Can Zuckerberg Bring Down the Great Firewalls of China?

A modified version of an academic essay. . .

Can Zuckerberg Bring Down “the Great Firewalls” of China?

In this very competitive age, when the Internet rules and a handful of technologies are available to the most of us, operating globally—is never an impossible task—especially, for a  successful networking Website like Facebook (herein referred to as “FB”). However, for a communist country like China, those digital possibilities are still challenged by distance,  also by the robust culture embedded to the Chinese people and their “ways” of doing business–and as reflected by their nation’s economy, and as critically and politically imposed by their government. Although it’s truly challenging, multinational companies like FB should never give up innovating ways to penetrate the globe and maximize their potentials.

Currently, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are banned in China. Although there are local social networking Sites, those three including Google, are struggling to get in.

On a personal note, I am not a huge fan of FB, neither of its thirty-one-year-old founder, Mark Zuckerberg. But being away from my families and friends: I could not help using FB to stay in touch with them.  I am not completely into it, because of the many issues of privacy (as too much personal information is collected from us, users) and safety (against identity theft, predatory marketing and selling). Last, but not least, FB is over populated. In fact, according to the author of International Management, Helen Deresky,” . . .if Facebook is a country, it is the third largest nation (first is China; and, second is Russia).”

With the latter being said, and as an aspiring global manager: I understand why Zuckerberg seems relentless in his pursuit to “nail” his success as a Cyber mogul. Because I believe that his business agenda, is to ensure that every citizen of the Earth is truly connected globally, and that FB is accessible anywhere.

Is it bad, or too ambitious? Well, it depends to his critics’ opinions (and as influenced by their culture). But isn’t that’s the most rational business move for any multinational company; “. . .to approach global expansion; and to specifically address such approach,” (Randall 2015) by simply tailoring or customizing FB’s accessibility and overall presentation specifically suited for every nation and in accordance to culture and society?

In regards to tactics, one of Zuckerberg’s approaches is building relationships by making the site available in different languages. He also actively attends events, ceremonies and speaks before the Chinese audience.  Furthermore, he (through FB) has been closely monitoring quality of media shared by anyone in the Site, so as not to offend anybody. And I believe, he’s really doing it right.

Because in reality, we do not know the exact circumstances of any of those disagreements between nations. And many wars and conflicts, are culturally rooted by religion and language. Perhaps if we are able to speak in the same “succinct” and simple language of the World Wide Web; and, at the same time, we can comprehend beyond our fellows’ words, perhaps we have good potentials to be better communicators. For whether we admit or not, many of us are somehow CQ (cultural intelligence) impoverished and/or insensitive–because it’s really not that easy. In fact, I used to be one. Although I learned the hard ways, I am glad I am now enlightened. For corrective steps are doable, and all that is needed, is conviction manifested by a strong will.

Nevertheless, and going back to FB, to improve its chance to penetrate China, Zuckerberg and his business managers should engage to the Five-Steps of the Negotiation Process:

1. Preparation
2. Relationship Building
3. Exchange of Task-Related Information
4. Persuasion
5. Concessions and Agreements

Moreover, FB should consider the issues that led to “Cultural Misunderstanding-The Danone-Wahaha Joint Venture in China Splits After Years,” of Legal Dispute,” (Deresky 2014). He should also pay attention to all cross-cultural negotiation variables (listed at page 156 of our textbook).

Indeed,  Zuckerberg is truly ambitious, but as one of his critics, I appreciate his fierce beginning. I wish I have his valiant guts. I think it’s very humbling (not just lucrative) to be able to connect the world–for the culture and the language that enabled us to thrive, are the very same reasons behind most of the misunderstandings among nations and races. And FB are addressing all these burdens by continuously innovating ways in bridging cultural gaps

Finally, according to an academic article, Zuckerberg started “FB when he was 19, but because of his extraordinary beginning, everyone tends to underrate the role he has gone on to play,” says Silicon Valley eminence Peter Thiel, who himself has had an outsize role in the tech revolution. ‘Keeping the company relentlessly focused on the long-term future, he is the opposite of a quarter-to-quarter Wall Street CEO, and that’s why he deserves to be recognized as a great leader.’ We couldn’t have said it better ourselves,” (Colvin). All he has to add (to what he’s already doing), is to thoroughly and continuously create cultural profiles of the United States and China (to make a comprehensive side-by-side comparison) and enhance the likelihood of his success in bringing down the “great” firewalls of the latter. In addition, he should really persevere because Microsoft succeeded in getting in. The multinational company of Bill Gates “won” the Chinese by just customizing Bing.
To end, let’s reflect on the role of culture in the blogosphere. As blogging is not different to any global businesses–for we are speaking here, dealing here, and interacting here with our blogging friends coming from different cultures. But amid all challenges, this is our great chance to live more meaningful lives (and I can’t stress that enough). As this Web, is enabling us to give our views, to share our passions, but just as we have to be welcoming and respectful of those of others. A win-win situation is never far-fetch for anyone who has the will and would dare do it. Most importantly, it’s not so hard to listen or read deeper beyond the person’s words. For isn’t it ideal that we responsibly assess first our surroundings (and be considerate of everyone) by using all of our senses, before we even speak of our interpretation (that could sound more of a bias judgment)? Although we may not be able to touch in this virtual world, we still can talk with and listen to one another with compassion.
References

Colvin, G., & Volcker, P. (2015). Intrepid Guides for a Messy World. Fortune, 171(5), 75-95.

