# data[].attributes.headline
Maintaining real relationships in the digital world

# data[].attributes.subject
Maintaining real relationships in the digital world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I use Facebook every day, multiple times a day. It's such an automatic activity at this point that I couldn't even guess at an exact number of times.

With the app for my phone, I can check Facebook as easily as I check the time. When I log in, my eyes dart to the small red number in the upper right-hand corner of the screen that tells me how much attention my status updates, shared links and photos have received. Social media has become a fundamental part of my life. As an American in 2015, I am the rule, not the exception.

And yet, a 2013 study from the University of Michigan found that as its 82 participants increased their Facebook use over two weeks, their happiness and sense of well-being declined. And in a 2012 study by Anxiety UK, a majority of participants said social media use was an overall negative experience.

Seventy-one percent of adult Internet users in the United States use Facebook. Nearly three-quarters of them log on daily, and close to half log on several times every day. Those percentages are increasing. Why? The simple explanation is that it makes us feel good.

A 2013 German study found that participants' brains signaled a pleasure response when they received positive feedback on Facebook. The study concluded that the brain processed this positive feedback as gains in social reputation. There is satisfaction, almost a high, in seeing those red notification numbers, and more satisfaction when the numbers are higher. My Facebook "friends" - including personal friends, family members, acquaintances and people in distant locations I've never actually met - are people I value and respect, and those red numbers assure me that I am a valued part of their lives, in turn.

"We know that many people on social media sites often present idealized versions of their lives, leading others to make upward social comparisons, which can lead to negative emotions," says Benedictine University professor Shannon M. Rauch in an article on the website for Adolescent Growth, a California teen healthcare center.

I've experienced my share of this drawback of social media. Even as I'm happy for a friend who got a new job, or got married, or had a baby, I often find myself vaguely resentful of their accomplishments. Sometimes it seems like they're rubbing their hyperidealized lives in my face, provoking feelings of inferiority and inadequacy by comparison.

But despite these negative effects, recent research indicates that social media can actually be a positive force if properly managed. James Fowler of the University of California, San Diego was lead author of a 2014 report that suggests social media can be harnessed to spread happiness through a ripple effect. The report found that positive Facebook status updates tend to lead to other, similar statuses. Fowler proposes that this effect could potentially be cultivated to create what he calls "an epidemic of well-being."

For teenagers and young adults whose high levels of social media consumption are often used to portray them as born narcissists, the benefits can be even more dramatic. In 2010, researchers at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia determined that social networking sites can positively impact adolescents who go online because they're lonely. These teens can find intimacy and social anxiety relief through online communication, which protects them from feelings of shame that limit their ability to express themselves.

Instead of using online platforms as their own personal spotlights, many kids are using social media to reach out, to form bonds, and to try to find their place in the lives of others. Instead of seeking praise, they are seeking community.

This has been the key distinction in improving my own relationship with social media. I find happiness in community, and in many ways, social media has become that community, the first place I go every day for human connection. In part, this is a function of moving to a new city and leaving 30 years' worth of in-person relationships behind. I've found new people to interact with, of course, but I've also maintained connections with people I would otherwise have fallen out of touch with.

At the same time, I've expanded my personal community to include people whose faces I could only recognize from profile pictures. I've been invited to parties and protests that I wouldn't have otherwise known about. I've found opportunities to advance both my career and my creative endeavors.

And others have embraced the possibility of an online community to even greater degrees. I've seen people turn to social media for help on every level, from asking friends to assist in a move, to seeking support for the revelation of a sexual orientation or an eating disorder. It doesn't replace individual relationships, but it does facilitate increased connection with a broader group of people.

When I'm having a bad day, I use my phone to call a close friend or a parent. When I need to reach out to the larger network I've developed over the years, I use my phone to log on to Facebook.

Social media becomes emotionally unhealthy when we see it as a source of individual validation instead of a structure for community growth. The same can be said of our in-person interactions. As we work to maintain the health of our communities, it's important to include online networks in our endeavors. This technology is not going away, and while it has intrinsic biases like any medium, its overall effects depend entirely on how it's applied.

Our responsibility is to foster a healthy relationship with social media by examining and understanding it in communal terms, while maintaining a balance between the digital and analog methods of experiencing the world.

Finding that balance is a constant struggle, and I would never claim to have achieved it myself. But I have learned to look at the trials and successes of the people who comprise my Facebook feed not as standards of measurement by which to judge myself, but as sources of connection and inspiration.

