A Birthday Post and Present

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/facebook-lets-users-buy-real-things-for-friends/?ref=technology&pagewanted=print

In an effort to diversify its revenue sources, Facebook is presenting users with an easy gifting process.  Indeed, those who partake of the social network need only select an item and recipient, type a greeting, and pay.  Offerings range from cupcakes to sunglasses and seemingly span from $35 to $95.  If this project is profitable, Facebook intends to launch a full virtual storefront.

 I have yet to decide if Facebook’s expansion to tangible, paid-for items will prosper.  Here’s the debate:

Facebook’s advantage is that it advertises the likely forgotten birthdays of friends.  Providing an immediate and convenient solution to flustered users as they ashamedly and belatedly recall their friends’ special day is a brilliant idea.

But…  Will this gesture look thoughtful or generic?  Will the gift selection ever expand enough to appeal to gift-givers?  To birthday boys and girls?  Will Facebookers who are accustomed to online deals pay retail prices for presents?

The likely outcome:  If one friend utilizes this service, others will imitate and the trend will take.  After all, the procedure offers ease and immediacy, two attributes expected by Americans.  However, that one friend must initiate this new Facebook feature or it will remain a mysterious service that lacks credibility, and that is greeted with snickers by Facebookers who refuse to overpay for unremarkable merchandise that indirectly funds the social network.

what's hAPPening?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/a-new-google-app-gives-you-local-information-before-you-ask-for-it/?ref=technology&pagewanted=print

This article details Google’s newest app, Field Trip.  The program seeks signals from cell towers to detect the location of users and then offers unprompted historical trivia about the area.  Google likens the app to “a local friend” who guides you on “your way through a city.”

 While this app does seem like a refreshing idea, awakening individuals to the lovely, rare, and titillating sights that comprise their surroundings, I am perturbed by the world this app foreshadows.  As the essay notes, “Google, along with other computers and researchers, dreams of so-called ubiquitous computing or ambient intelligence—computers woven into the texture of life as opposed to being separate machines.”  EEK.

Why do we need this?  Why must we place yet another shaving of unreality before of our eyes?  What information is so vital that it must disturb the serene flora and unfettered fauna the earth willingly and generously proffers?

Those who promote these technologies allege they will provide us with indispensable knowledge.  We will be informed, alert, and equipped for life.

I must ask…  With all of the latest apps, devices, websites, and technologies, do you notice much of a difference in us?  In our literacy?  In our concern for dying people?  In our retention of data?  In our familiarity with United States history?

Perhaps we’re more aware of things, but are we any different?  Any more knowledgeable?  I don’t think so.

Because ambient intelligence offers the same data as the aforementioned technologies, it will offer the same [lack of] benefits as those technologies.  Indeed, though its visibility tops that of the earlier devices, this is the only significant change.  Ambient intelligence will not improve us; it will merely distract, fluster, and aggravate us.

Must this be our future?  Must this app dictate the route of pending technologies?  Let me ask once more..what’s hAPPening to us?

Amazon Branches Out to Tree Huggers

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/amazon-starts-a-shopping-site-for-the-environmental-crowd/?ref=technology&pagewanted=print

As a prideful lover of all things leafy, floral, and natural, I am pleased to share this article about Vine.com, Amazon’s newest website that promotes green products.  Because the term “green” has been applied and misapplied by many, the website offers its own definition.  Items on this shopping website “must be designed to remove toxins, energy-efficient, natural, organic, powered by renewable energy, reusable, made of sustainable materials, or water-efficient.”  The website also offers “fair trade products and products made within 100 miles of a shopper’s home.”  From bamboo cutting boards to low-flow shower heads to locally crafted jewelry, an array of appealing and relatively earth-friendly items adorn the Vine.com website.

Naturally, criticism followed Amazon’s announcement.  Indeed, individuals reminded the corporation of the wasteful packing materials that will accompany these green products.  Naysayers also expressed disgust that Amazon would, through the acquisition of this website, suggest concern for the planet, as the corporation’s daily operations (e.g. its endless e-sludge (see WWW:  Wasteful Wireless Ways post), disposable/ imported items, and generally useless commercialized rubbish) oppose the earth’s vitality.  However, the unruffled site leader responded with the statement, “This is a site that is not necessarily about saving the planet.