Deresky, Helen. International Management, 8^th Edition. 2015

International Business. T, (0004, June). Google, Facebook and YouTube Outshine Others in Web Globalization. International Business Times.

Randall, Linda. Discussion Question 2: Facebook in China. 2015

Social Nets Engage in Global Expansion, Struggle. (Hotlines) (Brief article). (2007). AdWeek 48(36), 4.

GOODFELLAS:

Abozdar

Amras888

AshiAkira

Bert0001

CindyKnoke

CloudsNCups

Danaiana

Dilipnaidu

Doru

Dominique

EllieBelfiglio

EstherLing

IndahSusanti

IrwanOnlyPrint

JaapKroon

JoRobinson176

JulieSopetran

JulieWeigley

KanzenSakura

LuggageLady

MarinaKanavaki

PatrickSolere

PaulMilitaru

Sedge808

SemraPolat

ShowersofRoses

Simona

TheCrazyBagLady

TinaDelBuono

WendellBrown

WritingToFreedom

YesEvenThisTooWillPass

Advertisement

Brilliant Blunders, a Book Review

 

Five science “luminaries” are seemingly put in a petri dish by astrophysicist, Mario Livio. Published in May 2013, in Brilliant Blunders “colossal” errors by the greatest scientists of all times are exposed by the operator of Hubble Space Telescope, as allegedly, they all “. . .could have potentially jeopardize our understanding of life, earth, and the universe; and, they could have potentially hold back the progress of science.” (Livio 2013) Indeed, science is such a complicated subject that even gigantic figures are vulnerable to mistakes. Hence, it is important to understand its meaning, methods, mechanisms, and to set a unifying thread; to establish limitations in order to understand how the natural and/or physical phenomena work.

On a personal note, being a non-science major student, reviewing this book is so challenging for me. In fact, I have to read two books to come up with this review. In addition, I have to go back to the very beginning of our class, in January of spring 2014 and read ten chapters of our Biology textbook, Campbell Essential Biology with Physiology (Custom Edition), to establish my unequivocal stand on the underlying issues of Livio’s arguments. In addition, I also read two versions (both digital and print) of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in November 24, 1859. (Livio 2013) For it is my utmost priority, to come up with a fair and fact-based evaluation. However, because I know I cannot delve deeply about everything in that book, this review is only covering what I learned from this semester, of spring 2014, and in my biology class, evolution and inheritance.

Nevertheless, Brilliant Blunders is composed of eleven main chapters, and five additional all others (e.g. Preface, Coda, and etcetera), written in three-hundred and forty-one pages.

In the first chapter, Mistakes and Blunders, Livio talks about the five “protagonists,” “luminaries” as he addressed them, but all with the anti-hero characters—caused by their apparent “colossal” mistakes or blunders in the very profound world of science. The scientists are as follow:
1. Charles Darwin
2. Lord Kelvin
3. Linus Pauling
4. Fred Hoyle, and
5. Albert Einstein

In this take-off chapter, Livio also informs his readers that the world evolution is the “unifying thread” that connects all chapters. Each “luminary” is assigned two chapters. Every beginning chapter (for any luminary), he talks in a positive note by citing their contributions to science, and how they affect the world and the universe as a whole. In the succeeding chapter he sights the blunders of the “luminaries” and the repercussions, or possible repercussions of their apparent “errors” in their respective fields of science, along with the possible causes of either psychological or neuroscientific factors surrounding their “brilliant blunders.”

In regards to the Origin of Species however, there are fourteen chapters, five-hundred-and two pages, and a single figure of a tree, which looks like a simple phylogeny tree, personally drawn by Darwin. According to Livio, that Darwin’s book “. . . changes our understanding of life on earth.” It talks about four pillars of biology, namely:
1. Evolution
2. Gradualism
3. Descent with Modification
4. Speciation

Furthermore, Livio acknowledges that natural selection is correct. Moreover, natural selection is the mechanism behind those four mentioned processes. Livio specifically stresses that he is not taking it against Darwin, that the latter does not know about genetics, nor what the acceptable theories of inheritance in the nineteenth-century (or Darwin’s day).

In science though, it was a given fact—one that was well-embraced that Darwin was once a mediocre student. Although science was in his genes (from his grandfather, to his father, and his siblings most of them went to medical school), he did not have the instant intelligence for science. Worse, he struggled with it; and, he did not have a stomach for it (witnessing surgeries without the anesthesia, of course, it was such gruesome sight). He even dropped pursuing science, and switched to theology instead, just to earn his undergraduate degree. All facts were in most books, articles, videos, and other academic resources, and in all mediums (or forms) about Darwin (and just as how we covered all these in class as well).

