SimCity, for Real: Measuring an Untidy Metropolis

        The amount and quality of analysis of data often is the defining quality that succeeding groups in society possess.  New York has been a leader in "The Smart City movement" which focuses on improving urban life through the use of data to see and measure activities.  Thermal sensors, advanced software algorithms, and communication have all advanced at such a rate that finding potential implementations and setting up government processes for analyzing data has taken some time. The goals of the movement also include cutting the use of water and electricity by 30-50%. Steven E. Koonin, director of New York University's Center for Urban Science and Progress which was founded last year has responded to claims of privacy intrusion by stating that data gathered would not contain any personal information. Data predictions have greatly increased the odds that health and safety inspectors would find problems. Mayor Bloomberg and the city government is set on giving the N.Y.U center access to all of its public data. This asset is meant not only for research but potentially to change government policy to react to what the center finds.  The question now is how will the city encourage people to change their behavior to improve living standards and resource efficiency now that day to day actions of the populace will be far more transparent to them.  

source : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/technology/nyu-center-develops-a-science-of-cities.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=scienceandtechnology&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1362067319-cuJUGLyva8RhsJmchenOQw

Study Links Diet Soda with Depression in Older Adults

A recent study on diet soda shows that adults who consume at least four cups a day are 31% more likely to be depressed than people who don't drink diet soda. They were even more likely to report depression than people who had four or more cups of coffee a day. When conducting a survey, the researchers found that more than 260,000 older adults in the United States who consume diet soda, iced tea, or fruit punch (all artificially sweetened drinks) reported that they were depressed. The survey also showed that people who consume these artificial sweeteners in lower amounts are still at a higher risk of being depressed.
Eva Redei, a professor of psychiatry at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, states that we can't put all the blame on just the diet drinks based only on these findings. There are still many questions that need to be answered first in order to prove that these sweeteners in diet drinks actually cause depression. The American Beverage Association also claims that they are not impressed by these findings. They also claim that as of now, there is no actual scientific evidence proving that these beverages cause depression.
Redei also makes a point to add that this study focuses on older adults, who may also be diabetic or obese (both of which have a high risk of developing depression). People who have diabetes or are obese tend to favor these diet drinks to try to improve their conditions.
There have been many studies in the past on diet soda that state it causes poorer health. In my opinion, diet soda is okay in moderation.The common misconception with diet soda is that it is healthier than regular soda. Most people who are trying to lose weight drink diet soda and think it is helping them be healthier. In reality, if people want to actually be healthier, they will cut out soda all together.

As far as depression is concerned, I do not believe there is enough scientific evidence to prove that the diet soda causes depression. I think this topic has many controversial points to it, since there are so many groups trying to prove that diet soda is causing poor health. The soda companies will always try to defend their product and advertise it more to attract customers, where scientists will try to help people by coming up with a conclusion. The real question we have to ask ourselves in the end is 'who do we trust?'

Article: http://scitechdaily.com/study-links-diet-soda-with-depression-in-older-adults/

Have You Smiled Today?

      Have you ever wondered about the psychological implications of facial expressions? I mean, people in general (including ourselves) share some common consensus about what facial expressions may mean to others, but what impact do facial expressions have on the person making the expression? What effect do they have on us? Let me start with an example. A smile, without referencing its negative applications, is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as "a slight and more or less involuntary movement of the countenance expressive of pleasure, amusement, [and] affection." So it seems that a smile is an emotional representation of something good, a symbol of  security. The "smile" is also relatively universal in this context across countries, nations, and cultures, even if it is not expressed as often. Now imagine a world that forbade smiles and promoted the display of just blank faces, i.e. a world without good or feeling of security. I may be radical in saying this, that there is no "good" or "security" in a world without smiles, but am I radical in saying that the world, that people, emotionally, would be a lot different, more gloomy, if forbidden to smile and encouraged to live life with an emotionless face? 

