Aug 19, 2015 | internet
Yelp is one of the most respected review sites online. You can review or read reviews of businesses from all walks of life. Can you, or would you, review the Federal Government on Yelp?
That’s what Yelp wants you to do, and so do federal agencies. Not only that, federal agencies can respond back to you, creating a dialogue. Yelp’s Public Policy VP Luther Lowe embraces this new venture, believing this dialogue could make our democracy better. This concept isn’t necessarily a new one. US Post Offices are reviewed all the time. There have been members of the US Congress that have been reviewed for years, by their own choice. Now, Lowe is taking it one step further. He says reviewing government service agencies will be under special rules and regulations because Yelp doesn’t want government agencies giving each other high marks and pats on the back. These review sites will start slowly and subtly. There’s not going to be any symbol saying this is a federal agency or a Congressman’s picture smiling back at you. They’ll still know if their business has been reviewed or claimed when they hit the link, “Work here? Claim this business.”
I believe Yelp and federal agencies mean well. But have you read the statistics lately? From what I’ve been reading, people have less faith in their federal government than ever before. Then when you read about complaints of certain agencies like the NSA and TSA, the numbers get even worse. I can see why they’re using subtle techniques here. Something tells me the reviews will be beyond negative. I hope I’m wrong. But many Americans are so angry and disillusioned with their government, society, and media today that there’s no telling what will come out of this. So what do you think of Yelp’s experiment? Will it bridge the gap or is it too much too soon?
Aug 18, 2015 | Computer technology, internet
People all around the world from technician experts to first time computer users are bragging about Windows 10. But even the greatest inventions have their flaws. This one could have a big one. Is Windows 10 Spying on us?
According the most articles, the answer is yes. In fact, it tracks nearly everything you do. In their novel of an agreement filled with legal gibberish, Microsoft pretty much says Windows 10 can watch you use the bathroom if it wants to (lol). Okay, maybe that was a little graphic, but it’s not that far from the truth. In king’s English, here is Microsoft’s privacy statement. There’s not much privacy in that statement, is it? However there is good news. There’s some things you can do to opt out of this potential privacy invasion. First, go to your settings and click on privacy. There, you’ll find thirteen screens. If any screen seems suspicious of privacy invasion, disable it! Adapt what data each app can access. Voice assistant Cortana has to go. It’s like a data snitch. Are you tired of those pesky ads following you from website to website? Go to this website?and turn off the purple ‘personalized ads in this browser’ and the green ‘personalized ads wherever I use my Microsoft account’. They’re other methods out there too, but these are the most basic and common sense ones.
Ladies and gentleman, when you hear that Windows 10 or any other technological system is spying on you, don’t panic or freak out! There are usually ways to protect your and family’s privacy. It’s easy to fold up our arms and cry, “That’s just the way it is today. There’s nothing we can do.” Yes there is. We just need to know what to do. The beauty of it is, these corporations understand our concern…somewhat. And now they’re offering ways to guard our privacy…somewhat. What are other things we can do to keep or privacy, and sanity, in tact?
Aug 17, 2015 | General
A couple of days ago, a damning article came out about online retailer Amazon. Some employees and former employees called their Amazon experience soul crushing. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos quickly fought back, claiming he wouldn’t even work for the company the NY Times described.
Reading the New York Times article, you’d think Amazon was running a sweatshop or coal mine in 1915 than a technological retail powerhouse in 2015. One man in marketing says he often saw people cry at their desks. One lady who worked on projects hinted Amazon used mind control to keep employees in line, saying, “I was so addicted to wanting to be successful there. For those of us who went to work there, it was like a drug that we could get self-worth from.” There’s been allegations of cancer patients getting low performance write-ups as soon as they came back from treatment. There was another disturbing allegation claiming a woman recovering from losing a baby to stillbirth was put on ‘low performance warning’. And Amazon is said to have a very high turnover rate.
