Open Versus Closed Development

Open source software development relies on interested, knowledgeable users to update and fix a piece of software for free.  Closed source software is developed by paid programmers who do not share the source of their software with others.  When closed source software has problems or updates, the paid developers are the only ones who are allowed to change the source code.  This process can take a long time because the developers must diagnose the problems that need to be fixed and then fix them.  Updating closed source software can also take a long time because the developers of the software are usually not the ones who request the update, so they must first figure out exactly what the update should do.  Open source software can improve the process of updating and debugging software by allowing users to see the source code and attempt to fix the problems or add updates themselves.  This speeds up the process of putting out a new version of software which leads to better software faster than using closed source development.

Refusing Responsibility

    It can be extremely trying for an institution to accept additional responsibilities in difficult or adverse situations.  It seems logical that an organization would not want to take on the responsibility when the current climate seems bleak.  However, refusing to accept responsibility when things are not convenient can  have wide spread, detrimental effects because the situation that could have been resolved will continue to terrorize others. 
    An example of a difficult situation that is plaguing society is the problem of identity theft.  Since it is difficult for law enforcement agencies to find the portraiture of identity theft they often choose not to pursue the criminals that are terrorizing hard working people around the world.  The road to eliminating identity theft is expensive and time consuming, so it is understandable why cash strapped law enforcement agencies do not want to take on the responsibility.  However, until they start to take responsibility for solving the problem of identity theft, it will continue to plague society by destroying credit scores and ruining businesses.
    Taking responsibility for difficult situations is often arduous and usually not desirable.  The most important and influential actions require a herculean effort.  If law enforcement continues to refuse responsibility when it is inconvenient for them, society will never improve.  Today's society needs more institutions to step up to the plate to take responsibility even when it seems like the responsibility is too great.

NASDAQ Feels Stoll's Frustration

Just as Cliff Stoll spotted and followed a hacker who was looking for information by using his system at Lawrence Berkley Laboratory (LBL), NASDAQ recently had a hacker invade their system looking for information.  Just as the hacking began at LBL with a hole in the widely used GNUEmacs program, hackers first penetrated NASDAQ through a hole in a commonly used Microsoft's server system.  NASDAQ and Stoll both discovered the hackers through their normal means of monitoring of their computers.  Even though NASDAQ had the help of government agencies, they too had difficulties tracking down their hacker just as Stoll did.  Another similarity between the situations at NASDAQ and LBL is that even when the detected hole is patched, there are certainly other holes that the hackers will use, so a single patch will not fix everything.  With situations like these becoming too common, it is time to allow computer security systems to go on the offensive when a hacker strikes.  This type of solution to computer hackers could substantially decrease the number of situations like those that occured at NASDAQ and LBL.

Lawmakers Forcing People to Unplug While Outside

MSNBC reports that Lawmakers declare war on texting and walking.  The article states that two senators of the United States are trying to pass laws against texting while walking.  These senators also want to make it illegal for anyone to wear earphones in both ears while they are outside.  It seems absurd that Americans have become so rude with and attached to their technology that laws would need to be passed for their own safety.  However, you will not have to think back too far to recall the last time that you saw someone texting on their phone and walk through a cross walk without looking up from their phone.  Also, you probably do not have to think all that far back to remember the last time you saw a jogger with an Ipod that was completely oblivious to everything around them.  If Americans cannot learn to be safe while using their technology, perhaps it is time that the government makes a stand before a serious tragedy occurs.

The Race to Get Rid of Your Wallet

A new market is about to erupt, with many competitors in the race for a major share.  Within two years applications that make mobile phone payments will boom.  These applications could potentially end the need for your wallet because most monetary transactions could be done from your cell phone.  This boom is similar to the PC boom of the Eighties' and Nineties'.  The situation currently at Paypal is similar to the situation that existed at IBM. IBM was a mainframe manufacturer and started branching out to the PC market. Similarly, Paypal is an online payment company branching out to mobile payments.  A second similarity exists: just as Microsoft was a major winner in the PC boom because it provided the operating system that made many of the computers work, I believe that a major winner in this upcoming mobile phone payment boom will be a financial company that makes these transactions actually happen.  Also, as was the case of the PC boom, the biggest winner will probably not be the company with the best application, but will be the company in the right place at the right time.
Link to Article Read

Smallish Blog Post 1 - Technology is Ecological

Neil Postman said, "Technological change is not additive; it is ecological" in his article titled Five Things We Need to Know About Technology Change. By this he means that a piece of new technology is not just added to a small portion of the world, but that it changes the entire world.  At first, I thought Neil Postman's statement was exaggerated, but then as I pondered on the statement, I realized that he was right.  I applied the statement on a personal level.  Nearly every time that I learn a new technology, I end up using it in several different aspects of my life and not just for what I learned to use it.  As an example, I took the laptop computer.  At first, I thought that a laptop computer was just for doing school assignments and playing games.  Then as I learned the power and capabilities of it, I started to use it in more parts of my life.  Now I use my laptop computer in some way for almost everything I do.  As one reflects on Neil Postman's statement about new technology, they will recognize the truthfulness of the statement and perhaps realize new ways in which the technology they have can change their life for the better.