Author Archives: Vincent Chen

Summary of Activity on this Site


Number of Posts: 12
Number of Comments: 12

Homework #5 Question 2

After learning about filter bubbles and how we can possibly be giving up more of our personal information than we realize, I have thought and have taken a few steps to avoid filter bubbles and giving up personal information in excess. To avoid filter bubbles, I delete my cookies frequently so that companies won’t have any or a full idea of what to “show” me so that I am not bogged down by things that they want me to see in the hopes that I will purchase or visit a certain site. Furthermore, to stop myself from accidentally giving up too much personal information, I have searched up various search engines that doesn’t collect and catalog my searches to create a profile of me or that gives my information away (or sell). I have found the search engine DuckDuckGo to be good in preventing the above as well as being a decent search engine. I also ask my peers, friends and family for interesting things to look for or to check out on the internet so that I am not stuck or trapped by looking only at things that I am used to or know well.

Pets and Technology

This article talks about how there are projects that are looking into the creation of technology that is specified for pet’s to use or interact. Reading this article brings up a question, will technology change the way we interact with animals positively or negatively? I ask this because at the moment such projects seem cool, fun and funny but what such technology lessens actual interaction with animals/pets or weakens the ties/bonds? Take the PetPal for example. it allows a pet owner to watch, communicate and feed their pet from far away. This seems novel idea because you won’t have to worry about forgetting to put food our for your pet or if you are faraway and miss your pet, you can see them easily but could there come a time when such interactions become the norm instead of actually going up to your pet and interacting with them through physical means? I think about this because in class, we talked about how social media (Facebook, Twitter) is one of the main ways of interaction that people have with each other now and before social media, physical interactions was the main way. So, I think my main question is, does technology strengthen or weaken bonds that we have with other people and will technology strengthen or weaken bonds with our pets?

Regulators of Italian Websites

In this article, it is stated that in Italy, instead of having a court handle copyright infringement, regulators are given the power to handle such situations. In the case the article talks about, a website containing 11 movies was blocked by the regulator AGCOM. This is seen as a drastic move because upon further inspection, the site removed all of the movies so instead of blocking the site, AGCOM could have properly contacted the site owner to tell him to remove the content, however, they decided to in a sense “squash an ant with a hammer”. Another problem with what they did is that AGCOM said that the website was guilty of massive infringement even though that is an overstatement. The problem with this is that AGCOM is setting themselves up for future issues by giving such a small issue a drastic action and by being so loose with their definition of massive infringement. This reminds me of how in HCE, Shirky essentially says that we have to focus more on how to remedy issues instead of stopping them from popping up. In this case, sites that have illegal content are impossible to stop from being created but when found, they can be shutdown, however if the definition of what is allowed and what isn’t is too loose, then it could be troublesome to handle either. My question is, should user generated materials be regulated?

Smartphone Dangers

This article begins by citing the experience of a young woman named Sarah Maguire in losing her cellphone after a night of drinking. What happens is that she uses an iphone application called “find my iphone” to discover the location of her phone. She then goes alone to a house where the application indicated and confronted a man about the cellphone, eventually getting it back. What Sarah Maguire did may have seemed very brave but in my opinion was very foolish. In many cases of lost or stolen cellphones, civilian efforts to retrieve their phones do not always end up as easy and clean as Sarah Maguire’s case. In the article, it talks about how an off duty officer called upon three other off duty officers to go and retrieve his son’s stolen phone after using a smartphone gps locator to find it. He did this because he didn’t know what he might be walking into. The article also talks about cops warning people to call the police and to not act by themselves in such situations. After reading this article, I feel as though technology is causing people to not think clearly. What I mean by this is that especially in this case, people can locate their stolen phones but instead of thinking clearly and calling the cops, they decide to go in themselves. If a person gets their phone back by confronting the thief themselves. So my question is, does technology lower our common sense?

Generation Like

Admittedly, I didn’t realize there was a power behind “likes”, both in the economic and social environment. Upon watching the documentary Generation Like (hosted by Douglas Rushkoff), I gained insight into the power that “likes” have. Simply clicking the like button on Facebook, on YouTube or virtually any site, generates a wide variety of information about yourself that is accessible to people or groups with the right means. The groups who would care about such information would be companies, companies want to know what you like so that they are able to create a profile that they think best describes you for the purposes of advertising the right things to you and making you want to purchase.

Though I believe that there are winners and that they are companies that sell and buy such information, I do not believe that there are losers in this situation – however, I don’t think that it won’t be that way for long. At the moment, we click “like” on websites because we want others to know that we like something so how can we be losers when we consciously know that we are giving up information to be seen by the public? However, we can become losers if companies giving away our “likes” information for profit start to move beyond that and give up more or more private information without us consciously being aware of it.