I first learned about him in my anthropology class, Emerging Humanity (or Anthropology 151). Wherein, at the beginning of our semester, my classmates and I watched a NOVA PBS documentary, What Darwin Never Knew. In that film, amid knowing the “blunder” of Darwin (as Livio castigated) that indeed posed challenge to natural selection–which was DNA (Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid)–from the biologists, to paleontologists, anthropologists, and paleoanthropologists, they all spoke highly and with so much regards and enthusiasm about Darwin. To the point, the film seemed like a celebration of his life, when they could have featured the man behind our understanding of inheritance, Gregor Mendel (the Augustinian monk from Czech Republic, who studied rigorously about genetics, and almost the same time as Darwin published his book in 1859). (Simon Et Al, Pg. 146)
Livio knows that the concept of inheritance in the nineteenth-century or in Darwin’s day, is ultimately wrong. Since he knows this fact, why is he talking about something that “Darwin never knew?” Why is his arguments against Darwin is based on the latter’s concept of inheritance?

Please allow me to reiterate, I am not a science-major student. From arts, I switch to business. Although science is not my field, I really appreciate Darwin for his courage in writing and publishing the Origin of Species. Because most people at that time only believed in our biblical creation. Moreover, I admire him for spending nearly all his life, trying to grasp how the natural world works. Therefore, it’s not fair (for anyone) to question his contributions to science, and to this world. For in reality, the science communities know so well that Darwin’s natural selection has been the golden gate to our understanding of how evolution works.

In our Biology 101 class, we learn science is “Any method of learning about the natural world that follows a scientific method” (Simon Et al 2013). Moreover, our biology professor, Wendy Kuntz, Ph.D., even stresses that science is a “discipline . . . limited to the study of the Physical Universe.” Likewise our textbook defines natural selection as the “. . . process in which organisms with certain inherited characteristics more likely to survive and reproduce than are organisms with other characteristics; unequal reproductive success” (Simon Et Al). Most importantly, our textbook is clear in differentiating hypothesis (is an idea) from theory (a set of ideas). (Simon Et al 2013) Moreover, on inheritance, we learn how to use Reginald Punnett’s Punnett Square that helps us predict the possibilities of transferring inheritable diseases. However, there is nowhere in our book that states for a hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, theorist like Darwin must use a mathematical expression to prove his arguments.

Because what is clear to me, after completely reading his book, Livio demands math especially from Darwin. Livio look at those five great scientists and their apparent brilliant blunders in the mathematician’s eyes—as he is really more of a math expert than a scientist. In fact, most of Livio’s previously published works feature more of math than science. Moreover, if science highlights his study, there is always a strong and convincing math computation, or expression behind. No doubt, he’s a math genius. But are we talking of math? Or are we talking of science? Maybe, we can say, kudos to him. However, let this be a challenge: He should make an invention of his own. He should make his due contribution to science, and prove his intelligence. Rather, than talking about others’ mistakes, he should prove the world that he can make viable contribution than can make our lives better, or at least something than can improve science. Rather than intriguing predecessors, who are way farther than six feet down under. For those great scientists have already given their fair share to the evolution of knowledge, and of science. They deserve respect; they deserve to rest in peace.

Honestly, two months ago, in my last evaluation essay on the first three chapters of this book, I supported Livio. Admittedly, I was one great critic too. I agreed with him that those “luminaries” should have exercise diligence, patience, and perseverance in proving their hypotheses, more so in publishing their works. However, after thorough reading and synthesizing what we learned from class, and have realized the remarkable contributions of Darwin to biology (and the rest of natural science), sad to say, I cannot agree with Livio anymore. For even though, he did not say anything wrong about science, and how it worked, or at least not about biology and evolution, nor about inheritance. However, he missed one writing and researching essential, and that was to synthesize. It’s a basic concept of gathering ideas to come up with a non-bias unequivocal stand. A very basic concept that is greatly taught in higher education in United States of America, in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, or in most English native speaking country, learning how to synthesize may not be available in Israel, where Livio earned both his graduate and undergraduate studies. So maybe it’s fair not to judge Livio on this blunder, just as Darwin is deprived of how genetics works in the nineteenth-century.

Sadly, Livio miss to synthesize the works of these great scientists in a greater and broader concept. He picks their weakest links, and labels his harsh critiques as blunders. He further says that the common denominator for all the chapters of his book is the word of evolution: “evolution of life on earth, evolution of earth itself, and evolution of the universe.” (Livio 2013) He even emphasizes “. . . blunders of evolution, and evolution of blunders.” But what about knowledge? Did he even realize that knowledge is very much evolving too?

Indeed, knowledge or its nature is very much evolving–and therefore, Livio should have considered. Because science indeed, is about knowledge. It’s about exploring, gaining, and/or advancing knowledge in its most profound and verifiable form. In fact, one definition of science (that we learn in class) is its Latin meaning “to know.” (Simon Et al 2013)

Another blunder of Livio, is the dragging use of the word “luminaries.” If he is a scientist, and that he respect his profession, he should have just address them as scientists. Because I am sure, they would rather hear that they are recognized in their chosen fields. Moreover, luminary means popularity; the effect in using such term is the malicious use of the user in seemingly riding on the established popularity of those great scientists.

