Kibo Robotics: STEM in early childhood.

Only 12 percent of engineers in the U.S are women. That’s right, ONLY 12. Women actually make up 26 percent of the workforce, but that number has decreased from 35 percent in 1990. For some reason, the U.S faces this ongoing issue of encouraging women to join STEM and actually keeping them in that field.

It’s no surprise that discrimination, sexism, and other factors deter many women from joining this field. Our society, since the beginning of time, has placed gender stereotypes, for example, that boys enjoy building things more than girls. Many teachers in the U.S also spend more time focusing on teaching math and science to boys rather than girls.

However, robots could be the smoking gun we needed all along to get more girls/women into the STEM field. Specifically, robot kits for kids. These kits are simple yet influential toys for teaching kids how to engineer and code. Because of this prolonged stereotype and jaw-dropping statistics, there are more toys targeted at getting kids interested in science and math. However, some of these toys are STILL gendered specific. For example, “Roominate” is a building kit targeted for girls and teaches them to code. Toy companies/marketers still have the connotation that a girl would not be interested in a toy if it wasn’t pink or purple and that’s not always the case.

Amanda Sullivan, who works in human development at Tufts University decided to test the effects of a non-gendered robotics kit called “Kibo.” Kids can program the rolling robot by stringing together blocks that denote specific commands. It isn’t necessarily marketed specifically to boys or girls using the traditional and stereotypical markings of maleness or femaleness.

Before playing with Kibo, boys were significantly more likely to say they’d enjoy being an engineer than girls. However, this shifted after both parties played with Kibo and the girls equally expressed engineering as interest as the boys. Unfortunately, just because a gender-neutral robotics kit can get grab girls attention, this doesn’t mean it will sell well. This is probably because there are many parents who still give into the gender stereotypes and prefer to buy their daughter a doll rather than a robotics kit.

Still, companies are designing a new line of toys in groundbreaking ways. More and more companies are taking note and are testing out gender-neutral products.

This was such a fun article to read! I’m not in STEM myself, on the contrary I’m actually on the opposite end of the spectrum and in the Communications school. However, I do notice the lack of women in STEM and it’s sad. I’m glad companies are starting to realize that toys don’t need to be purple and pink for girls and blue and green for boys. Why place that unnecessary pressure on a child? They’re going to feel obligated to pick out something with those colors based on their gender and what they see their friends playing with. Women can contribute so much to science, technology, and mathematics. I can only hope that many parents will break out of the traditional mindset of girls should play with dolls and boys should just build, be destructive, etc. This is a vicious cycle and it truly needs to be broken. Also, how cool would it be if robots were part of the answer all along to get women into the STEM field!?

What do you think about robotics encouraging young girls to join STEM? Do you think this will work? Or do you think parents will just continue to buy what’s considered “traditional?”

Simon, M. (2017, Oct., 23) Can Robots Help Get More Girls into Science and Tech? Retrieved from:

https://www.wired.com/story/can-robots-help-get-more-girls-into-science-and-tech/ 

Suit Social Media Photo

When 9/11 took place, social media was still fresh and in the infant stages. To receive the news and to watch the events unfold, Americans and people across the nation were glued to their TVs, radios, and newspapers. Now, in 2017 social media is a way of life for many. It has been implemented in our everyday lives and it appears as though it will not disappear anytime soon. In addition to many terrorist attacks that have followed since then.

The use of social media and terrorist attacks sparked controversial debate amongst government officials, politicians, citizens, and more. Government across the world are feuding with technology companies to decide the future of the internet. The UK government is actually leading a battle to force tech companies to delete content at will, an entity that is crucial for counter-extremism projects but which experts explain will lead to censorship and could potentially put people at great risk of attack(s). As a result of this, many countries are following the UK in an attempt to decide what is published online. In recent years, the Government has focused more on removing the ability to discuss or spread terrorist propaganda from the internet. That marks a major withdrawal from its previous abandoned strategy, which had originally focused on the security tools that were being used to protect messages.

