Science and Technology Brief

20060427

     The Science and Technology Brief is a biweekly glance at interesting science and technology news and profiles on science and technology that is or will affect us all. For Thursday: ‘Using the Tongue to See’, ‘Sweet Madre! 750GB 3.5in Hard Drives…’, A ‘Loss of Innocence’

Using the Tongue to See

ABC News via The Mudville Gazette 

     Wow! Using the tongue to transmit information was not one of the ways of improving sensory processing I would have though of, but that’s because I’m obviously not as smart as Dr. Paul Bach-y-Rita or Dr. Anil Raj.

     In basic terms, this technology allows extra human sensory devices like sonar or infrared to communicate with a user using the tongue rather than other senses. Using such an interface in conjunction with the other senses gives the user supersensory ability the he does not otherwise have. Such supersensory ability would give the user that much of an extra advantage in situations where situational awareness is critical, such as on the battlefield or in rescue operations.

Sweet Madre! 750GB 3.5in Hard Drives…

PC World

     So much for all the pundits of ages past who claimed ‘No one will ever need…’. Yes, we are well on our way to the first Terebyte- that is 1000 Gigabyte- hard drives that still fit into the same 3.5 inch form factor space as your current wimpy 80GB drive.

     What these new massive capacity drives mean is that storage technology is finally catching up with storage demand. More and more people are using PCs for more than just a place to store their term papers and email, and the proliferation of MP3s, DVD quality video, and other media demands huge amounts of storage space.

     Do not be surprised to see a new breed of hybrid PCs sometime next year that use a combination of HUGE amounts of RAM (2GB+), flash memory, and raid arrayed megadrives (1TB+) being marketed as home entertainment engines that can replace everything in your current office and entertainment center.

     Technology is so cool!

A Loss of Innocence

CNet

     The defeat of a Democratic Party sponsored internet neutrality bill in committee is really a blow to the continued existence of the internet as we know it today. Unfortunately, most people who use the internet today have no idea what internet neutrality is or what it means to how they use the internet.

     In basic terms, internet neutrality means that internet service providers merely provide you with access to the internet. How you choose to use that access is entirely up to you. With that access, you can check your email, sell used socks on Ebay, or download 4000 mp3s that you will never listen to. The point is that you can do whatever you want because your access is neutral.

     The telecommunications companies providing the bulk of the access to the internet do not like internet neutrality. The can see from their perspective that there are a lot more people using certain kinds of internet services than others. What they want to be able to do is charge users based on how they use the internet rather than the fact that they use the internet at all.

     The result of such an end to internet neutrality would be a system similar to how the average phone bill already works. The customer would be forced to pay a separate fee for each internet service that he wants to use. These services would be most likely offered in bundles along with a myriad of services no one ever uses, like the way call forwarding and three-way calling is bundled with caller ID.

     The end result is that internet access would become more expensive and less useful. People who use the internet regularly for all sorts of things would be forced to pay large amounts to retain that service, while people who do not use the internet much would likely stop using it altogether because of the cost.

     Further, such an end to internet neutrality will also be an end to the freedom of your own PC. By splitting out and individually packaging internet services, the ISPs can force the consumer to use specific web browsers, email clients, even operating systems in order to have access. They can also force-feed advertisements to the consumer through these mandated clients.

     In the end, then end of internet neutrality would mean the end of internet usefulness of many users. Having to pay a separate fee to check email or to use Google would deprive the internet of its openness and curtail its ongoing development. And all of this because telcos want to make a greater profit off of the consumers internet usage.

DLH