Finally, “what if Darwin knew” about genetics? What if he knew how to use Punnett Square? What if the title of his book was the Genetic Origin of Species? What if he merged his works with Mendel? What if Darwin had the tools and technology that Livio have these days? Can you imagine?

Regardless, I believe that there is righteousness in committing errors. And that is the wisdom we gain after we accepted we err. In science, the way the field accepts mistakes, is inherent to science itself. For studies in all branches of science are continuously ongoing and evolving. Everything is subject to advancement. Moreover, the way experts in this field synthesize their works, is they use the past as a foundation to establish modern definitions and to incorporate recent theories and discoveries. Most importantly, it is the “job” of the scientists of today, to improve the works of Darwin, Kelvin, Pauling, Hoyle, and Einstein. The scientists of today need not to point fingers who did wrong nor who did best. They should just get to work and embrace the challenge. Livio should have known better; he should have written better. I guess, there goes another “brilliant blunder.” But is Livio a luminary? Is he a scientist or a mathematician? I let his books speak for him.

 

Works Cited

Darwin, Charles Robert. The Origin of Species. Vol. XI. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. Web. 30 Apr 2014.

Livio, Mario. “Brilliant Blunders, From Darwin to Einstein – Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe.” Simonandschuster. Print. 14 May 2013.
Simon, Eric J., Jean L. Dickey and Jane B. Reece. Campbell, Essential Biology with Physiology, Custom Edition. 2013. Print. 1 May 2013.

Unearthing Our Journey to Humanity

(Copyrights of the image above belongs to NOVA PBS)

Unearthing Our Journey to Humanity: Becoming Human, Second of a Three-Part Series, a Film Review

If the Part I of Nova PBS documentary film, Becoming Human had caused us the daunting reality of our ape origin, the Birth of Humanity was an inspiring one. For in this second part of the film, the journey of our ancestors to humanity was featured in such a meaningful way. As nearly one-and-a-half-million years ago, a very intelligent species called Homo erectus evolved, lived and left the “great rift valleys of Africa,” and begun colonizing different parts of the world.

In 1984, a fossil discovered by well-known African anthropologists Richard and Meave Leakey, Turkana Boy—was found to have a bigger brain, bigger jaws, and very much taller compared to any Homo habilis or Lucy and Selam (Australopithecus afarensis) who highlighted the Part I.

Named after the Lake Turkana of Kenya, the species of Turkana Boy—Homo erectus was branded as the pioneer in so many human traits and behaviors; and, was also tagged as the “fire tamer,” tool maker, innovator, the great “originator of human society,” fierce-hunter, and one of the most successful species in the Homo genus.

What was truly remarkable in Part II, was the chain of compelling stories told by scientists about human evolution that existed roughly 1,300,000 years ago by merely fossil discoveries alone. And it was through Turkana Boy and the completeness of his skeleton, that scientists learned thoroughly about the physique, height, and face structure of Homo erectus. In addition, his age and even the medical condition he suffered were likewise traced through the genetic dating process called molecular clock.

But one big difference of Turkana Boy to Lucy and Selam was his ability to run persistently.  Although the latter have pioneered bipedalism (walking upright on two feet), they weren’t capable of long distance running at all. This was because, through the nearly hairless bodies (having the ability to sweat and diffuse heat) of Homo erectus, that they became so agile and adept to persistent hunting.

On a lighter note, scientists believed Homo erectus can cook too. And though primitive, that cooking led to the transformation and development of their physical features. It made them sociable as well.

Experts likewise attributed their success, to their apparent exodus to Africa. Labeled as great travelers and colonizers, they started building the human societies in Indonesia and China.

To end, the Part Two of Becoming Human was indeed very inspiring. For through fossil discoveries, and the painstaking works of scientists, and amid earth’s primitive age—it was clear, that our ancestors evolved and survived the wilds, and found their road to humanity by exhibiting the simplest, yet  greatest and most humane behaviors. For it is during the Prehistoric time of Homo erectus, our ancestors started caring for one another. It was then, that they started to think analytically and creatively.  As they made enhanced tools out of stones, to outwit animals, and to feed themselves and take care of one another.  Therefore, it wasn’t just about physical differences that truly set distinctions between earlier species and Homo erectus. Rather, it was during the Prehistoric existence of the latter, that our ancestors earned the universal legacy of exhibiting emotional, analytical, and social characteristics. For those humane behaviors have ultimately led Homo erectus to the path of humanity–and this is something we should always keep in mind. For those traits, even on these very modern days, should be inherent to all of us. For those traits set us apart and above everyone and everything in the animal kingdom–we should really be mindful of  them all the time.

Resources:

BecomingHuman.org

NOVA PBS Becoming Human

What’s in the News:

Neanderthal DNA Shows that Man’s Family Tree is Decidedly Gnarled

Becoming Human, First of a Three-Part Series, a Film Review

Thank you for your continued support!