Bezos didn’t take long to fight back against such allegations. ?He wrote to his employees, virtually condemning these allegations of a soulless, oppressive, unemphatic company. Bezos claims he doesn’t even recognize the Amazon the NY Times portrayed. He addresses the talk of ill employees being treated badly as ‘shocking’ and ‘callous’. Bezos insists Amazon doesn’t tolerate such lack of empathy. The Amazon CEO closes the letter hoping their employees are having fun at Amazon.
Let me be clear. Geek Choice isn’t taking sides or accusing anybody of anything. This is why both sides of the story are needed. In fact, I don’t know who to believe. This isn’t the first time Jeff Bezos is called out for being a mean, uncaring, or unfeeling boss. Then again, what’s the motive of these former employees who harshly criticized Amazon? Maybe they formed an alliance to publicly bash their former employer for disgruntle reasons. How can we prove what they’re saying is true? What we have here is a case of his word against theirs. Who do you believe?
Aug 16, 2015 | Security
Remember the NSA scandal of 2013, and the revelations revealed by whistle blower Edward Snowden? Remember how most tech companies denied they willingly participated and insisted they were forced into cooperating with the NSA? Now, there’s an article out stating that may not be necessarily true. Were the NSA and AT&T in cahoots?
This article claims telecommunications conglomerate AT&T has been “highly collaborative” and talks about their “extreme willingness to help” ?with the NSA from 2003-2013. There are documents claiming they gave billions of emails to the NSA and helped in carrying out secret orders allowing wiretapping of UN headquarters. Keep in mind the UN [United Nations] is one of AT&T’s biggest customers. These documents suggest AT&T built far more surveillance equipment than Verizon and other competitors did. Not only that, AT&T was the first corporation was the first to try out NSA’s spying technology. These documents even told NSA officials to be nicer toward AT&T because, “This is a partnership, not a contractual relationship.” Snowden himself let these documents be known. News agencies from mainstream New York Times to alternative media site Pro Publica exposed them. As you would expect, AT&T didn’t comment, claiming they don’t openly talk about national security issues. It’s unclear if the NSA and AT&T is allegedly this tight today. A lot has changed in the last two years. Or has it?
The NSA surveillance scandal is going nowhere fast. It came up during the Republican presidential debate a few weeks ago. And now these revelations. These are just acquisitions. But I’ve never heard NSA get this chummy with Verizon, Yahoo, or any other telecommunications or online companies. And AT&T ?doesn’t want to comment on such matters. I think they should. A lot of people are still upset over the NSA spying on our way of life without the American people’s knowledge or approval. How upset could people be in they find out AT&T was this in cahoots with the NSA? How bad will that be for AT&T’s business?
Aug 15, 2015 | General
Comcast is the biggest mass media and cable company in the world. They own NBC/Universal, and tried to get Time Warner. One would think this would be enough for any media conglomerate. ?It’s not enough for Comcast.
Comcast is in the works of launching a video digital streaming service. And they’ve got plenty of allies backing them in this endeavor. They have online media companies Vox and Buzzfeed (already owned by Comcast). They have NBC Sports, comedic entities The Onion and Awesomeness TV, and alternative news sites Mic and Vice. They’re other allies too. The goal is to eventually beat Google’s You Tube at their own game. They know Facebook is producing it’s own streaming service as well, and wants to beat them to the punch. They know Verizon is putting a video streaming service together; they’ll naturally combat. Comcast’s potential video service will be called Watchable. Comcast’s allies agree to upload unlicensed and original to Watchable users for on-demand streaming purposes. Other allies will commit to Comcast’s Watchable cause in the next few years. Comcast wants to get rid of subscriber boxes and replace them with X1 boxes. These X1 boxes could provide the platform Watchable needs for tens of millions of consumers. No wonder why Comcast wants X1 boxes in every consumer home by 2017.
Comcast is one of the most powerful corporations in America today. It’s also one of the most hated companies today. I seriously doubt Watchable will help them score any popularity points with businesses or consumers. What Comcast needs to do is improve what they have and get on the good side of it’s customers. Leave the streaming to You Tube, Netflix and others. Some could argue it’s helping media like The Onion and Mic get exposure. Can’t they get exposure somewhere else and with someone else? Doesn’t the phrase, “When they’re too big to fail, they’re too big to care” hold merit here?
