Dear Professor Brooks,
Boy, that Mr. Kurzweil sure does have some kooky theories. Well, maybe the theories themselves aren't so far fetched, but the dates that he provides are probably a little off base. I think we're still a decade off from having retina screens and a virtual reality internet experience. However, I don't doubt that such things are achievable in the not too distant future. Kurzweil's vision of technology in the years to come does seem overly optimistic, but by the same token, Joy's vision is far too cynical.
Just because the human race can make advancements in technology, does that mean it should? I say why not? Roll the dice, take a gamble. If the world goes to Hell because of it, at least we'll all get to live out our last days in a virtual paradise thanks to our computer specs. If our robot slaves revolt and turn against us, at least I'll know how to reprogram them (assuming of course they're LEGO robots).
The reality is, no one can completely predict the future. I suppose we can assume that Moore's law will hold true, and our technological leaps will continue, but that could just mean more computer space and faster internet. Look how long it took for the telephone to evolve into the iPhone. We're talking hundreds of years. Surely computers have a much longer journey before they start implanting them into our brains. I'm pretty excited for the future, mostly just to see how things will turn out. The experts can predict all they want, as long as I have my flying car by 2020.
Love,
James
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Week 13 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
Net neutrality, what a complex issue indeed. According to the lecture slides, the underlying issue here is rights. Let's be honest though, the real issue is money. Comcast and other network providers want money from big sites like Yahoo and Google, but net neutrality laws prevent that from happening. If those laws didn't exist, network providers could legally tamper with internet traffic, making certain sites load slower for example. In addition, they could give preferential treatment to higher paying internet customers. See, it's all about the bucks.
Of course, that's not the only issue (although it seems to me to be the most important). Without net neutrality, network providers could block certain content for whatever reason. If the internet is anything, it's a place where anyone has the ability to be heard, no matter how annoying. Not everyone can write a story worthy of the New Yorker, but anybody can publish their work on the internet. Without net neutrality, that could all disappear.
The religious right and those lefty liberals, both of which have somewhat controversial opinions depending on who you're talking to, are all for net neutrality. Without it, network providers might choose not to keep their websites around. All those hate groups would be left out as well. Now I for one am not an anti-Semite (just a plain old Semite), but those idiots have the right to free speech just like the rest of us.
It comes as no surprise that our friends the Libertarians apparently oppose net neutrality, however I'm certain that is based purely on principle. The less government involvement the better, as they say. Of course telecommunication companies are opposed as well, and rightfully so. Without the government, they are given free reign over the internet, which sadly gives them a great deal of power, considering the amount of time most people spend surfing the web. They would become more powerful than the Corleones and the Sopranos combined. Just look at the cable industry. I can't express the amount of hatred I have towards Comcast, their horrible customer service, and their lack of the Game Show Network, but I don't really have a choice living in San Francisco. It's either them or satalite. Now if a cable service offered every channel for 30 bucks a month (the same as Comcast), they would be missing out on a ton of cash. Telecommunication companies want a piece of that cable action, hence their opposition of net neutrality.
Yes, I am completely for net neutrality.
Love,
James
Net neutrality, what a complex issue indeed. According to the lecture slides, the underlying issue here is rights. Let's be honest though, the real issue is money. Comcast and other network providers want money from big sites like Yahoo and Google, but net neutrality laws prevent that from happening. If those laws didn't exist, network providers could legally tamper with internet traffic, making certain sites load slower for example. In addition, they could give preferential treatment to higher paying internet customers. See, it's all about the bucks.
Of course, that's not the only issue (although it seems to me to be the most important). Without net neutrality, network providers could block certain content for whatever reason. If the internet is anything, it's a place where anyone has the ability to be heard, no matter how annoying. Not everyone can write a story worthy of the New Yorker, but anybody can publish their work on the internet. Without net neutrality, that could all disappear.
The religious right and those lefty liberals, both of which have somewhat controversial opinions depending on who you're talking to, are all for net neutrality. Without it, network providers might choose not to keep their websites around. All those hate groups would be left out as well. Now I for one am not an anti-Semite (just a plain old Semite), but those idiots have the right to free speech just like the rest of us.