Becoming Human, First of a Three-Part Series, a Film Review

Nineteen experts, and a vast of information on Prehistoric human evolution, Becoming Human—a NOVA PBS documentary film, that aimed to share monumental discoveries and breakthroughs (research) on fossils relating to our origin—was first aired by the Public Broadcasting Station, on November 3, 2009. A revelation we should not miss, the film was about our “harsh” beginning, and how our ancestors survived the wilderness–aka survival of the fittest– as they evolved many million years ago (mya).

One of the strength of this film, was that experts from prestigious colleges and universities from different countries contributed and have zealously searched for evidences, and collaborated their discoveries for our better understanding on how man (with the scientific name of Homo sapiens) had evolved and survived the prehistoric times.

Equally important to fossil discoveries, is climate change—as it isn’t just happening in these modern days, but it’s a part of our evolution way back from the prehistoric days.

Supported by physical evidences gathered at Afar, Ethiopia, and Africa, the presence of diatoms are evident to lakes (and some others) that appeared and disappeared many times, and over-and-over-and-over again during the time of our ancestors.

In addition, the film presented in-depth explanation on how our “greatest grandparents” behaved so wildly (as they ganged on ferocious animals to exhaustion for meat and skin) out of their instinct to adapt and survive the wilds. Moreover, such wild behaviors made our “ancestors” responsible for the extinction of other animals.

Also, how primates developed bipedalism (defined by Encarta as the practice of walking upright on two feet, as opposed to moving on all four limbs) over the course of time, not just to survive and hunt for food, but at the same time save energy. Paleontologists then used found fossils of two skulls of primates from different eras–Lucy (a fossil of 6,000,000-year-old) and Selam (fossilized bones of a child from 3.5 mya) to determine, when and which among the primates are responsible for the development of bipedalism.

In regards to the film’s weaknesses, though the results of their stringent studies are indeed astounding, but since none of them are showing exact dates of their discoveries, the credibility of the data presented, and the hypotheses (that could have been very enlightening) are then compromised. For although the film may seem to be very interesting and so upbeat, but with its strength merely based on cinematography, and that dates of fossil discoveries are missing, it’ll of course cause doubts to our minds.

Finally, Becoming Human indeed, is a film we shouldn’t miss—for it involves our roots based from science; for it explains how ill human behaviors is so innate to us, most especially, if we are caught in situations that invoke flight-and-fight response, we’ll behave just as how other animals behave in the wilds. However, filmmakers should have been meticulous to details, because the film is primarily intended for academics. Therefore it should have been subject to standards as imposed by academia and linguistic communities such as MLA (Modern Language Association) or APA (American Psychological Association). Though the film indeed is educational and very entertaining. It’s just that I wish, it’s the other way around. For what could have made more sense to me: Becoming Human should have been very educational and entertaining, instead of the other way around. For it involves our origin, and it involves all of us. Most importantly, they are linking us to ancestry of apes: chimpz, gorilla, bonobos–such a daunting reality; such a very harsh fact, they should have been more keen (as scientists should be) and careful.

Videos to watch:

Becoming Human, Part 1

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human.html

Becoming Human, Part 2

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human.html#becoming-human-part-2

Becoming Human, Part 3

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human.html#becoming-human-part-3

What Darwin Never Knew?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

The Challenges of Social Networking

Social networking sites are one of the most in demand online destinations on the World Wide Web. In the United States of America, Facebook and Twitter top the list of the most popular Web Sites. The question is which among the two meets users’ social networking needs? Should social networking be limited to the people they know? Regardless, social networking sites should serve their utmost purpose in enabling their users connect with their families and friends–to enjoy the freedom of expression–by letting them express their individualities in their respective pages and sites without compromising their welfare and the confidentiality of their information. On the other hand, user should likewise consider the risks in posting and sharing information online. For the Internet and social networking have their challenges too–they have advantages, but they have given disadvantages as well. To be mindful of both, will lessen the likelihood of anyone getting into troubles. To be neglectful of both could be very pricey (tangibly and intangibly speaking), and the damages to one’s being could be beyond repair. Therefore, caution is highly encouraged.

In the world of social networking, geared with wide array of collaborated activities, wherein users can interact with one another, Facebook beats all sites. And to Mark Zuckerberg’s delight, its younger sister Site, Instagram is not so far behind. However, many users of Facebook have cancelled their accounts and has moved to Twitter, and their unanimous concern was the plague of hackers, identity thieves, and con artists. However, are users really safe on Twitter?

Currently, Twitter users enjoy the site’s micro-blogging (posting in brief) features. It is widely used by public figures; politicians, entertainment personalities, and athletes. Twitters can “tweet” or send or post messages of 140 characters. The concept of instant messaging is what Twitter is selling. And it is nearly the same thing as Facebook’s Status, wherein users can post about 200 characters on their respective wall (Web page). If the messages exceed more than the allowed characters, the site will direct users to its note page that looks like a blog or a journal.