The little red notification numbers in the upper right hand corner of the screen pale in importance against the platform as a whole - the living and changing network of digital relationships that is rapidly becoming the modern community.
Miles Schneiderman is a contributor to YES! Magazine. This story was originally published by YES!, a nonprofit publication that supports people's active engagement in solving today's social, political, and environmental challenges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Maintaining real relationships in the digital world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I use Facebook every day, multiple times a day. It's such an automatic activity at this point that I couldn't even guess at an exact number of times. With the app for my phone, I can check Facebook as easily as I check the time.

# data[].attributes.headline
In the Digital Age, Relationships Have Become Fragmented. Here's How to Enhance Them.

# data[].attributes.subject
In the Digital Age, Relationships Have Become Fragmented. Here's How to Enhance Them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
4 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Too often, trying to have a conversation with someone feels like a constant battle for his or her attention, which usually ends up with the phone winning. Digital devices have become prominent players in how individuals connect with the world but these tools have also introduced barriers to how people interact with others, personally and professionally. Because of these difficulties, the nature of networking has changed, become somewhat broken and in need of repair.

Here are some major issues confronting individuals trying to network -- and what people in the business world can do to overcome them:
Related: Why You're Thinking About Networking All Wrong
1. A world of transience.

People's lives are continually changing and at a faster pace than ever before. Relationships (and how people choose to manage them) are far more subject to change over time than they were 20 years ago. People travel and move more often and therefore make more connections.

Individuals will switch bankers, lawyers and accountants if it's more convenient. Companies change partnerships often and employees switch jobs more frequently as well. The increase in turnover has made it more difficult to cultivate meaningful relationships in all aspects of life.

Increasingly, people keep track of their close relationships by using their phones and laptops. This technology helps them stay in touch with their contacts but at the risk of letting their connections become more digital than personable. As life becomes ever more digitized, it's vital to still maintain strong relationships with a network of individuals.

The same goes for companies as well. With so many interactions now occurring on personal technology, companies tend to lose clients when a staff member moves on. Or organizations wind up with a pile of stale leads that new employees might not know what to do with. Companies need to keep better track of the relationships created by their employees and recognize that every time a business card is exchanged, two relationships are being created: one between individuals and another between organizations.

2. The frenzy.

In 1930, renowned economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so much that by 2028 people would need to work only three hours a day to sustain themselves, spending the remaining time in leisure pursuits. Although the predicted deadline is only 14 years away, humans couldn't be further from that relaxed reality. And technology is the culprit as well as the catalyst.

In this digital age, people have too many devices and platforms on which to communicate and interact with: computers, tablets, phones, email, Facebook, LinkedIn. With so many choices available, it's hard to stay organized. This means that the barrier between people is becoming more difficult to breach just to get someone's attention. People often forget to answer important requests or have a hard time remembering a particular individual.

To counter this frenzied pace, people should take time to cultivate meaningful connections in the real world and turn off the screens that take up so much time. When interactions must take place online, they should be significant and deliberate, aimed at connecting with those individuals a person really wants to have a relationship with.
Related: With Social Media, Fakes Are a Real Problem for Your Business
3. False connections.

While the advent of social media has introduced numerous benefits to the world, it also has created and perhaps encouraged a false sense of connection. This happens in personal lives and is apparent in the business world as well. On all fronts, people are flooded on a regular basis with "friend" and "follower" requests from people they do not know or care to.

Despite these drawbacks, social media can be an excellent tool for networking. For instance, LinkedIn can direct businesses to amazing talent to fill vacant positions. Twitter can help people identify influencers in any given arena. Use such capabilities to realize benefits but remember that these platforms should serve merely as a supplement for building real connections offline.

While each of these obstacles can be worrisome, they can be addressed. As life becomes more and more intertwined with technology, embrace the elements that enhance the skills of strong communication and powerful networking, while discarding features that distract from these important goals. Since technology is not likely to ever slow its frenzied pace, try to mend what's broken and regain control of relationships.
Related: Strategic Networking and How to Make the Most of Your Evenings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In the Digital Age, Relationships Have Become Fragmented. Here's How to Enhance Them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
4 min read Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Too often, trying to have a conversation with someone feels like a constant battle for his or her attention, which usually ends up with the phone winning.

# data[].attributes.headline
All Romantic Relationships Are Digital Now

# data[].attributes.subject
All Romantic Relationships Are Digital Now

# data[].attributes.body
The Internet already changes every relationship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These aren't statistics we're looking at-these are scenes. An elderly man in the kitchen texting his wife, upstairs, in the attic. A young woman getting way too into World of Warcraft. A long-married, middle-aged couple in the car: one of them, silent, texting in the passenger seat; the other silently annoyed by this.