It comes as no surprise that our friends the Libertarians apparently oppose net neutrality, however I'm certain that is based purely on principle. The less government involvement the better, as they say. Of course telecommunication companies are opposed as well, and rightfully so. Without the government, they are given free reign over the internet, which sadly gives them a great deal of power, considering the amount of time most people spend surfing the web. They would become more powerful than the Corleones and the Sopranos combined. Just look at the cable industry. I can't express the amount of hatred I have towards Comcast, their horrible customer service, and their lack of the Game Show Network, but I don't really have a choice living in San Francisco. It's either them or satalite. Now if a cable service offered every channel for 30 bucks a month (the same as Comcast), they would be missing out on a ton of cash. Telecommunication companies want a piece of that cable action, hence their opposition of net neutrality.
Yes, I am completely for net neutrality.
Love,
James
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Week 12 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
The Turing test, a novel idea if I've ever heard one, is a test to determine whether or not a computer is intelligent. However, I would say it's more of a test to determine whether or not the human being chatting with the computer is smart enough to realize he's talking to a robot. Thus the fatal flaw of the Turing Test: it's much too dependent on the human variable. One person might easily be tricked by a chat bot, while another more sophisticated person might find the chat bot to be completely unconvincing. Is it really that impressive that a chat bot was able to convince a couple of pornography enthusiasts? I can only imagine how that chat went.
Much like the IQ test, I don't think the Turing test is very reliable. I can only imagine that a computer's response is completely based on whatever it is asked, so it's possible for two different people to have the exact same conversation with a chat bot. With that in mind, even if it does fool everybody, I don't think it could be called intelligent because it's been programed to think a certain way. I would call HAL from "2001: A Space Odyssey" intelligent because surely he was not programed to feel jealousy, it was something that he learnt on his own. That is a sign of intelligence, not being able to fool a couple of humans.
If there is a better way to test computers for intelligence, I don't want to know about it. Computers should not be made to think. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time before they outsmart us and take over the world. It could already be happening. Maybe the computers are just playing dumb, biding their time for the perfect moment to strike. God help us all.
Love,
James
The Turing test, a novel idea if I've ever heard one, is a test to determine whether or not a computer is intelligent. However, I would say it's more of a test to determine whether or not the human being chatting with the computer is smart enough to realize he's talking to a robot. Thus the fatal flaw of the Turing Test: it's much too dependent on the human variable. One person might easily be tricked by a chat bot, while another more sophisticated person might find the chat bot to be completely unconvincing. Is it really that impressive that a chat bot was able to convince a couple of pornography enthusiasts? I can only imagine how that chat went.
Much like the IQ test, I don't think the Turing test is very reliable. I can only imagine that a computer's response is completely based on whatever it is asked, so it's possible for two different people to have the exact same conversation with a chat bot. With that in mind, even if it does fool everybody, I don't think it could be called intelligent because it's been programed to think a certain way. I would call HAL from "2001: A Space Odyssey" intelligent because surely he was not programed to feel jealousy, it was something that he learnt on his own. That is a sign of intelligence, not being able to fool a couple of humans.
If there is a better way to test computers for intelligence, I don't want to know about it. Computers should not be made to think. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time before they outsmart us and take over the world. It could already be happening. Maybe the computers are just playing dumb, biding their time for the perfect moment to strike. God help us all.
Love,
James
Friday, November 2, 2007
Web 2.0
Dear Professor Brooks,
Dig to the Other Side is easily the most useful thing I've stumbled across on the internet. Dig answers the question I and many others like me have asked since the beginning of time: where would I end up if I were to dig a hole to the other side of the world? Using this Google Maps mashup, I "dug a hole" from my apartment in Hayes Valley. Where did I end up? Smack dab in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Thankfully Dig exists, otherwise I would have wasted my life digging to the other side of the world only to end up drowning.
Although I fancy myself a master of the culinary arts, sometimes there are just too many dirty dishes to deal with, leaving only one option: eating out. Along with this comes the difficult decision of where to eat. There are just so many restaurants in San Francisco to choose from, it takes hours just to decide which one to go to. Thanks to Wheel of Food, a mashup using Yahoo Local Search, the decision is no longer mine. All you have to do is type in your zip code, choose which meal you'll be eating, and spin the wheel. Unfortunately, the selections are somewhat limited, however later version will surely correct that.
