Oct 3, 2016 | Smartphone, youtube
Apple’s iPhone 7 is thriving. While Samsung Galaxy Note 7 struggles to survive. The Galaxy Note 7 explodes in people’s pocket and causes injury. While they’re doing tests on iPhone 7 just for fun. Let’s see how the Apple iPhone 7 survives torture.
We all know the iPhone 7 is the first smartphone without a headphone jack. One You Tube vlogger literally drills a hole to create a homemade jack. He then plays music on it like it was nothing. Don’t you do that. Drilling holes in your phone will cause permanent damage. Don’t know what trick photography he used, but commons sense should tell you not to drill holes in any smartphone. There was the scratch and bend test. This phone’s scratch level is 6. That means it’s durable enough, but it’s good to get some screen protection.
The abuse intensifies. A man threw his phone out of flying helicopter. It still worked! The screen was only moderately damaged, but the phone still worked! One shot his iPhone 7 with a .50 caliber rifle. The slow motion is really cool. The battery started smoking as soon as the bullet forced it to the ground. Another vlogger put the iPhone 7 through some water tests, since it’s supposed to be water resistant. He threw the phone in water a meter deep for 30 minutes. But wait…there’s more. He jumps in a lake with the iPhone 7. The phone still works.
This should go without saying: Don’t try these things at home! Remember, you paid $650 for this phone. That’s an investment you don’t want to throw away. But I am awed at how much this phone can take. This phone survived a helicopter drop and a jump in the lake. It had better. Look at how much it costs. But use some common sense too. Do you really think even the mighty iPhone 7 will survive getting shot? I admit, it’s cool to watch, but no phone will survive a rifle blast. Do you think the Apple iPhone 7 survives torture tests?
Sep 28, 2016 | youtube
India is one of the fastest growing tech markets in the world today. Google, the world’s biggest tech company, prepares to better serve India’s population. Google India has already reduced high-speed data. Google’s VP of Chrome,?Rahul Ro-Chowdhury, wants to do so much more. Google India shows off expansion.
Ro-Chowdhury wants to conserve data by offering apps and features, particularly on Chrome for Android users. Such features and apps include offline Google maps and You Tube Go. You Tube Go gives users better control of video downloads. It requires very little data, Google India’s long term goal. You Tube Go helps India’s ?make the Internet more accessible. Recently, Google offered free WiFi in train stations. It’s working. Over 1.5 million people used it in 19 train stations. As of now, Google has free WiFi in 33 train stations. This program is called Google Station. They hope to expand free WiFi to other public facilities: cafes, restaurants, malls, football (soccer) stadiums.
The expansion addresses the language barrier. In India, 12 of Google Translate’s supported languages are Indic. But Google’s AI language translation can only communicate in English. While English is an important language in India, less than 20% of the population can speak it or understand it. Furthermore, there are 22 official languages in India. The most spoken on these is Hindi. But by the end of 2016, Hindi support will be available.
Why am I talking about India? It’s the second highest populated country in the world. It’s becoming a technical powerhouse. If the global tech world is going to get stronger, they need India. Some say in the next couple of decades, India will surpass China in population growth. No wonder why they want to conserve high-speed data. If too many people use high-speed data in a nation this densely populated, the Web will probably shut down. Free WiFi in India is highly needed. Many in India still struggle financially. This service would ease a lot of burden. Do you think India’s expansion is even worth Americans’ time?
Sep 27, 2016 | Wireless
Looking at the title, many of you may say, “Aren’t there already smartwatches like that?” This one is different; so their makers proudly say. So here I am introducing the fitness infused smartwatch.
This smartwatch is called the Fitbit Blaze. It costs around $200 and it’s selling like hotcakes. But wait…there are several other fitness watches to choose from, right? There’s Apple Watch. There’s Pebble Time? So what makes this Fitbit Blaze so different? The last time I checked, the cheapest Apple Watch Sport will cost you $270. You can choose between steel or leather wristband. Bad news: There are no apps. Good news: There are other good features.
