About Me

Comment Form is loading comments...
  • This is Slide 1 Title

    This is slide 1 description. Go to Edit HTML and replace these sentences with your own words. This is a Blogger template by Lasantha - PremiumBloggerTemplates.com...

  • This is Slide 2 Title

    This is slide 2 description. Go to Edit HTML and replace these sentences with your own words. This is a Blogger template by Lasantha - PremiumBloggerTemplates.com...

  • This is Slide 3 Title

    This is slide 3 description. Go to Edit HTML and replace these sentences with your own words. This is a Blogger template by Lasantha - PremiumBloggerTemplates.com...

Showing posts with label Technology News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology News. Show all posts

Thursday, 8 October 2015

The Technology Portal

Technology is the making, modification or improvement, applied activity or behavior, use and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, methods of organization, or environmental modifications or arrangement in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal or perform a specific function. It can also refer to the collection of such tools, machinery, modifications, environmental arrangement and procedures. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments. The word technology comes from Greek τεχνολογία (technología); from τέχνη (téchnē), meaning "art, skill, craft", and -λογία (-logía), meaning "study of-". The term can be applied either generally or to many specific areas, examples of which include construction technology, medical technology and information technology.

The human species' use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools. The prehistorical discovery of the ability to control fire increased the available sources of food and the invention of the wheel helped humans in traveling in and controlling their environment. Recent technological developments, including the printing press, the telephone, and the Internet, have lessened physical barriers to communication and allowed humans to interact freely on a global scale. However, not all technology has been used for peaceful purposes; the development of weapons of ever-increasing destructive power has progressed throughout history, from clubs to nuclear weapons.

Technology has affected society and its surroundings in a number of ways. In many societies, technology has helped develop more advanced economies (including today's global economy) and has allowed the rise of a leisure class. Many technological processes produce unwanted by-products, known as pollution, and deplete natural resources, to the detriment of the Earth and its environment. Various implementations of technology influence the values of a society and new technology often raises new ethical questions. Examples include the rise of the notion of efficiency in terms of human productivity, a term originally applied only to machines, and the challenge of traditional norms.

Philosophical debates have arisen over the present and future use of technology in society, with disagreements over whether technology improves the human condition or worsens it. Neo-Luddism, anarcho-primitivism, and similar movements criticize the pervasiveness of technology in the modern world, opining that it harms the environment and alienates people; proponents of ideologies such as transhumanism and techno-progressivism view continued technological progress as beneficial to society and the human condition. Indeed, until recently, it was believed that the development of technology was restricted only to human beings, but recent scientific studies indicate that other primates and certain dolphin communities have developed simple tools and learned to pass their knowledge to other generations.

Monday, 11 August 2014

US tech companies rally behind Facebook in privacy case









 Eye
Facebook has vowed to fight the US government over data requests
Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

In a strong display of unity, several large US tech firms have come to the defense of Facebook, as the social network contests a court order which required it to hand over users' data.
Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Drop-box are among those who have filed court documents arguing that the search warrant violated the US Constitution.
In June, Facebook revealed it had given a New York court the personal data of 381 people involved in a fraud trial.
Only 62 of those were later charged.
Photographs, private messages and other information were supplied by the social media site to the court in 2013, as part of an investigation into fraudulent claimants for US federal disability benefits.
The court said the defendants' Facebook accounts had contained evidence showing that they were, in fact, healthy.
The social media site, which had its initial appeal against the warrant denied, said the request was "by far the largest" it had ever received from a government body.
US Tech Firms  
The major tech firms have all been subject to government requests for user data
Legal challenge In documents filed to a New York court, and seen by the BBC, the following US tech firms threw their support behind Facebook:
  • Google
  • Microsoft
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Yelp
  • Drop-box
  • Pinterest
  • Foursquare
  • Kick-starter
  • Meetup
  • Tumblr
Some of the companies argued that the process violated the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" of persons' belongings.
In their submission to the court, firms such as Google and Microsoft said they had "a strong interest in the resolution of the issues in this case", as they too faced similar legal battles over the protection of user data.
A lawyer representing some of the medium-sized firms, including Foursquare and Tumblr, expressed concern that "smaller entities, such as start-ups and other developing companies, may not always have the resources to litigate," when confronted with a government search warrant.
'Gag orders' But the firms were most angered by the fact that the entire proceedings had been kept private by the court.
Two months ago, Facebook revealed that the US government had obtained "gag orders" to prevent it from telling the account holders that their data had been passed to prosecutors.
The story was only revealed almost a year later, after a New York judge agreed to make the process public.
The tech firms rallying behind Facebook said it was "far from clear" that the order had served a compelling government interest.
A separate filing was made by both the New York and American Civil Liberties Unions, who outlined their opposition to the court's decision, warning that "Facebook users are at risk of dilution of their constitutional rights".
visit this sponsored link   Increase website traffic with free website links, improve search engine rankings, and page rank.

