This past weekend I went on a field trip with the geology department to an abandoned civil war era coal mine to dig for fossil from the Pennsylvanian time period. While there i found an encrusted piece of rust that from my amateur opinion could be an old 19th century pocket knife. When I got back to Erie, I quickly searched the Internet for ways to remove rust from objects and stumbled upon this.
http://users.eastlink.ca/~pspencer/nsaeta/electrolysis.html
This link describes a way to use electrolysis to remove the iron oxide from the material and convert it back into iron. This is a way of restoring antique objects.
What came to my attention after sitting for a while, I began thinking how amazing it is to be able to find random tidbits of information about obscure topics in today's age. What would have taken days of research 15 years ago, was 15 minutes today. Although in previous postings I have ranted about the dangers of mass information, there is a positive side to this issue. Our society now has the ability to gain massive amounts of information in a very short time period on any number of topics. This information can be diluted by media establishments, but the information posted not through this outlet can be very informative, geared for a very select subsection of our society. The Internet has allowed this selective information to be distributed to those who have a desire to look. This is in my opinion the true value to the Internet, the ability to disseminate large quantities of information quickly and to whoever has an interest. This characteristic of the Internet allows those with little formal education to become improve themselves in a very cheap manner.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Changes in quality mean sacrifice…
High Definition (HD) televisions or LCD panels as they are referred to now are not the only means of improving entertainment to end users. The Washington Post discusses the FCC ruling that allowed AM radio stations to broadcast HD programs to listeners 24 hours a day versus the previous restriction to daytime hours. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2007/03/the_fcc_greenlights_hd_radio_n.html
This is an obvious benefit to listeners who have endured the sound of static and interference while enjoying their favorite baseball team live en route. All changes however, require some form of sacrifice and/or trade off from what was, to what will now be. Implementing HD digital technology through AM frequency means that listeners will no longer be able to pick up stations from afar as the digital output will become localized restricting it’s reach. Is this truly an improvement then? AM listeners seem to value the vast array of entertainment available to them through this medium and have grown accustomed to the poor quality. Better quality and less programming may ultimately reduce listener volume. Or perhaps not. They may in fact attract a new generation of younger people, who tune into FM quality stations, as AM stations align with their values.
The biggest obstacle for new technology is getting people addicted to the benefits it offers. iTV for instance was released to market with a 40G hard drive and we all know Apple had the capability of offering much more. Get people hooked to a new concept and way of entertainment, in this example, and then they can’t live without it. A year or two later you release a 100G hard drive because people need more and more and the cycle repeats. I myself am quite content remaining in the “Late Adopter” category of consumers as I believe I get more for my money. Certainly, I do not blame tech companies for gaining high ROI’s as that is the fundamental nature of business, I’m just happy to play my role and benefit as I may.
This is an obvious benefit to listeners who have endured the sound of static and interference while enjoying their favorite baseball team live en route. All changes however, require some form of sacrifice and/or trade off from what was, to what will now be. Implementing HD digital technology through AM frequency means that listeners will no longer be able to pick up stations from afar as the digital output will become localized restricting it’s reach. Is this truly an improvement then? AM listeners seem to value the vast array of entertainment available to them through this medium and have grown accustomed to the poor quality. Better quality and less programming may ultimately reduce listener volume. Or perhaps not. They may in fact attract a new generation of younger people, who tune into FM quality stations, as AM stations align with their values.
The biggest obstacle for new technology is getting people addicted to the benefits it offers. iTV for instance was released to market with a 40G hard drive and we all know Apple had the capability of offering much more. Get people hooked to a new concept and way of entertainment, in this example, and then they can’t live without it. A year or two later you release a 100G hard drive because people need more and more and the cycle repeats. I myself am quite content remaining in the “Late Adopter” category of consumers as I believe I get more for my money. Certainly, I do not blame tech companies for gaining high ROI’s as that is the fundamental nature of business, I’m just happy to play my role and benefit as I may.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Social Security do you really think it will be around for you?
The other day several coworkers and I were discussing the pros and cons of the social security system. I stated I believed it should be dissolved in favor of private funds, and was almost attacked by my fellow workers. Social Security is such a sensitive issue most politicians avoid it; not me I jump in head first.
Social Security in the United States is a social insurance program funded through dedicated payroll taxes called FICA It was initially signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1935. The Social Security Administration is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland .
Facts taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29
Let me explain why I believe this way.
In 2004, some $492 billion of benefits were paid to 47.5 million beneficiaries. It is now projected that the system will run out of funds by 2020. That is only 13 years from now. I will only be 58 years old, not even old enough to retire. 67 is my projected retirement age. I believe I could do a better job investing the same funds privately. There are so many tools available to the private investor today: to monitor accounts, transfer funds, even automated advisors. I am not alone many others feel the same way. Several organizations considered it a crucial issue, such as the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute. They lobby for some form of Social Security privatization.
