I recently read this article, about a man getting a divorce with this phone because he believes that he is spending too much time on it. In the article he mentions that phones are supposed to be an accessory but as time progressed it has become more than that. We are so addicted to our phones that we put it above many things such as our loved ones. I agree because I cannot remember a time when I am with family or friends and I am not texting someone else. To some extent I think that we are so addicted to our phones because we don’t like to be alone. For example, when we are waiting for someone we are on our phone because we are still in contact with others so we don’t feel “alone”. But the problem is even when we are with others we are still playing with our phones.

Throughout this semester, we have analyzed and seen the changes with technology and how it  revolves around our lives. Although many of us would admit that we can’t leave our smartphones at home alone and enjoy the day without it, there is one more thing that most smartphone users still unable to do/rather not do with their high-tech phones: Using their phones as payment tools.

In a new report from BI Intelligence, [they] explain why mobile peer-to-peer (P2P) payment apps offer consumers significant advantages over cash and check transactions. They make transferring money faster, less expensive, and more precise. They also reduce the hassle of going to a money transfer agency, remembering a checkbook, or finding an ATM.

Many new generation of apps are invented to help consumers with using their phones as payment tools but still, many would pass that offer. Let’s see why.

Most people don’t trust their phones to do certain payments such as purchasing an item on Ebay, Amazon, or many shopping sites. However, in the context of peer-to-peer payment transactions such as money transfers (Chase Quickpay, PopMoney,etc), this payment apps is really helpful. Many people, including myself, rather not store some personal information and purchase an item online because of these top three reasons below.

Where do you stand?

[If the chart is unclear, open this link]

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-growth-of-payment-apps-2014-4#ixzz30HcOzfPn

As I was trying to upload my photos from my phone to Dropbox last night, I found out there was not enough space left to upload the photos. Therefore, I clicked on the button “Get more space”. The page in the picture above popped up. The first option is to upgrade your account, and of course, not for free. In order to get 50 GB of space, I will have to pay $99 per year. I was shocked by how much I have to pay to get some online space. If I had to pay $99, I would rather buy USBs.

Without a doubt, I looked at other options. Surprisingly, all the other options were free, and one thing they had in common is that they somewhat requires you to use social tools. First, if you have a Facebook account and Twitter account, by connecting your accounts to Dropbox, you can get 250MB free space right away. Second, by referring to a friend, you can get 500MB free space. In my opinion, one of the most efficient way to refer to a friend is by using those social tools, such as Facebook, Twitter, and email. For example, if you have 300 Facebook friends, and one third of your friends (100 people) signed up for Dropbox through your reference, you will be able to get about 50GB space on Dropbox. In other words, by using social tools, you have saved $99.

First of all, why would companies ever want to make such deals that they don’t seem to get any direct compensation for? In my opinion, this is because they understand the value of social tools. Dropbox wanted its users to be its advertisers as well. This is the similar idea from the video Generation Like. Companies nowadays realize the value of sharing among its users. Therefore, companies like Dropbox would be willing to give up some of its profit to gain potential users and earnings. However, what if all of its users use social tools to get free online space, and no one actually needs to pay anything in the end. Do you think it is realistic and realizable?

So if one is unsure of something or would like a second opinion, where does one turn to these days? The internet. Some may turn to Yahoo Answers to ask their questions, or may simply turn to social media such as Twitter, Facebook, or even YouTube to get feedback. Using the internet as a tool to ask questions is useful in terms of gaining wider opinions and views.
This article is in relation to a couple not knowing what to name their child, who then thus turned to the internet community to help name their child. The father started the website, namemydaughter.com, where people were freely left to suggest baby names and would cast votes on what name one favored over another. Although the winner of the name was ridiculous, the parents went with the second most voted on name from the site.
I feel like this type of action where one seeks the help of the internet community is beneficial and enjoyable, nevertheless the ones who make unnecessary comments or hateful comments. Making a site like this brings the internet community together, thus also creating social groups.

I found this interesting as team 1 just made their presentation about flash mobs and protests.

As the basketball playoffs continue, a silent protest broke out before the game between the Clippers and Golden State Warriors. The owner of LA Clippers, Donald Sterling, made racist comments during a conversation with his girlfriend and eventually led to the woman stating that he has a whole team of black people playing for him. He responded “You just, do I know? I support them and give them food and clothes and cars and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I have – who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners that created the league?”

