Maple: how can we make it better?

Although classes such as E115 will gladly teach students how to use common engineering programs, gladly stay away from teaching students how to use programs such as Maple. There’s a common association with the disgust of an engineering student and whether there is a Maple due. Trust me, I know- I’ve seen tears shed before. Nonetheless, Maple is basically “a really big calculator,” calculating highly complex equations and producing powerful graphics. If used correctly, Maple could actually take down Chuck Norris in a fight. However, if used by an engineering student, Maple can be used in every way, shape, and form but the correct one. Students could have up to a dozen submissions for a Maple assignment and come out with merely a satisfactory grade.

Maple should consider a few options and address a few issues. First, as I have previously recommended, perhaps Maple should be taught in E115. Students are intimidated by the godly amount of tasks that Maple can perform, so a class would be great at bringing Maple down to the level of a mere student. It might be hard to integrate students taking different levels of math, but the college could definitely play around with the idea.

Furthermore, the command-line interface of the system is far from intuitive. Commands are addressed by the FAQ’s of the program and by forums online, but typically they are hard to understand because they are not stated in Layman’s terms. I would highly advise Maple to consider touch technology. The combination is feasible. In the 1970s, PLATO was highly successful at teaching students through terminals using touch technology. Perhaps software could be developed for tablet notebooks that already use touch technology so that students can physically write down what they are trying to solve in Maple. This would make the program more user-friendly. And as the effect user-friendliness typically has on technology, perhaps the amount of Maple users, much less, Maple endorsers, could spread to an audience greater than NC State engineering students and staff, which is a very small population.

Posted at 11:00PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

CGI: bringing down our film industry

Technology not only brings more convenience into our lives, but it also provides more entertainment. CGI (Computer-generated imagery) applies computer graphics to create special effects in films, television shows, and video games. While many people would associate the use of CGI for video games (if you haven’t noticed, a lot of the inspiration coming for computer science students comes from the desire to create video games), CGI also makes a great impact on our viewing pleasure at the movies. Films like The Matrix, Spiderman and Transformers capitalize on this idea by incorporating CGI into high-action sequences, allowing characters to do some extraordinary things by escaping the laws of physics and embracing the benefits of CGI.

Nevertheless, there is more to the spectrum of CGI than some care to admit. CGI takes the humans out of these movies and simulates their artificial counterparts. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I thought I was watching somebody play an Xbox 360 during the action sequences of Spiderman 3. Is it better to have fake actors performing extraordinary feats or is it better to have real actors who perform subpar feats? I’ll stick with the subpar feats. For example, The Dark Knight was a blockbuster hit, and absolutely no CGI was used. Even the recent Pineapple Express, a mere comedy film, showed how the demand of high action sequences can be satisfied without CGI. Characters raced around town in the car chase, driving cars with feet through the windshields. Characters held AK-47s and infiltrated a base. Yet, none of these sequences implemented CGI. All they resulted in was a heaping helping of hysterical laughs. There’s something about the human face we can relate to, so films such as Pineapple Express intrigue us more than Spiderman 3, whose use of CGI disconnected it from viewers.

Posted at 10:59PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

Spray-paint technology

Recent controversy came to NC State when vulgar messages were painted on the walls of its Free Expression Tunnel. The four students responsible for the messages eventually turned themselves in to the dean. Their punishment is supposedly being intervened by the NAACP with the dean. Immediately afterwards, the tunnel was painted completely white to show mourning for the victims of the messages. Rallies gathered in the Brickyard to educate students about diversity. News reporters consistently crowded the tunnel every morning at sun-up weeks after the incident occurred. The effects of these messages are probably way greater than what these students originally intended.

Spray-paint seems primitive but its use as a technology is being catalyzed by NC State. Graffiti is typically created by using spray-paint, but graffiti is essentially vandalism and illegal. Nonetheless, NC State allows its students to participate in these activities to express their thoughts and concerns. This allows students to not only efficiently communicate to other students their insights, but in the case of the previously mentioned incident it allows for the community to establish what is right and wrong through the eyes of the public. When messages written by students are so atrocious that the NAACP gets involved, someone is in the wrong. Though practically no one agreed with these messages, many students came together by their disagreement with the messages. Perhaps the use of spray-paint and free expression tunnels should be expanded so that more communities can communicate more efficiently and tie their residents closer together, because that is precisely what happened after these vulgar messages were written.

Posted at 10:58PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

What is Microsoft Surface?

My group in STS 302H recently evaluated Microsoft Surface in a 15 minute podcast. By relying on nothing more than our mere knowledge of the subject for 15 minutes (minus a minute long audio clip we included- no visual effects, no music, no interludes, etc.), it definitely called for us to examine the technology inside-out and figure out where it’s been, where it is, and where it’s going.