For those of us that are 21+, Pub Walk is a great tool for a Saturday night of debauchery. Coming Google Maps and Geocoder, this mashup catalogues the various drinkeries within your neighborhood and allows you to actually create your very own bar crawl. You can even customize your adventure to only include Karaoke and Biker bars. Let's just say I know what I'm doing this weekend.
Love,
James
Dig to the Other Side is easily the most useful thing I've stumbled across on the internet. Dig answers the question I and many others like me have asked since the beginning of time: where would I end up if I were to dig a hole to the other side of the world? Using this Google Maps mashup, I "dug a hole" from my apartment in Hayes Valley. Where did I end up? Smack dab in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Thankfully Dig exists, otherwise I would have wasted my life digging to the other side of the world only to end up drowning.
Although I fancy myself a master of the culinary arts, sometimes there are just too many dirty dishes to deal with, leaving only one option: eating out. Along with this comes the difficult decision of where to eat. There are just so many restaurants in San Francisco to choose from, it takes hours just to decide which one to go to. Thanks to Wheel of Food, a mashup using Yahoo Local Search, the decision is no longer mine. All you have to do is type in your zip code, choose which meal you'll be eating, and spin the wheel. Unfortunately, the selections are somewhat limited, however later version will surely correct that.
For those of us that are 21+, Pub Walk is a great tool for a Saturday night of debauchery. Coming Google Maps and Geocoder, this mashup catalogues the various drinkeries within your neighborhood and allows you to actually create your very own bar crawl. You can even customize your adventure to only include Karaoke and Biker bars. Let's just say I know what I'm doing this weekend.
Love,
James
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Week 10 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
I always get a little worried whenever I give away my personal information, which is why I don't do it so often. I've had some bad luck in that area. About a year ago, I left my credit card at a bar in Daly City. I went on a trip the next day, so I wasn't able to pick up the card for a whole week. A month later, I noticed that $250 had been charged on it at some pizza place in Daly City that I had never even heard of, much less spent that much money there. I marched to the Richmond police station and demanded that they find the bastards that did it, but they told me that the police only got involved when tens of thousands of dollars were at stake. Thankfully, the credit card company came through and refunded me completely, yay! I also learned never to get so drunk at a bowling ally that I forget my credit card at the bar.
I always feel nervous whenever I give out my social security number. I don't even know why we still use those darn things. I'm not going to see a dime of my social security, yet it's still the easiest way for someone to steal my identity. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Anyway, last month when I was applying to rent an apartment, I refused to put my SSN on the form. Knowing landlords, they would probably just throw out the application without shredding, leaving all my personal information for Johnny the bum to find in the trash can. Eventually, my roommate made me start writing it on the forms, because she thought it was the reason we weren't getting offered any houses. My question is, why would a landlord need that information anyway, especially when we gave them current credit reports? That reminds me, I had to give my SSN to the website that I got my credit report from. In that case, I was okay with giving away my information because otherwise I would probably be homeless.
The only organization that I feel completely comfortable with having my information is my bank. If I can trust them with my millions of dollars, surely I can trust them with my SSN. I suppose having USF know my information isn't so bad either. Although, because USF employs students, the door is opened for any undergrad with a school job to possibly stumble across all my info. College kids these days are so tech savvy and broke, they have all the know-how and nothing to lose by stealing my identity and signing up for some credit cards. Thankfully, I'm three and a half years in and nothing has happened, knock on wood.
Whenever I sign up for something on the internet, such as a new e-mail address, a JTT fan club, or a Harry Potter message board, I always give false information. My go-to pseudonym is Sammy Clems, I'm from Alaska (zip code 99501), and I'm ninety-seven years young. I'm also a woman. It's foolproof I tell you.