 

        

         So not smiling does not make us feel too good about ourselves, and it can also make others treat us negatively; as a result, we feel just as bad about ourselves. In fact, researchers believe that not smiling, or having the inability to make such a facial expression, can increase one's susceptibility to coronary heart disease and depression. And it also works the other way around; if you smile more than you actually frown, then you would be less susceptible to those illnesses. The only reason I decided to write about this topic is because I read about this concept of facial expressions back in my AP Psychology class in high school; however, an article I came across, Simply Only on the Surface, has a bit of a twist but sticks to this notion of facial expressions. It talks about Dr. Eric Finzi and a book that he has recently written about on Botox. As a proponent of the product, Dr. Finzi believes that the use of Botox to remove frown lines and relieve migranes by injections to the forhead can have positive emotional effects on a person, and does not solely have to be used for the purpose of vanity. In accordance with this "facial-feedback hypothesis," Dr. Finzi also believes that the use of Botox to clear frown lines can eventually lead to fewer divorces, better careers, and prevention from cancer. These ideas seem a bit far-fetched and exaggerated (Forestalling cancer? Really?). The bottom line is, even without Botox, people will often feel better about themselves when they smile and will treat others accordingly. And when frowning comes into play, people will often back away, ignore, or possibly inquire about such an expression; nonetheless, frowning definitely does not cause that warm feeling inside that a smile does. I relate this "feel good" phenonmenon to the clothes I wear. Wearing baggy sweatpants and a hoodie does not make me feel too happy about myself, even though it makes me feel comfortable. But when I actually take the time to dress up and look presentable, I feel pretty good about myself. 

  

       But what do you guys think? Is right to make such a correlation between smiling and feeling good and frowning and feeling bad, or does correlation not necessarily imply causation? How can this be related to the topic of obesity, in which some people find extra fat on the body to be a symbol of unhealthy living, while others (often those suffering with weight problems) find extra fat on the body sexually appealing?

-Rad

Sources:

1. Oxford English Dictionary

2. Article      

3. Picture 

Like Your Genes? Who Cares?! (Myriad Doesn't.)

          On February 15th, the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favor of Myriad Genetics, Inc. on the matter of a patent — for genes.  The decision was made on the basis that the process of isolating a gene or genetic sequence from the body, regardless of whether it already exists there, is considered an "artificial state of affairs," and thus deems the gene/genetic sequence viable for patenting.

Really?

          Yes, really.  Because Myriad can use its technology to isolate human genomes, it is then allowed to patent the genes it finds.  How does this make any sense?  This would be like finding a bird with a bird caller and then patenting the bird.  The only minute silver lining of this case (and I emphasize minute) is that the decision was specific to a patent on mutated BRCA1 genetic sequences, which are attributes to an increased risk of both breast and ovarian cancer.  (This means Myriad can't take all of our genes... yet.) Now, this patent was filed in 1994 by Myriad, and with its victory almost nine years later, the company holds the exclusive right to perform test for the presence of these BRCA1 series in Australia.  In comparison, Myriad's enforcement of its patent in the United States makes it the only company able to test for BRCA1.  Oh, and it can cost up to $3,000.

          The counterpart to Myriad in this legal bout was Cancer Voices Australia and a woman named Yvonne D'Arcy, previously afflicted with breast cancer.  Their goal was to quell Myriad's excessive control, which prevents other laboratories to test for BRCA1, leaving countless lives, and wallets, in the hands of Myriad Genetics, Inc.  A core point of the defense's argument against Myriad was that isolating a gene from the human body is like "snapping a leaf from a tree."  If I were to take a leaf from a tree, a leaf that already exists and is able to be taken by anyone with hands, why should I have the legal rights to all leaves?  Similarly, why should Myriad have ownership of the BRCA1 gene, when it uses technology that all genetics labs not only use but have been using to examine this specific genetic sequence?

          So, if you aren't Australian, how is this relevant to you? Well, in two months the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal on a case with Myriad Genetics, but with the American Civil Liberties Union replacing Cancer Voices Australia.  Because the criteria for patent acceptance is universally similar, Myriad's victory in Australia may translate to a denial of the American Civil Liberties Union's appeal, and we all may continue to be subjected to the same ridiculous, nonsensical, and absurd fate as the "Land Down Under."

Note: Australia's parliament lessens the impact of this decisions to researchers somewhat.  As per the "experimental use defence," researchers investigating the subject area governed by a patent cannot be penalized for doing so.