Aug 14, 2015 | Computer technology
No, I’m not talking about the 1990s TV show. This Blossom is a computer bot that’s helping world renowned news entity New York Times.
This Blossom helps NY Times decide which stories to report on social media and filter out which ones to leave alone. For example, did you know that of the 300 stories the NY Times publishes on any given day, only 1/6 make it on it’s Facebook page? Blossom will help with such issues. This intelligent bot is built in the messaging app called Slack. Slack predicts which stories, articles, and blog posts are the best to promote on social media. It collects and studies data, like content and potential performance. Those in the NY Times newsroom query Blossom through the Slack app. If they ask, “Blossom Facebook?”or “Blossom Twitter?” or “Blossom You Tube?” they’ll get answers of which articles might do well. Blossom is the brain child of Alexandra MacCallum. She’s a NY Times asst. managing editor of audience outreach. She leads the charge in finding effective ways to promote stories that go online. Blossom can promote hundreds of stories or urge editors to leave them alone, based on what’s going on socially around them. Blossom is doing well with her task. A post that is approved by Blossom gets read and clicked nearly four times more than non-approved Blossom posts.
Let’s face it: more and more people are blogging these days. You don’t have to be a NY Times journalist to blog. Children can run a blog post. Naturally, this is going to clog up the blogging traffic, and everybody wants to have their articles read and liked. The race for the top SEO spot is more intense every day. Everyone is looking for a way to get that edge over the competition, no matter how big or small it may be. Is Blossom a tool more bloggers can use? Do you see Blossom blossoming among writers and bloggers and journalists alike?
Aug 13, 2015 | Entertainment, internet
In recent weeks, dating and social sites have made news for all the wrong reasons, from Ashley Madison’s hacking to the Tinder vs Vanity Fair rivalry. Two New Jersey residents strive to change the online dating culture.
Their names are Julie Surrey and Gary Spivek. They founded dating website FidelityDating.com. It’s the anti-Ashley Madison site. The Ashley Madison site says, “Life is short, have an affair”. Fidelity Dating’s site motto is, “Love is precious. Stay faithful”. Fidelity Dating is geared toward people who have been victims of infidelity and adultery, or people looking for monogamous long term relationships . Founder Julie Surrey knows what it’s like to be cheated on. Her ordeal inspired her to start this site. ?In 2006, Surrey borrowed her boyfriend’s laptop. She discovered the man she dated for years had married someone else behind Surrey’s back. Needless to say, Surrey quickly confronted the long-term boyfriend and ended the relationship. Surrey’s co-founder Gary Spivek has been married, to the same wife, for 19 years. This website pairs potential couples based on age, education, religion, and other areas of life. It’s free to join now, but come January 2016, it will cost $29.99 a month, with discounts for regular members. Fidelity Dating started in January 2015. It has several thousand members now, but I expect that number to rise.
A few thousand may seem like nothing compared to the 37 million members Ashley Madison has. But I think the tide is turning. They’re a lot of people that have been hurt in previous relationships that could use this. And there’s a of people who aren’t into hooking up. Something tells me if members of Ashley Madison get exposed, all hell is going to break loose for a lot of people. Those who’ve been jilted will flock to sites like Fidelity Dating where they’ll feel safer. Will dating sites that encourage serious relationships overtake those promoting hookups?
Disclaimer: Geek Choice is not in the business of advertising, promoting, or slandering any dating or social website. This blog simply reports tech and online trends and then gives educated stances on such trends.
Aug 12, 2015 | Entertainment, internet
Let’s not be naive about it. You can get anything you want from a dating site or app. You can find true love, a casual relationship, a one night fling, or an adulterous affair. What are dating sites enabling?
