After about 8 months of service, I am officially leaving Blogger, but don't worry, I will continue to post regular blogs. I am in the process of starting a new project called VolBlogs, which will have several UT student contributors. I will update you all on its progress via Facebook and Twitter as I get the site finished up.
Meanwhile, if you'd like to become a contributor to VolBlogs, I am still looking for a couple more writers, so please let me know. See this site to find out how you can join us!
Thanks for reading with me, see you in a couple weeks on VolBlogs.
November 15, 2010
November 12, 2010
Another Reason to Thank Your Veterans
The military spending in our country gets a lot of attention from both ends of the political spectrum. This year, the total Defense budget in the U.S. was up 3% to $685,000,000,000.00
Yeah, that's a lot of zeros.
But, regardless of how you feel about the money we allocate to national defense, you can't deny the amazing technology that the military has given us. I just read an article about the Army's development of tooth-cleaning gum, expected to reach the private sector soon, and that may be one of the least significant advancements that the military has brought us. For example, most of the research done to make nuclear power possible was done during the Manhattan Project in World War II. The project basically created the city of Oak Ridge just outside of Knoxville, TN - the town grew to 25 times its pre-war size between 1942 and 1943 - and has allowed for continued research in many fields of science and engineering to flourish in East Tennessee. The military had a hand in the evolution and growth of the internet, GPS, jet engines, digital photography, and radar to name a few.
Due in part to the fact that the military in our country has such a large budget, they have been able to invent many significant technologies that are now in use every day in the private sector, and thanks to all the dedicated soldiers, scientists, engineers, and other creative minds in our country, I think the military will continue to churn out the newest and greatest technologies. I'm a day late for Veteran's Day, but I'd like to thank all our current and past members of the US Military for their hard work, devotion, and service to our country and advancing it on every front.
Yeah, that's a lot of zeros.
But, regardless of how you feel about the money we allocate to national defense, you can't deny the amazing technology that the military has given us. I just read an article about the Army's development of tooth-cleaning gum, expected to reach the private sector soon, and that may be one of the least significant advancements that the military has brought us. For example, most of the research done to make nuclear power possible was done during the Manhattan Project in World War II. The project basically created the city of Oak Ridge just outside of Knoxville, TN - the town grew to 25 times its pre-war size between 1942 and 1943 - and has allowed for continued research in many fields of science and engineering to flourish in East Tennessee. The military had a hand in the evolution and growth of the internet, GPS, jet engines, digital photography, and radar to name a few.
Due in part to the fact that the military in our country has such a large budget, they have been able to invent many significant technologies that are now in use every day in the private sector, and thanks to all the dedicated soldiers, scientists, engineers, and other creative minds in our country, I think the military will continue to churn out the newest and greatest technologies. I'm a day late for Veteran's Day, but I'd like to thank all our current and past members of the US Military for their hard work, devotion, and service to our country and advancing it on every front.
November 2, 2010
Election Day - Part 2
I'd like to address another issue concerning elections today as well. Young people may be generally apathetic towards voting, but there are also greater hurdles for college students to get over before they can legally vote as compared to their older counterparts.
First off, many college students register at home and must submit an absentee ballot. That would be fine except that you can't cast an absentee vote the first time you do so. You have to physically attend the polls for your first election, so a lot of students get discouraged because they would have to drive all the way back home (in the middle of the week) just to vote.
Next, voting takes much more effort and much longer than it really should. The act of casting your ballot may take 2 to 5 minutes, but there are lines, questions about which polling station you should attend, and time conflicts with class and working hours.
I think voting should be moved online personally. I voted in person today with nothing but a voter registration card. No one checked a picture ID, they simply asked me if I still lived at the same address. This seems wildly easy to lie about and I was amazed that they did not even care to look at my driver's license. Well, I did not live at the same address, so as I expected, I had to fill out some paperwork and then drive to another polling station about 8 blocks away. For people who commute 45 minutes to work every day, driving to the polls near their home must be a real chore. Of course, there's early voting, but personally I like to see the campaign all the way through before I decide on my candidate. Anyway, the rules for this process are horribly archaic and over-complicated. The process does not eliminate the possibility of fraud, it just makes it more work to get to the polls.