This controversy and negativity floating around the team became a distraction for the Clippers. To make a unified statement, they all tossed their warm-up jackets with the Clippers name on the front to midcourt and then warmed up with their shooting shirts inside out so the word “Clippers” are not across their chest. Do you think the team made a good statement by doing a silent protest? How effective do you think it was?

Privacy has been a concern for a while. In past four years, I have heard many times that there’s no such a thing called “privacy”. However, the author of a NY times article gave the issue a different dimension. The article I was reading is here.

The author has taken a lot of time and spent some good amount of money as an attempt to protect her privacy. I would simply give up since I can’t really do much to protect the privacy of information that I put on the web! However, I do like the 2 questions she has posed. They are here: Can we ensure that those who can afford to buy privacy services are not being deceived? And even more important, do we want privacy to be something that only those with disposable money and time can afford?

Last month, Facebook bought a company called Oculus Rift for $2 Billion. WOW! What makes this company so special?

They are attempting to revolutionize the way we watch movies, by mass producing a headset that allows us to be completely immersed in the image in front of us. The company wants to produce a product that is for all consumers, so the price will supposedly be affordable. But what does this mean for our eyes? And what about the intimacy of watching a movie with other people? I can’t tell if this is a good invention, or an invention that will begin to tear humanity apart.

When we watch movies with other people, it is a shared experience that provides us comfort and the ability to be on a personal level with someone else. If it’s a comedy, you laugh together. In horror movies, you experience the anticipation together. Action movies, you’re entertained together………..etc. My point is..this is taking away from that experience..are two people supposed to sit on a couch together with the glasses on and time everything correctly so the movies are playing at the same time??? It just seems so awkward….and when I think about the ROOT of it: that is, Mark Zuckerberg bought this company, after creating a social media platform that was at its core an outlet for on campus dating…well then it starts to make sense that he would go and create something that would further divide the human race…

Although one could argue that Facebook has allowed for a feeling of togetherness, I kind of feel like the numerous outlets in which we portray ourselves has left people feeling incomplete, and confused about their own identity…because there are so many different representations we have of ourselves: one through Facebook, Instagram, Twitter….these seem like separate entities of our personalities and I feel like this brings about a lot of self-identity issues for people my age.

What are your opinions on Oculus Rift? Is it a beneficial or harmful invention?

“Help us make up who we want to be” is the phrase I constantly saw on some subway advertisement lately (please refer to the picture). What caught my eye at once were not only the amazing make-up looks, but also a girl named Michelle Phan. On the advertisement, it says Michelle had over 5 million YouTube subscribers. This YouTube millionaire girl interested me and I decided to watch some of her videos on YouTube. Surprisingly, when I looked her up on YouTube, her subscribers on YouTube had raised to over 6 million already. Later on, I found out all she used to become a successful woman today is a laptop and a camera. She started with posting make-up tutorial blogs at first, however, as more bloggers requested; she posted her first video on YouTube in 2007” (Wikipedia). Her growing popularity on the internet attracted many beauty brands to offer corporate sponsorship to her, such as Lancôme. In last year, L’Oreal sponsored Michelle to start her own beauty brand “EM” (Wikipedia).

Michelle’s successful career reminded me of Steven, the 14 year old skateboarder in the video Generation Like. Similar with Steven, they are both popular people on YouTube, and they both earned corporate sponsorships by their popularity on YouTube. All they used to become known was a camera to take videos and a laptop to upload videos. It was the power of social tools that made their talents known. Without YouTube and blog, Michelle would probably only become an ordinary make-up artist. It was the social tools that empowered Michelle to reach out to public who may be interested in her videos. In other words, it was the social tools that allowed Michelle to attract her consumers and sell her brand today. Do you have great business ideas, too? If yes, then utilize these social tools to start to build your own business today!

For Michelle Phan’s interview by Australia Sunrise TV Program, click Here.

I was reading this article on Mashable about how there are social seating services that allow you to connect with other people 35,000 feet in the air. It works by letting travelers choose their seat mate by looking at other travelers’ profiles on Facebook or LinkedIn. I thought this was interesting how airlines were utilizing their airplanes as opportunities for travelers to network and connect with each other. This is an innovative idea and it’s a great way for people to utilize their time while being on a plane. The article also mentioned how two professionals had the chance to be seated with each other while heading to a TED conference. It’s actually kind of cool to have the opportunity to talk to someone who you wouldn’t normally have access to. Who knew that your social media profiles could be utilized to help you meet someone 35,000 feet in the air?

