A 'Shocking' Reminder

Read the article here.

Computer software is far from perfect. Everyone knows that, especially programmers. So, when a major exploit in a ubiquitous program is revealed, it shouldn't come as a major shock to anyone. However, it does bring up some significant topics of conversation. I linked to the above article, not because it talks about the Shellshock bug, but because it discusses the importance of ensuring the quality of any software we write. We don't want to have to re-invent the wheel every time we write software. We certainly don't want to have to start from scratch when updating an existing product! However, there seems to be so much innate trust in existing code that we often take for granted the security of what we're building on top of. I feel like there needs to be a shift in the mentality of programmers everywhere. We need to not wait for our code to become battle-hardened by having problems discovered 'in the field', as it were; we must become diligent in our testing in development.

The Theft of the Nerds

Sometimes it feels like there really is "nothing new under the sun." Occasionally, we may come up with a good idea, but it can't be that creative, right? Surely someone else has thought of it before. Or maybe we do see it as a good idea, but we can't think of any real use for it. What happens, then, when someone comes along and sees our idea and recognizes the true potential it has? Are they justified in taking that idea from us and making it their own? Is it morally right for them to profit on the application of the idea without conceiving the idea themselves? This moral dilemma was exploited extensively by the big names in the personal computer world, such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It's how they rose to the top. Most of their great ideas weren't even theirs; they were just the ones who saw how to apply the ideas. The world has benefited greatly from this exploitation; however, I feel that it is still a very wrong thing to do. Ideas should be improved on, but never stolen.

Ballooning Internet Coverage

What are the basic human needs? Any wilderness survivalist would tell you that you can live long without food, water, and shelter. Psychologists might talk about the need to interact with other people. Google is trying to add internet access to that list. On a high level, I can understand their reasoning. A few weeks ago I traveled to visit some family. It was admittedly annoying to not have cellphone reception for almost the entire trip, preventing me from texting my friends. Google's Project Loon would bring cellphone reception and internet access to a greater range along my trip - though their highest priority is to provide mobile internet access to remote individuals, not travelers. On a deeper level, though, it strikes me as an odd sense of priorities. I would sooner have more food and cleaner water in Africa than internet-bearing balloons. Of course, who knows what positive effects could come from sky-high balloons floating above internet-impoverished people?

Read the original article here.

The Tug of War Between Convenience and Privacy

With more and more microcomputers popping up in items all around us, life is becoming much more convenient. Thermostats learn our temperature preferences. Refrigerators can report when food is low and assemble a shopping list for us automatically. Hugely convenient, right? But then you learn that these "smarter" devices are reporting the things they learn about your living habits. Do we feel secure about that kind of data being gathered almost as a side effect of these products' convenience?

I have worked in enough areas to see how hugely convenient data can be to companies. They can use this data to learn what things are important to their customers. They can even use it to identify problems in their products. Gathered data, when used anonymously, can benefit everyone. I am a big fan of the anonymous feedback that products gather for this reason. However, the flipside of the coin - gathering specific data about specific individuals and identifying it with them - is wrong, and there's really no way around that.

Link to article

Why Don't We Have Teleporters

I probably spent an average of one hour on the school bus every day throughout grade school. More than once, I wishfully daydreamed of having a teleporting device that would allow me to commute instantaneously between home and school. But, even then, I understood that such a device would have dramatic impact on our societies. No longer would we need cars, trains, or planes. We wouldn't be as dependent on fossil fuels. But people would hardly take the time to travel anywhere anymore. No one would pause to appreciate the beautiful scenery flying past outside their car window. Obesity would probably become a bigger issue because people wouldn't need to get up and move around as much. In Neil Postman's Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change, he mentions that culture always pays a price for technology. I find this concept hard to accept, but hard to disagree with. Technology always brings change, whether good or bad. I understood this intrinsically, even as a young grade school student.