Microsoft Surface is essentially a two-by-four foot tabletop with touch technology all over it. Users interact with Surface by using natural hand gestures to navigate through the screens and manipulating the images displayed on the screen. Devices such as cameras, mp3 players, GPS systems, and cell phones can be placed on the screen and their contents will be poured out. I could spend all day talking about the hundreds of uses this technology has, but I’ll limit Surface to a simple concept. If you can imagine all the services that your personal computer performs for you on a daily basis, except only now these services will be performed on a touch-sensitive screen rather than a keyboard and mouse, that’s Surface.

 Microsoft Surface is mainly being used by businesses right now. For example, AT&T brilliantly uses the technology so that customers can choose the best phone plan for them by placing different combinations of phones on Surface, allowing comparative information to be displayed on the screen, contrasting the different phone plans. However, while uses like this are convenient, they do not establish Surface as a successful technology. Bill Gates (remember, the word “Microsoft” is involved) made computer technology a booming success after decades of limited business interaction. However, when he drove manufacturing costs down so that the average American could afford a personal computer, he made computers a worldwide success. Likewise, unless Gates can find a way to drive the costs of Surface down to a reasonable level (Surface right now is an unparalleled $10,000 per unit), Surface will be a relatively unknown and failing technology.

Posted at 10:57PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

The frustrations of E115

Freshman engineers at NC State are required to take E115. This course primarily teaches freshmen about the basic elements of computers (What are coaxial cables? What is a bus network? Etc.). Furthermore, this class informs freshmen how to undertake several tasks that are common to engineering undergraduates such as encoding html, using Putty, and working with spreadsheets on Excel. Essentially, two 2-hour sessions of class are used to teach students about Excel, along with two homework assignments and a massive final examination.

This class needs to be changed. Many students either, a, already know everything about computers (hence they’re engineers), or b, don’t care about computers as what they learn will simply seep out as the course is completed. Besides, if students need basic information about computers for any reason, what is to stop them from simply finding it on Wikipedia? That’s how students get half of their information anyways. Second of all, Excel is a complete waste of time. I had to create several spreadsheets for my PY 205N labs (may I add, with no prior knowledge on the subject) before the word “Excel” was even mentioned in class. To top that, many students already took classes on how to use Excel in high school. I’m not saying that Excel should be eliminated from the curriculum; I’m just saying that this class isn’t efficiently teaching to students how to use this technology.

Perhaps more time should be spent on learning how to use Putty rather than general information. It’s always useful to know what you’re working with, but it seems that less and less people will actually benefit from this information. Let’s make this class optional, or at least create an optional Excel class for people like me. Perhaps State could implement a mandatory Putty class, because this is where most students struggle the most anyways.

Posted at 10:55PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

Source-finding technology?

I have written plenty of papers over the course of the semester. Most of these papers require reliable sources to back up the information I’m stating. Hopefully, the information being cited is close to universal, so a source such as Wikipedia is good enough. However, most of the time, the information is a little more intellectually challenging than that and requires a source with a solid backbone. Online journals and articles sometimes prove substantial, but once again, most of the time I’m searching for something clear and definitive and not offered by these types of sources. This information is prevalent to a book.

The problem is not that I have a hard time finding a book in the sense of what’s available. I have D.H. Hill library at my disposal, with over 3.6 million volumes of text available. Furthermore, if I needed to write a paper on persuasion, books containing the definition of persuasion can be found using a computer and located in a general section or region of the library. However, once again, with over 3.6 million volumes of text available, it might be hard to locate that “perfect” book out of over 100-200 books on persuasion. Not including the time it took to figure out where the general consensus of persuasion books was located, it took me over 45 minutes to find that “perfect” book.

Could I recommend source-finding technology? I have no clue how to create this, but I’m sure it’d be useful for all the undergraduates passing through the library. It’s an issue that’s yet to be addressed, so I am unsure as to whether this idea would be feasible or not. Is our library too large to categorize its contents? I don’t know, but I’m already regretting the next definitive quote that I have to locate. I’d love to have the library find great, reliable sources and information for me, so I don’t have to go digging 6-feet under for it.

Posted at 10:54PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

Turning failing technology into success

The engineering process today is dominated by solving problems. Typically a multitude of solutions are created in order to find the one, perfect solution to the problem. However, along the way, these multitudes of solutions are discarded and eventually overlooked as if they never existed in the first place. However, the works of Henry Petroski suggest that according to the pendulum, failing technology always has the possibility of swinging into a success. Likewise, these multitudes of solutions that are deemed as failures may hold the key to future answers as well. Teams should be instigated to explore the full spectrum of uses for failing technology to turn it into success.

