Me or We?

What do humans and porcupines have in common? Well, that's a bit of a leading question, so I'll just tell you what I'm getting at. We may share many similarities with porcupines (I can't think of any off the top of my head), but at the most basic level we share a common instinct to survive. Yes, at the root of human nature resides the fundamental instinct to survive. We face an interesting dilemma: as living beings, our survival instinct drives us; yet as we interact with other human beings, we also see the need for cooperation. The issue is that survival and cooperation frequently conflict with each other. Furthermore, many moral and ethical practices demand that we not only cooperate, but that we give up selfish interests for the benefit of other human beings. Realizing this, I see why it's so difficult to "make the right choice" at times. It's not logical to do so. But, nonetheless, it is the right thing to do. We fight our natural instinct to be selfish in favor of a greater good. An interesting paradox, don't you think?

So You Want to Be a [B]illionaire?

Time is our most precious resource. Think about it: while some of us watch TV or take naps, Google is building a car that can drive itself. Humans have a tendency to overlook the opportunity costs of real-time decisions, evidenced by how much time we waste. What if I wrote a piece of music instead of watching movies this week? What if I invented a new way to efficiently encode data instead of posting funny pictures on Facebook? (Get the idea?) Each individual has a unique set of talents and abilities they can use to make the world a better place, and each decision we make concerning their use is an investment in some way or another. Why not invest in worthwhile ventures? Granted, there will always be a need for an outlet; we have to have some way to unwind or we break. Remember, however, that planning for these outlets is also an investment in our future productivity. Let's be more conscious of each decision we make, paying particular attention to the things we invest in and the opportunities we pass up.

Becoming Professional Amateurs

(4/4/2013) Note: Sorry the audio is so bad, I could hear it just fine when I had my headphones plugged in but without them I can't hear it at all. Here's a transcription:

"Growing up around social networking, I've noticed that people have a tendency to be too outspoken, and in many cases it's offensive. It's so easy to publish online material now that most people don't think much about what they're saying. Until the last decade or so, your journal was the only place you really put your unedited thoughts. Now everyone can read them. Granted there are lots of positive thoughts shared, but we need to be careful about what we say online! Let me read you a comment I found on FB today:

"'The gay agenda is all about destroying the family... they feel the need to justify their immorality by telling everyone else that we must accept it.'

"Look, there is no persuasive argument here. It's simply hating on someone else. Hating has existed since the beginning, but the ability to communicate it has not until now. What we say has a much stronger influence than it did in the past, and we need to use that power wisely. I believe in expressing personal beliefs, but let's do it with appropriate tact and respect for others."

Graduation: A Product of Henry Ford

Remember the Apollo 13 disaster? An old physics teacher once explained that NASA's engineers used an old part from another rocket to make the Apollo 13 rocket work. There was only one problem: the part didn't work. It failed because it wasn't designed for newer technology. Apply this idea to our educational system: we live in the information age operating under a school system designed for old industrialism, and the design doesn't fit our needs. Much like a factory assembly line, we separate information into fields and force students to segregate accordingly. We are assembled piece by piece, class by class; when we finish that process, the university stamps our forehead with the "educated" label. Then we go out into the real world, where most of what we learned in school no longer applies. Of course I believe in education and its importance, but our current system is no longer good enough. We don't have time to waste training students for nonexistent scenarios! Let's focus on real-world applications.

Videogameaholics Anonymous

My name is Matt, and I have been sober for 6 years. Yeah, actually I'm mostly serious about that. As a kid, I was obsessed with Nintendo's Super Smash Bros. game. I played it for thousands of hours with my sister, desperately trying to hone skills that are now useless to me. I know, I know, it's a bit embarrassing, but I'm happy to report that I have kicked the habit! I look back and laugh a bit at how ridiculous I was, but I'm not laughing so much about the adults who spend more time playing video games now than I did as a kid. I understand that everyone needs outlets for life's stresses, but spending 16 hours a day playing Halo does not qualify as an outlet. It's true that some games offer profitable compensation for high scores and remarkable skills, but even in those cases, isn't there a better way to make a living? Technology has countless applications and uses we can take advantage of that will benefit the human race. Let's play Halo for an hour (or less) today and then get back to work on something more worthwhile.

