Can smartphones replace house keys?

According to the article posted on July 6 of The Week magazine, Schlage released a new smartphone application and a special lock set named “LiNK” system that can replace as-is physical door key and lock set. The system controls door locks by connecting your home’s internet router wirelessly. It can also be used to control other facilities such as lights, heating and cooling. The company boasts of its system because it can release people carrying cumbersome keys and let in a locked-out friend at the distant location.

Last year, I was almost about to cry when my brand new smart phone’s LCD got scratched by my door key in the pocket. Thus, I felt great when I first read the news about the LiNK and other similar lock systems imagining not carrying dangling keys anymore. However, after reading the whole article, I found out that it is not the time to be cheered yet. 

First of all, the “LiNK” system’s safety is not proved yet. Nobody can guarantee its safety. Suppose that your smartphone is cracked by a hacker. It goes without saying that you would lose your valuables. It seems more vulnerable to the hacking because the system uses internet router. Hackers don’t even need to try to hack your phone. They just simply intrude through your router and can open the door. The company might be trying to simulate possible threats and prevent them, but I cannot sure its safety at this moment.

Also, as the company mentioned, there is no back-up plan for the battery outage of the phone or the internet connecting problem. What a stupid idea that hiding a spare battery or charger or phone for just in case? I’d rather carry or hide a key than worry about the battery. Even if you can take care of your battery all the time, what if the internet connection goes down? It is not the thing you can even prepare for.

The idea of controlling door locks with smart phone is great itself. However, as I mentioned above, the technology seems not mature enough to be useful until safety and back-up plan of the system are configured.       

'Homework revolt': Time to give kids a break?

According to the article on June 16, 2011, in The Week magazine, some American school districts are considering slashing homework demands. For example, the school board in New Jersey’s Galloway Township might even restrict the amount of homework to 10 minutes per grade and eliminate any weekends or holiday homework. This issue is controversial because some people, represented by Erin Kurt, insist that this consideration will be helpful for children’s mental health while others such as Carl Lewis argue that the thoughtfulness would rather be an obstacle to raise children appropriately.

I understand the feelings of parents who don’t want their children stressed out because of homework. And I’m also aware that much amount of stress is critical to one’s health. However, I cannot agree with the idea that school should not give children homework. There are two brief reasons why I believe this isn’t right.

First of all, the one who believes children got too much stress for their homework does not show objective or meaningful data. The author says that 8 to 10% of North American children are seriously troubled by stress of their homework. The author doesn’t show the sample size, the age distribution of the group, and the data of the comparison group. Without the support of these data, commonsense tells that the author cannot insist “8 to 10%” are statistically sufficient percentages to be considered as majority. Also, the author tells nothing about how children are “seriously troubled” by their homework stress. The author only mentioned that “Too much homework” is the number one of many reasons why children are stressed out. It cannot be a sufficient supporting detail of how children are seriously troubled without following data: the data of comparison group, the percentage distribution of the reasons which affect to children’s stress, the examples that show seriousness.

       

Furthermore, homework is not something we can avoid for our entire life, and childhood is the most important period for someone to be used to this unavoidable type of stress. Homework might be stressful for children. But would it be delightful for them when they go to high-school if they are grown up without homework? Would they enjoy it when they go to college? They will probably get much more stress than someone who grew up with homework. And then, the stress might be really lethal to their mental health. I don’t want to say the banal proverb that what’s learned in the cradle is carried to the grave. But if your children aren’t used to homework in their childhood, they will never get used to homework. If you cannot avoid homework for life time, it would be better to be used to it in your childhood.

It is generally accepted idea that childhood is the most important period of life in building up one’s characteristics. For the two reasons I mentioned above that there’s no proof that children are severely stressed because of homework, and children had better to be used to homework because they cannot avoid it for their lifetime, I assert that the school board should not limit school giving their student homework. The importance of homework at childhood is too much to be ignored.

Facebook's facial recognition: Privacy invasion?

According to the article on June 9, 2011, in The Week magazine, Facebook’s “Tag Suggestions” which uses facial recognition software to automatically identify and tag the people in photos uploaded to Facebook are now arousing controversy. A Facebook spokesman says that they did this in response to user complaints about the chores of uploading and tagging friends in photos, and very few people have complained about this change. On the other hand, EU regulators label it as an invasion of privacy because it was automatically activated without each user’s permission.

I love technology and am probably one of the most chore-hating people in the world. I would normally be pleased with news about another the Facebook’s update news as I am as usual. However, there are some critical problems to accept this news at face value just as good news. There are two reasons why this is the case I insist like this.