The best example of this problem would be the introduction of the post-it note. Post-its seem primitive, but they have become a highly successful technology due to failure. A low-track, pressure sensitive adhesive was developed on accident by Spencer Silver. Rather than scratching the formula and continuing to solve the original problem, Silver somehow pushed the adhesive formula far enough to find a use on a scratch piece of paper. Engineers never addressed how to make pieces of paper that stick to surfaces, but the steps offered by the engineering process did. For this reason, we must treat failing technology with more respect than we currently do.

Posted at 10:48PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[1]

RFID Chips

RFID is a growing technology in the United States. RFID stands for “Radio Frequency Identification.” The technology is comprised of two primary processes, scanning and emitting. RFID chips emit radio waves at certain frequencies while scanning devices pick up these waves and identify the individual chips. A classic example of RFID chips can be found in tags on clothing that trigger an alarm at the front door if the register clerk fails to remove them. This alarm indicates theft.

RFID technology has gone further than its original purpose as an aircraft identifier back in World War II. Dogs are now implanted with RFID chips so their medical records can be tracked. The US government already announced in 2006 that it intended to implement RFID chips in passports, containing information such as name, date of birth, and sex. This technology would allow a border officer to merely scan the passport and verify the photo of the passport presenter. Furthermore, RFID chip implementation in the medical field would allow for citizens to travel around the nation without fear of getting in an accident and doctors not being able to find medical records- a simple scan of the individual’s RFID chip would bring up that person’s record.

The latter two innovations in RFID chip technology would certainly make life more convenient, but its introduction to society would definitely cause some concerns. Implanting these chips in Americans would definitely call some to question their rights to privacy stated in the Bill of Rights. RFID chips in passports may strengthen acts such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, but may raise some brows towards the issue of cross-border traffic flow. Many Americans are sensitive to immigrants flowing in through their borders; however, technology such as RFID technology definitely makes it easier for North Americans to cross the border and visit their neighbors.

This blog was inspired by my close friend. He wrote a very informative, articulate article concerning the history of RFID chips and their future implementations. Here are some interesting sources he used to write his article:

Albrecht, Katherine. "Frequently Asked Questions About CASPIAN." RFID Nineteen Eight-      Four. CASPIAN. 10 Nov            2008 <www.spychips.com/about_us.>.

Gerson, Emily Starbuck. "Contactless credit cards 'floundering'. Not many embrace the cards       touted as 'wave of  the future'." Credit Cards.Com. 28 May 2008. CreditCards.com. 10            Nov 2008 www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/contactless-credit-card-prediction-            11273.

Johnson, Joel. "RFID Credit Cards and Theft: Tech Clinic." Popular Mechanics. Jan 2007.            Heart Communications Inc.10 Nov 2008                                                                                            www.popularmechanics.com/how_to_central/technology/4206464.html.

Kupetz , Allen H. “Our Cashless Future: Despite Continued Concerns over Privacy and Security,             the Era of Digital Currency Has Arrived.”  Futurist June 2007.  SIRS Knowledge Source .     NC LIVE. 10 Nov 2008. sks.sirs.com. 

Lewan, Todd. "Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors." WashingtonPost.com. 08 Sep 2007.     Associated Press. 10        Nov 2008 <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-   dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997>.

Mathur, Ravi. "RFID fights counterfeit menace." Express Pharma. 2001. Indian Express   Newspapers. 10 Nov 2008             www.expresspharmaonline.com/20060331/research03>.

NASDAQ. “Chip: Stock Quote and Data Summary” 11 Nov 2008. 11 Nov 2008.             WWW.quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=CHIP&selected=CHIP

New York State DMV. “Facts About Enhanced Drivers Liscenses for U.S. Citizens Who             are       Residents of NYS.” 2008. 10 Nov 2008. www.nydmv.state.ny.us/edl-faqs

O'Connor, Mary Catherine . "Chase Offers Contactless Cards in a Blink The global financial         services firm will issue MasterCard and Visa credit cards embedded with RFID tags to         enable a contactless payment service called   blink.." RFID Journal. 25 May 2005. RFID   Journal . 10 Nov 2008 www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1615.

RFID Journal. “The History of RFID Technology.”  11 Nov 2008.                                                              www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/1338/1/129

Verichip Corporation. “Our RFID Tags”. 2006. 10 Nov 2008.                                                                      www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/rfidtags#implantable

Verichip Corporation. “RFID 101”. 2006. 10 Nov 2008.      http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/rfid101

Vijayan, Jaikumar . "Passport card with chatty RFID chip draws privacy ire ." Network World.    01 Sep 2008.             Computer World. 10 Nov 2008                      www.networkworld.com/news/2008/010908-passport-card-with-chatty- rfid.