A man and a woman in different cities, both of whom went to bed angry, hashing out an argument at work the next morning over Gchat.

These statistical vignettes only get more vivid, more ubiquitous, for people around my age. Of 18 to 29 year-olds in serious relationships, 41 percent say they have "have felt closer to their partner because of online or text message conversations." Nearly the same percent "say their partner has been distracted by their mobile phone while they were together." (Only 25 percent of all couples say that.)

These little stats describe the moment-by-moment experience of relationships tinged, warped, by technology.

So I don't know what it would mean for the Internet to have an impact on a relationship. Would it mean you met through OkCupid? Would it mean you get frustrated with how much time your partner spends on their phone? Would it mean your livelihood is made possible by a globalized supply chain that depends on the Internet?

Perhaps that's overkill. But I think, upon examination, American lives-meaning American relationships-are inextricably digital. So what becomes important is to watch the specific, to recognize that, for a couple, a single thought, a single topic of conversation, may begin in physical discussion, wend through texting and Gchat, serve as a side-joke in an Instagram caption, and end back in talking. A snap may reference an old joke. A Facebook "like" may charm.

Those scenes, to me, feel like the Internet changing relationships.

So perhaps the most serious conclusion of the finding comes for people who try to think considerately and seriously about the Internet, and about how others think about the Internet. This survey by the Pew should counter our expectations. It seems many Americans anticipate - or understand-cultural change to be something that rolls in like a boulder, pushing all else aside in its path of utter technosocial disruption.

Instead, technologies-especially those as nebulous as "the Internet"-wind their way, slipping in sideways, like an ivy, a rose, or a weed.

Robinson Meyer is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers climate change and technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All Romantic Relationships Are Digital Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These aren't statistics we're looking at-these are scenes. An elderly man in the kitchen texting his wife, upstairs, in the attic. A young woman getting way too into World of Warcraft. A long-married, middle-aged couple in the car: one of them, silent, texting in the passenger seat; the other silently annoyed by this.

# data[].attributes.headline
15 Media Panics That Totally Missed The Point 

# data[].attributes.subject
15 Media Panics That Totally Missed The Point 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The news media is an extremely powerful entity. They sway the way we think, tell us what's important, and remind us all that world is a super crazy place. But that's not what makes them powerful. No, what makes them scary influential is their ability to take our minds off the actual dangers that could affect that average person on any given day of the week.

What dangers are we talking about exactly? Well, read on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Media Panics That Totally Missed The Point

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The news media is an extremely powerful entity. They sway the way we think, tell us what's important, and remind us all that world is a super crazy place. But that's not what makes them powerful.

# data[].attributes.headline
18 Terrifying News Stories You Didn't Know Were Media Panics

# data[].attributes.subject
18 Terrifying News Stories You Didn't Know Were Media Panics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We all know people who like to whip out the latest and most shocking stories they just heard on the news to make a point, usually certified with some statement of "I just read an article about ..." or "No way, bro, this is totally true."

But all bullshit is uncovered with time (or sometimes, just Google). Our readers have debunked some high-profile media panics with cold, hard facts and we gave $200 to the winner ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
18 Terrifying News Stories You Didn't Know Were Media Panics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We all know people who like to whip out the latest and most shocking stories they just heard on the news to make a point, usually certified with some statement of "I just read an article about ..." or "No way, bro, this is totally true."

# data[].attributes.body
A Tech-Free Retreat for Internet Addicts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Julia Test, a 28-year-old freelance photographer, can't stop checking Facebook. Her last relationship failed partly because she and her ex kept fighting over texts instead of talking things out in person. "It wasn't a long-distance relationship or anything," she says. "It's just easier to say something mean in a text than watching someone's face when you say it." Jen McDowell, a director of entertainment at the travel company Olivia, says her bosses have told her she's too tethered to her job. "I never took vacation," she says. "Finally, they came to me and said, 'We'll have legal problems if you don't take at least three days off. Please leave.' " A woman named Monika, who says only that she works for "a very large company in Redmond, Wash.," also never takes vacation. Unfortunately for her, her bosses are fine with that.

This isn't a group therapy session. It's Digital Detox, a three-day retreat at Shambhalah Ranch in Northern California for people who feel addicted to their gadgets. For 72 hours, the 11 participants, who've paid from $595 for a twin bed to $1,400 for a suite, eat vegan food, practice yoga, swim in a nearby creek, take long walks in the woods, and keep a journal about being offline. (Typewriters are available for anyone not used to longhand.) The ranch is two-and-a-half hours north of San Francisco, so most guests come from the Bay Area, although a few have flown in from Seattle and New York. They're here for a variety of reasons-bad breakups, career troubles-but there's one thing everyone has in common: They're driven to distraction by the Internet.