First of all, Facebook’s Tag Suggestions uses someone’s biological information. It is a matter before the company’s intention or how convenient the new program is. Even if the company has positive intentions and the feature will be more convenient for users, we should still consider the harm that the automatic tagging could cause. With this biological information, the company could make a detailed database of all of their user's numbers. as many as their user numbers. This database can could have any information about a user's preferences and activities. including who likes what, and who did what why. It This information can could be used commercially or in other ways. Even if the company doesn’t exploit the users through this information it, it still has danger the potential to be hacked. Nobody can be sure that the information would remain safe could be kept in safe. What would hackers do with the data? It is so obvious that they going to would abuse the information. How many people are struggling to protect their privacy? How much money is used to save our biological information? Recently, one research survey says, said the average amount of money which is spent on our personal security is more than five percent of our total annual income. If you think about the amount of money, you would can understand why Facebook’s update is wrong.

Moreover, it is illegal to install any program without the user’s permission. Facebook’s Tag Suggestions is not just an update. Rather, it is a separate program which uses face-recognition technology. The company should have asked users about installing or applying their new program before moving ahead with their agenda. To install or not to install a program is a user’s own personal right. In my opinion, without that right, there is no difference between the such programs and a spyware.

For the two reasons I mentioned above that Since Facebook’s Tag Suggestions uses biological information and it is a separated program, I argue that the company should stop applying their program, or at least be permitted about using it  seek permission from their users to use it. Facebook should “face” what is the right thing to do is.

Can Macs beat PCs in the corporate world?

According to the article, Apple computers are making big gains with business customers, helped by a “halo effect” from the tech leader’s ubiquitous iPhones and iPads. Some people say that Apple going to be a winner in the corporate market also. However, in my opinion, it is almost impossible that for Macs to bit PCs in the corporate market in a few years. There are two brief reasons that won't don’t allow Macs to defeat PCs in the corporate field.

The first reason is that most companies have already constructed their work system with PCs. Building a new system needs much  requires a large amount of time and money. Basically, Macs are more expensive than PCs when their performance is the same as that of PCs. Moreover, not only the hardware but also the software should be changed because many programs are only compatible with PCs. Even worse, it will take the users also need their time to be become accustomed to the new system. Most companyies will not change their system because there are too many things benefits to give up to use when using Macs instead of PCs.

 Another reason is that Macs’ operating system, OSX, has not been verified enough in their securities in the corporate field, whereas PCs’ operating system, Windows, has been confirmed for over twenty years. I’m not saying Windows is safer than OSX. Rather, the opposite could be true. But security is the one of the most important factors in the corporate world. They can could lose everything because of security problem. How many CEOs would change their “Not perfect but verified” system to “Looks great but not verified” system?   

It is an undeniable fact that iPhones and iPads are very attractive, successful devices. Maybe Macs could be better with than their siblings competition. However, they have two major week a points to overcome, which I mentioned above, to be successful in the corporate market. Even though iPhones and iPads are bolstering Macs sales, opportunity cost of using Macs in corporate world is too much great to be ignored.

Should a baby's gender be kept a secret?

According to the article, a Canadian couple isn’t telling whether their 4-month-old baby named Storm is a boy or a girl. They do this have made this choice because they want to raise their baby unconstrained by social norms about males and females.

I understand and agree with Storm’s parents in to a certain extent in the idea to about raisinge an unbiased child about regarding their sexual role in a society. However, I do not agree with the way they use have chosen to achieve their goal. They are not giving Storm the gift of freedom. Rather, the baby will suffer because of the gift. There are two reasons why I believe in this way this is true.

First of all, people tend to be mean to someone who is not ordinary or who does not follow the rules of a society. Each gender is has a kind of rule which distinguishes the biological differences between the people who compose of a society. A genderless or gender-confusing baby is an easy prey for them. It is so obvious that how people will treat this baby. The baby will be classified as “it” and be treated like “it”. The baby won’t belong to any group, and every other person except his/her family will make fun of him/her. It is so such a huge burden to for the baby to put up with endure, and the baby will eventually choose his/her real gender.

Also, a gender is not an object of choice but an inborn inherent characteristic. It is not a matter of someone’s right. There are obvious biological differences between males and females. Maybe the baby can try to choose his/her gender. However, even if the baby chooses a gender which is different from his/her biological sex, what he/she can does is just will be acting. A man can chose to be a woman but cannot give birth to a baby. He/she cannot be the gender which he/she chose to be after all.

For the two reasons I mentioned above that people are cruel to outsiders and a gender is not an object of choice, I insist that the parents should not raise the baby as a genderless one. It is not a gift to make the one a child happy but a punishment to torture the one that will harm a child.