I ask this because I read an interesting article from Vanity Fair called Tinder and the Dawn of the Dating Apocalypse. This article paints a picture of online daters just looking for one-night hook ups instead of long term relationships. The article showcases men bragging about all the women they slept with through dating apps. The women in the article aren’t portrayed too positively either. Vanity Fair particularly targets dating app Tinder, and Tinder isn’t happy with Vanity Fair whatsoever. Tinder’s PR team went on a tweet rampage defending the honor of their app. These tweets say Vanity Fair’s information was based only on 265,000 users, compared to Tinder’s millions, and just assumed that tiny number represented Tinder’s population. Tinder PR reps scolded Vanity Fair for not reaching out to them first, stating, “…that’s what journalist typically do.” Ouch! Tinder’s tweets remind us that people use Tinder for many reasons. While they admit some hook up, they insists the hook up culture has existed way before Tinder.
That Tinder tweet is correct. The hook up culture has been going on since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so. Look at websites like Ashley Madison, which facilitates adulterous relationships. Don’t even get me started of what you can find on Craig’s List. But let’s say all these dating sites stopped. You don’t think people will go to clubs or bars to find hookups? You don’t think people will throw swinger parties in their own home? I laugh when older generations say, “Back in the 1950s or ’60s, nobody had sex until they were married.” Yes people did! It just wasn’t over exposed like it is today. And that’s what these dating sites are doing, whether it’s accidentally or intentionally. They’re bringing to the surface what folks have done since the beginning of time. So what are dating sites really enabling?
Aug 11, 2015 | networking
Google is not a traditional corporation. They don’t intend to be. So let the crazy train begin as Google reinvents the alphabet.
Well, not exactly, but their new company is called Alphabet. According to Google founder Larry Page, Alphabet is going to be a collection of companies. The way I read it, Alphabet sounds more like a movement than a company. With the intention of raising up strong leadership, Alphabet will appoint a CEO for each company, with Larry Page and Google co-founder Sergey Brin watching over them as they see fit. Stocks will be affected. Alphabet will replace Google as the public entity. All shares will be automatically transferred into Alphabet, with the same rights and rules. Google will be the largest of the Alphabet companies, just a little trimmed down. Examples are Calico (which specializes in medicine, biology, and other life sciences), Drive (which has your cloud storage), Boston Dynamics (building monster Robots), and?Nest (a thermostat company). ?Of course they’re the more known companies like You Tube, Android, and Google Maps. Page and Brin say they chose the name Alphabet because it represents a group of letters that together put together the English language. Together, these Google companies will put together a language called Alphabet…or at least that’s the goal.
I see Alphabet is getting a lot of news today. I may be naive in saying this, but I don’t see the big deal. These companies have already been a part of Google. Now they’re just being part of a company called Alphabet, which is basically Google morphed. Alphabet is even being run by the same people. The stocks may be affected (and from I’m reading, they already are) by this merging, if you want to call it that. It could give CEOs great opportunity to advance that they wouldn’t have otherwise. But I don’t see anything new that Google isn’t already doing. Is Alphabet worth all the media hype?
Aug 10, 2015 | News
Do you own a drone? You should know that drones are forbidden to fly near airports. Some people aren’t getting the memo.
According to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), three airlines saw drones come dangerously close to Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey. There were no injuries or disruptions. There wasn’t even a need for the three airlines to take any kind of action. But the drone scare was enough to cause alarm. The three airlines affected were Express Jet, Northwest Airlink, and United Airlines. These airlines reported the drones were at altitudes between 2,000-3,000 feet high. That’s high enough to possibly interfere with landing or departing aircraft. I’m not the only one who thinks so. One passenger stated how frighting it was that these objects could cause danger to lives aboard flights. Other drones have been seen flying around New York City airports like Laguardia and JFK in recent weeks. The most severe case was on July 31, 2015. Two planes saw a drone coming near them at JFK. A drone flew a quarter mile from a Delta flight from Orlando. A Jet Blue flight from Haiti had a drone come within 800 feet away from them while they were still in the air.
This is disturbing and needs to be fixed…yesterday. I know what the FAA law says. But that law isn’t worth a wooden nickel if it’s not being enforced. Let me speak to drone owners. I plea with you: that law is there for a reason. What if a drone did distract a major airline carrier with 200 or so passengers? Think about the tragedy that could take place. Do you want that innocent blood on your hands? Should the FAA do a better job to enforce these rules and find the culprits doing this? Why must we always wait for a tragedy, especially when tragedy can be prevented?