Love,
James
I always get a little worried whenever I give away my personal information, which is why I don't do it so often. I've had some bad luck in that area. About a year ago, I left my credit card at a bar in Daly City. I went on a trip the next day, so I wasn't able to pick up the card for a whole week. A month later, I noticed that $250 had been charged on it at some pizza place in Daly City that I had never even heard of, much less spent that much money there. I marched to the Richmond police station and demanded that they find the bastards that did it, but they told me that the police only got involved when tens of thousands of dollars were at stake. Thankfully, the credit card company came through and refunded me completely, yay! I also learned never to get so drunk at a bowling ally that I forget my credit card at the bar.
I always feel nervous whenever I give out my social security number. I don't even know why we still use those darn things. I'm not going to see a dime of my social security, yet it's still the easiest way for someone to steal my identity. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Anyway, last month when I was applying to rent an apartment, I refused to put my SSN on the form. Knowing landlords, they would probably just throw out the application without shredding, leaving all my personal information for Johnny the bum to find in the trash can. Eventually, my roommate made me start writing it on the forms, because she thought it was the reason we weren't getting offered any houses. My question is, why would a landlord need that information anyway, especially when we gave them current credit reports? That reminds me, I had to give my SSN to the website that I got my credit report from. In that case, I was okay with giving away my information because otherwise I would probably be homeless.
The only organization that I feel completely comfortable with having my information is my bank. If I can trust them with my millions of dollars, surely I can trust them with my SSN. I suppose having USF know my information isn't so bad either. Although, because USF employs students, the door is opened for any undergrad with a school job to possibly stumble across all my info. College kids these days are so tech savvy and broke, they have all the know-how and nothing to lose by stealing my identity and signing up for some credit cards. Thankfully, I'm three and a half years in and nothing has happened, knock on wood.
Whenever I sign up for something on the internet, such as a new e-mail address, a JTT fan club, or a Harry Potter message board, I always give false information. My go-to pseudonym is Sammy Clems, I'm from Alaska (zip code 99501), and I'm ninety-seven years young. I'm also a woman. It's foolproof I tell you.
Love,
James
Friday, October 19, 2007
Week 9 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
I download music. Lots of music. Before this whole high speed internet thing, I bought albums. I think at my peak (right before coming to college), I had nearly 1,000 actual compact discs (LPs, EPs, singles, etc). Then I got some speedy internet. Suddenly, downloading a single song took a couple seconds versus a half hour. Needless to say, I currently have about 100 GBs on the old external hard drive committed exclusively to music. Now, do I download music because CDs are too expensive? Obviously if I was able to amass a collection so large in my high school days, money is clearly not a huge issue (besides which, used CDs can be as cheap as three or four bucks, you just have to know where to go). No, the number one reason that I, and perhaps many others, download music is because doing so gets me the music months earlier than the official release date.
They call it a leak when an album is put on the internet before its actual release date. I would estimate that 90% of the music I've downloaded would fall under this category (with about 3% being something I could have purchased at a store, the other 7% being live bootlegs or unreleased/b-side material). So, am I really even stealing when the music I'm downloading isn't even available in any format to the public? Shoplifting a CD from a store, for example, would constitute stealing in my book. In the end, I would have stolen something tangible: compact disc, plastic casing, liner notes. Furthermore, I would have stolen something that the store owner has already purchased.
Downloading music however is completely different. You don't get a tangible thing; you simply get files that contain the music. Usually, these files will be of a quality that is far below a compact disc. For example, iTunes sells music files at 128 kbps for $0.99. While this might seems like a fair deal for the buyer, the quality of such a file is about 1/10 the quality of an actual CD. Let's say I buy a twelve song album from iTunes. The price would be around twelve dollars, which is a little bit cheaper than an actual CD (depending on where you go, it could be a little more expensive). However, all I've gotten for my twelve dollars are some horrible quality music files. Shouldn't the price directly reflect the product? If the CD is fifteen dollars, than the music files should be 1/10 that price ($1.50), minus the dollar it would have been to produce a compact disc and those other things that come with it. So really, the actual worth would be fifty cents, which I would gladly pay.