Isn't everyone? Checking e-mail in the bathroom and sleeping with your cell phone by your bed are now considered normal. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2007 only 58 percent of people used their phones to text; last year it was 80 percent. More than half of all cell phone users have smartphones, giving them Internet access all the time. As a result, the number of hours Americans spend collectively online has almost doubled since 2010, according to ComScore, a digital analytics company. Teens and twentysomethings are the most wired. In 2011, Diana Rehling and Wendy Bjorklund, communications professors at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, surveyed their undergraduates and found that the average college student checks Facebook 20 times an hour.

Some are starting to rebel against this constant compulsion to connect. Webby Awards founder Tiffany Shlain, an advocate of unplugging, self-corrects by instituting one technology-free day each week. "It's the slowest day in the world," she says. Shlain lectures frequently about the benefits of her "technology shabbats." Sherry Turkle, director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self and the author of Alone Together, which explores the way the Internet constrains offline relationships, has also observed this shift. "I don't want to say it's a movement just yet, but it does seem like a lot of people have gotten to the point with technology where common sense is starting to kick in," she says. "We've finally realized that we have to start making healthier choices."

That's what happened to Digital Detox's co-founder, Levi Felix. In 2009, Felix, now 29, was a vice president at a Los Angeles Internet startup, Causecast, working 80 hours a week and sleeping with his cell phone under his pillow. He was diagnosed with an esophageal tear that doctors told him was "related to too much stress, too much coffee, too much work, and too much Thai takeout." So he and his girlfriend, Brooke Dean, quit their jobs and traveled the world for nine months, eventually landing at a communal farm in Cambodia. When they returned, they noticed their friends had grown even more attached to social media. "I couldn't figure out why people were staring down at their phones all the time," Felix says. He read Turkle's Alone Together and came up with the idea of Digital Detox.

Felix and Dean hosted the first retreat in June 2012. Since then their venture has grown to a series of vacation-esque unplugging seminars in places such as Costa Rica and Cambodia. Earlier this year they hosted an adult summer camp where 300 professionals made lanyards and performed talent show routines. The program's core remains small, 10- to 15-person retreats in the redwoods. Digital Detox feels kind of like a camping trip with some particularly touchy-feely California friends.

Typewriters/archery: Scott Sporleder; Cabin/sign: Digital Detox

Minus the pot. There's not even alcohol or coffee, just some weak black tea to stave off caffeine headaches. When guests arrive, Felix takes their digital devices and stores them in paper bags, along with any watches and clocks. Shambhalah Ranch is surrounded by redwoods-at one point, participants actually hug a tree-but since cameras are gadgets, detoxers aren't allowed to take pictures. When they want to remember an experience, they make a square with their thumbs and index fingers, bring it up to their eyes, and say, "Click!" They're ordinarily forbidden from discussing ages or jobs (exceptions are made for nosy reporters). That way everyone from the recent college grad to the company executive will feel as if he's among peers.

On the second day of Digital Detox, Anna Trautman, a quality-control lab assistant at Gordon Biersch Brewing, spends several hours sitting quietly by a lake contemplating whether she has the guts to quit her job and travel alone. "I'd never make the time to sit and think about this if I had my phone," she says later that night. "I would've just spent hours looking at strangers' photos on Instagram instead."

"It feels like the 1990s again!" says Laura Monfredini, 39, an in-house lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. "Things were so much slower back then. I used to be able to read a whole book at a time. Now I can only do one or two chapters before I think, Oh, what's on Facebook?" While Monfredini appreciates getting her attention span back, she's not sure that reverting to a pre-Web lifestyle is better. The Internet makes our lives more convenient, she argues.

She's not the only one struggling to live without technology, even for just a few days. One attendee keeps feeling phantom cell phone vibrations. Another misses texting her best friend. Monika from Washington has the hardest time: She spends the weekend making a mental list of things she wants to Google when she gets back online. Still, she and everyone else say they end the weekend refreshed. "You know when a computer is on too long, and it starts overheating and making those whirring noises?" says Evan Kleiman, who works in business development and lives in Los Angeles. "I feel like my brain had been doing that. This weekend I finally managed to turn it off."

