With the recent release of the iPad 3, and my obsession with any new tech, I found it fitting to somehow incorporate Apple’s gorgeous new product into a blog.

If you’ve ever used an iPad, it dazzles with the plethora of activities and entices users of all age groups including children. I recently asked my girlfriend’s 9 year old sister what she wanted for Christmas, and without blinking she replied “iPad 2”. For children of this age group, I am certain she is not alone in this feeling. With technology’s integration in our society today, it make too much sense to integrate iPad’s and similar tablets into the classroom to make learning interactive, hands-on and above all else accessible.

Similar to the tech-boom of the 90s which integrated computers into the curriculum of elementary and middle school students, iPads have found their way into classrooms with positive results. As of January 2012, 600 schools in the US have implemented a 1:1 iPad program. With attempts to link the heavy use of technology to a shortened attention span in children, would the use of an iPad in the classroom really produce a beneficial result?

Certainly still in the prototyping phases, studies have shown that the use of iPad based resources resulted in an increase in student performance when compared with paper based resources. Gameplay based learning is not a new concept but the use of electronically based gameplay in classrooms certainly is. Although seemingly counter-intuitive, the method has produced positive results. Outside of the elementary level and moving to the secondary and post secondary levels, electronic versions of textbooks have become all the rave. The reduction of paper based weights for students to lug around, no longer needing storage for said weights in bookstores/classrooms, interactive animations to reinforce essentials and more all contribute to a situation that screams for the use of a tablet. Many electronic textbooks retail for a fraction of their paper counterparts thus ipadifying even makes economic sense. 

Thinking back to my elementary days, I learned math by counting popsicle sticks, and can only imagine what kind of super genius I could have become had I had an ipad to learn from.

Surely, anyone with a Facebook account has at least heard of the controversial ‘Kony 2012’ video campaign that has recently gone viral. Although certainly an issue that warrants the attention, there has been plenty of other controversy concerning the mechanism of which the message is spreading, specifically, the use of social media networks such as Facebook to proliferate messages such as ‘Kony 2012’.

Regardless of their goals, International Children should be applauded for their use social media as their mechanism of propagation. Millions use the platform daily making it easy to get immediate exposure and inciting interest among the general public. The general public that would otherwise be uninformed about such stirring issues. From my perspective, its certainly difficult to read about such stories and not give my support regardless of how informed that support may be. Therein lies the issue with many criticizers of social media activism. It does promote a somewhat ‘armchair anthropology’. Clicking the ‘like’ button is not really helping anyone but making ourselves feel helpful, but its better than nothing. That’s what these people should understand, that regardless of the means of propagation, whether it be through facebook, or door-to-door surveying or rallies, the fundamental purpose is still the same: it is about education and inspiring support.

Social media, here facebook, certainly has its drawbacks with privacy, and the cheapening of face to face interaction, it makes its biggest contribution in the transport of information. In today’s age messages are exchanged and spread faster and through greater distances through social media any other medium. Why not use this to our advantage to increase our awareness to these obvious attention and action worthy causes.

Hopefully the activism and interest sparked goes beyond ‘liking’ a link on your wall, but if it can, this is major and other advocacy groups should follow suit. Criticizers bash many other users on facebook for blindly throwing their support to causes they no nothing about besides the one piece they’ve read through their feed. I certainly agree that blind support and following will not solve anything and probably do more harm than good. Therefore the onus is on us, to realize this, and once presented with heavily controversial topic to do research from other sources, to question, to think and then establishing our own opinions. If this becomes the norm, which may or may not already be the case, the use of facebook can snowball from simply raising awareness to raising tangible support.

Awareness is the name of the game here. Present people with the issues and let them formulate their opinions. Our power to affect these issues certainly goes far beyond, ‘liking’ or ‘sharing’ a link, but it has to start somewhere and that somewhere is awareness and education. 

Recently while trying to fill up the dead time prior to the previews starting at a nearby Cineplex, I was treated to the unique experience that is Timeplay. Timeplay is essentially a smartphone application that allows patrons to interactively participate with the advertising that’s being displayed on the screen. It’s most certainly got the cool factor, and I’m glad that Cineplex is implementing such a system as it adds another layer of involvement. And its not as if advertising is a foreign concept at the movie theaters.

