How Science Fiction Failed Us – Privacy
So with my last write-up about Google Drive, I thought I would take a little bit and look at how Science Fiction has affected our concept of privacy and what’s considered “normal” and “off-limits”. This has been all over the news lately, if you know where to look, at least. Between Google trying to steal everyone’s data rights, and The House of Representatives passing CISPA, things are little closer to 1984 than I think I like.
Big Brother is Watching
The day Google tried to take over the world
All right, I’ll admit that the title is a little exaggeratory, but it’s not as far from reality as we might hope. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan. I use Google all the time. I have a Gmail account; I’ve had one since they required an invitation. I even convinced the place where I work to buy into Google Apps, which has been a wonderful transition for us. I’m afraid, though, of any business that overextends its reach, and I’m more afraid of companies that don’t know what’s there property and what isn’t. Let me explain.
How Science Fiction Failed Us: We All Loved Lightcycles
So I watching Tron tonight. Not the new one, but the original 1982 release. In the past, I’ve given a lot of credit to Star Trek for being the inspiration for much of the technology we use today. In watching this classic piece of science fiction, I realize that I don’t give enough credit where it’s due. Considering the heavy role computers play in today’s movie productions, Tron holds up surprisingly well, considering its age. Tron was cutting edge in 1982, using computer animations to fill green screen backdrops. But even if you ignore the animations, the concepts behind the story were even more ahead of their time.
How Science Fiction Failed Us: Great Scott!
Hello friends. I know it’s been a while, and I’m sorry I haven’t posted more. I have many more responsibilities with my job now, and we’ve experienced a great deal of growth over the last 18 months. Good for me, bad for the writing. However, I felt that the time to return was now, and I have some thoughts I’d like to share with you all.
As the title alludes, I’ve been thinking about one of my favorite movie franchises of late (mostly due to a marathon session a couple weeks back). I was the tender age of 10 when the original Back to the Future was released in theaters, and I was immediately hooked. That following Christmas, I asked for a skateboard (I never got very good… this was in the days before skate parks and Tony Hawk’s prominence) and I kept my eyes peeled for any stainless steel cars I might find. One of my closest friends actually made his own model version of the Delorian Time Machine out of parts from other models (yes… a truly dedicated fan who even went on to name his company after his favorite line – Check his site out).
It was wonderful traveling back to the past with Marty and Doc Brown, and it surely had to be pretty easy for Robert Zimeckis to represent a time in which he grew up (he was born in 1951). For four long years, we waited breathlessly for the sequel; the original movie having ended with the prophetic “To Be Continued”. Finally in 1989, Back to the Future Part II was released and we got our first glimpses at Marty’s future and the Hill Valley of tomorrow. Looking back at the movie now, there’s so much wrong with it, it’s difficult for me to relate, without ruining a cherished memory, but there were a few things I thought would fit into the mold of “How Science Fiction Failed Us”.
Thanks, Steve. You were one of us…
Today, the world lost a great man. Steve Jobs was a brilliant businessman. He was a natural salesman. Beneath it all, though, Steve was a geek.
He knew what we, as geeks, wanted. He knew what would get our brains moving and hearts pumping. He understood that power, speed and functionality could be beautifully packaged in such a way that all the world would want to have it as their own. He knew and understood because he was one of us.
The iPhone 4S: To buy or not to buy? The specs and features to help answer that question.
It’s official. The next generation iPhone is the iPhone 4S. Though Steve Jobs and his trademark, black turtleneck were noticeably absent, Apple new CEO, Tim Cook took the stage and delivered the much-anticipated details regarding what will undoubtedly become the company’s next big money-maker.
Much to the chagrin of many, the iPhone 5 didn’t appear. That doesn’t mean the iPhone 4S doesn’t come with noticeable improvements over its predecessor, the iPhone 4. Of course, the show included reports on Apple’s recent financial successes, store openings, etc. That said, we know that’s why you’re here, so we’ll get straight to the list of specifications and features that were unveiled during the big Apple event.
The iPhone (Insert Cool Number) Event: Where to watch it live
October 4, 2011 is finally here. As any respectable tech geek knows, today Apple is set to unveil the next-generation iPhone. Will it be called the iPhone 4S, iPhone 5 or, perhaps, the iMegaPhone. Okay, that last one is a stretch, but it has to be something exciting, right? While you may not have received a personal invitation from Apple to attend the event, you can join the connected masses who will be among the first to know its specs and features, through the techno-magic that is live-blogging.
For whatever reason, Apple decided against live-streaming the event, via its own website. There’s no need to worry, though, since there is no shortage of tech sites who will be live-blogging for your bandwidth-consuming pleasure. As in the past, we’ve put posted the schedule for various time zones, as well as a list of sites on which you can watch. It’s always advisable to get in early, turn on the auto-refresh, so you don’t miss a moment. It also doesn’t hurt to open up a few different live-blogs at the same time because…lets face it…some of the live-bloggers don’t post as quickly as others.
Nintendo: Can increased 3DS sales and new games save a 2D company?
Yesterday, Nintendo announced, via press release, that the next update for the Nintendo 3DS will include the ability to record video in 3D. Additionally, the company also touted the upcoming release of a new slidepad accessory for the device and new games like Super Mario 3D Land, Mario Kart 7 and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.
In a separate press release from a few days earlier, Nintendo lauded the fact that sales of its first 3D gaming device increased by 260 percent, since August 12, 2011, over the previous month’s sales. With the new accessory, games, device features, and sales increase, one would assume that things were great for Nintendo. Upon closer inspection, though, this might not actually be the case.
U.S. Government to AT&T: No bars in those places
This morning, Bloomberg broke the news that the U.S. Department of Justice, via, for lack of a better term, its parent company, the U.S. Government, formally filed a complaint to stop the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile assets by AT&T. Back in March of this year, GSL published a post on the proposed acquisition and detailed how we thought customers could emerge as the real winners.
For better or worse, though, it appears that the U.S. Government feels that such an acquisition would constitute a violation of U.S. Antitrust laws. Specifically, the complaint cites that a completed and approved deal would “substantially lessen competition” among the companies that make up the U.S. wireless market.
If Google is a combatant in the Identity Wars, who is the enemy?
It’s been a few months since Google launched Google+, its latest venture into social media. As is usually the case, sides were immediately chosen. Some lauded Google+ as the next big thing. On the other side, critics claimed it was no more than a feeble attempt to emulate Facebook. What was expected was for the debate to fade away, leaving Google+ users to post animated .gifs to their heart’s content. Of course, the critics would move on to their next target.
That isn’t the way it has really played out, though. No, Google upped the ante by quickly disallowing private profiles. I posted a piece on the private profile policy back on July 6, 2011. I expressed that it didn’t really matter, since one could choose to populate their profile with real or false information. I still thought it would all work out fine. Then came Google’s decision to begin suspending profiles with pseudonyms. This seemed a bit dicey, but there did seem to be a mechanism in place to request a review and validation of one’s pseudonym of choice. If favorably reviewed and determined to be for non-nefarious purposes, the person could keep using their pseudonym. It seemed simple, right? It was…until Google became an active combatant in the Identity Wars. The only problem is that it’s still difficult to discern who Google views as the enemy.
