Do Technology and Sports Mix?

            Many sports have adapted technology fairly well. Football has incorporated instant replay to make sure the officials on the field get the correct call. Basketball also has instant replay, but it is used more to make sure that a player gets the shot off before the clock runs out. It can also be used in basketball if there is a question about a player shooting a two point shot or a three point shot. Nascar has also incorporated new technology to make their cars safer. However, some sports have changed little over the past 100 years. They have resisted the use of technology because they feel it hurts the integrity of their sport. Baseball refuses to allow instant replay to make sure the umpires on the field make the correct call on the bases. I believe this is hurting the popularity of the sports and turns it off to younger views.

            In today’s world, most of the people who watch baseball watch it on television. That means that they know right away if an umpire gets a call correct or not because close plays are replayed over and over on television. 95% of the time this does not matter much because the calls aren’t that close. A runner is usually clearly out or clearly safe. But there are some close plays that umpires get wrong, and it is hard for baseball to continue to justify not using instant replay as the technology advances. I believe that baseball is hurting themselves with their stubbornness. A diehard baseball fan is going to watch baseball no matter what, but this turns off casual sports fans from the sport. An average American who watches sports and sees how well instant replay works in football and basketball is turned off by obviously wrong calls in baseball that would easily be over turned if there were instant replay. Our entire society has adapted to the technology, so why hasn’t baseball? I don’t think it will hurt the game at all. Baseball will still be a sport with a lot of tradition, and it does not have to abandon its roots, but adding instant replay would make it more exciting for everyone.

Apple Computers

            Two years ago, I had to make one of the biggest purchases of my life: a computer for college. It really came down to two options: an Apple computer or not an Apple computer. I decided to get an Apple computer and pay a little more than I would have had to if I didn’t get an Apple computer. After having the computer for some time and really getting to know the ends and outs of what it can do, I am very happy with my decision.

            One of the main reasons I believe that Apple computers work better than others is that Apple makes both the hardware and the software. The computer interacts better with the operating system better than any other computer I have ever used. When you buy an HP laptop, HP makes the hardware and Microsoft makes the software. They work well together because the laptop and software are made for each other, but there are some things that they can’t do as well as Apple computers. One of these things is the track pad. Apple laptops make using your computer so easy because the track pad works so well. Two fingers allow you to scroll. Three fingers allow you to go to the top or bottom of a page. Four and five fingers allow you to scroll through applications that are open. This is a big advantage to my computer.

            Another reason Apple computers are so popular is they work well with other Apple products. Many people have ipods or iphones, and it is easy to transfer data between your computer and these devices. You can do this on other computers as well, but it is not as easy or user friendly.

            Apple computers are growing in popularity with every passing year. More and more people are switching from a PC to a Mac because of how easy they are to use and how well the hardware and software work together. I believe this is good for everyone because other companies have to work hard to keep up with the cutting edge technology that Apple is producing.

Energy of Tomorrow

            As the world progresses, there is a greater demand for energy. Today there are many different ideas about how we will supply energy for tomorrow’s generation. One of the most popular options is solar energy. However, at the moment, the technology is not sufficient. It cost a lot to produce solar panels and they do not make enough energy during their life to make building them feasible.

            Another popular option is hydroelectric power. This requires that a dam be built in a river. However, there are only so many rivers that we could dam, and we have already dammed many of these rivers. It is not necessarily a sustainable form of energy because there are not an infinite number of rivers the same way that there are an infinite number of sunrays.

            Wind power is another popular option. But wind turbines are unreliable because wind is not a constant force. And they can also be loud. Most people believe that they are a good thing, but not in my back yard.

            One of the options that I believe needs to be explored more is the ocean. Wind farms can be built in the ocean and they will have little effects on the human and animal populations. Solar panels could be placed in the ocean as well. One of the challenges will be finding a way to get the energy from the ocean to the land where it can be used. Another option that I have never heard in any academic setting is somehow using the enormous pressure at the bottom of the ocean to power our world. I don’t know how this would be achieved, but if someone could convert the force of pressure deep in the ocean to power it would be very valuable to society.

            There are many technologies being developed focused on the energy problem that will haunt us for years to come. However, right now there is nothing that is sustainable and economical feasible. As a society, it is important that we figure this out soon. This is why I am an engineering major.

talbets vs laptops

            Tablets have become very popular in today’s world. Thanksgiving night I stood in line for 5 hours with a friend who was going to get a deal on a tablet. I just received an email that advertised that I could be entered to win a free ipad if I sign a lease on an apartment for next year. But what exactly are tablets? Are they more like a computer or they more like a smart phone? Will tablets one day take the place of my computer? Will colleges one day require a tablet instead of a computer?

            My experience with tablets is very limited. I do not have one, but I have observed people around me with them. When tablets first came out, I think that most people thought they were cool but did not see them taking the place of a computer. However, now that more and more people are getting tablets and there are more and more functions for tablets, they are slowly becoming more prevalent. Some medical schools are discussing requiring their students to have tablets. It is much easier to carry all of the books you need on a single device than in separate volumes. It would also make the cost of textbooks go down. You would have one very large up front purchase, but small fees after that for the ebook.

            Tablets also make since for people who travel a lot. Most tablets have a very short start up and shut down time compared to laptops. On my MacBook, it takes over a minute from when I press the on button to when it is ready to use, and it has gotten longer since I installed the new Lion operating system. Tablets startup much quicker than that. It is easy to have it on a plane or on a trip and turn it on to check a single email. The battery life of tablets is longer than laptops as well. This is another reason that they make more since for travel than laptops.

