Recently I read an article titled "This Robot can 3D print a building in 14 hours", written by journalist Kaya Yurieff in which she explains that developers have made a 3D printer that is big enough to print large scale buildings or homes. The 3D machine was developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the function of this machine is to provide a cheaper and more efficient way to build the basics of a home or building . This new concept is very interesting to me because not only is it way cheaper than building a traditional home, it's more adaptable and less of a hassle than traditional home construction. Though I see this opening a new market to home development, I do see some problems with this new technology. The further we advance in 3D printing and design it to build more complex structures, I think companies will turn to this technology and tons of construction workers can be unemployed. I feel very mixed when it comes to this because although I do think this a huge step in the housing market, I think it can also prove costly. However, overall I think this is more of a greater good than it is a bad thing and here's several reasons why: construction jobs are not going away. There's always going to be development projects that will be complex to build in which workers will need to be hired. So that's the first. Secondly, I think that 3D printers can be used as a benefit to construction workers saving them tons of time doing back-breaking work. Third, it enables for homes to be built for cheaper and affordable prices. Fifth, this new technology can be very useful in certain disaster scenarios such as Earthquakes, Tornadoes and so on. In the case of a disaster, shelter homes can be built for cheap prices and in an efficient timely manner. This technology can even be used for space missions when it comes to building bases on the moon or on mars one day and can even be used to build bases in touch regions such as Antarctica and so on. I think overall, there's many pros that outweigh the cons of using a 3D printer.
Attached is the article: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/technology/3d-printed-building-mit/index.html
14 Comments
Recently I read an article titled "Face-changing app branded ‘racist’ for lightening skin on selfies" in which users have complained that a new feature labeled as "hot mode" alters the user's facial complexity by adding a more "whiter" lighting to the user's skin tone. Many users have voiced concern and expressed outrage over this feature labeling it as a racist application. This begs the question though: Was the feature intentional or was it done by accident? First things first, this application was developed in Russia. Specifically, Saint Petersburg. Now I do not know firsthand the diversity of that city but according to several articles I have read, it's not as diverse in Russia as it is back here in the United States. Perhaps the developers did not think that lighting of skin tone meant anything at the time until it was brought up. Most people who take selfies on other applications such as Instagram or Snapchat use a lighting feature also but I think the main reason why Faceapp is facing such a backlash is because the name of the feature "Hot". I think many users took it the wrong way because they believe the application's definition of a "Hot" person is someone with lighter skin complexion. However, I do not think that's the case. I think the developers of Faceapp did not know any better. I think perhaps they did not discuss the potential problems of this feature and proceeded so forth. This should provide a learning lesson for every developer. I believe that even if you do not have the wrong intentions, every feature of any application should be thought about and discussed from an ethical point of view otherwise if not, you will get this case such as with the backlash of FaceApp. Now moving forth, let's say this was intentional. Maybe the developers are actually racist and developed this feature because they really believe that a whiter skin complexion is better than any other. What should we do in this case? I personally would think that the app would lose a ton of followers and would eventually be shut down. I would also say that we as a society should change the racist views of the developers with love and compassion rather than violence or hatred. However, lets keep in mind that change must come from the heart of those developers and it would eventually take time. In these two scenarios, I have came to the conclusion that the developers are not actually racist. I actually do believe this was a mistake made that was taken out of context and eventually backfired. I think the best thing the developers can do is apologize to its users, change the name of the feature and proceed further with direction of where the application is heading.
Attached are the articles: http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/26/face-changing-app-branded-racist-for-lightening-skin-on-selfies-6599159/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/04/26/everything-thats-wrong-with-faceapp-the-latest-creepy-photo-app-for-your-face/?utm_term=.45d3c395ff19 Recently I read an article titled "This $30,000 Robot will make you a salad" in which as directly stated in the title, a robot can start doing things humans can such as preparing your food and so forth. There are several things wrong with this. Companies are starting to invest into robotics to cut back on employee wages. This no doubt benefits a company because they're saving millions of dollars rather than spending it on employee wages and healthcare benefits. Growing up with family that has operated a small grocery business for 50 years, I can see this being beneficial to small businesses but not to huge conglomerates like McDonalds or other fast food giants and here's why: First, I think it's the responsibility of big time companies to provide jobs for Americans. On the contrary, I do believe that companies are looking to robotics because of the high turnover rate from these jobs. However, these jobs can be stressful and demanding so I can see why so many Americans quit these jobs. I think there needs to be some kind of incentive in order to keep these jobs in place rather than transitioning to robotics. I think companies should either increase the wages of their employees or incorporate a tipping system. As a former fast food worker myself, I can tell you that I worked 3 different positions while I was a working at Mcdonalds. The job was stressful. I was the cook, worked the register and was the dishwasher. Now that I have moved on to a serving position at another company, I still get paid minimum wage but I also get tips which helps me to pay for my rent and tuition. I can say that the tipping system has helped me to become a better worker and has helped me to enjoy my job more than I did at Mcdonalds. There has been a lot of argument that the minimum wage should be increased to $15 an hour but I stand on the opposing side of this. I think minimum wage should remain the same but at least companies like Mcdonalds and Burger king should increase the wage for their cooks and include a tipping system for their customer service employees. By doing this, it will increase employee productivity, happiness and customer satisfaction. By transitioning to robotics however. it will leave millions of workers out of jobs.