Above, I spoke about the economic power but the social power of “likes” is nothing to be scoffed at. “Likes” have become something like a scale that measures peoples’ popularity or social standing. Everyone strives to get more “likes” in an attempt to be more popular, to be more liked or to seem superior to others who can’t get as much likes as them. I think that teens are somewhat aware of the power of “likes” but perhaps they don’t see what it does to their views of people. A teenager that has a lot of “likes” is instantly a hit and becomes someone that others look up to. However, a teenager with little or no “likes” would be looked down on. I think that here is definitely a power behind “likes” and that it is still growing and can become something dangerous for the average person in terms of privacy and information.

 

Watts and Strogatz

Watts and Strogatz cited 27 sources. The disciplines and subjects that are cited seem to revolve around biology in terms of infectious diseases, genetic algorithms, nerves and cellular events. There were also a couple of sources that deals with psychology and spatial relations. This article is cited 8749 times and the top 3 authors who cite this article are Chen GR, Wang BH and Zhou T. The subjects that tend to cite this article are multidisciplinary physics, mathematical physics and physics of fluid plasmas. Over time it seems as though the article is cited more, in 2007 the percentage of citations was 8.343% (of the total citations) and in 2013 it was 13.925%, thus showing an increase in the times the article is cited over time.

#FaucetProblems

While this may seem like a minor issue, the fact that the faucets in the Baruch bathrooms do not stay on for longer than a few seconds at most is something that affects everyone in the Baruch community and peeves many.  It is a sanitary issue as much as it is an annoyance because one can never easily fully wash their hands.

The social media we can use to increase awareness are Vines. We can hold a Vine “challenge” where the users attempt to make a Vine video with a Baruch bathroom faucet lasting as long as the 7 seconds that a Vine records.

We can also create a petition on change.org for the increase of faucet running time. We could also put up memes of faucet problems on various social media websites and Instagram with hashtags.

The cons of Instagram would be that it is limited because only people who are following you would see the pictures.

 

Unfairness at the Olympics?

I found an interesting article that talks about a petition that resulted from the free skating event in the Olympics. The article is here. During the free skating event, Yuna Kim who is a gold medalist is beaten by Adelina Sotnikova. A petition ensues after these results are given because it seemed likely that Kim would win over Sotnikova especially since Kim didn’t make as many mistakes as Sotnikova. It is even said that on the score sheet for Kim, she received a zero for one of her jumps although she did it perfectly. Needless to say, the petition occurred out of outrage at the Olympics allowing something allegedly unfair to happen.

The petition for the reconsidering of Yuna Kim to be the gold medalist instead of the silver medalist is over a million backers strong. However, it is said that the decision will not be over written or reconsidered. What I want to ask here is, how is this gathering and petitioning different than what happened in Here Comes Everybody when the woman leaves her phone in a cab? The woman who left her phone in the cab was able to get her phone back through a bunch of voices gathering together as well as with evidence but didn’t have nearly as much people backing the cause as the petition for Yuna Kim. The petition for Yuna Kim has evidence and has an immense backing but nothing is going to change, why is that?

Tweets at Sochi

About 2 weeks ago I found an article online that talked about conditions in hotels at Sochi. Here is the article. The article talked about journalists at Sochi finding themselves in less than desirable conditions in terms of hotel rooms. The journalists in the article “talked” about their hotel horror experience by tweeting them. One journalist had a tweet on how they were told that they shouldn’t wash their face with the hotel water and that tweet was accompanied with a picture of the hotel water – which was a yellowish amber color.

What surprised me about this article was how the journalists tweeted their experiences and although the things that they tweeted about were serious and dangerous living conditions, it almost seemed as if they are displaying their experiences in a comedic way. My question is, when sharing experiences through social media technology, are things serious things taken more lightly? I ask this because in the article it felt like the journalists were making jokes out of their hazardous living conditions instead of legitimately showing that it is a problem.

Emil Gernert

I had Emil Gernert as a recitation professor for biology and he is an expert in the natural sciences. Even more specifically, he is an expert in the mold Aspergillus because he has written an article on the physiology of the mold Aspergillus. He is highly rated at Baruch, he is a chair in the medical school recommendation committee and is responsible for developing upper level courses in the department.

Link: Emil Gernert



Comments:

"I think this is a really cool thing to be doing but I don't really understand it. How does me not going on my phone allow UNICEF to give clean water to people who are in need of it? I mean, I am all for it, I believe that clean water is one of the essential things in life and that everyone should be allowed to have it but how does me not touching my phone generate the ability to give clean water? I'm not knocking the idea, I am just confused about it. And how is the clean water distributed? I guess maybe there are sponsors but why don't those sponsors sponsor a water retrieval and filtration system instead? (maybe they are) or why don't they just do it without making it hinge on whether or not we can stay away from our phones?"
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post DON’T TOUCH YOUR PHONE FOR 10 MINUTES