The big story in the music industry right now is the way in which Radiohead released their newest album, In Rainbows. After a four year hiatus of sorts (during which they toured new material, released various solo records, started a blog), the band announced on October 1st that it would be releasing its seventh record two ways. Option one: $80 for a deluxe version (titled Disc Box) that includes two versions of the album (CD and vinyl), a bonus CD, and original artwork, all of which would be shipped sometime in December. Option two: a downloadable version of the album made available a mere ten days after the announcement (Oct. 10) for a price to be determined by the consumer. Well, people went a little nuts about this, claiming that Radiohead were striking a final blow to the record industry. In reality, that was not the case. Currently, Radiohead do not have a record contract, and therefore they have very little means of distributing the album. The download was a way for them to get the music to the fans in a speedy fashion rather than have it sit while they negotiate a record deal. The $80 Disc Box is obviously not something every Radiohead fan will be able to afford, so WASTE, their merchandise company, will be able to handle the orders themselves. It has been estimated that by early 2008, In Rainbows will be available in stores, most likely brought to us by a major record label.
So how much did I spend on the download? Nothing. Aside from the quality not being so great (160 kbps, better than iTunes at least), I'll buy the CD when it is eventually released (CD quality is a must for Radiohead albums). In addition, I try to attend their concerts whenever possible. Last summer I saw them five times at $50 per ticket. It's fairly well known that bands reap their biggest earnings from their concerts, which is the main reason I condone downloading music, regardless of major or independent label. With television, networks play shows to lure in viewers, but the real money comes from the advertisements played during the commercial breaks. In theory, viewers are supposed to be loyal enough to sit through the ads. In the same way, putting music on the internet is a way to lure people to the concert. By getting the music for free, I'm being exposed to more music and I have more money, both of which add up to me attending more concerts. So in my mind, the cosmic and ethical balances even out in the end.
If a band can distribute its music for free, where does the record company stand? Well, not every band can afford to record their own album, right? Wrong. Stephen Malkmus and his cronies (collectively known as Pavement) had a four track, and they made Slanted & Enchanted, one of the most highly revered albums of the 90s. So I guess you don't need super expensive recording equipment to produce something amazing. In fact, I've heard fantastic albums made solely with Garageband and a thirty dollar computer mic.
I do think record companies have a place in the future of the music world, but by condemning file sharing, they're fighting against evolution. In the end, some will still pay for CDs in lieu of downloading music for free, merely to get the best quality available. People still buy and collect expensive vinyl records for this very reason. Maybe by getting a larger cut of the concert revenue, the loss of CD sales wouldn't be felt as much. I don't know, I'm not a record executive.
If you're actually still reading this, bravo. As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about this whole debate. In regards to the scenarios you suggested (as I did get slightly off topic), I'm only ethically opposed to one (shoplifting a CD, as I previously mentioned). I think all music should be made available on the internet for free, and I would gladly share my music library if I didn't have to worry about being sued.
Love,
James
I download music. Lots of music. Before this whole high speed internet thing, I bought albums. I think at my peak (right before coming to college), I had nearly 1,000 actual compact discs (LPs, EPs, singles, etc). Then I got some speedy internet. Suddenly, downloading a single song took a couple seconds versus a half hour. Needless to say, I currently have about 100 GBs on the old external hard drive committed exclusively to music. Now, do I download music because CDs are too expensive? Obviously if I was able to amass a collection so large in my high school days, money is clearly not a huge issue (besides which, used CDs can be as cheap as three or four bucks, you just have to know where to go). No, the number one reason that I, and perhaps many others, download music is because doing so gets me the music months earlier than the official release date.
They call it a leak when an album is put on the internet before its actual release date. I would estimate that 90% of the music I've downloaded would fall under this category (with about 3% being something I could have purchased at a store, the other 7% being live bootlegs or unreleased/b-side material). So, am I really even stealing when the music I'm downloading isn't even available in any format to the public? Shoplifting a CD from a store, for example, would constitute stealing in my book. In the end, I would have stolen something tangible: compact disc, plastic casing, liner notes. Furthermore, I would have stolen something that the store owner has already purchased.