Personally, I am befuddled by the responses of critics.  They oppose the packaging of the items?  Does no one understand that it is not the packaging that menaces us, but rather the simple and persistent trend of consumerism?  We buy, we receive, we swap old for new, we dispose.  Just think of the reusable water bottle situation.  If everyone purchased only one of these, perhaps the trend would be nifty and environmentally responsible.  But we buy so many more than one per person!  Now, we have an abundance of bottles composed of far sturdier materials than plastic and we toss those into the bins instead!  Hello people, the packaging is not the problem.

Anyway, my general response to the article is positive.  Indeed, as one who periodically searches for green products, I will feel that the “green content” or the “green function” of items featured on this site are somewhat legitimized by Vine.com’s staff.  I will know that, as far as online products go, these are relatively reputable.  Also, I am confident that, by presenting green products on one comprehensive and popular website, Vine.com will encourage consumers to seek ecological options when they shop online.

Cheers, Amazon.  This tree hugger is delighted you branched out with Vine.com.

Tag! Facebook says you're it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/technology/facebook-backs-down-on-face-recognition-in-europe.html?ref=technology&_moc.semityn.www

In June of 2012, Facebook acquired facial recognition software developed by an Israeli company.  This software eases the picture tagging process by identifying the individuals featured in images and automatically suggesting each name to rushed photo uploaders.

European nations are vexed, as this software compromises the privacy of Facebookers.  In my opinion, their ruffled feathers are merited.  One need only ponder the looming application of the intrusive technology to understand this European distress.

Imagine the year 2020.  Billboards and televisions are equipped with miniscule cameras that detect the faces (and thus, with this new Facebook technology, the identities) of observers.  You amble past a screen and a sensor jumps to the ready and scans you.  As a positive identification is reached, the devices tailor their programming and advertisements to your preferences, enticing you to purchase items and watch shows that appeal particularly to you.

You will squander money.  You will squander time.  You will grant technology further access to your mind, routine, and home.

Not to mention the surveillance implications of this software.  While few of us actually intend to commit a crime at any point in our lives, we can still find it intimidating and off-putting that, with this technology, storeowners, government agencies, and even wealthy individuals with security systems can review their surveillance footage and obtain the identities of unaware passersby.

Fortunately, United States politicians are finally stirring to offer their grumblings and grievances.  Indeed, ‘At a hearing on Capitol Hill last July, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, described Facebook as the “world’s largest privately held database of face prints — without the explicit consent of its users.”’

While I understand that this system marks a reasonable and natural progression of technology, I must condemn its continued use.  Though I have fewer secrets than a reality star, I cannot reconcile myself to this invasion, even in its mini Facebook form.

The solution?

I know.  Let’s all just spend three extra minutes to manually tag our friends and family.

Or, though this is slightly outrageous, we could even stop snapping pictures for a few moments, look up from our screens, and actually offer full presence to our lives!  How about that?

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood…with a computer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/computer-precision-for-power-tools-novelties.html?ref=technology

A Ph.D. student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently created a sophisticated tech-tool that will thrill those who enjoy crafts and construction.  Indeed, Ilan E. Moyer launched a “computerized addition to power tools that automatically performs precision measuring and cutting.”  Equipped with a camera, motors, and a video screen, the device guides individuals as they overcome the tricky task of shaping wood.

My reaction is scattered.  First, I do applaud those devices that permit everyday men and women to perform specialized and inaccessible tasks.  In a sense, such technologies expand our independence and equip us with the confidence and capacity to develop ourselves and to diversify our capabilities.

How do you feel after you accomplish a notoriously thorny activity?  I feel exceptional.  When I manage to assemble a seven foot kitty playhouse or to untangle an impossibly jumbled necklace, I feel exceptional.

This tool offers us a few more opportunities to feel exceptional.

However, I can never fully rejoice when yet another specialized skill becomes technologized.  Goodbye artisans.  Goodbye experts.  Goodbye Etsy vendors.  Goodbye to all those individuals who make a living carving, sanding, manipulating, and perfecting wooden art, accents, and sculptures.

Goodbye to our differences.  Goodbye to those unique and inimitable talents that distinguish us and that colorfully beautify the mosaic of mankind.

This seems extreme, but isn’t it true?  When everyone can perform a task, we lose our appreciation for it.  I may be making too much of a GPS for woodcutting but I can’t help it.  If When this device reaches the market, the skillsets of men and women will grow in resemblance as those same men and women wither in diversity.

WWW: Wasteful Wireless Ways

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?ref=technology&_moc.semityn.www

http://urthecast.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tech-and-globe.jpg

This article illuminates an often unacknowledged dilemma:  The tangible repercussions of our intangible wireless activities.