But, I won't complain without making at least some suggestions:
1. Why can't voting day be a national mandatory holiday? If the government expects people to show up, shouldn't they at least be allowed off work for half of the day? For students or young people working a menial job or attending class, driving to their respective polling place may be difficult if not impossible to do.
2. Voting online. I think this one will happen eventually. There is no reason to have to attend a physical polling location if they don't even check your picture ID, and this could be checked on many people's personal computers (think webcams, etc). Of course, sending sensitive voting data through the interweb scares people, so it really depends on improvements in security in the coming years.
Anyway, enough for election day, and if you made it through all that, thanks for reading!
First off, many college students register at home and must submit an absentee ballot. That would be fine except that you can't cast an absentee vote the first time you do so. You have to physically attend the polls for your first election, so a lot of students get discouraged because they would have to drive all the way back home (in the middle of the week) just to vote.
Next, voting takes much more effort and much longer than it really should. The act of casting your ballot may take 2 to 5 minutes, but there are lines, questions about which polling station you should attend, and time conflicts with class and working hours.
I think voting should be moved online personally. I voted in person today with nothing but a voter registration card. No one checked a picture ID, they simply asked me if I still lived at the same address. This seems wildly easy to lie about and I was amazed that they did not even care to look at my driver's license. Well, I did not live at the same address, so as I expected, I had to fill out some paperwork and then drive to another polling station about 8 blocks away. For people who commute 45 minutes to work every day, driving to the polls near their home must be a real chore. Of course, there's early voting, but personally I like to see the campaign all the way through before I decide on my candidate. Anyway, the rules for this process are horribly archaic and over-complicated. The process does not eliminate the possibility of fraud, it just makes it more work to get to the polls.
But, I won't complain without making at least some suggestions:
1. Why can't voting day be a national mandatory holiday? If the government expects people to show up, shouldn't they at least be allowed off work for half of the day? For students or young people working a menial job or attending class, driving to their respective polling place may be difficult if not impossible to do.
2. Voting online. I think this one will happen eventually. There is no reason to have to attend a physical polling location if they don't even check your picture ID, and this could be checked on many people's personal computers (think webcams, etc). Of course, sending sensitive voting data through the interweb scares people, so it really depends on improvements in security in the coming years.
Anyway, enough for election day, and if you made it through all that, thanks for reading!
Election Day - Part 1
Another election day has come and gone (on the East Coast at least). College kids are notoriously bad about turning out to vote, and although the 2008 Presidential Election was a record-breaking year for young voter turnout, mid-term elections are rarely attended well by people under 30 years old.
I heard plenty of excuses from my peers about why they would not be voting in today's election from "I don't know anything about the candidates" to "I just don't care because the whole system is bull s***", but neither one of those excuses are really viable.
Sure, thirty years ago you may have had to pay close attention to the news or paper to glean enough information to make an informed decision about your local representatives, but today it only takes a couple of quick Google searches to know where the candidates stand on the major issues, read about any controversies surrounding them, and find out who endorses them. I realize that college students are busy, and that political issues don't usually make it into casual conversation at the bar, but taking an hour to read about your state's potential leaders is not hard to do, and it could make a huge difference on your life. Most in-state students at UT receive a substantial scholarship from the state lottery every year, so don't assume that state politics doesn't do anything for you.
Now, to those who think that the whole system is unfair or that their vote couldn't possibly matter...I guess I'll just use a quick Kantian-style argument: What if everyone thought that way? I guess we wouldn't even have elections and we'd be thrown into anarchy. I'll admit that the system favors candidates who are more well-connected and have a stronger economic and educational background, but if more young people took the time and effort to vote, their vote would matter, so don't be part of the problem; be the solution.
I heard plenty of excuses from my peers about why they would not be voting in today's election from "I don't know anything about the candidates" to "I just don't care because the whole system is bull s***", but neither one of those excuses are really viable.