            I do not believe that laptops are a thing of the past though. I believe more and more people will use tablets for the functions they now use laptops for, and they will use laptops for the functions they now us desktops for. Laptops can still do many things that a tablet cannot. Tablets may overtake laptops in the future, but I do not see it happening any time soon.

Beats by Dre

            Name brands are a very important part of our society. On a daily basis, I can walk around North Carolina State’s campus and see evidence of this on many people’s clothing. People will pay a lot of money just to have a shirt with the right emblem on it. Another place where name brands have taken over is headphones.

            Beats by Dre can also be seen all over campus. Many people walk to class wearing headphones, especially Beats, a name brand pair of headphones that are sponsored by the famous hip hop artists Dr. Dre. Beats are the first pair of headphones that I know of to be so popular. The company that makes them claims that artists spend many hours getting their music just right and Beats are the only headphones that give you the music that artists intend for you to hear. However, this might not be true. From what I have read and heard, all they do is really enhance the base of everything you listen to and cancel outside noise. Heavy base is not intended for every type of music, and therefore these headphones don’t seem to be a good pair of all around headphones. “In terms of sound performance, they are among the worst you can by”, says Tyll Hertsens, editor in chief of InnerFedelity.com.[1]

            So why do people pay over $300 for a pair of bad headphones? It is hard to generalize why every different person who owns a pair of Beats has bought them, but I think there are some general themes. I believe that people think buying a pair of Beats means they take music seriously. People want others to think they are serious about their music. And more basically, people want to show others that they can throw around $300 for something like a pair of headphones. Having a pair of beats almost shows others a lifestyle choice that you have made. This is similar to the way Apple products come with an apple bumper sticker that you can put on your car. Apple is so popular that it is almost like a lifestyle (however I believe Apple actually makes better products than their competitors). There is a new add for a Samsung phone that plays off this, where an iphone user says that he could never get a Samsung phone because he is “creative”. This is just making fun of the idea that having a certain brand of a phone says things about you.

            I think it is odd that name brands have taken over technology. No longer do people judge technologies by their performance, but they also judge what brand the technology is. I’m afraid that technology companies could start to spend more time and money on advertising, trying to make their product a popular lifestyle choice, than on the performance of their product. If this happens, everyone would suffer.

---

[1] “Headphones with Swagger (and Lots of Bass)” Andrew J. Martin, New York Times, November 19, 2011.

Running and Technology

Technology has infiltrated almost all aspects of our everyday lives. For me, running is no exception. GPS watches have made running a very precise science. Many competitive runners use GPS watches during their workouts to get their exact distances and their exact pace during a run. Others feel that running is less of a science and more of an art. They rely on their knowledge of their bodies to tell them what their distances and paces should be.

Personally, I tend to agree with the philosophy that running is an art. GPS watches are a good tool, but should be no substitute for how you feel. For example, if you are getting sick, you can start to feel it in your running a day or two before you actually consider yourself sick. So if you go out for a run and try to run your normal pace it will feel harder than normal. You shouldn’t try to work harder to hit your normal pace, you should figure out what is wrong and try to fix it. Runners who have GPS watches also seem to be insecure runners. They tell themselves that in order to reach their goals, whether it is a certain time in a race or a certain place in race, they need to certain things in training. For example, I might say to myself, to get top 20 at ACC’s next year in cross-country, I need to run 100 miles a week at 6 minute per mile pace. This is a good starting point for a training plan, and I can set my GPS watch so I know exactly how far I’m running and how fast I’m running. However, there will be certain things that come in the way of training. I might get injured at some point during the season, or I might get sick. Runners who rely to heavily on the GPS watch get that in their head. They are thinking solely in the terms of A+B=C, and cannot find any other way to get to C besides A+B. When this happens the runner, who trains with a GPS watch and tries to make running an exact science, gets to the line and is unconfident in his training. He has told himself all season that he needs to do certain things to obtain his goals but at some point during the season, it is inevitable that he got off of his training.

This is not all the fault of the GPS watch, but the watch allows things like this to happen. Technology should not take the place of good judgment. Running, and especially racing, is not an exact science. It is important to have a general plan to training and racing, but you have to be able to roll with the punches and adapt your strategy to every situation.

Google online music store makes me recall the changes this technology has had on the music industry

Yesterday, Google unveiled a new online music store that will compete with itunes. This seems to be another move by Google to enter the world of entertainment. This made me think about the changes that itunes and other online music stores have had on the music industry as a whole.

Last year, for English 101, I wrote a paper about the effects that illegal downloading has had on the music industry. I concluded that although people who were illegally downloading music were stealing music, they were also opening up the world of music. Before Napster, which was the first widely used website to illegally download music, people would only get music that they knew they like. If an album was 15 dollars, people were only going to pay that if they were sure they would like the music. Napster allowed people to try music that they would otherwise not have tried because it was free. This was bad for big recording companies, but not so bad for the guy in his basement trying to hit it big.

After a while, Apple came up with a way to download music legally with itunes. This was a good compromise for the record companies and the consumers. It is still convenient for consumers and the record companies still get paid. However, this changed the way music was bought and sold. Whereas before artists would sell entire albums, now artists are trying to sell single tracks on itunes. If you look at a list of the top selling albums of all time, hardly any of the top 100 come after the year 2000 (the first year Napster was introduced). This is not to say that music is worse now than it was 50 years ago, or that it is less popular. This just says that now people buy single tracks instead of full albums. (And many people do still steal their music illegally on the Internet)

With Google entering the online music business, expect this trend to continue. People no longer want to buy an entire album and artists no longer seek to make killer albums. They want 2 or 3 hit songs that will get played on the radio and downloaded on itunes. It is unlikely that anyone will come close to breaking Michael Jackson’s record of 110 million copies sold which he reached with his 1982 album “Thriller”.