I also believe that the government is too restrained to take advantage of the technologies available to improve social security, such preventing fraud by comparing databases to death certificates before checks are written. Allowing individuals to invest their own social security funds and choose the risk they are willing to take for higher returns. My current 401 K is available online and I can move investments around. The government’s ability to make changes is to slow for today’s world. I have seen recently an adoption of many technologies, such as online accounts, direct deposit, and debit cards instead of checks. Maybe there is some hope still.
Here are a few interesting sites dealing with this very subject.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/
Social Security in the United States is a social insurance program funded through dedicated payroll taxes called FICA It was initially signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1935. The Social Security Administration is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland .
Facts taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29
Let me explain why I believe this way.
In 2004, some $492 billion of benefits were paid to 47.5 million beneficiaries. It is now projected that the system will run out of funds by 2020. That is only 13 years from now. I will only be 58 years old, not even old enough to retire. 67 is my projected retirement age. I believe I could do a better job investing the same funds privately. There are so many tools available to the private investor today: to monitor accounts, transfer funds, even automated advisors. I am not alone many others feel the same way. Several organizations considered it a crucial issue, such as the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute. They lobby for some form of Social Security privatization.
I also believe that the government is too restrained to take advantage of the technologies available to improve social security, such preventing fraud by comparing databases to death certificates before checks are written. Allowing individuals to invest their own social security funds and choose the risk they are willing to take for higher returns. My current 401 K is available online and I can move investments around. The government’s ability to make changes is to slow for today’s world. I have seen recently an adoption of many technologies, such as online accounts, direct deposit, and debit cards instead of checks. Maybe there is some hope still.
Here are a few interesting sites dealing with this very subject.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Microsoft
Earlier this semester we spoke of the technological gap that was hindering some countries from competing on a global level. Africa is drastically behind in technology, but it is slowly improving.
Last week, the USA Today featured an article about Microsoft. Microsoft will now offer a $3 software package to governments that wish to subsidize student computers. They are also going to open 90 more “innovation centers” around the world where their employees will offer classes about technology to small startup businesses attempting to compete in a global world. Hopefully some of the aid Microsoft is supplying will find its way to Africa. They are in desperate need of more help. Last, Microsoft is designing a website targeting engineering graduates in India. They are going to try to expose new graduates to opportunities that will make them more marketable to other employers. The website has not launched yet.
Are Microsoft’s intentions truly altruistic? I am not sure, but I do not think their efforts can hinder the technological gap amongst some nations. Hopefully children in all schools, including the United States, will soon have access to current technology. Maybe then we will be producing the engineers Microsoft seeks to further train for the global market. If nothing else, this is good PR for Microsoft. In time we will be able to see if their efforts are making a difference.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-04-19-gates-china_N.htm?POE=click-refer
Last week, the USA Today featured an article about Microsoft. Microsoft will now offer a $3 software package to governments that wish to subsidize student computers. They are also going to open 90 more “innovation centers” around the world where their employees will offer classes about technology to small startup businesses attempting to compete in a global world. Hopefully some of the aid Microsoft is supplying will find its way to Africa. They are in desperate need of more help. Last, Microsoft is designing a website targeting engineering graduates in India. They are going to try to expose new graduates to opportunities that will make them more marketable to other employers. The website has not launched yet.
Are Microsoft’s intentions truly altruistic? I am not sure, but I do not think their efforts can hinder the technological gap amongst some nations. Hopefully children in all schools, including the United States, will soon have access to current technology. Maybe then we will be producing the engineers Microsoft seeks to further train for the global market. If nothing else, this is good PR for Microsoft. In time we will be able to see if their efforts are making a difference.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-04-19-gates-china_N.htm?POE=click-refer
Cell Phones
Cell phones are increasing becoming more and more advanced. You can text message and download ring tones and games. Maybe you can even watch a little television and do some limited web browsing. In future you will be able to watch whole television shows or sporting events. A British research firm estimates that 125 million people will be watching television on their phones within five years. Our cell phones are currently using a 14.4 kbps downloading speed, which is really slow. The new 3G technology data can be transferred at rates between 64 and 384 kilobytes per second, a blazing speed compared to most common phones. Some newer phones already have 2.5 GB memory stick which can hold a large amount of data. Some phones are already digital hooked up to a computer, so you can receive and send emails and also get documents off your own computer. In the future phones will be four times as fast as the normal homes broadband. Batteries are becoming more advanced and will need to last long with more use of the cell phone. GPS devices, games, and music are all becoming more advanced with the new technology of mp3 and better games. If Virgina Tech students had all these new technologies to receive emails on their cell phones in the middle of class. Everyone would have been notified and aware of the situation that struck the campus. I believe it would have saved many lives and would have caught the killer before he had made the second attack on the students and faculty. But can you look at technology as a savior or can you say if we had it, somethings would not have happened the way they did? I pray for the victims and their families I wish tragedies like this would never occur.
http://news.digitaltrends.com/featured_article34_page3.html
http://news.digitaltrends.com/featured_article34_page3.html
Monday, April 23, 2007
Can RF technology provide security?