However, there are some negative aspects to it such as being matched with someone unwanted or the awkwardness by being refused by a seat mate. Also sometimes people just want to wind down and escape from having to do business so planes provide that temporary liberation for them. But what do you think about this social seating service? Do you think other airlines should jump on board with social seating services and allow travelers to network and connect with each other? Do you think that more travelers are going to be interested in using this service or would this service just be for professionals to network with other professionals if the chance arises?

About two year ago, I participated in a flash mob proposed by a school club called TOM’s. TOM’s club is a charitable club that tries to help the children in poverty by promoting the company TOM’s promise that every pair of shoe you purchase, another pair of shoe will be given to a child who walks barefoot.

The idea of this flash mob event was to raise awareness of our club on campus. We started the club with only 7 officers. Besides having a regular meeting every week to plan for the flash mob, the main way we communicated was through Facebook. By inviting our friends to the Facebook page, our group grew fast. Every Facebook member was updated with the dancing practice time and location, and those who could make it to the practice participated actively.

This reminds me Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody, when he talks about the ice cream flash mob that was formed by using social tools. It was social tools that enabled the ice cream mob to reach out to the large population without alerting the Lukashenko government (Shirky 168). Indeed, it was also social tools that enabled TOM’s flash mob to take place. With Facebook, we reached out to as many students as possible and kept them updated with all the information without needing to text people one by one. At the end, we had about 50 participants in the flash mob and over a hundred members on Facebook. I can’t imagine how the event would turn out without Facebook.

For reference to the flash mob video, click here.

  After watching the “Generation Like” video, I realized how much our world has shifted. Society is seeking for attention from anywhere they can get it. What stood out to me was why people have such a desire to get likes. I believe people want likes for Fame. Getting thousands to millions of likes, means getting noticed by the public, businesses, and sponsors.

  According to Doug Rushoff, just like the “Hunger Games, kids are out there alone just trying to survive.” This is a metaphor for how kids are being played by the gmae-makers, competing for attention, fame and a feeling of self-worth.  Through social media, people have a way of changing the advertising and marketing industry. Teens are becoming the marketers. Tyler Oakley has paved the way to getting fame through social media. The way he connects and interacts with the web community has opened opportunities, sponsorships, and brand marketing. What I understood from the documentary, teens that are active on web and get recognized are noticed by companies who wants to work with these teens to get there ads seen and views that will be profitable to sell their products. Ads are coming at us faster than ever before, in moments through “shares” and “likes,” in the age of social media, companies have mastered the art of Facebook/Instagram/ Twitter marketing.

  The relationship between young people and companies looks to be a great partnership for everyone, Rushkoff questions this pathernship. Rushkoff explains the concept of “empowerment” as a way of getting consumers, especially young people into spending countless hours endorsing brands for free. Companies have carefully designed, timed, and calculated marketing messages, Rushkoff calls this “serendipity by design.”

I just read an article from the New York Times about bots. You can read it here. You may be asking yourself the question “What are bots?” or “What about bots?” Well, in this article, the bots that are referred to are the online bots. This meaning, those that you may have befriend on Facebook, Twitter etc…

Turns out, you can buy friends and influence! Can you believe it? Like in the Generation Like video we watched, the power of likes, re-tweets, follows etc… are all a form of currency in this generation. The amount that you get can mean multiple things such as popularity, attention and power. It makes me wonder if all these popular pages on Facebook, or Twitter accounts with millions of followers are actually mainly composed of these bots.

This article touches on how you can buy these followers, the popularity of even the power to sway others. These online bots are disguised as real humans. They camouflage themselves into our social media and act as humans do – posts realistic updates, responses etc… Quite scary if you ask me. It’s said that different people use bots, and that they’re not illegal, it being illegal only depends on how you decide to use these bots. Politicians use them, celebrities, heck maybe some of your more popular friends on social media are using them! Really, how many followers can one person really have?! (kidding, if you’re super popular!)

Bots can be bought, made by programs which you can purchase, but can also be made from scratch. How you use them is up to you. My questions are, would you pay for bots? If you would for what reason? Is this something we should worry about? or just accept that it’s become part of this generation, like how likes and re-tweets are.

I found an article on Techdirt which you can read here, about new clauses in contracts that are made by General Mills. This new clause may come as a shocker to many of us, since it’s about receiving retribution from the company on any of it’s cereals.