Initially, this shift came when Theresa May (U.K’s prime minister), attempted to force tech companies to stop using strong encryption so that intelligence agencies could read messages. This resulted in severe pushback from tech companies, who argued it wouldn’t be possible to break security just for terrorists without endangering all of their users.

A growing agreement on that argument has led the Government to instead focus on terrorist content, not the delivery tools used to spread that content. And so, the focus has shifted to social media and tech companies like YouTube and Facebook, rather than messaging companies like WhatsApp and Apple.

Additionally, the U.S, who allows tech companies a substantial amount of freedom has revealed that it wants to limit what they’re allowed to publish, and may follow U.K’s model.

Despite all of the criticism, internet companies are doing more to crack down on terror and making that effort as public as they can. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube this summer founded the Global Internet Forum to Combat Terrorism. It’s supposed to help create new technological solution tools to detect bad content and pass those findings to smaller companies.

Google, for instance, has been working on counter-speech work, which attempts early intervention before people have actually been radicalized, and tries to change people’s mind when they begin searching.

If people appear to be looking for terrorist content or propaganda, like searching “how to join Isis”, for example, then Google will display content intended to change that person’s mind. Google has also given out Adwords grants, so that non-governmental organization can buy ads on problematic searches for free, on which they can put links to counter-extremist content.

But the problem isn’t practical or technical it ultimately comes down to questions about what exactly tech companies are and what they do. Social media companies tend to refer to themselves not as publishers (which would make them liable for any content hosted there) but as platforms, a designation for which there is a much less clear regulatory and ethical framework.

This reminds me of the time in class when Bart explained to us that no one controls the internet. I also remember having this talk with someone explaining who should be held accountable for details about potential terrorist attacks posted on social media sites, Reddit, online forums, the dark web, etc. It’s interesting to see that countries are trying to push effective strategies on how to deal with terrorism online. I think Twitter is a huge social media site that has many terrorist organizations trying to recruit people such as; ISIS, white supremacy groups, etc. There is a lot of controversy with how they handle suspending/deleting accounts that post hateful messages that can incite violence. What do you think?

Do you agree with the U.S joining the fight to hold social media platforms accountable for stopping potential terrorist attacks? Or do you think this could lead to larger damage and more attacks than we ever expected?

Griffin, A. (2017, Oct., 23) Tech Companies and Governments Fight Over Who’s Responsible For Stopping Terror Attacks. Retrieved from:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/technology-terror-theresa-may-uk-government-twitter-facebook-google-youtube-extremism-a8011856.html

Amazon’s newly upgraded “Oasis”

Amazon introduced the Kindle to the masses in November of 2007, that’s right, 10 years ago. When the Kindle first hit the market, it remained out of stock until April 2008. That’s how revolutionary and affordable, (compared to the iPad) it was. However, the Kindle has since lost its’ popularity. Amazon decided to re-vamp the once iconic tablet and decided to create a waterproof version, 10 years later called “Oasis”. The “Oasis” has the same name as last year’s model. This new version has jumped up in size, moving from a 6-inch screen to a 7-inch one. The back is aluminum, which gives it a more premium look and feel rather than the original Kindle with a soft-touch plastic.

Last year’s Kindle used a magnetic case you attached to the reader to prolong its battery life, with one thicker side that tapers down on the other side, for one-handed reading. Even though Amazon was able to fit in a bigger battery, they still tapered the side of the device at 3.4 millimeters. New features also include a couple extra LED lights for a brighter and a more even looking display. The previous Kindle’s had screens that were pretty dull. Ambient light sensors that adjust the brightness as you move from room to room or from outdoors to indoors are also included. Physical page-turn buttons, plus the touchscreen has a page-turn option to make page-turning feel faster.