Features include a color touch screen, texting, calendar reminder and incoming calls with/id (like a smartphone, you’ll know who is calling). It records workouts,and ?has a stopwatch to time workouts. It records your heart rate, steps walked, and sleep tracking. But most smartwatches have that. One thing that sets Fitbit Blaze apart is the crazy long battery life. It’s battery life can go for four days. Apple Watch goes for about 36 hours. Critics call Fitbit Blaze ‘weirdly designed’, and claim the appearance leaves a lot to be desired.
That’s not what the Fitbit Blaze is meant for. This was meant to be a smartwatch, not a fashion piece. Fitbit Blaze just sticks to the basics. It tells you the time and gives you fitness updates. That’s it. That’s why the price is cheaper. So if you want to play show and tell, get an expensive Apple Watch. If you want the basics, get a Fitbit Blaze. Sometimes, simplicity can be beautiful. It does what is says and says what it does. So many people are bombarded by all these extras features it drives people mad. I think that’s why the Blaze sells so well. But from what I see, the only difference between Fitbit Blaze and other smart watches is the high battery life. I’m glad for the four-day battery life. But I thought there would be more differences. Would you buy a Fitbit Blaze?
Sep 26, 2016 | Smartphone
So I’m looking for things to write about. I see a picture of a Hilary Clinton rally. This one photo shows what technology did to us.
The picture shows hundreds of people, most of them young adults, have their backs toward Hilary Clinton with their smartphones out. They’re taking selfies, simultaneously. There is a barrier between Mrs. Clinton and the crowd, and the Democratic presidential candidate is waving. It looks like she’s waving for the selfie taking crowd, not to get their attention. The photo was taken by Hilary For America. It was taken by campaign design leader Victor Ng and posted on Twitter. Looking at the photo, the selfie takers didn’t care if they got a picture of Hilary Clinton or not, just as long as they were in the photo. There’s a blogger named Technically Incorrect who wrote a poem about this tragedy of a photo. Incorrect said “If we want to be seen with you, we’ll turn our backs to you.?We need to attach ourselves to your fame…That way, we achieve our own sort of mini-fame. Technically Incorrect made other valiant points as well.
Remember the 2014 Oscars, when Ellen DeGeneres took the selfie with movie stars? That was one of the most shared moments in social media history. And that was actually a planned promo of a Samsung smartphone. But this picture was no accident, no promotion, no planned stunt. This was real life. This was a real example of what technology can do to us as human beings. I can see if the smartphones photos toward Hilary Clinton. But they weren’t. The crowd pointed the phone at themselves. I could maybe see a selfie of a person shaking hands with Mrs. Clinton. That would be a good selfie. But this? This defies any logic or dignity. Personally, I hope those young people are embarrassed to be seen in this selfie laced photo. I’d be embarrassed to be seen like this. I’ve been to public gatherings where famous people spoke and performed. I’ve taken pictures. But the pictures were of the celebrity, not of me admiring the celebrity! What is 2010s technology doing to us?
Sep 25, 2016 | Computer technology
Disclaimer: The following subject matter is for mature audiences only. Reader and parental discretion is advised.
Facial recognition has always been creepy to me. A computer system recognizes you by your facial features: That’s something to be left in science fiction movies. I just read an article that tops it. This has got to be the worst use of facial recognition yet.
Facial recognition is being used to look for webcam sex performers. We can thank Megacams.me, a Belgian based company, (and I mean that with all sarcasm) for this. Megacams is a sex search engine where users can search for models. Megacams.me uses Open CV?to verify consumers and models against it’s facial recognition library. They’re the first sex search engine ever to use facial recognition technology. Users upload a photo of their dream model. It’s emailed and compared to models that looks like their chosen model. Megacams say they don’t store any of the data. Models are validated by hand and facial recognition. They perform to customers based on various demographics: size, race, hair color, etc. Their are around 5,000 performers and goodness knows how many users logged on Megacams at one time.
I won’t even put Megacams’ link in here. I don’t want to encourage anybody. It’s bad enough facial recognition is used at airports, and even some stores. But this gives people opportunity to search for pornographic material using face recognition. For people to use such extremes to look for their fantasy dream woman, or dream man, doesn’t sit well with me at all. The sad thing is: there are 180,000 models that have Meagcams accounts. To me, this is almost as creepy as using robots for sexual partners. From what I read, the fantasy of the user and the reality of the model rarely ever match up. And what if this kind of technology gets into really, really bad hands, (hackers, sextortion, terrorists)? What are they going to do then?