From a consumer’s perspective, I advocate this type of initiative which improves the theater experience from what could be experienced at home. It rewards participation while gaining ever important demographic specific data. It’s really ingenious, and one can certainly see where the use of such a tool could be incredibly beneficial to corporations. It is reasonable to assume a very large percentage of movie goers have a mobile phone, Time play targets a smartphone crowd, which only accounts for 40% of all cellphone users. This means less than half of people of observe the application can actually participate, which seems like missed opportunity. 

The beauty of the initiative, I think, lies in audience that is viewing the advertisements. Because it occupies the dead time, before previews and the actual movie, audiences often have nothing better to do than participate. Additionally, because it is immediately before a particular movie, Timeplay could certainly cater their advertisements towards the projected audience that would see said movie. This would allow quantitative data from a more particular demographic about what they could think about movie trailers for example. The rewards on top of the salvation from boredom is simply a bonus.

The current use of Timeplay lacks innovation. It hasn’t quite caught on with the general public leading to only a few people per theater actually participating, but the potential is there. The advertisements I’ve seen featured a Ford commercial and allowed patrons to decide which of two ‘paths’ they would want to see more off. It allowed the choice of seeing more of ‘him’ or more of ‘her’, the choice between a male or female model along with the Ford vehicle. I agree it is a pilot project, but the current advertisements fail to make a lasting impact and have anything memorable besides getting to play on your phone. While I’m not an expert in this field, data extracted from this particular application currently, doesn’t seem as useful as it could be. Also because it is based on a majority, what you end up seeing may not even be what you chose, providing a sort of ‘why would my vote even matter’ though process. 

Certainly cool and loaded with potential, Timeplay is a unique experience and one that I hope will continue to improve. It adds to the movie going experience but should improve and better utilize the audience interaction to extract better data.

With cars, we can go where we want, when we want, how we want without any rhyme or reason and no one would know a thing. Technology under the premise of improving safety could be changing all of that.

Two thirds of new automobiles are equipped with “black boxes” or more appropriately known as event data recorders (EDRs). These devices have the capabilities to record the “car’s speed, engagement of pedals and seat belts, air bag deployment” and more. As part of their most recent recall in 2010, Toyota was developing what was noted as a more “comprehensive” black box data recorder. The intention was to use the data to diagnose “the causes of unintended acceleration”.

What makes Toyota different from say Ford, GM or Chrysler, all manufacturers who utilize EDRs in their current automobiles?  Unlike its competitors, Toyota utilizes a proprietary data format and hence only Toyota can actually download and read their EDRs while similar devices can be read using commerically available equipment. Although other Japanese car makers also utilize their own proprietary format, no manufacturer approaches EDRs with as much of a literal opaque black box view as much Toyota. The company mysteriously downplays the usefulness of the device that has been implemented in their automobiles for over a decade. “It was not designed as a tool for accident reconstruction, and we do not believe it yields consistent or reliable data,” says Mike Michels, a Toyota spokesperson. The question that arises is if it does produce unreliable data, what is it doing in the car? 

Under the situation of a crash that requires Toyota to access this stored data there is conflict. Claiming that the data acquired is not useful and contains errors, Toyota has been noted to refuse the use of such information to Police and lawyers to reconstruct accidents. Couldn’t throttle and brake information contribute to any crash investigation? ”Every time Toyota downloads these things, they say there’s no indication of a problem,” says Sean Kane, founder of Safety Research & Strategies, Inc., a consumer safety group. Given Toyota’s apparent lack of confidence in the software or electronics in its prototype crash analysis tool, one can not help but wonder if this is really due to the tool, or the production systems it was designed to analyze. Considering the maturity of EDR technology, the fact that competitors can use third party commercial equipment to access their EDR data, the limited circumstances under which Toyota would reluctantly release their data, and the fact that the company characterizes their data as unuseful or unreliable, one has to wonder: what is really in the black box?

With cars today, the increasing sophistication and synergy between mechanical and electrical system particularly electronically controlled systems have created the opportunity for EDRs. Since its introduction in 1997, the Toyota Prius has become the highest selling hybrid vehicle owning 50.6% of the market share. However due to its fairly new hybrid technology, the only place you would service your Toyota Prius is at a Toyota Service Facility. Certainly just a theory now, but this is a convenient situation, of the mandatory servicing of a heavily electronics dependent vehicle in for service at the only location where its internal data could be extracted.