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. 

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.

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).

A Novel Idea from France

Apparently, the French have decided that rather than fight illegal music piracy with costly court battles, they will subsidize young people for legally downloading music from a subscription or other music site.  I wonder what the economic implications will be to the recording industry and legal system as this idea takes hold?
http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

I Want to be a Miner When I Grow Up

A couple of weeks ago, I discovered a new love of mining, but not the physical labor, coal-filled air kind of mining.  I discovered Minecraft.

Admittedly, the game is super-nerdy.  The graphics look like they were created for an 8-bit console, and the controls, movement, and options are about as minimal as possible.  That being said, it is probably the most addicting game I've played in a long time.

I've never been much of a gamer, but I do enjoy video games with a high degree of creative input from the user.  The best way I've found to describe the game is a mix of Runescape circa 2002 and Lego building blocks.  Your goal is simple: stay alive, but the ways that you can accomplish this goal are practically limitless.

For example, this guy built a 16-bit computer that takes input (in binary), performs one of several operations, and outputs a solution.

The "sandbox" style world which is randomly generated for the player has the potential for around 8x as much surface area as the earth, and allows the player to dig materials and minerals out of the earth in order to build or craft items that can be placed anywhere on the map.  Zombies and spiders are randomly spawned from any points of darkness on the map, and the player can either build walls to keep them out, or craft weapons to fight them off as necessary.  Although the game is still in Alpha testing, and the multi-player mode is pretty buggy, it shows great potential as a concept.  I recommend trying it, but be careful, you could be drawn into the mines and never return.