On privacy, in an article featured at Issues & Controversies, Twitter’s inability to secure private information was exposed. The article further stated that “there have been other incidents where people’s tweets have gotten them in serious troubles and major controversies” (1). Just like what happened to Octavia Nasr (editor of Mideast Affairs of CNN). In 2010, she tweeted an expression of sadness over the death of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Faddlah, a Muslim cleric thought to have close ties with an Islamic militant group. (2)

In the same year, Facebook automatically reset all privacy settings for all their users’ profiles, as sighted in that same article at Issues & Controversies. (3) Despite this development, Facebook users still complain about heavy marketing and advertisements, that many believe pose great risks to all its users, as they collect private information. The New York Times editorial once wrote in 2010, that Facebook allow its users to share their “tastes” and interests so freely with their families and friends, but at the same time it collects information and provide them to advertisers along with users’ other preferences. (4) In that same article, Zuckerberg defended FB; claiming its features and services, were simply the glowing trend of the Internet age.

Personally, I agree with Zuckerberg, and that’s the toughest challenge of the Internet and social networking. And it is the very reason too, why I cancelled my accounts on both Facebook and Twitter. Because I am simply tired hearing nutty excuses from a lousy businessman like Zuckerberg. I am simply tired of his alibis for not doing good business amidst raking billions; and yet he still inconsiderately disregard everyone’s safety. I don’t think he and the rest are really doing their best to make it safe for all of us. Yes, this is the Internet age, however, shouldn’t they (owners and operators of social networking Sites) have the responsibilities to keep us safe? For although they’re Sites are free, but there are risks that can ruin our credit scores, our reputation, our names, who knows, even our lives. Therefore businessmen like Zuckerberg and all other networking site owners and operators who are making fortune out of our enthusiasm and interests, should really have that sense of responsibility in ensuring our safety, or at least our information’s security by strictly upholding confidentiality and protecting our privacy. Moreover, to date, there is no law; no international law that can bring any cyber crime to justice. For though there are laws in place in every country, they are all weak and they have so many loopholes, and they are never applicable to cyber criminals operating outside their jurisdictions.

Worse, Site owners and operators like Zuckerberg refuse to be regulated.

And because they refuse to be regulated, they are making the Net a wilderness of this Digital Age. Because by simply being neglectful, they are letting various “species” of predators infiltrate the World Wide Web–and in so doing, they are compromising our privacy. And although, we are thankful for the knowledge, the revolution and the empowerment that comes with it, we just can’t disregard the daunting reality, that we are getting so prone to notorious modus operandis operating globally; and whose crimes are getting meaner and more sophisticated just as innovation of technologies inevitably spur in every bit of a second.

In this regard, it is best to keep in mind: We, indeed, have responsibilities to ourselves; and, that is to be safe and stay safer by being vigilant in safeguarding our information online.

In a research study, entitled Clash of the Titans, written by Malhotra Gunjan, Maheshwari Aditya, and Raju Abin G, for the Institute of Management Technology of India, the scholars stated that most privacy risks at Facebook exist because users carelessly post their personal information on their Websites. (5) “Facebook members reveal a lot of information about themselves and are not very aware of privacy options or who can actually view their profile” (6).

The truth is no social networking Wesbite is free from the disadvantages and limitations of the Internet. Because the “bad geeks;” hackers, identity thieves and con artists are too smart and too diligent to find ways of doing their evil works. And the self professed “good geeks” like Zuckerberg are too stupid, too lazy, and too greedy to just collect billions of dollars out of our accounts, trust, and vulnerabilities–so sad, but very true, and pretty scary!

Therefore we should own the responsibility of securing our information. For it will never hurt, to be mindful of both advantages and disadvantages of both Internet and social networking (and blogging should not be an exemption). For when we post private information in a public domain, they are of course free to the general public (which include the bad geeks). For when we post private information to a public domain, we are apparently waiving our rights to privacy.

On a more personal note, yes, I used to have accounts on both Twitter and Facebook. On Facebook, I did used it to connect with my families and friends. I used it to play cyber games. I did used Facebook to post my progress in academics and to share them to my family. On Twitter, I used it to promote my blogs, my posts, and my blogger friends’ blogs and posts. However, allow me to reiterate: They are closed already–and I have no regret. Because I realized I would never be safe on any of them. Moreover, both accounts were hacked–and some bad geeks used my accounts to send messages on my behalf and without my consent–I was so embarrassed, but I couldn’t blame anyone except myself–for in social networking caveat emptor (buyer’s beware) applies. And I should have known better.

Finally, when one chooses a social networking Site, one must first identify the purpose, because it could narrow down the selection criteria. Some people use those Sites to sell something; to announce or promote a product or an event, or an organization, but some just want to connect. Regardless, it is a must to know the purpose in opening an account for one to maximize and enjoy their services and be safe at the same time. Most importantly, one should keep in mind, that the Internet has limitations and risks. For being online, our private information are never safe– the “bad geeks” have their ways, so we should always be cautious .

In conclusion, connecting with families and friends, or to the World Wide Web should not be so troublesome. It should not be troublesome only if everyone of us would behave ethically; and we would e-deal responsibly. For regardless, if one chooses Twitter over Facebook, or any networking Sites like WordPress, extra caution is a must when posting information anywhere on the Web. Let us not give the bad geeks, neither the lousy businessmen “easy money” by letting them take advantage of our vulnerabilities–let us stop being vulnerable by imposing regulations among ourselves. Yes, we are in the Digital Age, and this age is not going anywhere. But this is something we are now sharing with our kids; something we will leave for the next generations to rely on. It is too late to act now, for our kids and our kids’ kids.  Because for all we know, the “bad geeks” aren’t humans. Yes, they are not aliens, but they could be bots (short for robots)–heartless; ruthless, and definitely, shameless.  Beware!

