A Lot of Phone for Not A Lot of Money

Are you looking for a phone that is a smartphone, but doesn't cost you hundreds of dollars? Then look no further than the Moto G; a new smartphone brought to you by Motorola. And the best part--other than the low price--is that the phones are unlocked, meaning you can switch users as long as they use GSM. The review from USA Today discusses the negative and positive aspects of the phone and why, if you're looking for a new smartphone, you should look into getting one. Anick Jesdanun, from the Associated Press, spent a week testing out the Moto G and gave the world his helpful review.

The way he describes the Moto G, it matches up against most big name phones; having few glitches and downfalls. There are 3 main pitfalls for the new phone include: less battery life, camera and inability to use 4G connectivity. However, for those who just want a cheap and manageable smart phone, these things are a non-issue. Anick compares and contrasts the Moto G to other phones such as the iPhone 5S, Nexus 5 and the Moto X, all of which cost anywhere from $170-$470 more than the Moto G.

Anick states that the camera falls short with pixels, but still takes decent pictures. The battery life is less than the Moto X, but still is capable of up to 8 hours of streaming time; compared to the X's 9-10 hours. Lastly, the G is not capable of networking on a 4G level, but does work with 3G, which is where a good portion of the country is still operating at. Another difference Jesdanun comments on was the difference in weight/bulkiness and screen size. The screen size is larger than the iPhone, yet smaller than the Android and the weight is a bit more than what most are used to. Companies today are trying to make phones more compact and lightweight.

Although the Moto G isn't as fancy and exciting as most other smartphones, there are perks. The first is a built-in FM tuner that works with your headphones as an antenna. This may be one small thing, but it is a rare find in smartphones. The most exciting perk is, of course, the price. At only $179, this phone seems like a steal. As someone who is looking to get a new phone, I was glad to find this information because I know for sure it's something to consider. Today, it's hard to find a cheap smartphone (or a cheap phone at all), so the new Motorola Moto G seems like a good way to go.

Putting Your Senses To Work

Have you ever been watching TV and see a food commercial that makes you think, "I want that!" We all have, but now there are researchers and scientists working on a technology that could enable us to taste what we are seeing. According to an article in the NY Times, the Digital Lollipop could be the next big thing. Researchers in Singapore have built a new technology that can simulate taste. This is made possible with an electrode that, when it hits the tongue, simulates the 4 main tastes: sweet, salty, sour and bitter. The hope is to someday make the device workable with smartphones and televisions. 

There are some details that alter the results, such as change in temperature, but the device is quite workable. The article says that it has been in the works for over a year, but it was finally presented at a conference in Spain just last month. Though it may not become a commercial device anytime soon, there are so many possibilities that could come with it. In the future, researchers hope to add smell and texture so you get the full experience of whatever you're doing. 

My favorite possibility, though, is the thought of being in a movie and being able to taste and smell what the actor "supposedly it" as well. Though there are many bad possibilities that could come of this as well, we'd never watch movies the same way again. If this were to happen, though, people may not go because it's likely the prices would go up too much.

The last thing the article talks about is incorporating this into video games. It's really quite interesting because it discusses going on a reward system. For example, if the player were to beat a level, they would be rewarded with sweet tastes, but if they fail, a bitter or sour taste. 

I like this idea, although I don't find it to be necessary in any way. We are already filled to the brim with new technology, but the fact that this is even possible makes it seem worth it. I can't wait for the day when I can go see a movie and be able to watch, feel, taste and smell what's going on. Does it seem a bit much? Maybe. Too soon? Never. 

Tweet all about it, but the University may be watching

Be careful what you Tweet about, it could cost you an admission spot into college. A recent article in the NY Times cautions that what you post on Twitter is likely to be viewed by college admissions, and if they don't like what they see…DENIED. New studies are being done about how many admissions officers are checking social media pages of future students, and it turns out that there is a 5% increase from last year saying that they are checking online to see what they can find.

There are different sides to this topic. Some people, like Brad Shear--a lawyer of social media law argues that checking possible students in this way could be unfair because there is a good chance what the officials find online will be fake. The argument to this idea is that teenagers who spend so much time on social media (in this case Twitter) and post unappealing things to their profile are not who admissions officers want to have in their schools and communities.