Recently I read an article titled "Snapchat is doing damage control after its CEO allegedly said the app is 'only for rich people'" in which, as the title states, the CEO of Snapchat was supposedly caught by a former employee saying that he did not want to expand snapchat into countries like Spain and India because they are poor and snapchat is "only for rich people". I find this very confusing because I have read 2 separate articles relating to the same issue of what was allegedly said. So what had happened that lead to this was that Anthony Pompliano, the former employee of snapchat voiced over his concern of snapchat's success overseas and proposed a way to fix it. It was then at this moment that the CEO of Snapchat, Evan Spiegel, allegedly said what was said. What I find odd about this is that there's simply not enough substance to make out what actually happened. Maybe Spiegel did say what he did or maybe he didn't. I think it does raise a question though because in Spain and India, most people do not use to modern phones like here in America. People use outdated phones like flip phones were they do not have access to certain applications like snapchat, facebook or instagram for example. If Spiegel said was true, then there's no doubt that that is ethically wrong. However, I am conflicted on this issue. On one hand, I think that Snapchat should be available to everyone (which it is), however, it's only accessed through download on a mobile device specifically touch screen phones. If Snapchat wants to grow internationally, then they should find better solutions to have accessibility to people without iphones. Perhaps they can create a desktop version of Snapchat and gather more downloaded there. On another hand, I think if Snapchat wants to target a certain crowd of people, then they have every right to as any company does. Snapchat is made for everyone. They should not have to change their entire model to appeal to others who cannot download it but I absolutely do agree that if their intention is to expand, they should find solutions to provide accessibility to countries like Spain and India. Another thing that was mentioned in the article was that the Pompliano filed a lawsuit against Snapchat because Snapchat was inflating the number of users it had when in fact, it had less than expected. This raises the question as to is it ethical for companies to inflate the number of users it has than what they orignally had? Truth is, of course its wrong. It's considered fraud and providing false information which can very much damage the company if they are caught.
Here are the articles attached: http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-denies-ceo-said-app-is-only-for-rich-people-not-india-2017-4 http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/snapchat-ceo-evan-spiegel-poor-india-comment-anthony-pompliano-lawsuit-everything-to-know/ Recently I read an article titled "Twitter is suing the US government over a demand to unmask the people behind an anti-Trump account" which as in the title, details the actions twitter has taken to fight against the U.S government over user account information. To sum up the article, it states that the U.S government demanded that Twitter provide the identity of the user behind a mock account that opposed Trump's anti-immigration policies. With growing demands of the government to release user information, twitter has decided to take legal action. Personally, I think it is wrong for the government to seek information against a user because of differential views. In fact, it goes against the U.S constitution. Now let's look at the bigger picture. If the government wins this case and twitter hands over that account information, that user's identity is now compromised. More than likely, the user behind the anti-immigration account is a government official themselves but when their information is exposed then what will happen? More than likely that person will be relieved of their duties over what? Because they had a different view or disagreed with our government policies? What has our country turned into? Ever since Trump took office, our country has become less of a democracy. We're slowly converting into a dictatorship with trump at the reins. Trump is the embodiment of total control. Now that I got that out, what can we do as a society against this? Instead of dividing ourselves over political ideologies, we need to stand up to our basic right to freedom of speech. Do we really have freedom of speech? More so, do government employees have a right to their opinion? The answer is no they do not because anytime an employee speaks out, they lose their job. We're not really free, there's just the illusion of freedom. I think we can all change that. We just need to stick together, recognize our right to speak freely and have a freedom of press. The core principles of our founding and overcome the dogma and propaganda trump has created. Everyone has a right to speak freely whether they want to do it without being identified or not. It's their right.