Sep 24, 2016 | Computer technology
When you think of tech companies making hardware and smart products, who do you think of? You probably think of Apple, Google, Microsoft, maybe even Facebook? Do you think of Snapchat? Maybe you should. Snapchat debuts it’s own sunglasses.
These are called Spectacles. These aren’t regular sunglasses. These sunglasses can record videos 10 seconds at a time. They’ll be available for $130 and will be made available this fall. To record the semi-video, all one has to do is press a button. The camera has a 115-degree lens. The sunglasses have circular videos and playback experience. These glasses are the baby of Snapchat CEO Even Spiegel. He told a magazine about his hiking experience with Spectacles. Spiegel marveled at how the video the hiking experience through his own eyes, literally. He calls it, “…an experience of the experience.” It’s the fact that after you go home, you can experience wonderful memories again, and again, and again. Even though Spectacles can only record ten seconds at a time. That can be more than enough to record something spectacular. But often times you need much more time.
Snapchat says Spectacles will be released slowly. On the surface, this makes sense for them to produce Spectacles. Snapchat users, which numbers around 150 million a day, can take pictures and short videos with these glasses. They could upload such content to their Snapchat accounts. Some compare this to Google Glass. Well…yes and no. Snapchat glasses are far cheaper. Google Glass costs $1,500. And I will say, the Spectacles look better than the Google Glass. But in my opinion, both violate one of humanity’s most basic rights: privacy! With Spectacle, someone can press a button, take a picture of someone without their knowledge or approval, blast it all over social media, and ruin somebody’s life. There isn’t anything the victim can do about it. That’s the danger behind Spectacles. And the fact that people can get Spectacles cheaper makes it more of a threat. I doubt that Snapchat’s intention. But some people will twist it into something ugly. That’s what I am afraid of. What do you think of Snapchat Spectacles?
Sep 23, 2016 | Uncategorized
Apple’s iPhone 7’s are flying off the shelves and shipping trucks like hotcakes. One selling point: the iPhone 7 is the first smartphone without a headphone jack. Some call this technological progress. But according to one tech blogger and reporter, life without a headphone jack isn’t so happy.
The blogger’s name is?JP Mangalindan. He is not happy with this transition. He acknowledges the fact you can get an adapter that plugs into the lightning port. This adapter lets you use your old headphones. Mangalindan’s article did state the low cost for this adapter. He complains about not being able to listening to his music and charging his phone at the same time. He can’t use the Lightning EarPods, which comes with the iPhone 7, with other devices that still requires the headphone jack. Not only that, Mangalindan claims he had to pay $150 for wireless PowerBeats2 just to work with the Apple iPhone 7. Those he’s happy with the wireless headphones, he criticized the short battery life. And what if these expensive headphones go missing? While Mangalindian likes the iPhone 7, he doesn’t like the absence of the headphone jack.
JP Mangalindan brings up valiant points, but I have a criticism of his assessment. By his own admission, he could have brought an adapter for under $10. Then why did he buy the $150 PowerBeats2? I understand the frustration of not charging and listening to music at the same time. But he could have bought another charger for under $20 and used that for a charger. So couldn’t he just make the small $10 sacrifice and a little inconvenience? ?But the headphone jack has been around for a long time. The first headphones were invented in the 1880s. ?So people have been used to headphone jack technology for over 50 years. You just can’t ask people to give up that technology immediately. So this transition will take time. Do you agree with JP Mangalindan’s ‘life without a headphone jack’ assessment?
Sep 22, 2016 | internet, News, Security
A Yahoo mass data breach hits millions of Yahoo accounts. This happened in August, about a month ago. So why am I talking about it now?
Because they’re just getting around to confirming the breach. This is according to a recode.net article. Various sources said the breach hit over 200 million accounts. Last month Yahoo claimed to be investigating the matter. The hackers themselves claimed to be infecting and selling the accounts online. Here’s more irony. A well known cyber criminal named Peace has claimed responsibility. Peace claimed he sold the combined 200 million Yahoo accounts for only $1,800. This includes usernames, easily encrypted passwords, other people’s emails, and account holders’ personal information.