Downloading music however is completely different. You don't get a tangible thing; you simply get files that contain the music. Usually, these files will be of a quality that is far below a compact disc. For example, iTunes sells music files at 128 kbps for $0.99. While this might seems like a fair deal for the buyer, the quality of such a file is about 1/10 the quality of an actual CD. Let's say I buy a twelve song album from iTunes. The price would be around twelve dollars, which is a little bit cheaper than an actual CD (depending on where you go, it could be a little more expensive). However, all I've gotten for my twelve dollars are some horrible quality music files. Shouldn't the price directly reflect the product? If the CD is fifteen dollars, than the music files should be 1/10 that price ($1.50), minus the dollar it would have been to produce a compact disc and those other things that come with it. So really, the actual worth would be fifty cents, which I would gladly pay.
The big story in the music industry right now is the way in which Radiohead released their newest album, In Rainbows. After a four year hiatus of sorts (during which they toured new material, released various solo records, started a blog), the band announced on October 1st that it would be releasing its seventh record two ways. Option one: $80 for a deluxe version (titled Disc Box) that includes two versions of the album (CD and vinyl), a bonus CD, and original artwork, all of which would be shipped sometime in December. Option two: a downloadable version of the album made available a mere ten days after the announcement (Oct. 10) for a price to be determined by the consumer. Well, people went a little nuts about this, claiming that Radiohead were striking a final blow to the record industry. In reality, that was not the case. Currently, Radiohead do not have a record contract, and therefore they have very little means of distributing the album. The download was a way for them to get the music to the fans in a speedy fashion rather than have it sit while they negotiate a record deal. The $80 Disc Box is obviously not something every Radiohead fan will be able to afford, so WASTE, their merchandise company, will be able to handle the orders themselves. It has been estimated that by early 2008, In Rainbows will be available in stores, most likely brought to us by a major record label.
So how much did I spend on the download? Nothing. Aside from the quality not being so great (160 kbps, better than iTunes at least), I'll buy the CD when it is eventually released (CD quality is a must for Radiohead albums). In addition, I try to attend their concerts whenever possible. Last summer I saw them five times at $50 per ticket. It's fairly well known that bands reap their biggest earnings from their concerts, which is the main reason I condone downloading music, regardless of major or independent label. With television, networks play shows to lure in viewers, but the real money comes from the advertisements played during the commercial breaks. In theory, viewers are supposed to be loyal enough to sit through the ads. In the same way, putting music on the internet is a way to lure people to the concert. By getting the music for free, I'm being exposed to more music and I have more money, both of which add up to me attending more concerts. So in my mind, the cosmic and ethical balances even out in the end.
If a band can distribute its music for free, where does the record company stand? Well, not every band can afford to record their own album, right? Wrong. Stephen Malkmus and his cronies (collectively known as Pavement) had a four track, and they made Slanted & Enchanted, one of the most highly revered albums of the 90s. So I guess you don't need super expensive recording equipment to produce something amazing. In fact, I've heard fantastic albums made solely with Garageband and a thirty dollar computer mic.
I do think record companies have a place in the future of the music world, but by condemning file sharing, they're fighting against evolution. In the end, some will still pay for CDs in lieu of downloading music for free, merely to get the best quality available. People still buy and collect expensive vinyl records for this very reason. Maybe by getting a larger cut of the concert revenue, the loss of CD sales wouldn't be felt as much. I don't know, I'm not a record executive.
If you're actually still reading this, bravo. As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about this whole debate. In regards to the scenarios you suggested (as I did get slightly off topic), I'm only ethically opposed to one (shoplifting a CD, as I previously mentioned). I think all music should be made available on the internet for free, and I would gladly share my music library if I didn't have to worry about being sued.
Love,
James
Friday, October 5, 2007
Week 7 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
Although it appears that we're still a few years away from flying cars and robot servants (which in turn will become robot masters), the future that all those sci-fi writers thought up isn't so unimaginable when considering radio frequency identification. As the name suggests, RFID is an identification system that harnesses radio frequencies to identify things. What things you might ask? Lots of things. With RFID, Information is transmitted by a tiny microscopic tag when read by an RFID reading device. The data is processed, and depending what the chip was programed for, some sort of reaction will ensue. It sounds broad because RFID can conceivably be incorporated in most aspects of every day life.