Recently I watched a movie titled "Zero Days", a documentary about the origins of Stuxnet. It shows that Stuxnet was first discovered in 2010 by a security firm called "VirusBlokAda". These researchers found that Stuxnet can infiltrate a system, present false data and essentially override information. In this case, Stuxnet was used to infiltrate Iranian nuclear systems and monitor and manipulate its data. When Stuxnet was first discovered, it was thought that the work behind Stuxnet was designed by hackers however, because of its complexity and targets, it was believed that this was the work of a nation. Turns out, Stuxnet was created by the United States in coordination with Israel. The Documentary goes on to show that Stuxnet was not meant to ever be released and certain measures were taken to prevent Stuxnet from leaking however, without permission to use the Stuxnet virus, Israel launched a cyber attack against Iran's nuclear program causing the virus to be leaked onto the internet. This begs the question, did Israel have a right to attack Iran? I mean after all, Iran did threaten to wipe out Israel. Although I look at it as Israel has the right to defend themselves, Iran never took a course of action that would threaten the state of Israel. Although Stuxnet was released, I found one noteworthy thing about the virus: it was only programmed to attack certain targets such as programmable logic controllers and supervisory control and data acquisition meaning that even if Stuxnet is placed into the wrong hands, it cannot be used to attack just anybody. However the concerning part is that hackers can view the code and modify it to attack other systems but I think that will not happen due to the complexity of Stuxnet.
Recently, wikileaks published a series of documents pertaining to the CIA's cyber security division. In these documents, wikileaks reveals that the CIA has developed numerous cyber weapons capable of almost anything. Your phone. your tv, your computer and even your car are vulnerable to attack. In one document. it specifically states that the CIA has designed a program to hack into any television and record your conversations as the TV is "off". In another document. it states that the CIA has developed an application that is fully capable of cracking any iphone surpassing all of its security procedures. CIA has also cracked at encryption applications such as Signal and Tails. So we ask, what does this mean? How does this affect us? Well, it looks like we're screwed. Even if we were to question the legality of these programs, the government will not do a thing. In fact. the FBI has already stated their intentions to pursue charges against the source of these leaks and not pursue any investigation into the CIA programs. Another thing that is worrisome about these programs is that not only do they violate our right to privacy, but if these programs leak out to the public, they could be used by the wrong people such as hackers and foreign enemies. I think certain restrictions need to be put in place that way the CIA is not just using these programs freely. However, the possibility of this is slim. It says a lot about our country if the FBI is more concerned with finding the source of the leaks rather than focus on the reckless actions taken by the CIA.
Recently I read an article titled "Tech companies like Gmail, WhatsApp may be asked to store user information" posted by The Economic Times. A brief description: tech companies are being forced to store information in accordance to Section 67C of the Information Technology Act. If companies choose to withhold or delete any data requested by federal agents, companies can be fined and/or have their officers arrested. This is pure scare tactics. I think the only time data should be accessed is if a serious crime is committed and federal agents need specific data for evidence. However, this is not the case a majority of time. In one instance, I remember reading a story about how a web developer created an encryption app for private messaging. When federal agents requested to have a backdoor installed to monitor the apps messaging data, the owner declined. In response, the federal agents threatened to have his application shut down and have him pay a fine. Ultimately, the web developer complied and a backdoor was developed within the app threatening the privacy of thousands of users. This case is just one example of the government doing whatever it takes to receive our data. Even then, companies will sell our data in order to gain profit. There really is no sense of privacy as long as users continue to use internet applications. Even if companies decide to with hold our data or delete it, they still have to comply with the Information Technology act. If that's challenged as a violation of the fourth amendment, lawmakers will just come up with new laws in order to gain access to our data. Regardless, this is a lose-lose situation. Essentially, we the people are screwed. But my personal opinion in all of this, is that nobody has a right to privacy when it comes to using internet applications. We have to ask ourselves whether "this (user data)" is really "our" data. I mean, is my facebook profile information really "my" data? Am I the maker of facebook? No I am not so it's not my data to use. Me just being the user put my data online even with knowing the risks. I am not going to fight for my right to privacy when I know that my data is not really owned by me. A similar argument I can make is with taxes. People always say "Oh it's my hard earned tax dollars going towards your education" and all this other bull crap but if I take a dollar for example, who made it? Who printed this dollar? Who designed it? The government did so is it really my money? No it's not. It's just a token of limited freedom. It's the same with data. Both sides need to benefit in some way. We benefit from facebook because it keeps us connected with our families and friends and facebook benefits from us because they use our data and sell it to other third parties. That is how this works.
