Link to Article
A nanotechnology firm by the name of Nanobioysm created a mobile device that can accurately test for AIDS/HIV in under an hour. The Gene-Radar is an iPad sized device that works by taking a drop of saliva, blood, or other bodily fluid and placing it on a nanochip that is put into the device. This new technology has the potentially revolutionize medicine by tracking disease outbreaks and helping contain them in remote places of the Earth. In places like Rwanda where there is an AIDS epidemic, they have tests that are fact but not accurate and others that are high in accuracy but take 6 moths to yield results. Even in the US, the "gold standard" tests take at least 2 weeks to get results and can cost $200. The Gene-Radar cuts the cost of these tests almost 50 to 100 times cheaper.
The new technology not only helps cut costs and turnaround time for the results, but it helps with the containment of the disease as well. The results get stored in a cloud so the data can be monitored and analyzed. The CEO of Nanobioysm states that there are 4 billion people on earth without access to healthcare and technology can change that. Instead of reactive care in hospitals and physician offices, this new device can help with preventative care. They are already working on new models that are smaller in size and possibly ingestible in the future.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Facebook Lowers Age to Allow Teens to Post Publicly
Link to Article
For the first time, Facebook is allowing teenagers ages 13-17 to have a public voice on the social media platform. Prior to this decision, teens on Facebook were only allowed to share content with friends, friends of friends, and custom groups. According to Facebook, this age group of people are among the savviest users of social media that simply want to be heard. Any teenager that wants to share a status update or post publicly must first manually change the audience setting on his post to "public" before sharing. After doing so, a pop-up explains that the post will be visible to everyone on the site. The post will go live once the user clicks "ok" on this pop-up box, acknowledging he has seen the warning and intends to share publicly. Currently, if a user shares a post publicly, the audience setting will remain on "public" for the user's next post. For teens, a second reminder message will pop up if they choose to post publicly the next time around.
What are some reasons why Facebook decided to make the sudden change? They have been around for nearly 10 years and have always had a large population of teenage users. If the organization had not deemed it as a safe practice in the past, what could have led to this decision? "While only a small fraction of teens using Facebook might choose to post publicly, this update now gives them the choice to share more broadly, just like on other social media services." This comment makes it clear that the organization is trying to keep up with competitors in order to keep their teenage population active on Facebook. What are parents' views on this? Would you feel comfortable having your teenager post publicly on the platform? What are some of the repercussions that can arise from this?
For the first time, Facebook is allowing teenagers ages 13-17 to have a public voice on the social media platform. Prior to this decision, teens on Facebook were only allowed to share content with friends, friends of friends, and custom groups. According to Facebook, this age group of people are among the savviest users of social media that simply want to be heard. Any teenager that wants to share a status update or post publicly must first manually change the audience setting on his post to "public" before sharing. After doing so, a pop-up explains that the post will be visible to everyone on the site. The post will go live once the user clicks "ok" on this pop-up box, acknowledging he has seen the warning and intends to share publicly. Currently, if a user shares a post publicly, the audience setting will remain on "public" for the user's next post. For teens, a second reminder message will pop up if they choose to post publicly the next time around.
What are some reasons why Facebook decided to make the sudden change? They have been around for nearly 10 years and have always had a large population of teenage users. If the organization had not deemed it as a safe practice in the past, what could have led to this decision? "While only a small fraction of teens using Facebook might choose to post publicly, this update now gives them the choice to share more broadly, just like on other social media services." This comment makes it clear that the organization is trying to keep up with competitors in order to keep their teenage population active on Facebook. What are parents' views on this? Would you feel comfortable having your teenager post publicly on the platform? What are some of the repercussions that can arise from this?
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Your Face May Appear in a Google Ad Soon
Link to Article
Google is following Facebook's footsteps in using its users for advertisement purposes without compensating them. The company announced that users' names, profile pictures, and endorsements may appear on
reviews, advertisements and other commercial contexts under a new terms of service. According to Google, "shared endorsements" help people "save time" and improve results. Recommendations from people that users already know is relevant and useful. Users may now think twice before they press the +1 button on endorsements of products and services. Otherwise, their face may appear on others' Google + accounts. The organization does give users the ability to opt out of the program and is targeting adults over 18. However, how many people will actually be aware of this and make the change to their settings?
Based on the comments of the article, it seems as though the public has mixed feelings about this recent news. While some people simply do not care that their faces will appear on future advertisements, others are disgruntled that they are not being compensated by Google. Of course, there are those strongly feel that this is an infringement of privacy. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you feel taken advantage of?
Google is following Facebook's footsteps in using its users for advertisement purposes without compensating them. The company announced that users' names, profile pictures, and endorsements may appear on
reviews, advertisements and other commercial contexts under a new terms of service. According to Google, "shared endorsements" help people "save time" and improve results. Recommendations from people that users already know is relevant and useful. Users may now think twice before they press the +1 button on endorsements of products and services. Otherwise, their face may appear on others' Google + accounts. The organization does give users the ability to opt out of the program and is targeting adults over 18. However, how many people will actually be aware of this and make the change to their settings?
Based on the comments of the article, it seems as though the public has mixed feelings about this recent news. While some people simply do not care that their faces will appear on future advertisements, others are disgruntled that they are not being compensated by Google. Of course, there are those strongly feel that this is an infringement of privacy. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you feel taken advantage of?
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Instagram Will Bring Advertisements in the Near Future
Link to Article
Instagram is a hugely popular free photo and video sharing service that has become widely downloaded by users in the past several years. The organization recently announced that they will be serving ads to their users in the near future. They will be taking a subtle approach by delivering the advertisements in small numbers and in the form of photos and videos from a handful of brands that are already members of the Instagram community. Their objective is to make the ads feel as natural as possible so that it will not mar the user experience. Users will have the option to hide ads that they do not like and even provide feedback. As of now, the ads will be limited to users only in the United States. Instagram's reason for introducing advertisements is to build a sustainable business that will be able to support and prepare for the large future plans of the organization.
Is it inevitable for all large social media sites and applications to use advertisements in order to financially sustain themselves while continuing to offer free services? Even the social media giant Facebook was once without advertisements. Once the free site started growing exponentially in users and advanced in applications and programs, they implemented an aggressive advertisement plan to increase revenues. If that is the case, even though the ads may be annoying to some degree and is not a user-favorite, isn't it worth it for users to deal with them in order for them to continue enjoying free services with new and upgraded features?
Instagram is a hugely popular free photo and video sharing service that has become widely downloaded by users in the past several years. The organization recently announced that they will be serving ads to their users in the near future. They will be taking a subtle approach by delivering the advertisements in small numbers and in the form of photos and videos from a handful of brands that are already members of the Instagram community. Their objective is to make the ads feel as natural as possible so that it will not mar the user experience. Users will have the option to hide ads that they do not like and even provide feedback. As of now, the ads will be limited to users only in the United States. Instagram's reason for introducing advertisements is to build a sustainable business that will be able to support and prepare for the large future plans of the organization.
Is it inevitable for all large social media sites and applications to use advertisements in order to financially sustain themselves while continuing to offer free services? Even the social media giant Facebook was once without advertisements. Once the free site started growing exponentially in users and advanced in applications and programs, they implemented an aggressive advertisement plan to increase revenues. If that is the case, even though the ads may be annoying to some degree and is not a user-favorite, isn't it worth it for users to deal with them in order for them to continue enjoying free services with new and upgraded features?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)