In this article, the main focus is about how General Mills, the company that produces multiple brands of cereal and other products like Bisquick or Betty Crocker has entered new clauses in the agreements between the consumer and company. Meaning, that when the consumer agrees to purchase the product, like the product on Facebook, obtain coupons from the company or even enter their sweepstakes, the consumer is actually agreeing to give up their right to sue the company for any complaints they may have. Instead they must try to mitigate any issues through emails.

I believe that this is going to the extreme to avoid litigation cost that they may incur in a possible law suit for any reason that may surface. This caught my eye when I read about how if the consumer “likes” the cereal page or the page of any of their products meant that they were giving up their right. Especially since we just watched the video on Generation Like, which talks about the power of likes. This goes to show that, even brands like General Mills are conforming to this generation of likes, and using this social norm and currency to their advantage.

My question are, do you think their actions are too extreme and unnecessary? Is one of the consequences of generation like or just a side affect that no one expected to happen especially since generation like seems to be more focused on a different basis?

Technology has been steadily moving forward for many years, but in the past 2 decades it has grown in leaps and bounds. Take a look at our mobile devices today and their many capabilities, from home computers, to laptops and now to lightweight netbooks and tablets. The huge “boat phones” of yesteryear have been replaced by sleek, small mobile devices that do everything except wash the dishes (that is probably next). Technology has not only grown in the gaming and mobile arenas but also in the medical field. Today doctors can visit patients in remote areas and do tests and body scans with portable devices which help many in under-developed countries.

Recently a new development has arrived in medicine which uses technology in way most would not have predicted beyond sci-fi movies. The technology utilizes one we are all familiar with and that is printing….yes printing but in this case, 3D bio-printing. Combining 3D body scanning with organic inks and thermoplastics, doctors are now able to create replacements for a number of human body parts with this technology. Eyes, skulls, ears, nose and skin are part of the list of replaceable tissue which this bio-printing technology has made possible.

There are quite a few ongoing studies in this field of creating replacement body parts, and the ultimate goal is to create parts which are based on an individual’s own cells thereby reducing rejection issues and and speeding recovery time. However until science allows us to grow or create “backup” body parts, I think this is a great way of helping patients who otherwise would have a difficult and almost impossible task of becoming whole again.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/tech/innovation/artificial-eyes-3d-printing-body/index.html

That’s just a prediction. But I’m pretty sure the developers are onto something with this. Graphene is the HARDEST material in the world, but its also the most pliable. Meaning it is easily bent, morphed and shaped to whatever you’d like to shape it to. This material is a form of carbon, and it can conduct electricity and heat better than anything else.  It is one of the only materials in the world that is transparent, conductive and flexible at the same time!

“200 times stronger than steel, and so thin that a single ounce of it could cover 28 football fields” –> crazy, sounds like some kind of nuclear element that should be used to power something in a Marvel movie.

This material was found ten years ago, but wasn’t thought of to use in the commercial world until now–duh– because there are so many things that this material could be used for, and what people are hoping is that this will improve technology even more. Devices that are supercharged, or electronics that piggyback off of the cells in the human body are only the initial ideas of what is yet to come.

In 2011, researchers used this material (with the addition of silicon) to build a battery for a cellphone. The cellphone stayed charged for MORE THAN A WEEK and recharged in 15 minutes!

The best part: this material is fairly cheap! It’s on its’ way to replacing plastic.

In a case which clearly demonstrates the need to “watch what you say, post or text” online and elsewhere; a man was forced to let his former fiancée keep a $53,000 ring although he had broken off his engagement and asked for the ring back.

An article posted on the Buffalo News website reports that Louis Billittier Jr. broke off his engagement to Christa Clarke his betrothed of 14 months by a text message in 2012. In an attempt to soften the blow Billittier Jr. wrote another text which he would later come to regret. The relevant section of the text read as follows, “Plus you get a $50,000 parting ring. Enough for a down payment on a house.” That text and those words were used as Clark’s defense for keeping the ring which Billittier requested returned after he broke off their engagement. What made this case so interesting is that New York law usually sides with the would-be bridegroom who have the legal right to ask for a ring’s return even if they were responsible for breaking the engagement.

However in the case of Billittier and Clark, Billittier forfeited that right by sending that text which clearly stated that his former fiancée could keep the ring. Supreme Court Justice Russell P. Buscaglia ruled that Clark had the right to keep the ring even though Billittier said that his text was meant to be sarcastic and not a true intent for his jilted ex to keep the ring….the judge however did not buy his story.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state-supreme-court/judge-rules-jilted-woman-can-keep-53000-diamond-engagement-ring-20140405