Electronic Home

Do you think our already technology rife world could use a bit more gadgets? Look no further than to Google, who just purchased Nest, a home automation company in California for a grand total of $3.2 billion.

What exactly does Nest do? So far they have released two home products on the market. A thermostat and a smoke/CO detector, both going for $249. doesn’t sound like much.

Google made this purchase was because they were investing in the future. Nest had been trying to take everyday objects, like a refrigerator or an oven, and make it more efficient, and integrated into a whole electronic system.

This whole new market has been called the “Internet of Things”. Everyday objects all interconnected. Lowe’s, AT&T, Belkin, LG, and Samsung are among the giants who are beginning to invest in this new market.

Some products getting ready for release are the LG HomeChat washer that you are able to text, A Crockpot from Belkin that can be used with an app, and home locks that can be opened or closed with an app.

Right now the biggest block in the road to the future of electronics is the amount of independent systems existing already, that do the job these bigger companies are trying to do. The way I see it, that is really good. Instead of a company like Samsung prematurely releasing a product to make some quick cash, They are going to have to wait a bit until what they make is better than what is already available. Hooray for consumers!

I’m personally looking forward to the arrival of this technology. Many people are afraid of what this would mean in terms of privacy, but I don’t think that will be much of an issue.

Read more at http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/14/from-washing-machines-to-crock-pots-connected-home-is-coming/

Thoughts? Comment below with whatever you want to say about this.

Doodle More!

Here’s something that will catch you off guard. Doodling doesn’t mean you aren’t paying attention! Some studies have shown it is actually a good thing to do. That is exactly the opposite of what I’ve been taught and what teachers have said to me when they’ve scolded me for doodling in class. In a recent article I read on CBS News, I learned some interesting theories about doodles and some evidence to go along with it.

Many psychologists are starting to believe that doodling actually engages the brain. Many people who doodle claim to have improved problem solving skills because of it. Visual techniques seem to help explain ideas or plans to people struggling to see what you see.

One piece of evidence in the fight to encourage doodles is from a study in 2009. Two groups of people were played a long voicemail. The first group just listened to the voicemail, and nothing else. The second group were instructed to doodle during the voicemail. After the voicemail was played, The group that doodled remembered 29% more details than the group who only listened. Doodling seemed to IMPROVE memory in this case.

Some psychologists believe that doodling is not the distraction itself, it is instead a way we protect ourselves FROM distraction. It acts like a barrier so that distractions can’t get through to our heads

Jesse Prinz, a professor teaching philosophy of the mind at the City University of New York, has this to say about doodling.

"Think about mindless drawing as a way to take all those things that distract you, all those subjects that you ruminate on, and clearing them away, and opening this space where information can get in. Doodling is the attentional sweet spot."

He says when we doodle, we are open to learning. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. When we doodle we aren’t taking in distracting information like we would if an iPad was put in front of us. The only information you receive is the information being shared by others around you.

Then again, we could benefit greatly from NOT doodling. Who knows?

Read more at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-higher-purpose-of-doodling/

Think you know? Comment below to weigh in.

Murderer or Hero?

Today I just learned of a court ruling in New Mexico one week ago that could legalize physician-assisted suicide in the state. This would let patients who are mentally stable and terminally ill to choose death via the physician. The patient would take a drug given to them by the physician that painlessly kills them. New Mexico would be the 5th state to allow this.

Obviously this creates a large controversy.

On one hand you have the people who support this law. People like Judge Nan Nash, the man who passed this ruling. Nash says,

“This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying. If decisions made in the shadow of one's imminent death regarding how they and their loved ones will face that death are not fundamental and at the core of these constitutional guarantees, than what decisions are?”

Nash raises good points. He wants people who know they are going to die soon, possibly in a very painful way, to have the right to end their lives without pain. He sees this as a right.

On the other hand you have those who oppose this. People like Leon Kass, MD, PhD, a doctor against assisted suicide. He brings up the Hippocratic Oath, saying,

"The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'...”

The Hippocratic Oath is a set of guidelines that practicing physicians swear to abide by in their work. People against assisted suicide bring this up because it is in direct contrast with what the law would bring about.

I am still not sure about where I stand, as it is an enormous statement about yourself to take either side

There are many more arguments for and against, and you can find them at http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126

Thoughts? Want to voice your opinion? feel free to leave your comments below.

Labels

Today I saw a quote from Governor Cuomo (D) of New York, who was angered with people who had views opposing his.

"Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."

Governor Cuomo was angered at conservatives who seemed to be undermining their Republican counterparts.

I am not here today to pick a side on abortion, gun control, or gay marriage. I want to just analyze the last half of the last sentence in the above quote.

“ . . . they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."

This is what I am going to take issue with, for two reasons.

First, I don’t think it is ok to tell someone who believes something different than you that they have no place in whatever establishment you are in. That is called intolerance. Unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs (Dictionary.com). If Cuomo doesn’t like what the conservatives believe, he should be trying to change their minds, not alienate them. I think Gov. Cuomo could use a lesson from my local pastor. I attend church on Sundays, and I know that one of my pastor’s goals is to convert people to his side, Christianity. He doesn’t kick people out who have contrasting views, he instead preaches his views and is willing to have civil conversations with people who don’t like what he says. Alienation is not a good way to get your method across.

Second, I don’t think it’s good to categorize the people of New York as having one view. New York is a Democratic state, meaning they have been voting Democrat for a while. That does not mean that everyone in New York shares those views. As of 2006, 59.1% of New Yorkers identify themselves as Democrats, while 33.6% say they are Republican. Based off of those stats, I don’t think it is fair to state that New Yorkers are pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage. Yes, a majority are for those things, but clearly not everyone is. That would be like saying “Americans are white”. Yes, most Americans are white, but obviously not all are. According to the 2010 census, 72.4% of Americans are white. The same logic.

Thoughts? Comment below with whatever is on your mind