(Original article courtesy of NewScientist.com)

          

Evolutionary Morality

Many will say moral rules come from reason or from God, but do they really? Some biologists are now saying that moral rules may have come from evolution. Animals that lived on their own using ‘selfish’ tactics to survive operate differently than those that lived in groups. The animals that lived in groups had to suppress their selfish feelings; otherwise, the group would fall to chaos. Perhaps, it is this idea of ‘society’ where we have developed our sense of moral rules.

Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia, has managed to trace this evolutionary morality to both religion and politics. One phenomenon he came across in experiments was what he called, moral dumbfounding whereas moral dumbfounding is described as, “when people feel strongly that something is wrong but cannot explain why.” At the time, Dr. Haidt was doing experiments that were exploring the emotion of disgust where he would test the reactions of people to stories that would provoke disgust. (“Testing people’s reactions to situations like that of a hungry family that cooked and ate its pet dog after it had become road kill.”) Dr. Haidt’s experiment lead him to believe that there were two moral systems acting on a person’s judgment; one of which is ancient, and the other modern. The idea behind the ancient system was that it was developed before language came into play, and modern came after language was introduced. The ancient system is described as our instinctual or emotional gut response that happens instantaneously, whereas the modern system is not instantaneous but develops a rational response. So, how does moral dumbfounding occur exactly? Dr. Haidt describes it as a confliction between the modern and ancient systems or morality, where the modern system of morality may not be able to come up with a reason that coincides with the ancient system of morality’s response.

After a visit to India where “Haidt saw that people recognized a much wider moral domain than the issues of harm and justice that are central to Western morality.“, Haidt returned and determined that there were 5 components of morality. These 5 components are not harming others, do as you would be done, loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. “Dr. Haidt believes that religion has played an important role in human evolution by strengthening and extending the cohesion provided by the moral systems. ‘If we didn’t have religious minds we would not have stepped through the transition to groupishness,’ he said. ‘We’d still be just small bands roving around.’” Interestingly enough, Haidt also found that there was a correlation with the 5 components with politics. He found that liberals attached great weight to the components that were connected with self-protection: not harming others and do as you would be done. Conservatives on the other hand were more spread out between all 5 components with less emphasis on not harming others and do as you would be done as compared with liberals but had more emphasis on the remaining three categories, loyalty, respect for authority, and purity than liberals. “Dr. Haidt who describes himself as a moderate liberal, says that societies need people with both types of personality. ‘A liberal morality will encourage much greater creativity but will weaken social structure and deplete social capital.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Burger King and Jeep Twitter Accounts Compromised by Hackers

Twitter Page of Burger King after being hacked,
the blue check mark next to the 'McDonalds' text states that the account
has been verified by Twitter as being authentic.

Looking at Twitter, you might think April Fools Day came early this year, especially if you follow Burger King or Jeep. On Monday, hackers were able to log into the twitter account of Burger King, where they change the account name to McDonalds and added a McDonalds logo as their icon, all while retaining the '@burgerking' handle and coveted Twitter verification, symbolized with a blue check mark.
Furthermore, the header photo was changed to an advertisement for McDonalds' Fish McBites. The hacker used the account to state that McDonalds had purchased Burger King because "the whopper flopped." They also changed the account location to state "In a hood near you" and tweeted a few obscene tweets. Once the account was suspended, about an hour after its initial hacking, users were unable to see any tweets and eventually Burger King regained control.

The fun did not stop with Burger King for the hackers, however, as a similar situation arose just yesterday, where car maker Jeep experienced identical Twitter mishaps. Their location was also adjusted to say "In a hood near you" and their twitter icon was changed to a logo for Cadillac, owned by Chrysler rival General Motors. The Jeep twitter also sent out 140 character (or less) messages that were unfriendly to the brand and full of random obscenities.

Main Twitter Header for the Hacked Jeep Account

This hacking spree is not coincidental, as earlier this month it was revealed that about 250,000 twitter accounts and passwords had been obtained by hackers. Twitter, however, would not comment on the situation for "privacy and security" issues, choosing not to discuss particular instances, but rather the bigger picture. Ironically, Burger King gained over 6,000 followers from Monday's issue and tweeted about it with a bit humor. McDonalds also cleared their name via Twitter, announcing that they had nothing to do with the hack, despite their imagery being used. This situation should be used to remind users to be careful of their online security, and to change passwords frequently.