As the New York Times piece notes, online companies “run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock” and resultantly waste “90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid.”  Additionally, these companies utilize diesel generators and “thousands of lead-acid batteries” to power their computers and back-up systems.

It gets worse.  Read the following statistic with elevated feet and cellphone in hand:

“Worldwide, the digital warehouses use about 30 billion watts of electricity, roughly equivalent to the output of 30 nuclear power plants.”

Stop.  Just stop.

Our cumulative e-sludge is comparable to the suffocating waste of thirty nuclear power plants?

Pick up your jaw now.  It would be thoughtless to rob it of another shocked free-fall as the article wraps up with the following:

The alleged cause of these shameful statistics:  You.  Yep, you.  And me, I suppose.

The piece contends, “That’s what’s driving that massive growth—the end-user expectation of anything, anytime, anywhere…  We’re causing the problem.”

Though no bribe could compel me to promote mankind as irreproachable, I must express my disgust for this ineffective and pompous shift of blame.  Yes, we Google, eBay, and YouTube too much.  However, let’s not forget that we have developed these habits because companies greedily supply us handy and uninterrupted internet access.

Is a company environmentally conscientious if it defies pollution laws to provide better service and attract more customers?  No.

Is a company moral if it blooms as the earth shrivels?  No.

Then is it fair to blame the users?  No.

When we reduce this situation to its elemental makeup, we identify the legitimate cause-effect relationship.  Said succinctly, companies should never have offered us such unsustainable and poisoning internet capacities and speeds.

Think of a situation when a friend recommended a favorite dessert or television show.  You sampled their suggestion and thereafter clung to it with ferocious passion.  As you swallowed the sugars and observed the on-air nonsense, you attempted to hush the truth that the calories and content you so enjoyed were corrupting your wellbeing.

How is this different?  Companies supplied the internet, we gobbled it up, and the earth began to shriek.  We just couldn’t hear it.

But the companies could.  Their meters announced these transgressions in illuminated red block letters.

Their services encouraged our Wasteful Wireless Ways and promoted a communal web-dependent lifestyle that our home cannot withstand.

I saw that profile picture of you jumping off a bridge...so I went and jumped off too!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/politics/social-networks-affect-voter-turnout-study-finds.html?_r=1&ref=technology&pagewanted=print

http://www.blitzmediadesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/jumping-off-bridge.jpg

The cited article addresses Facebook’s ever-expanding influence on the choices and lifestyles of America’s users.  Indeed, one study found that a specialized Election Day message posted to the social networking site “generated 340,000 additional votes nationwide.”  Apparently, the Election Day message displayed to each user images of friends who had voted earlier that day.  Eager to imitate their friends, hundreds of thousands of Facebookers joined the ranks of voting Americans.

Convinced that this is a pervasive issue, scientists are proposing further studies that link weight loss to social networking as well.  As a professor of medical genetics and political science noted, “What we have shown here is that the online world and the real world affect one another.”

With a bombastic flourish, researchers designate this trend the “social contagion effect.”

Truthfully, I am surprised that such an obvious issue merits a New York Times article, let alone independent research at prestigious institutions.  People imitating people…  Why is this suddenly a novel discovery?  What else is man supposed to imitate if not his neighbor?  His daughter’s hermit crab?

If we didn’t imitate one another, why in the world would parents perpetually parrot that wretched bridge expression?  Of course we mimic the actions of our friends.  Of course our mimicry is surging now that we possess uninterrupted cyber-access to the choices and activities of those friends.  Of course, of course, of course.

 Is this a bad thing?

If social networking motivates people to vote and live healthily, then no.  If, however, it encourages users to abandon their true identities and adopt the behaviors and preferences of their Facebook friends, then yes.  Indubitably, yes.

To Remove or Not to Remove? That Is Google's Question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/google-wont-rethink-anti-islam-videos-status.html?ref=technology

On 15 September 2012, Google denied the White House’s request that the internet service remove the provocative anti-Islam YouTube video that has caused wild discord in the Arab world.

Ever deferential to the laws of the nations it serves, Google maintained that the video did not flout any regulations specific to Arab countries “because it was against the Muslim religion but not the Muslim people.”

Moving for a moment to the general procedures of Google, the corporation does not police the videos that are uploaded to YouTube because such a task is decidedly undoable.  Seventy two hours of video are uploaded to the site each minute, causing Google to investigate only those videos that are flagged by users as inappropriate or that receive a valid court order/ government request for removal.

