Bring back ARPA

I just learned this. DARPA was originally known as ARPA when it was founded in 1958 at the request of President Eisenhower. The D stands for defense, it was added in 1972 by Richard Nixon.

America was investing not just because it had military applications, we were investing because it improved society, because it made us a better country, because there are real tangible social benefits to living in an advanced society with opportunity for all. It's entire purpose was to advance the frontier of science with high-risk projects across all fields. This is when ARPANET was invented.

What this means is that the Internet was not invented solely for the military, it was invented for the sake of science, discovery, opportunity, economic growth, and more. Military wasn't the main focus. This is the America we were for a short period of time, this is the America we will be again.

The 1960s were also the period of time with the highest economic growth in American history.

In 1973 DARPA was dedicated to only programs with short-term benefits directly meant for the military. Our GDP growth has never been as high as the 1960s since then.

Electric cars are coming

There is a new technology that has recently been developed to store electricity and it is made of carbon. Carbon fiber batteries are now being made for small appliances and the Swedish manufacturer Volvo has developed an electric car where the sides are carbon fiber batteries.

This is a major solution to two of the largest problems with infrastructure and economics in the developed world and solves the major hurdle to making electric cars a convenient option. The first is how do we reduce and eventually eliminate our excessive greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, and this car is carbon neutral. The second is how do we do this in a way so we don't give a handful of countries or companies immense power over the world economy. This solves both major problems and will be the ticket to energy independence that is not dependent on a limited supply of fuel, because it is dependent on electricity which can be produced in many different ways, and unless the sun runs out, the wind stops blowing, the waves stop crashing, or the Earth cools down there will always be a way to get electricity without using coal, natural gas, oil, or another limited resource.

Until now, I have disregarded electric cars as unrealistic given their limited range and long charging times makes old fashioned electric cars a method that people will not choose because they were too inconvenient. Carbon fiber batteries don't have the long charging time problem that old lithium-ion and nickel-cadmium batteries had, which means using electric cars will be as convenient as internal-combustion engine cars in terms of charging. This also means that charging all electronic devices will be better as we move all of our batteries to this new technology. The first phone company that makes a battery out of carbon fiber, besides being more environmentally friendly, will be able to advertise a short charging time.

This is why last night when asked which time period I want to live in my answer was the future, which is going to be awesome.

The future of Apps

Today on Apple's App Store and Google's App Store, once you buy an app or song, you can never sell it again. This is completely different from CDs and older forms of media where once you bought it, you could sell it back if you didn't want it anymore. Here is a proposal for a way that app stores could still make a profit but customers could sell their things back (for a depreciation in value) to get apps or music they want.

1. You buy an app, let's say, for $5.00. You pay the app store and they take your money. You enjoy the app.
2. Several months later, you no longer use the app and are unlikely to ever use it again. It takes up space and there are other things you want. You sell the app back for $2.50 and get that onto your store credit. At that point you purchase a different app that you do want. That app is now for sale at $2.50 so the next person who buys it gets a nice discount. Apple and Google still make money, and customers are happy because they get a nice discount.
1. This is a compromise between trading and getting all of your money back and being unable to recover your money once you are done with the app you were using the time before. A compromise that everyone will be happy with.
2. By giving discounts when people buy back an app Apple and Google will be able to increase the volume of expensive apps sold, and it won't always be that price, so people might have to wait, and by advertising 50% off, or 75% off, the sale will be over quickly. When the people who bought at a discount sell the app, and they want to sell it when they are done they once again will sell it at 50% off the cost they paid, and Apple or Google will make a net profit once again. By giving people this store credit they will be more likely to buy more expensive apps, because they know they will get half of their money back when they sell it back to the store. I personally would be more likely to trade in an expensive app than an app that is only a dollar, and would be more likely to purchase an app for $5 or $10 on occasion knowing I can get half back if it is something I don't want. I also don't think the prices will necessarily double because Apple and Google will still make a profit off people who sell them back, so there won't be any incentive in doubling the price because they won't be losing income. Since they won't be perpetually on sale then the really good apps people pay for and keep will stay at their current level because the amount of people that trade them in will be so low. Only apps that have a short shelf life until they are exhausted or apps that aren't very good will be traded in, and those types of apps won't sell at higher prices because their quality isn't very good. By offering them occasionally at a discount Apple and Google will increase their volume and number of reviews which will created an incentive for app developers to make their apps stay useful for a longer time to prevent poor reviews from the people who buy them at a discount.