Burger King article can be found here.

Jeep article can be found here.

Google Glass

     This morning Google opened beta registration for Google Glass. Google Glass is the newest device from Google, it aims to be a wearable device. It would server as a head-up display for humans. Normally this would be an awesome idea, but in this iteration of the product I find it to be incredibly creepy.

     The technology behind the product is amazing, who wouldn't want to look like a secret agent from the future? What I find creepy is that Google is making it. Despite Google being a major provider in email, maps, calendar, search, and mobile technologies, they are mainly an advertising company. That means, all the data that they receive from their many services, in the end are used to better serve you ads.

     With these new glasses, Google will not just be able to monitor you while you're at your computer, but it will be able to monitor you while you are walking around your house. Not only will Google be able to monitor you, but so will any government agency worldwide that issues a subpoena to Google will be able to literally see where and what you have been doing. These glasses have the ability to put the final blow to what little privacy is left on the web.

     If this kind of product becomes popular, it would completely change the way people interact with each other. It could become a dash-cam for a human. Which can be good or bad. If you have a run-in with a corrupt police officer it could help your case. Although, if you accidentally record a conversation with someone and they did not consent to it, you could end up in jail.

     With this kind of new technology all the good comes with all the bad, and the only one defining both ends is Google. So if this technology is used "correctly" it seems as though it will have awesome uses. However when used "wrong", it will have some very serious effects that could influent many parts of human culture.

Sources:

• http://google.com/glass
• http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2415620,00.asp

Rock, Paper, Science, Technology, Society

I have to say my initial reaction to the title “Rock-Paper-Scissors a Parable for Cycles in Finance, Fashion, Politics and More”, was chuckling at remembering Dr. Sheldon Cooper’s explanation of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock on the TV show, The Big Bang Theory.  And before even starting the article, I was then concerned that my immediate connection to the text was through media and how as a society we are so impacted by technology.  That being stated and then proceeding to actually reading the article I realized the connection.  In the article, professionals suggest that as humans the “moves” played are by analyzing the opponent and anticipating their moves.  The point of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock is to eliminate some of the anticipating of one’s opponent because, also stated in the article, in allows for more variety, less predication and ultimately more effective for a game of “random” chance.  Rock, Paper, Scissors was initially viewed to be a sequence of random moves and the “human element” was not considered.  Professionals also made this wrong assumption when dealing with people leaving an area such as in the event of a fire.  Originally, the models were based off the random movement of tennis ball like objects just trying to squeeze their way through the exit.  However just like Rock, Paper, and Scissors they realized that human element is a large component to determine the outcome of events.  In real life, people would stop to help others and actually cut down the amount of time needed to leave an area because instead of acting like a brainless mob, they could anticipate others’ actions and would readjust theirs accordingly.  So linking back to how technology’s impact on society we are able to predict trends based on this cycling principle and think further ahead.  However my question is how does a paradigm shift impact this concept of anticipating? Does a shift or major advancement in technology in a way reset the society’s ability of interpreting their surroundings or does the way we have been seeing the world now just make more sense?

article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130219161246.htm

clip of Big Bang Theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqlDc2VICZ0

Live long and prosper,

Angela Rose

From Copernicus' 540th birthday -- peronal question: what is sciense?

Today is Copernicus 540th birthday.

 At the time, the prevailing theory, codified by the 1st century philosopher Ptolemy, was geocentrism – the belief, in short, that all celestial bodies revolve around the earth. Undertaking an extensive analysis of the path of the planets overhead, Copernicus argued that in fact it was the sun that was at the center of the solar system.

 During the time he published heliocentric, he got tons of problems. Because there were lots of people in that time who did not believe heliocentric. 

So, what is science? Personally, I think science is the majority of people believe the opinion is true in the society during a period time. However, if someone published some idea or thought which against the current thought in people's mind. People may think about that. But most of people will not trust the new thought until there are more and more people publish some similar thought, and we called those people scientist. Like Copernicus, people trust heliocentric after 100 years from he passed away.

Let me know how do you think what science is. 

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/0219/How-Nicolaus-Copernicus-rewrote-the-rules-of-the-solar-system