Sure, thirty years ago you may have had to pay close attention to the news or paper to glean enough information to make an informed decision about your local representatives, but today it only takes a couple of quick Google searches to know where the candidates stand on the major issues, read about any controversies surrounding them, and find out who endorses them. I realize that college students are busy, and that political issues don't usually make it into casual conversation at the bar, but taking an hour to read about your state's potential leaders is not hard to do, and it could make a huge difference on your life. Most in-state students at UT receive a substantial scholarship from the state lottery every year, so don't assume that state politics doesn't do anything for you.
Now, to those who think that the whole system is unfair or that their vote couldn't possibly matter...I guess I'll just use a quick Kantian-style argument: What if everyone thought that way? I guess we wouldn't even have elections and we'd be thrown into anarchy. I'll admit that the system favors candidates who are more well-connected and have a stronger economic and educational background, but if more young people took the time and effort to vote, their vote would matter, so don't be part of the problem; be the solution.
October 29, 2010
Update: The Internet Killswitch
I posted about Senator Joe Lieberman's attempt at putting a "Kill Switch" on the internet - or at least some parts of it - this summer, and it looks like the issue isn't dead yet.
According to an article I just read, 61% of Americans support giving the President an internet "Kill Switch" in case of a cyber attack in the future. While I agree that internet security is fast becoming an international issue as Chinese hackers have already made attacks on large American and international firms, is giving one man the power to shut down the greatest form of free communication wise?
I just think about the recent Iranian quasi-revolution that was followed by the world on Twitter, and the way that we could get a first-hand look at what was happening without a single journalist being in harm's way. This kind of instant communication is one of the greatest aspects of the internet, and putting it in jeopardy by allowing a single person to simply cut it off is - in my humble opinion - very dangerous.
That being said, I'm sure it won't take long to figure out a way around this "Kill Switch" - if you've ever worked in an office with limited internet, you probably know at least a few people who have figured out how to get around it with a remote isp - but it could be very difficult and/or costly, not to mention legally risky.
According to an article I just read, 61% of Americans support giving the President an internet "Kill Switch" in case of a cyber attack in the future. While I agree that internet security is fast becoming an international issue as Chinese hackers have already made attacks on large American and international firms, is giving one man the power to shut down the greatest form of free communication wise?
I just think about the recent Iranian quasi-revolution that was followed by the world on Twitter, and the way that we could get a first-hand look at what was happening without a single journalist being in harm's way. This kind of instant communication is one of the greatest aspects of the internet, and putting it in jeopardy by allowing a single person to simply cut it off is - in my humble opinion - very dangerous.
October 24, 2010
Is a College Degree Still Relevant?
This semester, I have decided to do more independent learning. I am currently working my way through some heat transfer lectures on YouTube, expanding my knowledge of web-coding, and soon to begin some Python or C/C++ programming courses offered free on MIT's website. Now, I could take all these classes at UT (in fact I will have to take Heat Transfer next semester), but it has led me to ask myself, why?
As the network of free information expands online, the traditional college experience is becoming less and less relevant. UT is a very cheap school ($4,000-$5,000 per semester in state), but is this cost even necessary in order to learn the material? It's not like my tuition gives me access to some special proprietary information (at least not at the undergraduate level), and while some elements of the educational experience still currently require one's physical presence, the standard class lecture is not one of them. I can ask all the same questions that I would ask a professor on an open physics/engineering forum; I can read a free online textbook on the subject; I can watch lecture videos on my own time.
This rise of free information will soon end the traditional college lecture setting, and I think the students will benefit. Imagine going to class just once or twice a week in order to meet for group projects, do lab work, and take tests, while spending the rest of the week attending lectures online at your own pace and schedule. Being able to pause, rewind, and come back to lectures that were previously recorded is a huge advantage to having one professor for 100+ students, as he cannot possibly account for their various degrees of understanding and learning at once. This format also allows for more flexible scheduling, letting people work full-time and still be a student.