"I think that no matter what or how people argue, technology or technological devices are useful asset to learning in classrooms - as long as its in the TEACHER'S/PROFESSOR'S hands. A teacher can use stuff like projectors, computers, etc to enhance the learning experience and I think that a good base of computer knowledge should be instilled into kids (below 5th grade) but I don't think that laptops, tablets, cellphones, etc are essential to enhancing the learning experience because there will always be the temptation to do something other than learn and more often than not, that temptation will be acted upon. But, every individual is different and some may be able to resist using their devices inappropriately."
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post Digital devices in the classroom

"Wow, this is kind of scary. To think that a computer algorithm is already so close to being so human like but at the same time, those books follow a formula and are predictable in the sense that they are going to go a certain way and are in no way a bestseller of any kind. I don't think that we have anything to worry about in the sense that an algorithm is still far from a human. I think that this is really intriguing though because something like this can maybe lead to more innovative creations - if we are able to make an algorithm to self create books, who is to say that one day there will be an algorithm that can answer the meaning of life? haha."
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post Author of 1000 Books?

"This is something that is really funny as it is creepy. I personally would never pay for bots or anything of that manner because likes and followers aren't something that I personally care about. I don't think that this is something we should worry too much about but maybe more of feel sad about. It's sad to think that something like this is a popular way of going about social media because it just creates this self replenishing need for people to get likes or followers. What I mean is, if a person gets bots to follow them or like them then they will seem super popular and other people may want to be just like them and will also attempt to get more likes and in doing so, they may also turn to bots and so on and so on."
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post Bots bots bots!

"I'm not so sure if other airlines should hop on to this even though it does sound interesting and innovative. However, although it sounds great, how many people have actually said that it was a good thing? or a great thing? I think that this kind of networking may be safest only for professionals because if people use it for non business purposes, wouldn't it be easy for someone to target another person using such networking means for theft, abduction, or worse? - especially if they are going to a foreign country. People could use the network as a system to select prime targets for criminal acts. Although, I may also just be exaggerating, definitely interesting though!"
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post Network at 35,000 Feet

"I don't think that anyone wants privacy to be something that only people who have money can afford. Our own privacy should be in our own control and having said that, it isn't always but at the same time it kind of is. What I said is confusing but what I mean is that our own privacy is still somewhat in our own control, at the very least, it is here in the U.S. A lot of things that we want to do on the internet or on social media requires information and when we give up that information, we essentially give up our privacy. Therefore, how tightly we control our privacy is in related to how much we want to engage in social media and on the internet. But no matter what, people should be allowed to control their privacy, whether or not they have money to squander."
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post Has Privacy Become a Luxury Good?

"I think that even if there were a large amount of dropbox users that only acquired the free space (via social media connection), dropbox would still be profiting. This is because, if people try to get that free space by connecting their facebook accounts to it or by referring friends to it, they still create traction towards dropbox and eventually someone will want to pay for a bigger amount of space than what is freely provided or dropbox will incorporate more ads into it so that they may get money through advertisement."
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post Do you realize the value of social tools?

"I have never thought about it before and by "it", I mean using our phones as payment tools. It seems only logical not to use our phones as payment tools because of how easily our phones can leave our sight and our possession. If a phones were used as payment tools that stores sensitive information was stolen then there would be so much to worry about. It wouldn't just be about retreiving the phone but restricting access to the information inside the phone or restricting the ability of the person who has your phone to purchase or make transactions on your phone. Also, I think that if cellphones were highly used as payment tools, there would most likely be an increase in cellphone thefts."
posted on May 14, 2014, on the post Payment Apps

"I feel that this speaks volumes about how as society gets more advanced, technology gets more advanced and then abused. Back 50 years, there was no such thing as online shopping and now that there is - it should be seen as something positive and helpful but instead it can be seen as something potentially dangerous because your sensitive information can be taken away at any time by someone miles and miles away and the possibility that they may never be caught is even more daunting."
posted on Feb 21, 2014, on the post Cyber-crime

"I agree with the disadvantage that " In order to get social media’s full effect, we have to understand how it works, when and how to use it and which channels to focus on." I think that a lot of problems occur when people don't have a full understanding of how something works and that applies to social media usage as well. Sometimes, people don't fully understand the limitations or lack of limitations in social media when they use it and end up in bad situations. An example of this is if somebody puts up a photo that may unintentionally be insulting to someone and they think that the photo is only limited to people they know or that they put it away into an untouchable folder but in reality, the photo can be seen by anyone due to negligence of "privating" something, locking something, etc. Social media can be a tool but if not understood fully then its more of a double edged sword."
posted on Feb 21, 2014, on the post Disadvantages and Advantages of Social Media

"I think that you make a very valid point regarding how we are so connected to social media and how we have a certain drive to share things - even at death's door. I personally would not have taken a picture of myself but would have called my loved ones instead. However, although it sounds irrational for her to have posted a picture of herself after getting shot, if her goal was to emphasize and back up the reasons for the protest then I guess it doesn't seem so weird."
posted on Feb 21, 2014, on the post Social need to share

"The scanners are a nice addition to the library but bedbugs? That's gross, somebody should do an article on that."
posted on Jan 30, 2014, on the post seats, scanners and bedbugs