An Experiment on Collaboration

Open-source projects will replace all businesses in the future! Alright, that's probably not true, but some open-source projects enjoy immense success. We must be careful, however, not to accept something because the majority claims it is true. Wikipedia serves as an illustrative example. All of us Internet-savvy folks know that we can rely on it as a relatively reliable source of information for millions of topics. The selling-point of the website, namely that anyone can edit its information, brings up an interesting discovery: collaboration from multiple separated sources can increase accuracy of information. What happens, however, if said collaboration produces a result not consistent with reality? The accuracy of the result may no longer matter, because many of us have already established Wikipedia as a relatively reliable source. To an extent, we therefore rely on the experience and credentials of anyone who has edited the information. I believe that the majority of Wikipedia is indeed reliable, but even so, please do your own thinking before deciding to go with the crowd.

For Your Entertainment, We Present Today's News Coverage!

"Good" news bores me. When I visit CNN, I want to read about scandal, outrage, and ruin! Oh wait...if I want to be happy, why am I looking for negativity? I skip over the positive and happy in search of the discouraging and depressing? Yeah, that's a great way to motivate myself. The American media has clearly conditioned us to focus on negative information. The shooting incident surrounding the theatrical release of The Dark Knight Rises captured weeks of media attention, while American-built schools constructed for Iraqi children earned minutes. What if the media used their influence to encourage positive change? I'm convinced that thousands of good deeds and positive actions take place every day. Why not cover these events instead? We have the ability to broadcast live video coverage to the other side of the globe. It's about time we use our incredible technologies to propagate responsible and worthwhile messages!

In Which a Man Defends Intellectual Property

As a kid, I remember telling a lawyer that a perfect society would have no copyrights or patents. I was  upset that I couldn't download any music I wanted without paying a price for it! What would happen to the music industry if the government invalidated all copyrights? Communism's basic outcome provides an appropriate parallel: all music would belong to everybody, but a group of select someones would somewhere be profiting at the expense of everyone else, and the right we currently have to dispute such a group's actions would be eliminated. I have recently read a lot about how intellectual property laws of all types inhibit creative thinking and forestall innovation. These arguments do have merit—many individuals and companies take unfair advantage of such laws. However, historical facts repeatedly indicate the importance of private ownership in maintaining rights and liberties for individuals (think of the Middle Ages for starters). Intellectual property laws must be changed in order to keep up with advancing technologies, but eliminating them would concentrate power in the hands of a few and ultimately destroy the individual's right to possession.

Burger King Sold to McDonald's! Oh wait...hackers...whoops...

I signed out of Facebook yesterday, and it's amusing that some people would ask why. Well, the internet has lots of security flaws--not much of a newsflash--and I want to keep my data safe from hackers! The original internet architects never worried about security, and we're still trying to work around that. Before my internet programming class, I blindly believed that most websites were secure. Not so. Dr. Daniel Zappala, both my professor and the head of BYU's Internet Research Lab, indicated that some 64% of websites are vulnerable to cross-scripting attacks. While such attacks don't represent all internet security issues, it makes me wonder how secure any website really is. By the way, this includes websites with "secure" servers and certified HTTPS protocols. In any event, it's relatively easy to manipulate a user's account simply by crafting URL's when they are logged in. What other ways have hackers found to take control of "secure" data or accounts? Logging out of web applications, along with other basic internet safety practices, may not significantly reduce the potential for such threats. However, despite the annoyances of such practices, isn't the "better safe than sorry" approach worth the effort when dealing with your sensitive data?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/18/technology/burger-king-twitter-hacked/index.html

Just Say Logout!