What to think?  It seems as though Google found a slight loophole in the wording of the laws of Arab nations.  Good for Google.  Though I promise that I recognize the tremendous repercussions and stupidities of the coming statement, I must tout my belief that unrestricted speech is always the way to go.

As readers of my blog have learned, I am hardly a technology enthusiast.  However, one accomplishment I do reluctantly assign to the cyber realm is that it has generously gifted each forcibly hushed living being with the potential for worldwide, vociferous impact.  This is an unspeakable triumph.

Though Google’s decision is cheeky and provocative, I laud the corporation for its uncaring resolve.  Indeed, Google respects its users enough to show them everything it can, including its objectionable content.

Did you catch my use of the word “respect?”  I said it and I meant it.  Despite the corporation’s absurd wealth, it defers to the judgments of its users.  We decide what is appropriate.  We decide what is crass.  We decide what is lovely.  We decide what is worthwhile.  Yes, this means we will encounter startlingly offensive videos and posts that demean our values, religions, lifestyles, origins, colors, upbringings, etc.

But given the resilience of mankind, isn’t it worth it?

So THAT'S your password!

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/microsoft-finds-pcs-that-ship-pre-infected/?ref=technology

http://www.blog.qarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1270635642_1243530292_microsoft-in-tela.jpg

Last week, Microsoft learned that new computers released from Chinese factories boasted one unintended feature:  A preloaded virus.  To add to Microsoft’s natural corporate panic, this crafty computer bug is of the particularly nasty variety.  Capable of such clandestine acts as switching on a customer’s webcam and recording their keystrokes, the virus permits cyber-villains to metaphorically ransack a consumer’s laptop of all coveted personal information.

Microsoft’s squad of digital crime investigators found that, of the twenty random computers they purchased from various Chinese manufacturers, four “were running counterfeit versions of Windows software that were infected with the virus.”

Microsoft’s subsequent speedy takedown of this network of infected computers is consistent with its security campaign called Project MARS (Microsoft Active Response for Security).  Members of the campaign independently pursue threats to Microsoft’s products and customers the moment they are detected, allowing law enforcement agencies to cross the yellow tape at their understandably delayed convenience.

Now, we are all familiar with the presence of hackers, malware, viruses, etc.  Indeed, we accept their company with general nonchalance.  A fair statement?  I think so.  After all, aside from my free AVG download, I have taken no precautions to protect my thus-far-functional Lenovo.

Moreover, when a pernicious virus does seize our devices, our reactions are generally mild.  Because we all expect an eventual PC security breach, when it does happen, we are unsurprised and even relieved.  Yet again, technology failed to fail us…by failing us!  If you can grip that circular statement, I’m trying to assert that we expect these things to happen and are unaffectedly passive when they do (unless in the middle of a class report or shopping purchase).

While our calm reactions hardly boost Aspirin sales, I must ask:  Should our peace at such personal invasions not compel us to pause?  To reassess?  To warily retreat from the machines that grope and grab at our cyber-selves?

Indulge me for a moment:

Human minds house our most personal thoughts, our all-important financial information, our memories of family outings, and all of the individual tidbits and surprises that construct our corporeal form and our metaphysical beings.  If a thief cracked the code to our brains and fled with this information, we’d recognize his act as the monumental transgression that it is.

But wait…  All those things that our minds contain…  All those precious things that make us…us…  Didn’t we just input them into our computers yesterday?  And the day before?  And the day before that?  And last year?  Isn’t that what I’m doing right now?

Why do we continue to insert ourselves into technologies that are so easily plundered and despoiled?  As a population, we need to pause our tweeting, texting, posting, Googling, blogging, ordering, and gaming for just one moment and decide…

Do we want to be inimitable?  Or do we want to implant so much of ourselves into technology that we become hack-able, reproducible, unremarkable beings?

If a smartphone rings in Uruguay...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/a-firefox-smartphone-for-the-poor/?ref=technology

The cited article is an intriguing one, as it addresses Mozilla’s mission to release a mobile operating system for smartphones, which it will market to the developing world.

Apple and Google phones are too pricy for these technologically evolving populations, resulting in a tantalizingly uncrowded market.

Mozilla hopes to price its Firefox models between $100 and $115, or “one-third to one-sixth the cost of the competition.”

In terms of the phones’ capabilities, they will offer “the middle of the high end of the feature set,” boasting touch screens, cameras, accelerometers, and Firefox browsers.