Monday, 30 June 2014

Facebook apologises for deceiving thousands of users

Facebook apologies for deceiving thousands of users during controversial News Feed experiment

  • In 2012, Facebook manipulated the feeds of 689,003 users during one week
  • It edited feeds to make either negative or positive posts more prominent
  • The results were published over the weekend in the journal PNAS
  • Facebook has apologized for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety that was caused
  • During the test, negative posts received more positive responses
  • A reduction in positive news feed items was met with negative posts

Following reports Facebook manipulated the feeds of almost 700,000 users, the site has issued a statement claiming it 'never met to upset anyone'.
During one week in 2012, the social media giant edited feeds to highlight either positive or negative items, and then monitored responses.
The site has since apologized for the way the paper described the research, and any anxiety that was caused, adding, 'the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this.'


During one week in 2012
Following reports Facebook

During one week in 2012, Facebook manipulated feeds of just over 689,000 users to highlight either positive or negative items, and then monitored responses over the course of a random week. The site has since apologized for the way the paper described the research, and any anxiety that was caused.

The reason we did this research is because we care about the emotional impact of Facebook and the people who use our product,' said Facebook data scientist Adam D. I. Kramer.

More...

  • The phone you can upgrade in a second: Google reveals DIY handset that allows you to clip in cameras, batteries and sensors when you need them - and say it could be on sale by January 2015 for just $50
  • Are YOU addicted to your mobile? New app can monitor usage and tell you just how obsessed you really are
‘We felt that it was important to investigate the common worry that seeing friends post positive content leads to people feeling negative or left out.
‘At the same time, we were concerned that exposure to friends' negativity might lead people to avoid visiting Facebook. We didn't clearly state our motivations in the paper.
'Having written and designed this experiment myself, I can tell you that our goal was never to upset anyone.'
During the experiment, Facebook prioritized content in News Feeds, based on whether there was an emotional word in the post.
Tests affected around 0.04 per cent of users - or 1 in 2500 - for a week, in early 2012.
According to Kramer, nobody's posts were 'hidden,' they just didn't show up on some feeds.
'Those posts were always visible on friends' timelines, and could have shown up on later News Feed loads.'
It found that negative posts elicited a swell of positive responses, but also that a reduction in positive news led to more negative posts, according to the results of a study published in PNAS Journal.
Facebook data scientist Adam D. I. Kramer issued a statement over the weekend (pictured). He said: 'The reason we did this research is because we care about the emotional impact of Facebook. Having written and designed this experiment myself, I can tell you our goal was never to upset anyone' 

Facebook data scientist Adam D. I. Kramer issued a statement over the weekend (pictured). He said: 'The reason we did this research is because we care about the emotional impact of Facebook. Having written and designed this experiment myself, I can tell you our goal was never to upset anyone'

‘When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred,’ said the researchers.
‘These results show that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks.’
Of the millions of posts analyses, 4 million were found to be positive and 1.8million were determined to be negative.
The findings led the team to close that ‘in-person interaction and nonverbal cues are not strictly necessary for emotional contagion.’
This experiment was limited to users who viewed Facebook in English, but it is not known across which geographic boundaries.
'At the end of the day, the real impact on people in the experiment was the minimal amount to statistically detect it - the result was that people produced an average of one fewer emotional word, per thousand words, over the following week,' continued Kramer.
'I can understand why some people have concerns about it, and my coauthors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety it caused.
'In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.'
Commenting on the reports, Brett Dixon, director of the digital marketing agency DPOM, said:  'Despite Facebook's insistence this was merely an academic experiment, it sails perilously close to the illegal world of subliminal advertising.
'There's a reason this insidious form of manipulation is banned - it is an abuse of people's freedom to choose.
'But let's keep some perspective. This was a research project, not the birth of some social media thought police.'

 This  news has been taken from Google news and live mail online and published by Syed Furqan Ahmed