Both are good points, but I would have to side with Brad in this case. Checking online profiles is helpful, but if their credentials fit the University standards, then they shouldn't be penalized for what they did/do on Twitter. The chances are that even if their records are clean at the moment, the student could likely start posting unacceptable statuses and/or pictures once they've been accepted. Then what? Background checks are for careers, not college admittance. Let them get through the latter before they have to deal with real life crap and Big Brother always watching.

They Are Teens, Hear Them Roar...About Social Networking

Teenagers are difficult enough to start with just because they're teenagers, but now someone has done a study that shows "Teenagers Prove Fickle When Choosing Social Networks." Anyone surprised? I'm not. In an article from the NY Times, Bianca Bosker talks about a semi-report on the habits of American teens, suggesting that more teens today are starting to use Twitter more than Facebook. According to the article, of 8,650 teens surveyed "with an average age of 16 and found that only 23 percent now see Facebook as an important Web site, down from 33 percent six months ago, and 42 percent last year." This entrepreneur article from August 2013 states that 81% of teens are using social media over 72% of adults. This information shows, though, that Facebook is still reigning champion with the teenage crowd with a 94% of teen use and only a 26% usage total for Twitter. Of course these numbers could be taken from different areas of the country or maybe in only 2 months, the minds of the children have changed--again, there wouldn't be much surprise there--but not matter, it's said that Twitter is becoming more and more popular; but why?Research claims that the reason younger people are changing sides in the social media world is because with Twitter, they can more freely express them selves and it's harder to do on Facebook. This possibly because of the horrific amounts of cyber bullying that goes on with Facebook. That, and anyone and everyone is on Facebook, so no matter what you say or post, there is always someone watching. When questioned about their social media usage, one teenager put simply, “Yeah, that’s why we go on Twitter and Instagram [instead of Facebook]. My mom doesn’t have that.” 
It is true that Twitter is on the rise in popularity and will continue to do so, but Facebook isn't worried. They have something that has hooked kids more than Twitter: Instagram. The Facebook owned app is popular among the kids and adults alike and as long as it's around, Facebook has no way of completely losing out to Twitter. 
It's interesting, though. Kids are trying to get away from mom and their older family by starting to use Twitter, but no one ever thought Facebook would be as popular with the adults as it is, so what's to say that Twitter won't catch on and grab the attention of mommy dearest so that she can keep track of her children? If teens start using Twitter and then realize the elders are closing in on that too, whatever will they do? Revert back to MySpace...that thing they barely even know exists. No matter what they do, though, one thing will remain the same: teens will remain fickle, plugged in and unable to make up their minds. At least they're consistent. 

Twitter--the Remote

It's not enough anymore to just use a normal remote to change the channel--and forget actually getting up to manually change it--but now we're to the point that all we need is our smart phones. There are already apps that allow you to record a show from anywhere, no matter what you're doing; but now Comcast is taking that one step farther.
In a recent article from the NY Times, it tells that Comcast is teaming up with Twitter and a feature called See It to make television more interactive with your social media. Comcast is the nation’s largest cable television provider and in November, will be working with Twitter--one of the world's most popular social media sites to bring live TV to your Twitter feed. Whenever an NBC show tweets about their show, an option button will show at the end of the post, giving Comcast users the option to watch live or record their favorite shows for a later time. It's an easy process, too. In order to watch or record, a Comcast user needs to just sign in with their cable user name and password like they normally would when watching something on-demand. 

The Voice, popular and often trending on Twitter, will be one show to look out for. If someone doesn't have a Comcast account, though, they will be directed to NBC's website or app to watch instead. NBC, the NBC Sports Network, USA, and E! are all networks that will be participating in the See It feature starting in November. All networks participate in the Amplify advertising program from Twitter, which add short ad clips to videos on social network sites. ESPN, Fox and CBS are part of the Amplify program, as well. 

Comcast chief executive, Brian L. Roberts calls the See It feature, “simple yet powerful feature that creates an instant online remote control.” Maybe that way a person wouldn't have a problem with losing their remotes or having to fight for control. 

Chief business development officer Samuel Schwartz says, “Our expectation is that we’re going to have other multichannel distributors and other programmers as part of this platform pretty quickly.” One has to think, though, if Twitter is part of this agreement, what will come from Facebook? “Ultimately," stated, "it could be on every part of the Web and every app.” It's not sure if or when other social media sites will be included, but for right now, Twitter gets to put it's name out to the world as being a friend to the networks and getting it's users more conversation-ready. 