I am not the first person to think of this, and this was inspired by a post by NPR's Planet Money.

Please be Reasonable with computers

Dear world, yes, I understand you want privacy and you don't want to feel trespassed, and regarding some things I feel the same way, but please be reasonable. Yes, bank accounts, social security numbers, and personal information you don't want to share isn't public unless if you choose. But for the love of GOD you have absolutely no reasonable right to privacy when you are in public places or in view of the street, are we all supposed to put our eyes to the ground while you walk around downtown Miami in a bikini so you don't feel "exposed"? because that is how I feel about this needless obsession with privacy regarding Google Street View and other extraordinarily useful technologies. Be reasonable please, it's a real drag when it is taken to the unreasonable extreme. Taken to the extreme it just is a drag to everyone because privacy is the most popular myth in the world, and if your relative with you in your will who you haven't talked to for a while has money for you, do you want to lose out on a nice sized paycheck? It happens. Thank you.

 If I am going to travel to a new city and I am going to need to find my way around I want to know what my destination looks like so that I won't get lost as easily, or if the voters of a region don't want my tourist money they always have that right. If they want me to be lost in a new city then I guess they don't want my business. Just be reasonable.

Google Street View

Debates over technology can be very interesting and this issue is very good and hot!
I must side with Google on taking pictures of every street in the world for the following reasons:

1. Tourism will boom when we can see everything. Planning trips becomes easier because you know exactly what the place you are going to looks like.
2. We have had satellite imagery for the entire world for decades. Street view cameras blur names, faces (which is so effective it even blurs signs of faces), and numbers, protecting privacy, and when there is offensive imagery  the image is either not put on or promptly removed.

This is clear to me that it is no threat to privacy with Google's effective blurring of sensitive information. So I must say that it is no realistic threat to privacy.

Wikipedia: Why It's altruism has built it up to become a diverse and accurate source for academia

Introduction/Thesis

Wikipedia is an excellent source that can and should be used by students. It has risen to the same level of the most respected academic references that are written by scholars by the efforts of millions of people across the world doing research for a single cause in every language.

Detail Offered Compared to Other Major Sources

By allowing people to add information as they learn it, wikipedia has become the largest and most up to date depository of knowledge ever. (Crovitz)

Ease of Use

    Wikipedia has several ways to delve into a subject. The most obvious is the search bar at the top-right corner of the page. Type in the name of the article and you will most of the time be automatically be sent to that page. This is the easiest way to do research and works for almost everything.
    Beyond that, there are other ways to retrieve specific information that can be useful when doing specific research. Portals give the most important links for popular topics. Categories are given at the bottom of every article with links to all articles dealing with a subject, from a year to a small field of science. Lists are given on every subject to existing articles and articles that still need to be created. Timelines are given on the most important events of all history. Another way to research bringing a total of six ways to search is the alphabetical list of all entries on each wikipedia.
    The most original way to use Wikipedia is via portal. Portals give the links to the most important articles on the subject making an excellent jumping off point to new research. Wikipedia allows people to get to articles specific to a small field quickly. These pages can then be used by students to quickly understand what their professors are saying through their concise language (Research by using Wikipedia).
    Thew most popular source that schools use, Proquest, has some major disadvantages to Wikipedia. Proquest gives the original texts on some but not all documents. Most of the time it does not include the sources that the author from “scholarly journals” used. Wikipedia always gives links to the original sources and the best site for that document. It may include that documents sources in its own links on popular articles. Wikipedia’s final advantage is that it’s free. Proquest is extremely expensive for academia and designed by “experts” (Comparing experience of proquest and wikipedia while writing this paper).