But the major innovation with the upgraded Oasis is its waterproofing, a long-requested feature from some Kindle fans. The new e-reader has been tested in two meters of water for up to 60 minutes. It’s also been tested in different water environments, like hot tubs, pools, and bubble baths. Amazon declined to say how it waterproofed the Kindle, but since it still has an open USB port for charging, it’s recommending that people stand the Kindle upright after it’s been submerged

The new Oasis has a built-in Audible app. You still can’t listen to Audible from the Kindle itself, unfortunately, it still doesn’t have any speakers, but you can start an audiobook from the device and stream it over Bluetooth to a set of headphones or a speaker.
The new Oasis ships at the end of this month (October) and is replacing last year’s Oasis, leaving four Kindles total in Amazon’s lineup: the original Kindle ($80), the Kindle Paperwhite ($120), Kindle Voyage ($200), and the Oasis, which starts at $250 for an 8GB model. That’s double the base storage of previous Kindles, which Amazon says is to accommodate the storage of audiobooks. It also connects over both Wi-Fi and 4G LTE.

The article also mentioned that Amazon’s Kindle reached its peak in 2011. I think it’s interesting that Amazon is still creating Kindle’s and that there are people still buying them. Despite the overwhelming costs of iPad’s and similar tablets, many consumers invest in those because you can do so much more than reading; such as searching the web, typing papers, playing games, stream services etc. I considered iPad’s a disruptive innovation, not necessarily rendering Kindle’s obsolete, but they do sustain more relevance than Kindles because of its features. However, the iPad isn’t even waterproof, so this does give Amazon an angle that Apple has yet to reach.

What do you think of Amazon trying to adapt to the new tablet marketplace? Will there be a popularity resurgence because of this re-vamped model? Do you think this waterproof feature is necessary? Or do you think they should’ve expanded more and tried to seriously compete with Apple’s iPad/similar tablets (Samsung)?

Source: Goode, L. (2017, Oct. 11). Amazon Finally Makes a Waterproof Kindle, After 10 Years of Kindles. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/11/16453860/new-amazon-oasis-kindle-waterproof-10th-anniversary

Intel’s Drone Campaign Poster

October 4th is deemed “World Animal Day”, and to celebrate, Intel recently released a statement and a video discussing their involvement in wildlife and environmental expeditions.

The well-known tech company decided to have their involvement powered by drones to develop innovative methods to capture, process, and analyze information about the behavior patterns of wildlife and what they can tell researchers, as well as the public about their environment.

In their brand new video, viewers are met with wildlife photographer, Ole Jørgen Liodden, and his organization Polar Bears & Humans Project. The drones are used to hover over glaciers in the Arctic Ocean, locating polar bears and analyzing their movements.

Additionally, there is also a partnership with The Snotbot Project in collaboration with Parley for the Oceans and the Ocean Alliance. This partnership is to advance whale research that will assist researchers in better understanding ocean health and broader impacts of climate change. The “Snotbot” collects the blow or snot from whales as they reach the surface to breathe. These samples are then collected and transported safely to researchers on ships away from the whales, then the data is sent to machines running Intel Xeon and Movidius technology with machine learning algorithms that help identify a particular whale through pattern-recognition, and assess its health in real-time using techniques such as volumetric measurement.

I think that this is an excellent way to gather data and analyze wildlife without actually disturbing their habitat. There have been drastic changes in our climate and the last thing researchers should do is physically disrupt wildlife. Drones are becoming more commonplace and can be used not just for personal use but as this article displayed it can contribute to societal/environmental use as well.

Do you think this is an innovative and safe way to monitor wildlife, climate change and their environment? Additionally, do you think this was a great technological marketing strategy from Intel? 

Beer, J. (2017, Oct. 4). How Drone Technology is Helping Wildlife Research in the Arctic. Retrieved from:https://www.fastcompany.com/40477099/how-drone-technology-is-helping-scientific-wildlife-research-in-the-arctic

Image Retrieved From: ://assets.fastcompany.com/image/upload/w_707,f_auto,q_auto:best,fl_lossy/wp-cms/uploads/2017/10/poster-intel-drone-technology-arctic.jpg