It’s news that should please the Internet’s non-English users and domain name speculators alike. The former will now enjoy a web that’s no longer limited to English, potentially opening it up to new users. The latter will now have more names to grab online, in the hopes that they can sell it later on for a higher price. I have no idea how to spell “house” in Arabic, but you can bet someone will secure that word once it can be registered as a domain name.

Personally, I think making the foundation of the internet—domain names—more internationally will help the Internet go beyond its heavily-English origins, but at least one reader of the BBC source article shared a great insight: “There is a danger that the internet – a tool for culture, information – sharing and dialog on a non-national level, may become irreversibly fragmented”.

What the reader meant was that, with web addresses set to become more friendly to locals throughout the world, the need to understand what’s currently the universal language of the net (English) diminishes. Why bother exploring the world wide web when there’s already a lot available in your own language/script? Ironically, this push to make the web more universal may end up making it more fragmented.

What do you think? Feel free to comment below.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

Leonard Kleinrock

The first network switch, known as an Interface Message Processor (IMP), arrived at UCLA on Labor Day weekend, 1969. The UCLA team led by Kleinrock had to connect the first host computer to the IMP. This was a challenging task, as no such connection had ever been attempted before. However, by the end of the first day, bits began moving between the UCLA computer and the IMP. By the next day, researchers had messages moving between the machines.

A month later, a second node was added at the Stanford Research Institute, and on Oct. 29, 1969, the first host-to-host message was launched from UCLA.

A great example of how taking the first step is definitely enough to push advances that can literally change the way the world works!

Source

Post from: The Gadget Blog

Basically a more detailed discussion of how people get addicted to the internet, the article’s point is scary and interesting at the same time, presenting internet addiction as similar to other “traditional” life-destroying vices like alcohol and drug use. Like those, suddenly cutting off access to a computer may cause more harm than good:

It’s a difficult problem to treat, says Jerald Block, a clinical psychiatrist at Oregon Health Sciences University who specializes in compulsive computer use. Among the three most common methods are antidepressants, treatment for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and extended retreats from the computer. Cutting off access too suddenly or without other treatment worries Block, he says, because the computer has often become a container for aggression and a major relationship for an addict. Removing those can lead to some very aggressive behavior, including suicide or violence against others, he says: “You’re cutting the way they’re dealing with all of their emotions.”

It was honestly very easy for me to laugh at people like Andrew Ross, or even that Chinese dude who died from exhaustion after playing 24 hours straight. How could anyone spend that much time on a computer—a tool—and not profit from it? I usually spend more than 12 hours a day in front of a computer, but at least a significant part of that involves making money for myself. There’s so much information available online, and if you’re not using it to improve your fortunes, what’s the point?

That’s until I realized that, as a smoker, I have my own, nonsensical addiction. What’s the point of smoking something that damages your lungs and shortens your life span? Nicotine may be relaxing, but it’s also tremendously addicting, to the point that I can’t go for several hours at a time without at least a stick or two. In other words, smoking cigarettes is actually detrimental, but I can’t seem to kick the habit. Just like how Andrew Ross was unable to break his addiction to World of Warcraft and the constant search for novel—but ultimately useless—information.

The point is that, based on the increasing documentation on the effects of internet addiction, we should start considering it a genuine problem, and not just a “punchline” as written by Winston.

Source

Post from: The Gadget Blog

Courtesy NASA

What does this mean exactly? Either most Americans like to surf more at home, like to download more away from the office, or leisurely activities simply require more bandwidth. Think about it: how large are office documents compared to say, movies and music?

Speaking of media, the study chorused Captain Obvious by citing “porn” as one of the more popular activities online, including it in a traffic-happy triumvirate including YouTube and gaming. Their respective peaks? Midnight eastern for video, and somewhere between 8 and 11PM in the same time zone for gaming.

If Arbor is correct, then it’s clear that the east coast still represents the majority of internet traffic in the US. Makes sense actually, when you consider that it’s more dense population-wise than its western counterpart (at least way back in 2000, feel free to point to more current census data in the comments). Simply put, more people live there, and all things being equal, that means more people going online.

But what does this all mean really? Well, companies who provide services and products online should start appealing more to the night-centric online crowd, if they already haven’t done so. It’s also reasonable to assume that evil office ITs are doing a better job of limiting online access at the workplace, no?

Source

Post from: The Gadget Blog

Courtesy Google Tutors

To make a long story short, dopamine—the same neurotransmitting checmical linked to feelings of happiness and fulfillment—also rewards us when we successfully make “intellectual connections” and divine “meaning”. In other words, that’s why you feel so compelled to follow links in Wikipedia, or Google for new terms as they enter your consciousness. Dopamine makes you feel good whenever you discover the history of your favorite TV show, or the scientific processes that drive a microprocessor.

There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but the source article on Slate implies somewhat that this quest for new (and sometimes ultimately useless information) can turn into an addiction of sorts. The way we are made actually encourages this to happen, as our brain can easily hardwire to accomodate a state of constant seeking and finding. So those three-hour long Wikipedia-Google sessions become easier to fall into the more it’s done.