Accuracy via Linus’ Law AKA Open Source vs. Closed Source Websites

Wikipedia is closely related to the Linux philosophy known as Linus’ Law. Linus’ Law states: “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” This is the same way that Science papers are produced. (Russel Kay) A scientist starts an experiment and other scientists look for errors to help their friend and science which fixes all issues with the experiments. It has worked for over a hundred years and is how the Linux operating systems function, which has bade them as powerful as the expensive Apple and Microsoft operating systems. Wikipedia is no different. (Kutter)
    Perhaps the accuracy of Wikipedia is proven when academics occasionally test Wikipedia’s self-correcting  mechanism of Linus’ Law. According to Diane Skiba, A.J. Jacobs uploaded an article to Wikipedia with 15 deliberate errors. In 3 days volunteers had fixed all but one minor error.
    People watch Wikipedia’s pages to cancel bad edits and vandalism. Anyone can look at recent changes on the left hand side of the main page and see all the recent edits in reverse chronological order. Because the most popular languages have millions of users with somebody always combing the wiki, this makes vandalizing pages pointless. Another thing, scholarly sources on the internet will often have little information and have few links to check their sources. Wikipedia fixes these problems by having a lot of detail and all important pages have links so more information can be found quickly. (Experience while writing this paper)
    When compared to Britannica on random articles; Wikipedia hs four mistakes per article as opposed to Brittanica’s three (Brittanica). Since Wikipedia is fully written by volunteers this is an impressive statistic. This makes it practically equal.

Impact on the Publishing Industry

    The impact on publishing corporations is probably the biggest reason publishing houses are in a media war with Wikipedia. Having information on all important subjects makes basic research in printed sources wasteful of people’s time. This combined with the accuracy of Wikipedia decreases sales of books which is why Wikipedia’s competitiveness shrinks the sales of book companies. The only option they have is to go to a media war saying how Wikipedia is inaccurate by lying how it’s greatest strength is a weakness.

Accessibility

    Wikipedia has articles in 276 languages making it accessible to everyone who has a computer and can read. Wikipediai s free of use. It follows the freedom of information philosophy. (Wikipedia Statistics page)
    Encyclopedia Britannica is only in English. It is also expensive to purchase and unless you are a member of a library that has subscribed to it, you won’t be able to use it. (Experience while writing this paper.)

Usefulness as a Student

As a student, Wikipedia is a great source when learning a new subject. It’s articles are clear, concise, and well written. It presents every subject as if you have never been exposed to it, making it an excellent jumping off point on a new subject. (Interview with friends)
    Wikipedia gives students the best sites on every subject they will touch as an undergraduate student. This is superior to Google because Google doesn’t filter between accurate sources and inaccrate sources without some very specific searches. The websites presented on Wikipedia are often academic, giving reliable information. (See the page for “Bacteriophage” which includes links to four universities, a trend among science pages) This is also superior to sites you pay for because they are harder and take more time to navigate. (Crovitz; Original research)
    Wikipedia is also being used as a teaching mechanism in the classroom. Instead of writing identical papers on a common subject, students create accounts and add to Wikipedia’s information in some classrooms (Goodman).

Works Cited

Baytiyeh, Hoyta, and Jay Pfaffman. “Volunteers in Wikipedia: Why the Community Matters.”
    Ebsco. Web. 15 Nov. 2010

Black, Erik W. “Wikipedia and academic peer review: wikipedia as a recognized medium for scholarly publication?”
    Online Information Review. 32.1 (2008): 73. Platinum Periodicals, Proquest. Web. 17 Nov. 2010

Crovitz, D., and Smoot, W. “Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe.” English Journal 98.3 (2009): 91-97/
    Platinum Periodicals, Proquest. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.

Goodman, R.. “STUDENTS CONTRIBUTE TO A GLOBAL COMMUNITY THROUGH IMPROVEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA.”
    The American Biology Teacher 70.3 (2008): 138-138. Research Library.

Russell Kay. “It’s the law!” Computerworld 12 Aug. 2002: Platinum Periodicals, Proquest. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.

Proquest. Web. 18 Nov. 2010

Skiba, Diane J. “Open Source: Will You Follow the Cathedral of the Bazaar Model?”
    Ebsco. Web. 15 Nov. 2010

Spence, Des. “A Wicked Encyclopaedia.”
    Proquest. 19 Sept. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2010

“Britannica attacks.” Nature 440. 7084 (2006): 582. Platinum Periodicals, ProQuest. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.