Though China advertises cheaper smartphones in the developing world, their $70 models offer miniscule screens and outdated software, marking them as inferior products.

Though my face adopts an unattractive soured expression when I think of the looming contamination of beautiful cultures by the corrosive, pernicious, homogenizing effects of technology, I cannot deny the brilliance of Mozilla’s plan.  Indeed, marketing smartphones to struggling individuals who covet modernity and global significance constitutes a tactical triumph.

Because Mozilla cannot advance a product that rivals those of Apple and Google, it is logical for the company to pursue a business model that does not crave technological excellence, but instead seeks impressively widespread distribution.  Indeed, Mozilla realizes that Apple and Google are inaccessible to developing populations and chooses to market to those nations.

Two things I will never cease to appreciate are simplicity and cleverness.  Kudos to Mozilla for cultivating a plan that boasts both.

The Re-acknowledged Might of Paper and Pen

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/jobs/pen-and-paper-still-practical-in-the-office-workstation.html?ref=technology

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gxq5uJIKars/S3OHjykMHTI/AAAAAAAACVM/kISvdCa8-0Y/s640/LittleGirlWritingAtDesk7260.jpg

I love the first three words of this essay:  “Paper still matters.”  Ahhhhh.  That was a serene exhalation, FYI.

Throughout this article, the author notes man’s return to such paper products as planners, notepads, and printed pages.  These modes of reading and writing more thoroughly engage individuals in their tasks and, in so doing, heighten productivity.

Indeed, off-screen reading permits workers to better understand the geography of a document and to reflect on the ideas presented.

I knew that the “aesthetic experience” of paper would one day return as a trendy throwback to sophisticated times.  I must note, however, that it took mankind a despicably long time to realize that we cannot achieve the pervasive urbanity and impact of Emerson and Shakespeare without ever touching pen to paper.

Another supremely worthwhile quotation reads, ‘Paper reminds us that “we’re physical beings despite having to contend with an increasingly virtual world...  It slows us down to think and to contemplate and to revise and recast.’”  I agree.

Though I am always pleased to defend such timeless tasks as writing and turning pages, I should admit that I could never have attained such undergraduate success without a computer.  I was an English major at Quinnipiac University and partially attribute my impressive essays to the perks of Microsoft Word.  The ease of deleting, rearranging, and locating appropriate synonyms helped me craft the most academically moving papers.  Though I would willingly recapture my softball days to pitch such horrible technologies as cell phones and internet routers into the willing gloves of my former teammates, I might not have excelled as a student without Microsoft Word.

I suppose, then, that I enthusiastically agree with this article’s assertions, though I would insist on retaining a one-function computer to compose all final drafts on the back-lit, faux-paper screen of Microsoft Word.

Virtual Reality-->Virtual Life

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/technology/valve-a-video-game-maker-with-few-rules.html?ref=technology

Readers of this New York Times piece encounter the imminent innovations of the gaming company Valve Corporation.  For those unfamiliar with Valve, this company presented the virtual world with the Half-Life series.  This reference means little to me, but then again, the last video game I played was Mario Kart on my N64…

According to the article, Valve is a startlingly original company with pioneering ideas and lauded foresight.  Currently, Valve is developing “the next big thing in games.”  Are you ready?

Wearable computing goggles are Valve’s present direction.  “This technology could let players lose themselves inside a virtual reality and, eventually, blend games with their views of the physical world.”

Though I have little understanding of the appeal of gaming, I do not condemn it, as my own hobbies are hardly more redeemable.  Indeed, online shopping and reality television are likely less reputable leisure activities than gaming, considering they neither exercise nor expand my mental capabilities.

That being said, when I browse eBay for a new purse or watch reruns of the latest Housewife spectacles, I do not forfeit my worldly presence to a virtual world.  I maintain all awareness of my present surroundings and never disengage from the truth of my existence.  Can the same be said of video games?

As a lover of books, I suppose I do recognize the perils of tempting alternate worlds.  Indeed, when I engage too severely in a novel, I begin to long for that fictional reality.  This mode of video gaming is even more threatening to man’s awareness, as it offers alluring depictions of a world that promises tangible pleasures, but can never legitimately supply them.

Overall, I fear this type of technology because, pixel by pixel, it distances man from truth.

More White Squares, Fewer Green Rectangles

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/can-square-remain-hip/?ref=technology

This article discusses Square, a payments company that permits all businesses, regardless of size or savvy, to accept credit cards by attaching a card reader to their Android, iPhone, or iPad.  Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, leads this company.