Let's all sign out of our online accounts. Please? Stats show that 64% of internet sites aren't protected against cross-scripting attacks. There are also a bunch of other internet vulnerabilities that hackers can easily exploit. These vulnerabilities are what give hackers their power--loopholes that allow smart, malicious programmers to introduce fiendish code that destroys our data and our sanity. Thankfully, these days we are more conscious of computer security. Many companies and governments invest a lot of money in data protection and data integrity. However, despite these precautions, hackers still tend to get through and cause problems. Signing out of online accounts reduces that risk! I understand that there are virtually no negative consequences for the large majority of internet account users who don't log off. Will you be attacked if you don't sign out of Facebook? No, probably not. But, it only takes that one instance of identity theft to reek havoc in the life of the victim. It doesn't require much effort--just hit the "logout" button and enter your password when you want to open it again. It might save you a big headache in the future.

Women + Computer Science = ?

Analysts have concerned themselves with the small women-to-men ratio in the computer science field. Why? The answer is twofold: the growing issue of gender equality (specifically in employment situations), and America's drive to lead out in scientific research. We should wisely consider the effects of pushing more women into computer-related fields. Research shows (and common sense confirms) that men and women differ in some fundamental ways. Research also indicates that each gender solves problems differently. Women are just as competent as men--I accept this without question. However, perhaps women constitute a smaller percentage of this field because their talents are better utilized elsewhere (be it in the home or in other occupations, I see no significant difference). In other words, capitalistic natural selection may be responsible for gender imbalance in computer science. I don't mean to suggest that the economy would suffer if women computer scientists increased in number, but I do submit that such might be less efficient. I'm all in favor of placing more women in my field, provided its effects are positive. Let's just make sure not to allow the sheer momentum of the gender equality movement to overrun sound logic and experience.

Goldeneye Isn't Violent (...?)

Some years ago, socialist China placed a ban on "unhealthy"--violent or pornographic--video games. Generally, I consider bans of this nature to be inappropriate and unfair. However, in this case, China might be onto something. I have heard the phrase "video games don't affect my behavior" from many individuals; yet these same individuals are known for dedicating ridiculous amounts of time to console gaming. Let's face the facts: video games do (at least in one way) alter behavior. If gaming has an impact, then, wouldn't violent and/or pornographic gaming potentially have a dangerous influence on society? The video game ban isn't completely doing its job--a flourishing black market exists for illegal Chinese video games. However, if video games of such a nature are indeed dangerous, at least China has made an effort to impede their propagation. Governmental regulation doesn't seem to be the answer, but it's about time for all affected by electronic gaming to consider its aggregate effects.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/30/china-console-ban/

I, Robot

It's finally a reality--robots of manageable size and human form can be created for less than a mere $1,000. While I question the usefulness of its severely-limited feature set, we have nonetheless taken another step towards a robotic age. Science fiction authors have written about "robot humans" for decades. No doubt we will benefit immensely from such a creation! I do wonder what social implications this robot will engender, both in the near and the distant future. Will robots (which are computing machines) ever have the same rights as humans? Will they be able to own homes, vote for a president, or marry a loved one? On a more dangerous note, many ask if sophisticated robots in the future will decide that humanity is obsolete. All such questions are valid, and I don't intend any negative connotations for any of them. Rather, I simply submit questions of this nature for consideration by those with the ability to build robot humans.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/25/tech/innovation/inmoov-robot-3d-printing/index.html

Whaddya mean I don't socialize?! My best friend is always in my pocket!

Technology is so much more important than people. No, really, it's true. Skeptical? How much time do you spend posting to Facebook? Laughing at memes? How about shopping for online music? Some career fair recruiters encourage students to apply online for internships. Suzie's Angry Birds score is 23 times higher than her last exam grade, and her "friends" only know her by her username. And finally, texting while operating a large vehicle traveling at 65 miles per hour is considered acceptable (this should bother most of us, by the way). OK, OK--so I don't actually believe that technology is more important than people.Why, then, do I waste dozens of hours building up my World of Warcraft reputation? Each day I think, "I would be lost without my laptop!" Wow; first-world problems sure are tough, aren't they? I think it's time to reorder my priorities. Somehow I imagine that my relationships with family and friends will be much more important to me someday. Turns out technology does actually have some drawbacks. To quote a friend of mine, "who'da thunk?"