Attached is the article: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/tech/ites/tech-companies-like-gmail-whatsapp-may-be-asked-to-store-user-information/articleshow/54839888.cms Recently, I read an article titled "Mark Cuban Says This Will Be the No.1 Job Skill in 10 Years" in which Mark Cuban states that in about 10 years, the number one in demand major will be liberal arts and not computer science. I would have to say I disagree with his opinion. Even though there is a good possibility that programs will begin to automate themselves,programmers will still be needed regardless. I mean, what happens if a robot or an automated program is manipulated and hacked? Who is going to analyze and break down what went wrong and who is responsible? I think what offends me the most from Mark Cuban's quote is that it discourages prospective students from entering the field of technology. I mean come on, nothing against liberal arts majors but computer science is going to continue to grow. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that jobs such as software engineering will grow roughly 17 percent in the next 10 years. As everything is going online, there will need to be people to fill those technical jobs. I also feel that Mark Cubans quote is very inaccurate and baseless because you do not need a liberal arts degree to think outside the box. I understand Cuban thinks it will give a different perspective of data, however, you do not need a liberal arts degree in order to have that perspective. There is plenty of talented people who majored in computer science and are creative thinkers. Bonus, another benefit of having a computer science degree is that you already know the technical details and fundamentals whereas with a liberal arts degree, you do not. However, this isn't to single out that a liberal arts major cannot get involved with programming. There are ways in which really anyone can learn programming such as boot camps, online tutorials, and self taught. There is plenty of resources. My only argument is that it's more in handy to have a computer science degree than a liberal arts. People should not be discouraged either from entering this field over the fear of "automation". That's all it is, is a scare tactic. As a society, we need to learn to think for ourselves. Back when I was in my teens, I was very impressionable and relied too much on what other people said without really having a thought of my own. If someone said "Oh don't do this because it's not worth it", I would not do it. Looking back, I regret a lot of the things that I did not try simply because of someone else's thoughts. Imagine if you have a prospective student who looks up to someone like Mark Cuban or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs then their "idol" tells them "Oh, a computer science degree is not worth it anymore because of automation", how does that make that student feel especially if the student is impressionable and malleable. Overall, I just think we as a society must think for ourselves and come up with our own perspectives.
Attached are the articles: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-cuban-says-no-1-143308866.html https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm NSA domestic Surveillance policy
Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, Congress passed the U.S Patriot Act of 2001 to reinforce U.S counter terrorism efforts. This gave authorization to federal intelligence programs such as the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect, analyze and store personal information of American citizens without a warrant in the name of “National Security”. Though the NSA has intended this program to thwart terrorist plots and intercept communications, this program has really affected the privacy of millions of Americans. There are two sides to this policy that can be evaluated. Some argue that the benefits of the NSA surveillance programs is that they’ll keep the nation safe from future attacks while others have argued the extent of this program to collect data without consent or a warrant is in violation with the fourth amendment. President Obama has stated that the NSA has stopped at least 50 attacks since the program was implemented. However, according to a white house panel investigation, panel members have found zero evidence to prove this claim . Personally, since the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden, I think the NSA surveillance programs violate the rights of American citizens. Based on my research, there has been little evidence to support that the NSA has stopped any attacks yet, they can continue to collect thousands of mega data every minute.In my opinion, there are only two solutions for this future of this program: One, the NSA surveillance programs must ask for a warrant before collecting information on any individual. Two, the NSA programs need to be defunded or disbanded. I think solution two is necessary for the sake of American privacy. In addition, not only has the NSA continued to collect information, but companies have mined and sold customer information to any bidder including the NSA. Companies have the ability to cross track any device owned by a single user meaning that if a consumer buys something online like a pair of shoes or anything really, that information can be used and other companies can target you with endless amounts of advertisements. Personally, this scares me because this means that companies can track exactly everything that I am buying and sell that information to other companies tracking your every move. Regardless, there is really nothing consumers can do because companies will continue to sell that information for a profit. The only solution that I can really think of is for the consumer to stop shopping online but what would be the probability of that happening. Overall, the NSA surveillance programs, which were implemented after the 9/11 attacks, gives authority for federal intelligence agencies to collect, monitor and store data of millions of American citizens without their knowledge or consent. These programs are in direct violation of the fourth amendment and do not withhold American values. The only way to stop the collection of data by the NSA is to either defund the program or disband it as a whole for the sake of Americans. Articles attached: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-f2D11783588 https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ftc_cross-device_tracking_report_1-23-17.pdf |
AuthorMy name is James Barquera and I am a second year student at CSUMB majoring in Computer Science with an emphasis on Data Science. Archives
May 2017
Categories |