While it may not be as debilitating as obsession with pharmaceuticals, the continuously entertaining and never-ending quest for stuff online may make us “less likely to meet… real needs.” Have you ever been late to that important meeting or hot date, thanks to an unwillingness to pull yourself from the computer? Or how about forgetting to pre-schedule that blog post, since you were busy sniffing out info on a totally unrelated current event?

Source

Post from: The Gadget Blog

I’m sure this will piss off a lot of Chinese. I can only imagine the reaction of online gamers who find access to their MMORPG cut at their local net cafe. But I’m pretty sure some savvy users will find ways around the block. Some enterprising programmer must be working on software to fool the government’s watchdog.

Now, I’m not familiar with computing realities in China. But if retailers like Dell or HP sell computers with bloatware, that’s something the Chinese government should definitely ban. Bloatware has long plagued new computer users, who’ve suffered from decreased performance and slowdowns caused by marketing-oriented pre-installed apps, and who’ve most likely struggled through a complete OS reinstall to clean up their brand new toys.

Which leads me to another question: what will stop users from reformatting their new computers, preinstalled with the government software, and starting from scratch? Has China actually reconfigured its gateways to allow access only to those running the software?

Foreign manufacturers retailing in China are definitely confused. Manufacturers have complained about the directive’s vagueness. They do know what the end result should be, but unsure about its implementation. “The wording may be intentionally vague, but the message is clear: we have no choice in the matter,” complained one anonymous computer executive.

In any case, some people see the required proliferation of this filtering software as a step back. I for one see the total, absolute end of computer bloatware as progress. I’d be willing to actually pay a bit more to free manufacturers from marketing deals which “force” them to pre-install bloatware. What about you?

Post from: The Gadget Blog

The misses? Well, one shared laptop is capable of doing everything outlined in the video, even the kid-monitoring stuff. And we definitely don’t need a “monitor” watching over our connections; that’s what all those software and communication protocols do on their own. The only hit I can think of is that virtual writing pad, very similar to today’s USB tablets. But it’s still doesn’t feel like writing on paper!

Also, consider how mom is totally dependent on her husband to pay for everything and manage the checkbook—just before the whole women’s lib thing, I think. Nowadays, women can pay for themselves, a reality that’s been very kind on my wallet.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

The price hikes include $5.70 per month for the Digital Classic package, and $3.70 for standard cable service.

The increases are necessary because Comcast is hurt by the economy, too, spokesman Jeff Alexander said.

He cited gas prices, health care costs, increased programming costs, and improvements in the company’s technology and service.

As reader Carl noted when passing the news along, Comcast may have set a bad precedent for other service providers to follow. Can we expect companies to start charging higher monthly fees, and point the finger at the poorly performing economy?

Post from: The Gadget Blog

The beauty of the technique presented by Alex Pilosov and Kapela is that hackers don’t need to break into websites or plant malicious computer code to control and tamper with data travelling the Internet, the presentation showed.

That’s because instead of trying to subvert security systems, the hackers concentrated on fooling compuers into sending their data to the wrong destination. Currently, the networks responsible for managing the traffic on the internet enjoy an automatic trust. If one network claims that they can move the data the fastest, then they are made responsible for accepting the information and making sure it reaches its destination—without any question of the network’s legitimacy.

All Pilosov and Kapela was to make their network claim that they could handle the data most efficiently, and they were able to gain access to the information practically everyone at DefCon was sending online. Theoretically, by applying this exploit on a larger scale, it will be possible for hackers to pretend that they’re someone else. By mimicking a trusted website for instance, it’s possible to get people’s personal and credit card info.

Kudos to Pilosov and Kapela for making their findings public. Staying transparent about vulnerabilities is always the best way to deal with them, as the information needed to counter such exploits is as widely available as possible. Let’s see how companies and manufacturers respond to this.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

What am I Blabbing About?

As I wait for the damn restaurant staff to fix their WiFi connection—the very reason why I decided to patronize their establishment in the first place—I can’t help but try and remember what I did before I had constant access to the internets.

I do have some recollections. For instance, if I didn’t know something I had to… shudder consult a printed encyclopedia. There was no Google to help me figure out facts, figures, and most importantly for a writer like me, figures of speech.

What I Did Before Going Online?

Obviously, this question is irrelevant for people who’ve been connected practically their entire lives. So they weren’t “forced” to deal with a need to recall facts and ideas from memory.

All I remember doing before going online for real were nights full of human interaction and conversation. I had to read books and actually go out of the house, simply because I had nothing better to do. To be fair though, the availability of virtually endless information on the internet has helped me learn new things.

So What Did You do Before Going Online?

Along the way, I learned how to create my own style of doing things based on the activities of others. And as I’m increasingly able to enjoy a fully mobile online experience, I’m pretty sure the Internet will become a more important resource for yours truly.

So, what did you do before the Internet became a big part of your life? The very fact that you’re reading this blog post indicates that going online is now a must for you. Or at the very least, you’re starting to discover the wonders—and perils—of the online world.

Post from: The Gadget Blog