The confirmation of this hacking will be announced in the days to come. This comes at a time when Yahoo looks for buyers, like Verizon. Yahoo could be sold for as much as 4.8 billion dollars. But this hack could scare new investors and buyers to death. I’m almost certain this massive hack will drive the price down. But Yahoo and Verizon continue to negotiate a merger. However, this is another blow to Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer’s already turbulent resume. They had such high hopes Meyer could turn Yahoo around. But this hack is just another bad end to what has been a very sorry episode.
This episode includes being overpowered by Google and other search engines. Then came controversy over time off after birth. Don’t forget the mass exodus of Yahoo leaders who couldn’t deal with it anymore. Now they deal with a massive hacker attack. Let’s talk about these criminals. A crook calling him/herself Peace is selling your information, and mine, for only $1,800. That sounds like a good amount of money at first. But they’re selling 200 million accounts. That breaks down to 90 cents per 2,000 accounts. That’s how little you’re worth to these cyber criminals. That’s how little your security is worth to these cyber criminals. So I’ll put Yahoo, Verizon and the rest on notice. How much is our online security worth to them?
Sep 21, 2016 | internet, News
North Korea is the most isolated nation on Earth. With dictator Kim Jong Un testing nuclear weapons, North Korea is one of the most dangerous. Somehow, North Korea accidentally confirmed what most of the world already knows. North Korea’s Internet lack is revealed.
Someone in Pyongyang (North Korea’s capital and largest city) leaked access to all the websites on their government’s servers. We find out there are only 28 website domains. That’s right; there are only 28 websites available for North Korea’s 25 million people. Early Tuesday morning North Korean time, their main server containing all 28 ‘k.p.’ sites, was tampered with. This allowed websites to be exposed. The cat is not only out of the bag, but running all around the world. A researcher named Matthew Bryant accessed domain names and file data. Bryant transferred his new found information on Github.com, a website dedicated to software builders. Some North Korean websites can’t be uploaded. Some are very slow to upload. But it’s more than enough expose the secret online world on North Korea, well, what little online world they have. Not only that, Reddit put up all 28 North Korean websites. They include a flight booking website, a state run news agency, a cooking site, education sites, elderly charity sites, even a friendship network.
This should give a peak into North Korea’s lifestyle. But it doesn’t. You see, most of the North Korean people have no website access at all. In North Korea, only government officials, military personnel, and the super rich have the ‘luxury’ of the Internet. But even those who do have online access have very little of it. Let’s face it, many of us Americans look at 28 sites in one day. That’s all they have to choose from. I pity the person who leaked this information out. I’ve read articles where Kim Jong Un had people killed just for sleeping during his speeches. He’s had family members tortured, then killed for the same entertainment we get going to a concert or sporting event. Can you imagine what’s going to happen to whoever leaked this super secret information? And here’s another question: Did he/she/they accidentally leak it? Or was it deliberately done?
Sep 20, 2016 | Uncategorized
Recently, Twitter made changes to it’s message system. The biggest change is the 140-word character limit per tweet. What does that mean for Twitter? How do you navigate Twitter’s changes?
First of all, some things won’t count in the 140-word character limit. Replies, pictures, videos, and quotes won’t count toward that character limit. A lot of people thought this would shorten their expressions on Twitter. But with these new freedoms, this will probably strengthen it. Before this, even the quotes and usernames would cost you as many as 20 characters. Add a poll to that. By the time you got to the meat of your quote, you had very little space left. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey believes this will give Twitter users more room for greater and in-depth conversation. Other changes are in effect, too. They’ll be no more “.@” at the start of tweets. All followers will see tweets starting with a username. That could be a good thing or not so much. Because you have more space, you can use more media outlets in your tweets. You can even add to and re-tweet to your original ones. You can add new thoughts to the original ones.
They’ve done a good job freeing up more space to express oneself. Personally, I’m glad all followers will see your username. That means all your potentially bullying and ugliness will be exposed. Maybe it will make people think twice before posting. Twitter’s new membership members are dropping. They’re doing everything they can to bring them up. They’re broadcasting NFL games for free. The NFL is America’s game. Literally, millions follow Thursday night games of Twitter. That seems to be helping. This should help. But let’s face it: Some people don’t like change, even when it comes to their social media. But Twitter has it right, too. What do you think about Twitter’s changes?