Writing Stamp:

Academically written by: Sabiniana Balagtas Baliba
Submitted to: George Garneau, Ph.D.
For: English 100,
As required by: University of Hawaii,
Kapiolani Community College
On: 27 February 2012
In: Modern Language Association format
Edited and published as posted.

The Power of Sleep

SLEEP DEPRIVATION is a growing medical condition. As technology changes our ways of life, and demands of higher cost of living are inevitable as ever, the silent growing killer of sleeplessness have been taking toll to the health of many.

The culprits of the growing sleeplessness include: “the irresistible charms” of the internet, the seduction of video games and hundreds of TV channels from different nations, and in all field of interests, are only few of the many factors keeping people up until wee hours in the morning.

According to an intensive research at Harvard, 40% of the American people get less than the eight hours required sleep. The author of the Harvard Medical School’s Guide to a Goodnight Sleep, Dr. Lawrence Epstein emphasized, that “the link between sleep and health is getting clearer and clearer” these days.

Why do we need sleep?

Scientists are saying that sleep enables our bodies and minds to recover from fatigues and stresses, thereby giving them chances to recharge, maintain and repair. Also, sleep does wonders to our brains, as it enhances our ability to concentrate, focus, and improves our mental health. It complements our memory, and it could also lead us to positive mood.

Below are sleep’s 5 superpowers; and, they are the very reasons why you should really “sleep tight” and that “you shouldn’t let the bed bugs bite:”

SLEEP POWER NO.1: A good sleep makes us feel best!

When we don’t sleep well, we feel wasted when get up in the morning–a feeling of stickiness and unusual humidity exudes from our bodies, which makes us feel uneasy and irritable when we don’t get good sleep.

In addition, sleeplessness also makes us lazy and unproductive. Because once we are tired, chances are, we will end up up slouching all day and probably all over the place.

What is worse, according to science, is when we do not sleep well, we are actually harming our growth hormones. For those hormones are responsible for keeping us “looking good,” and it even delays aging. A heart surgeon, Mehmet C. Oz MD, coauthor of the YOU health books even added, that “the levels of growth hormones drop dramatically between the ages of 20 to 60.”

Dr. Oz stresses “It’s rejuvenating and when you have high levels of those hormones. For they can give you muscles, will definitely improve your skin, so you might want to keep your growth hormones as high as possible. And the best way to do it is to simply sleep.”

SLEEP POWER NO.2: A good sleep makes our brain healthier.

While sleeping our brains are utilizing important neuronal connections that might otherwise deteriorate from lack of mentally healthy activities. Because only through deep sleep that our brain shuts downs and get relieved of controlling our emotions; decision-making analysis, and even social interactions. Thereby enabling us to maintain better emotional and social functions’ stabilities.

A good sleep likewise contributes a lot to our ability to concentrate; focus, and have good memory and optimist mood.

SLEEP POWER NO.3: A good sleep makes us worry-free.

Science also has proven that people with insomnia produce higher rates of stress hormones than the normal others, as it could lead our bodies into a hyper-aroused state that will make it difficult for them to wind dow.

Moreover, sleeplessness can even trigger depression and vice versa. “People who don’t sleep well, could easily get depressed and depression worsens insomnia, so it’s a vicious cycle,” says Dr. Oz. “The more and better we sleep, the more we feel happier and relieved,” he added.

SLEEP POWER NO.4: A good sleep makes us lose some pounds and be sexy.

As sleeplessness produces higher rate of stress hormones, stress triggers us to eat more and gain weight.

Recent studies are even further saying people who get inadequate sleep are more likely to gain more pounds. As “with sleep deprivation, we see a reduction in metabolism and an increase in appetite,” say Michael Breus, PHD, author of Good Night: The Sleep Doctor’s 4-Week Program to Better Sleep. Inadequate sleep lowers the level of leptin (the hormone that can cause us to feel full), and it increases levels of ghrelin (which is the opposite of leptin, as it is the hormone that makes us feel hungry and craving at all times).

Breus further stresses that sleep deprivation also influences our food choices; it can make us crave for high carbs and high in sugar foods.

SLEEP POWER NO.5: A good sleep makes us healthy.

“Anything that disturbs the quality and quantity of sleep can have serious and long-term consequences to both our body and mind,” says Dr. Gerard T. Lombardo, director of the Sleep Disorder Center for the New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn.

Sleeplessness triggers blood pressure to go up; while, rates and BPs are typically at their lowest during sleep. The association of hypertension to sleep duration is linked and proven by various research findings. It is even linking the latter to increased heart attacks, diabetes, obesity and some other health issues causing morbidity and too rampant these days.