I imagine that in 5-10 years, technologies like video chat and virtualization will completely eliminate the need to physically attend a university for an undergraduate degree, allowing more people to educate themselves at a fraction of the cost and time-commitment that college now demands. The virtual classroom has advantages world-wide as internet access permeates third world and developing countries as well, and I believe there is no down-side to increasing the availability and quality of education across the globe. If we can even hope to face the challenges that the next decade will produce in overpopulation and energy consumption, we must get more of the global population thinking and working towards a solution, so take advantage of the free information that is out there, and learn a thing or two in your spare time.
As the network of free information expands online, the traditional college experience is becoming less and less relevant. UT is a very cheap school ($4,000-$5,000 per semester in state), but is this cost even necessary in order to learn the material? It's not like my tuition gives me access to some special proprietary information (at least not at the undergraduate level), and while some elements of the educational experience still currently require one's physical presence, the standard class lecture is not one of them. I can ask all the same questions that I would ask a professor on an open physics/engineering forum; I can read a free online textbook on the subject; I can watch lecture videos on my own time.
This rise of free information will soon end the traditional college lecture setting, and I think the students will benefit. Imagine going to class just once or twice a week in order to meet for group projects, do lab work, and take tests, while spending the rest of the week attending lectures online at your own pace and schedule. Being able to pause, rewind, and come back to lectures that were previously recorded is a huge advantage to having one professor for 100+ students, as he cannot possibly account for their various degrees of understanding and learning at once. This format also allows for more flexible scheduling, letting people work full-time and still be a student.
I imagine that in 5-10 years, technologies like video chat and virtualization will completely eliminate the need to physically attend a university for an undergraduate degree, allowing more people to educate themselves at a fraction of the cost and time-commitment that college now demands. The virtual classroom has advantages world-wide as internet access permeates third world and developing countries as well, and I believe there is no down-side to increasing the availability and quality of education across the globe. If we can even hope to face the challenges that the next decade will produce in overpopulation and energy consumption, we must get more of the global population thinking and working towards a solution, so take advantage of the free information that is out there, and learn a thing or two in your spare time.
October 20, 2010
Apple Buying Facebook?
It is a possibility.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/The-Case-for-Apple-Buying-Facebook-5445
What would this possible merger mean for Facebook users? A lot of things, some good and some potentially bad.
1. Apple device integration - as the article points out, Apple's Facetime could receive a whole new level of users. 500 million of them worldwide. This could be the necessary step in making video chat the norm over text and phone conversations.
2. Ping integration - if you've even heard of Apple's new Ping network, you may actually use it if this buy-out becomes reality.
3. Apple gets access to huge amounts of marketing data - this is kind of the case against the merger or buyout. Apple is not in the business of information right now, and buying Facebook would give it a whole new business to run: advertising.
4. Restrictive Facebook - if you've ever used an ios device, you know how restrictive apple can be. This buyout would put Apple's closed source mentality in much closer direct competition with Google's open source services. What would these restrictions be? Well they could lead to increased privacy on Facebook, which is good, but it depends how far Apple takes it.
Is this acquisition likely? In my opinion, yes. Apple has the money, and we know Mark and Steve have met in person. If they don't buy it when Facebook goes public, they could be leaving a great opportunity open to their competition (think Google).
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/The-Case-for-Apple-Buying-Facebook-5445
What would this possible merger mean for Facebook users? A lot of things, some good and some potentially bad.
1. Apple device integration - as the article points out, Apple's Facetime could receive a whole new level of users. 500 million of them worldwide. This could be the necessary step in making video chat the norm over text and phone conversations.
2. Ping integration - if you've even heard of Apple's new Ping network, you may actually use it if this buy-out becomes reality.
3. Apple gets access to huge amounts of marketing data - this is kind of the case against the merger or buyout. Apple is not in the business of information right now, and buying Facebook would give it a whole new business to run: advertising.
4. Restrictive Facebook - if you've ever used an ios device, you know how restrictive apple can be. This buyout would put Apple's closed source mentality in much closer direct competition with Google's open source services. What would these restrictions be? Well they could lead to increased privacy on Facebook, which is good, but it depends how far Apple takes it.
Is this acquisition likely? In my opinion, yes. Apple has the money, and we know Mark and Steve have met in person. If they don't buy it when Facebook goes public, they could be leaving a great opportunity open to their competition (think Google).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