The War Between Tablets and Textbooks

     It's possible this will always be a great controversy: should children use tablets and computers to boost their learning processes or is it best that they stick to the books to get their education? A new article from the NY Times discusses this very topic from the viewpoints of teachers in elementary, high school and even college professors.

     The argument continues to go both ways because some teachers who are new to the game and are used to the new technology, are used to using tablets and laptops in a classroom setting, so they may not have a problem using these tools to teach. Veteran teachers, however, aren't likely to take to tablets for teaching because they're used to using a textbook and being able to actually look at and participate with their students. From the article "No Child Left Untableted," one teacher spoke up saying that he was "technologically retarded," which may not be the case for most, but a lot of teachers and elder professionals are not used to using such advanced technology. However, Joel Klein--chief executive of Amplify--says that, “K-12 isn’t working,”...“and we have to change the way we do it.” 

     Isn't there a better way to change it, though? I would have to agree with the teachers who think that using tablets to learn is destructive and unnecessary, but most people think they're best because of their convenience. Likewise, there's the cost to consider. It seems to me that buying a tablet for every student would cost just as much as their textbooks. The argument here is...textbooks weigh much more and they take up more room; with a tablet, books can be bought directly on the tablet and multiples can be stored there for easy use. Is it worth it, then, if the students are likely to be distracted while in class?

     I believe that attending a laptop enabled University has aided in my opinion on this subject. Too many times I've sat in class either watching my neighbor shop online, check their e-mail or just mindlessly browse their FB page...all of which are distracting to both of us. And, yes, I've lost the fight to resist my own urge to play around online while in class, so I've taken to only opening my computer when necessary. All this to say: if college kids, who are paying thousands of dollars for their education don't pay attention due to technology, how are children who don't pay for their education and are handed a "free" device supposed to focus on their own learning? 

     The battle between Tablet and Textbooks has been and will continue to be a topic of discussion in regards to today's education. The only questions are: who will win and how long will it take to decide that winner? 

Eye Spy...brought to you by Google

My friends and I are not exactly "tech savvy," but we always say that we are waiting for the day that we have a camera put in our eye to take pictures at a moments notice. Imagine my surprise when I found an article telling me that this already (kind of) exists. An article in today's New York Times (online version) tells readers that it may not be as hard as we think to Google ourselves...intriguing, no? Although I had heard of the concept of the Google Glass before, I just thought it was an idea that would make it's way on the market sometime, not be part of our world now.

Don't get too excited, though. After checking out the site for the Glass, I learned that certain ambitious people were only lucky enough to get an application...but for what? It's very possible that these applications were taken some time ago and those certain people have already taken the glasses on a joy ride. A story from Quartz talks about who is likely to get their hands on the Glass and who may have to wait awhile. According to the author of the story, Simone Foxman, a rendezvous was recently held for those who have tested the glasses to weigh the pros and cons of the new gadget. It seems the overall feedback was good, but for the normal people, this isn't exactly "good" news. For those who want the Google Glass, only time will tell when the device will become available. In line first are, of course, businessman. Anyone in the business of medicine or finance are likely to be the first to strap on a pair of these glasses and use them in the work place...I only hope they help, instead of get in the way. This doesn't mean that the average Joe won't own a pair of their own someday, they just may have to wait patiently until their turn comes up. Remember: if you see your doctor looking like Dr. Doolittle when you visit him/her in the office, don't panic, they likely aren't taking pictures of you with their new Google invention.

Clive Thompson, a contributing writer at the NY Times was lucky enough to test drive a pair of the Google Glass this summer and had both positive and negative comments about them. Turns out that they can be helpful for: taking pictures, navigating parking lots, texting and Tweeting. The down side? According to Thompson, when you walk up to someone on the street with a computer on your glasses, they tend to worry and look the other way. Also, since the whole device is mostly voice controlled, talking to air can get you odd looks from the people around you. This is something that would make me not have to think twice about ever getting some.

Not that I ever expect to own a pair of these Google Glasses, but if I did or knew someone that did, I think talking to myself would be worthy of strange looks. Then there's the question of how well voices would be picked up. You don't want something popping up in front of your face because of something your friend said while sitting next to you. If this isn't a problem for you, though, I hope everyone who wants a pair will someday be able to walk around looking like robots and talking to themselves. I mean honestly, Iron Man makes it look bad ass, so why not give it a try.