Posted at 10:46PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

My progress

Over the duration of STS 302H, I have learned many valuable lessons concerning technology. I have tackled a bunch of issues concerning technology, but my views on them changed over the course. This evening, I am putting up my final ideas on some pieces of technology that I have kept up with over this past semester.

Posted at 10:42PM Dec 06, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

SPP brings new technology into play

It was over three and a half years ago when President George W. Bush signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Public communication concerning the pact remains relatively low, but the majority of the informed are skeptical of a greater North American Union (NAU). Though there is no mention of a NAU in the SPP, whitehouse.gov provides an excellent database for information concerning the SPP and its updates. The general purpose of this document is to unite the three North American nations Canada, Mexico and The United States and collaborate on certain strategies to ensure the success of these nations. The SPP essentially calls for a union similar to the European Union. Although over the years, mentions of a united currency (Amero) and free-flow across the borders have been hushed, the SPP is undergoing progress. The earlier innovation could boost America out of its emerging recession and the latter is already being implemented.

The New York Times reported last week about a new "enhanced drivers license." The new license is not limited to driving information but non-driving equivalence as well, permitting land and sea crossings to Mexico, Canada and the Carribean islands. Radio Frequency Identification (RFI) chips are installed on the licenses that broadcast biographic and biometric data for border patrol officers.

Such technology will remind many of 1984. Privacy will be sacrificed for identification and security in the minds of the public. In the future, a struggle will emerge between whether the rights of the people should be upheld or whether the emergence of technology will dictate these rights.

I've been keeping up with the SPP for a little under a year now. Its is difficult to decipher whether this change is a good or bad thing, but I was definitely in awe when I unveiled this bit of information. It is easy to deny the SPP exists when the only proof available is documents. When there is little to no media airtime, it makes it hard for the public to acknowledge that such a thing even exists.

However, what cannot be deceived is the fact that technology will make this event tangible. People will deny the SPP exists as long as society's technology remains stagnant. Even with holograms depicting a map of North America being implemented on the back of North Carolina driving licenses, some people still need more proof. This proof will come as the RFI chips come into play. People will start to ponder what these new innovations are, and questions will be answered on the 5 o'clock news. Until then, we must wait until the engineers behind the movement can bring new technology into play that makes this pact visible and tangible to the life of a typical American.

I have two newspaper articles that I wrote and co-wrote, so if you are interested in any informal or opinionated articles concerning the SPP or NAU speculation, feel free to contact me at blrouse@ncsu.edu.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/a-new-license-for-more-than-just-driving/?hp

Posted at 10:45AM Sep 24, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[0]

On a lighter note

I spent the majority of last week recovering from a fever that had been bogging me down since the first day of school. There was little that could make me smile under the surplus of make-up work that had conglomerated over the span of a week. However, surprisingly enough, I found a little bit of humor in something as stoic as my Physics textbook. The text is not even remotely humorous at first glance, but upon further investigation, it?s freaking hilarious (just bear with the "theme" of the text, don't even bother to worry about the concepts at hand):

"The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second... The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom... The standard of mass is now the least satisfactory. Unlike the operational definitions of length and time, which are based on procedures that can be repeated by scientists anywhere, the unit of mass is defined in terms of a particular object... The prototype kilogram is made of a special platinum-iridium alloy that is very hard, not subject to corrosion and very dense. Nevertheless, it could conceivably change, and in any event comparison with such a standard is less convenient than an operational definition that can be checked in a laboratory. So scientists are working on techniques based on counting the number of silicon atoms in a given volume, to scale up from the mass of a single atom to a new definition of the kilogram."-Essential University Physics, Richard Wolfson

There are a plethora of items that scientists measure every day, especially using the kilogram unit. However, if we have gone this far in time without scientifically proving that the kilogram does indeed weigh a kilogram, I think we'll live. In fact, I think we were set once we discovered that "the meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second." I am not an expert by any means concerning this research, but I am pretty sure that this number has quite enough digits to pass around for consumers to ensure that their meter sticks are indeed a meter long.

On a lighter note, couldn't this same type of technology be used to figure out how to project food into the mouths of starving children in third world countries around the globe from across the ocean? That's just a suggestion, but it's probably nowhere near as important as symbolizing the equivalent of the kilogram (which we defined a solid three centuries ago) in the laboratory to show off just how savvy technology is today.

Posted at 03:34PM Sep 03, 2008 by Bennett L. Rouse in General  |  Comments[2]