“When people are deprived of sleep, there levels of stress hormones in our bodies will go up, and an increased inflammation might occur. Moreover, sleeplessness decreases our bodies ability to generate and utilize our immune functions,” explains Dr. Phyllis Zee, director for Center of Sleep and Circadian Biology at Northwestern University in Chicago. Furthermore, sleeping well could helps us fight illnesses, in fact, it could even make our flu shot work better. Plus, it is only through sleep that our major organs repair and recharge on their own.

Hence, from physical to psychological, sleep really does lots of wonders. The benefits extend way beyond just feeling good waking up in the morning; it just doesn’t perk us up and recharge our energies, but it actually recharges our whole system; from our brains, all the way to our immunity, it could do so much good to our bodies and minds.

Finally, beauty sleep isn’t just a myth. For it does lessen the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, as it makes our skins glow to perfection. And because we sleep well, our aura would be more radiant and glowing. In short, a total make over awaits you, once you improve your sleeping habits. Therefore, try to sleep more, and wake up for a whole new you!

The Xinjiang Procedure

I am sharing this to you, for I know the subject matter is highly significant to us all.

I highly recommend reading Ethan Gutmann’s:

China`s Gruesome Organ Harvest

and

ORGAN HARVESTING OF DISSIDENTS IN CHINA
(A Congressional Testimony)

Thank you for viewing, please bear with the images’ uploading.

* * *

A PowerPoint presentation required in academia;

A comprehensive analysis

of

THE XINJIANG PROCEDURE

by Ethan Gutmann

(Click the title, for it is the link to read the referrenced article)

Is Google Really Making Us Stupid?

Courtesy of Google Images

Sabiniana B. Baliba

George Garneau, Ph.D.

11 March 2013

Is Google Really Making Us Stupid?

We are in the twenty-first century, and this is the Digital Age (also known as Computer Age, or Information Age). In this era, our standards of living are high, and our needs now define how we think, talk, and act. Our necessities are forcing us to multi-task, and we are only coping through the invaluable help of the International Network, commonly known as the Internet.

I had the chance to read this 2005 Atlantic article in my previous English class (last spring of 2012). Since my stand on the subject matter has not changed, and given its significance, I decided to write anew about it, for my e-letter today.

Courtesy of Google Images

In this anti-technology piece, Pulitzer finalist Nicholas Carr accuses the Internet of harming our brains. (1) Carr blames the Net for the changes he sees in his reading comprehension, likewise for his inability to concentrate when reading extensive articles. (2) He argues so passionately that it has led to a book, entitled The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. However, is Carr’s accusation supported by science? Because contrary to his opinion, new scientific evidences are showing Internet is making us smarter and not stupid. (3)

According to Michael Rosenwald, author of the BrainGain “ . . . new evidence suggests that using the Internet could actually make you smarter, and not rot your brain” (4).

Backed by the scientific findings of Dr. Gary Small, of the Semel Institute of Neuroscience for Human Behavior, University of California, Rosenwald stresses that neurologically speaking, we are benefiting from browsing the Web, googling or Google searching, and just as “ . . . bench presses do for our chest muscles” (5).

Courtesy of Google Images

Like Rosenwald, Jonah Lehrer of the New York Times, cited Small’s scientific findings, and pointed out that science even suggested Google searches actually lead to increased activity of our dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—the exact brain area where precise talents and/or abilities like selective attention and deliberate analysis are working, to which according to Carr have allegedly vanished in this Digital Age.

Personally, I am amazed Pulitzer considered Carr for such accolade, and the award giving body solely based his nomination on this article alone–what a poor nomination! For in these modern days, indeed, our needs demand us to multi-task and that’s for practical reasons. For gone are the days of consecration, and we are no longer at liberty to spend hours “digesting” every word and every line of anything we are reading, simply because we have so much responsibilities.

Carr cited a quite relevant article dated 1960 from Marshall McLuhan. However, with more than five decades passed, is McLuhan’s theory still applicable? For Carr’s citations from the nineteenth-century are now obsolete.

In this regard, I hope we careful examine, if those citations are still applicable these days. Moreover, are there any medical or scientific findings that validate Carr’s arguments? For isn’t it, if one is talking about health, it is just fair for us, readers, to demand experts’ words before we even buy one’s hasty accusations?

In conclusion, Google is not making us stupid. Rather, it encourages us to be resourceful. Most especially, it empowers our fingertips that we now can dig on information and knowledge without carrying heavy books and burning our eyes in extensive reading. Moreover, these days, we only do things that are necessary, because we know that’s the practical way of living. For In this era of Computer Age, we think fast; we talk fast; we read fast, and we act fast, because we simply have to. For in this Digital Age, we think practically; we talk practically; we read practically, and we act practically, because we value our time. Lastly, we are coping with most of our responsibilities through the invaluable help of the Internet—we should really thank science for it!

Lastly, if one is reading slow, perhaps a new pair of reading or prescription glasses is needed. But please, let’s not be ungrateful to technology, because historically, it’s what brought humanity to success. We are the smartest animals on earth, because of our abilities to invent and innovate ways through the use of technology That has not changed to this day. And great things await to thinkers, more so, to positive thinkers.

Courtesy of shoebox.blog.com