As the article notes, “Square charges merchants 2.75 percent of the amount transacted when a card is swiped, or $275 a month.  That’s at the low end of the fee scale.  But it may also be too low for Square to profit on payments below $10, which are a big part of Square’s business.”  Evidently, some speculate that Square’s profit margin is unsustainable, given the fees charged by credit card companies.  However, partnerships with such retailers as Starbucks offer hope to Square as it attempts to expand the popularity of its tiny, white payment device.

My two reactions to this article are seemingly contradictory.  Predictably, I am disappointed by the nearly universal rejection of traditional forms of paper currency.  Little by little, money is becoming more of an idea and less of a germy, clanking, graffitied, yet still satisfyingly tangible object.

Conversely, I do promote those technologies and devices that assist small businesses.  Because it is exceptionally difficult to compete with the power sellers that manipulate and define this global economy, I am pleased to read of a tool that specifically targets the world’s smaller scale companies.  From farmers to in-home manufacturers, Square will aid such overlooked businesses as they complete daily transactions.  For this reason, I view Square as a less superfluous technology than most others.

And thus, the double-edged sword stabs us once more.

The Directional Distress that is GPS

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/technology/gps-and-human-error-can-lead-drivers-astray-digital-domain.html?ref=technology

This article presents the results of a study conducted to find the true source of GPS failures.  When we miss turns, select incorrect lanes, and beg the darn contraption to recalculate, does the fault reside with the technology or with the self-proclaimed techies who abuse it?  According to research performed by a professor-student team, the blame can be assigned to the flawed human users.  Apparently, human error explains many of the directional difficulties experienced by the subjects of the study.  Whether the surveyed drivers were programming incorrect destinations into the GPS or gazing at the screen for 200 milliseconds too long, they were the primary causes of their geographic distress.

The study also revealed that voice-only instructions are more effective because they eliminate the disruption of a colorful and diverting screen.  However, drivers responded to this revelation with the unrelenting assertion that they “felt anxious without [a screen].”

My thoughts?  When did paper maps lose all credibility?  (You will swiftly find that I am hardly technology’s most earnest enthusiast.)  Anti-technology sentiments aside, however, I find it troubling that, when confronted with research that confirms the distraction of a GPS screen, drivers childishly maintain that they require one.

Why does a screen sooth us?  Does the four inch LCD perched on our dashboards remind us that we are not without resources?  That we are not alone?  Are we that dependent on technology?  Though I admit to using (and even relying upon) a GPS, I would be willing to adopt voice-only instructions, especially if assured that they are safer and more effective.

But this query is an interesting one.  Do we regard screenless technology with the same reverence as those devices that boast a vivid display?  Hardly.

Somehow, “no screen” has come to mean “no fun.”

The Wave of Wi-Fi

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/technology/olympics-stimulate-growth-of-wi-fi-service-in-britain.html?_r=1&ref=technology

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120720053901-tower-bridge-olympics-story-top.jpg

The cited article discusses the heightened availability of free public Wi-Fi networks in Britain since the Summer Olympics.  In the early months of 2012, a number of providers offered complimentary wireless service to populated areas in preparation for the Games.  Apparently, free Wi-Fi benefits far more people than the expected frugal or low-tech consumers.  Indeed, this no-cost internet access assists mobile providers who, in an unending yet perpetually ineffective effort to satisfy customers, are frantically combatting overcrowded mobile networks.

One more worthwhile tidbit from the article:  “The number of Wi-Fi hot spots worldwide will reach 5.8 million by the end of 2015, up from 800,000 in 2012.”

What to think?  I concede that this strategy is a reasonable one.  Mobile providers extend their wireless reach by offering more hot spots and, in so doing, alleviate the bustling mobile traffic that plagues industrious consumers and the helpless telephone support teams who must calm said industrious consumers.

However, I must ask…is no one concerned about the escalating quantity of unseen data waves, cell phone signals, and incorporeal tech traffic that assail our unprotected bodies each day?  Though 5.8 million hot spots will hardly be considered an inconvenience to web-dependent individuals, will they threaten our physical wellbeing?  The accessibility of the internet is already robbing us of our presence and immediacy.  As we cross the street, we glance at our phones and not at the green mosaics of the summer.  As we recline at home, we watch the television, and not the expressions of our animated friends and children.

So when I wonder if 5.8 million hot spots will harm us in some further way, I sigh into my overbright, pulseless computer screen and acknowledge, “Yep, they will.”