Currently, the most practical use for RFID is tracking. As you know, RFID tags can be surgically implanted into pets. When they stray too far from home, all someone would need to do is scan them with a reader to determine its owner. Of course, a cheaper way to keep from losing your cat would be to just put a collar on it, but that's hardly as cool as a microscopic chip embedded in its shoulder. The same type of tracking could be used with consumer products. In lieu of a serial number (who remembers those anyway?), an RFID chip could be placed inside the product. This way, if someone stole your TV and tried to pawn it, the shop keep could immediatley determine that it was "hot." You'd have your TV back and the crook would be in jail. Sounds good to me.
The last time I was in Chicago, the 7-Eleven by my brother's house had one of those paypass devices for credit cards. I bought so much crap from that store just so I could use it. Of course, this is also a form of RFID technology. Eventually, it will get to the point where you can just grab an item and walk out the store. Through RFID, your credit card (which will probably be a chip embedded in your skin) will automatically get charged when you leave the store. Think of how much faster our lives will be when we don't have to stand in lines.
Of course, along with such advanced technology comes some concerns. With RFID, there is the potential for privacy invasion. Anyone with an RFID reader could find out exactly what is held within your house. This is good news for career thieves, who could target houses that contain expensive electronic equipment. Burglars aside, through tracking your whereabouts, RFID could lead to a "Big Brother" dystopia. I like to keep my tracks covered; I sure don't want someone aware of all my whereabouts. I'm also not too keen on getting a computer chip surgically put into my skin. However, the idea of being able to walk up to my door and have it unlock is pretty cool.
In some ways, the privacy issue doesn't bother me too much. Surely a line will be drawn, and if the government or a corporation should choose to cross that line, they would have to prepare for some heavy duty lawsuits, as privacy is protected by the 14th Amendment.
Love,
James
Although it appears that we're still a few years away from flying cars and robot servants (which in turn will become robot masters), the future that all those sci-fi writers thought up isn't so unimaginable when considering radio frequency identification. As the name suggests, RFID is an identification system that harnesses radio frequencies to identify things. What things you might ask? Lots of things. With RFID, Information is transmitted by a tiny microscopic tag when read by an RFID reading device. The data is processed, and depending what the chip was programed for, some sort of reaction will ensue. It sounds broad because RFID can conceivably be incorporated in most aspects of every day life.
Currently, the most practical use for RFID is tracking. As you know, RFID tags can be surgically implanted into pets. When they stray too far from home, all someone would need to do is scan them with a reader to determine its owner. Of course, a cheaper way to keep from losing your cat would be to just put a collar on it, but that's hardly as cool as a microscopic chip embedded in its shoulder. The same type of tracking could be used with consumer products. In lieu of a serial number (who remembers those anyway?), an RFID chip could be placed inside the product. This way, if someone stole your TV and tried to pawn it, the shop keep could immediatley determine that it was "hot." You'd have your TV back and the crook would be in jail. Sounds good to me.
The last time I was in Chicago, the 7-Eleven by my brother's house had one of those paypass devices for credit cards. I bought so much crap from that store just so I could use it. Of course, this is also a form of RFID technology. Eventually, it will get to the point where you can just grab an item and walk out the store. Through RFID, your credit card (which will probably be a chip embedded in your skin) will automatically get charged when you leave the store. Think of how much faster our lives will be when we don't have to stand in lines.
Of course, along with such advanced technology comes some concerns. With RFID, there is the potential for privacy invasion. Anyone with an RFID reader could find out exactly what is held within your house. This is good news for career thieves, who could target houses that contain expensive electronic equipment. Burglars aside, through tracking your whereabouts, RFID could lead to a "Big Brother" dystopia. I like to keep my tracks covered; I sure don't want someone aware of all my whereabouts. I'm also not too keen on getting a computer chip surgically put into my skin. However, the idea of being able to walk up to my door and have it unlock is pretty cool.
In some ways, the privacy issue doesn't bother me too much. Surely a line will be drawn, and if the government or a corporation should choose to cross that line, they would have to prepare for some heavy duty lawsuits, as privacy is protected by the 14th Amendment.
Love,
James
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)