I have to say that after hearing about the tragic events that took place at Virginia Tech I began thinking about how the future of technology will provide an array of opportunities to protect our safety. Currently, Bowie State University utilizes a web based service called e2Campus that sends SMS text messages to cell phones to notify of emergency situations on campus http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/492954. This certainly would have had more immediate results than the emails that were sent by administrators at Virginia Tech and would probably save them from the many lawsuits they may face.
One thing that came to my mind as a means of providing safety was RF (radio frequency) services and devices that are currently utilized in ways to create speed and efficiency within supply chains for companies as well as in other profit oriented endeavors such as advertising and target marketing. What if organizations utilized radio frequency to warn constituents about dangerous situations and provided updates on the progress of events? Imagine going to your local bank to conduct a personal transaction and your cell phone receives a message that the bank has just been held up. Local and national governments could utilize RF technology to warn of terrorist attacks, sexual offender releases, Amber alerts, evacuation notices (e.g. toxic spills), virus outbreaks (e.g. AVI, SARS), etc. In order for RF to benefit society in these ways it first needs to become a safe and non-hazardous technology in and of itself before it could be utilized to save our lives.
One thing that came to my mind as a means of providing safety was RF (radio frequency) services and devices that are currently utilized in ways to create speed and efficiency within supply chains for companies as well as in other profit oriented endeavors such as advertising and target marketing. What if organizations utilized radio frequency to warn constituents about dangerous situations and provided updates on the progress of events? Imagine going to your local bank to conduct a personal transaction and your cell phone receives a message that the bank has just been held up. Local and national governments could utilize RF technology to warn of terrorist attacks, sexual offender releases, Amber alerts, evacuation notices (e.g. toxic spills), virus outbreaks (e.g. AVI, SARS), etc. In order for RF to benefit society in these ways it first needs to become a safe and non-hazardous technology in and of itself before it could be utilized to save our lives.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Do we still make toy trucks?
I was in the toy section the other day looking to buy a few things for the grandchildren and realized how much toys have changed. Everything “does something” any more. It’s hard to find just a plain do nothing toy anymore.
We played with dolls. Dressed them, had tea parties, and they were our friends. My brother’s trucks and tractors plowed through fields in the rugs and ran over monsters, which were my dolls. We traded comic books and read books about Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys. There were 24 colors in the crayon boxes used to create masterful works of art to be hung on the refrigerator door. We used technology to create stuff like creepy crawlers, easy bake ovens cakes, and Lego cities. We used our imaginations and enjoyed our stuff.
Technology in toys today is overwhelming. I could not find a plain doll. One doll cried, another needed to eat; then it wet. No more using your imagination I thought. The trucks are not only battery powered but also radio controlled. Even books make sounds or read the story to you. Crayons still come in a box but it has over 100 colors. No wonder I’m back in school, I need to learn the new colors just to play.
My point is that sometimes I feel technology has taken the wrong path. These toys don’t encourage children to grow and learn. They encourage the child to expect everything to be done for them. I don’t pretend the baby is crying; it really is. I don’t pretend the car makes a “vroom” noise; it does.
It is great that technology allows us to create these toys, but do we need them? Is this where we should be using innovative ideas? I guess it is just one more segment of society touched by technology.
We played with dolls. Dressed them, had tea parties, and they were our friends. My brother’s trucks and tractors plowed through fields in the rugs and ran over monsters, which were my dolls. We traded comic books and read books about Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys. There were 24 colors in the crayon boxes used to create masterful works of art to be hung on the refrigerator door. We used technology to create stuff like creepy crawlers, easy bake ovens cakes, and Lego cities. We used our imaginations and enjoyed our stuff.
Technology in toys today is overwhelming. I could not find a plain doll. One doll cried, another needed to eat; then it wet. No more using your imagination I thought. The trucks are not only battery powered but also radio controlled. Even books make sounds or read the story to you. Crayons still come in a box but it has over 100 colors. No wonder I’m back in school, I need to learn the new colors just to play.
My point is that sometimes I feel technology has taken the wrong path. These toys don’t encourage children to grow and learn. They encourage the child to expect everything to be done for them. I don’t pretend the baby is crying; it really is. I don’t pretend the car makes a “vroom” noise; it does.
It is great that technology allows us to create these toys, but do we need them? Is this where we should be using innovative ideas? I guess it is just one more segment of society touched by technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)