’s new policy is meant to bring in more ad revenue. Yes, your browsing history will be tracked if you consent to the new policy, but you can’t be personally identified with it. Until then, I don’t think users have much to worry about.

In order for these services to remain free, we need to endure a few ads on our sidebars now and then. I see no harm in having my browsing history aid in making these ads appeal to me more. Regardless, I’m still not going to click on them. However, we need to remember that some people do click them, and that helps Google maintain its free services for us.

With that, I pose some questions to my readers:

Do you approve of the new privacy policy if it means continuing free services? If you disagree with the policy, could you really stop using its services, or have they become too far integrated in your online routine?

-----

“Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts.” - Arnold Bennett

Calling all G-Mail users!

Starting today, March 1^st, G-mail is starting to reinforce their new privacy policy. By linking a user’s G-mail, Youtube, and Google Plus accounts, information will be shared across all the services. In doing so, Google plans to track user online behaviour down to their every click. Though, users have been reassured their private searching information will be used only for advertising.

The question of online privacy gets raised with this new policy. Some people feel uncomfortable having their online actions monitored / tracked. Others fear the possible heightened risk of hackers by making their information even more accessible.

The question then becomes, “Are the privileges worth more than our principles?” Services such as electronic mail, video on demand, and social networking have become widely known and used among the average individual. Can we ignore the invasion of our privacy to continue our use over these services?

In the end, it becomes an issue of whether we desire the services more than the protection of our privacy. Since these services have become so integrated into our society, users are hesitant to abandon them, though they may not support every aspect of them. This causes users to accept new policies and voluntarily, though disapprovingly, relinquish their privacy rights.

-----

“You already have zero privacy – get over it.” – Scott McNealy

-----

Sources:

- http://www.newschannel10.com/story/17061465/googles-n

Welcome Back!

Alas, reading week has come to an end. It’s time for us all to get back to work and back to our blogs. I hope everyone had a productive reading week, if not by catching up on readings, then at the very least catching up on sleep.

-----

"Smile, breathe, and go slowly." - Thich Nhat Hanh

RIM Going Open Source?

Apparently RIM, the creators of BlackBerry, is making the switch to Open Source.

For the past while now it's been common knowledge in the techy community that RIM hasn't been doing well in the mobile competition. I'm referring to that of smartphones and tablets, among other devices. They've been experiencing some recent software problems and loosing market share in those areas.

I think committing to Open Source will allow for some new innovation. Personally I think this is a good idea. It can help them expand, save money, and regain their footing in a competitive sense. Also, it's not like Open Source is a new concept when compared to other operating systems.

However, based on my sources, I feel like RIM may not be making their entire operating system able to support open source, rather just parts of it. The articles mention posted source code to the Software Development Kit (SDK), and Application Programming Interface (API) to their Operating Systems (OS), but not the OS itself.

This makes me feel the extent of their Open Source commitment is in order to write code for their devices faster, and save on expenses without giving away their actual products.

I'd be intrested to hear other people's oipinions on the topic. Feel free to comment/post if you agrree/disagree, or just want to rant.

'Til next post.

-----

"A mediocre idea that generates enthusiasm will go further than a great idea that inspires no one." - Mary Kay Ash

-----
Sources:

- http://socialbarrel.com/rim-commits-to-open-source-blackberry-10-native-sdk/31847/

- http://devblog.blackberry.com/2011/03/rim-open-source-software-projects-github/

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Tablet_OS

Just Getting Started

Welcome to my blog!

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it was said, "let there be blogs!" ...and then there were, and they were glorious.

I'll be sure to update with current news, or just some stuff that interests me regarding 'computers' and 'society' starting next week. 'Til next post.

-----
"Go, my [blog], and help destroy the world as it is." - Russel Banks, Continental Drift.