On the last morning everyone discusses how long they think they'll last before turning their phones back on. They wonder if being bombarded with three days of e-mail is really the best way to reenter the world. Kleiman says he feels as if he doesn't even need his phone anymore, though he admits he won't get rid of it. McDowell says she still won't take any of her vacation days, but from now on she vows to go device-free every morning before work. (A month later, she confesses she hasn't kept this promise.) "I know it's not PC to say this here, but I miss my phone," Monfredini says. When she leaves the ranch, the first thing she does is turn it back on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Detox, a Tech-Free Retreat for Internet Addicts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Julia Test, a 28-year-old freelance photographer, can't stop checking Facebook. Her last relationship failed partly because she and her ex kept fighting over texts instead of talking things out in person. "It wasn't a long-distance relationship or anything," she says. "It's just easier to say something mean in a text than watching someone's face when you say it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One night, late in the summer of 2012, discussion at my dinner table turned to the venerable topic of What to Be When You Grow Up. My older son, Griffin, then nine years old, wanted to be an "underwater paleontologist." His little brother, Huck, then seven, wanted to be a monkey.

"Do you know what I do for a living?" I asked Huck.

His eyes grew wide. "All you do is sit on your computer and say, 'Blah blah blah Congress, blah blah blah Mitt Romney'!"

We all-OK, mostly my wife-got a big laugh out of that. For my birthday that year, she and the boys gave me a print emblazoned with Blah Blah Blah. It's hanging in my office.

Huck was not wrong. At the time, I was a journalist covering climate-change politics for a nonprofit Seattle news site called Grist. I'd been with Grist almost ten years, and as my job had transitioned into full-time writing, I'd lived through-indeed, built a career on-the rise of blogging, social media, and hyperspeed news cycles. By the end of 2012 I was, God help me, a kind of boutique brand, with a reasonably well-known blog, a few cable-TV appearances under my belt, and more than 36,000 Twitter followers.

I tweeted to them around 30 times a day, sometimes less but, believe it or not, gentle reader, sometimes much more. I belong to that exclusive Twitter club, not users who have been "verified" (curse their privileged names) but users who have hit the daily tweet limit, the social-media equivalent of getting cut off by the bartender. The few, the proud, the badly in need of help.

It wasn't just my job, though. My hobbies, my entertainment, my social life, my idle time-they had all moved online. I sought out a screen the moment I woke up. I ate lunch at my desk. Around 6 p.m., I took a few hours for dinner, putting the kids to bed, and watching a little TV with the wife. Then, around 10 p.m., it was back to the Internet until 2 or 3 a.m. I was peering at one screen or another for something like 12 hours a day.

From my perspective, that time involved a dazzling variety of activities: reading, blogging, gossiping, shopping, listening to music, watching movies. But from Huck's perspective, I only ever did one thing: sit on my computer. Maybe he had a point.

It wasn't always this way. There was a time-it seems prehistoric now-when I started the workday by "getting caught up." I'd go through my e-mail, check a few websites, and start on the day's new tasks. By mid-2013, there was no such thing as caught up; there was, at best, keeping up. To step away from e-mail, news feeds, texts, chats, and social media for even a moment was to allow their deposited information to accumulate like snow in the driveway, a burden that grew every second it was neglected.

I spent most of my daytime hours shoveling digital snow. The core of my job-researching, thinking, writing at greater-than-140-character length-I could accomplish only in the middle of the night, when things calmed down. I spent more and more hours working, or at least work adjacent, but got less and less done.

Meanwhile, my mind and body adapted to the pace of digital life, with its ceaseless ping ping ping of notifications and alerts. I got twitchy if I was away from my phone for more than a few seconds. I felt it vibrating in my pocket when it wasn't there, took it with me to bed, even to the bathroom. (I got pretty good at tweeting while I peed, to my enduring discredit.)

All my in-between moments, the interstitial transitions and pauses that fill the cracks of a day, were crowded with pings. My mind was perpetually in the state that researcher and technology writer Linda Stone termed continuous partial attention. I was never completely where I was, never entirely doing what I was doing. I always had one eye on the virtual world. Every bit of conversation was a potential tweet, every sunset a potential Instagram.

What had begun as blogging had become "lifecasting," a manic, full-time performance of Internet David Roberts. With some lamentable exceptions, I was, and am, proud of Internet David Roberts. But he had flourished at the expense of the slump-shouldered, thick-bellied, bleary-eyed shut-in Huck saw sitting on the computer every day. That guy was wrung out. He needed some attention.

I was 40 years old, due for a midlife crisis, and I didn't want to have an affair or buy an impractical sports car, so instead I decided that I would take a break. A big one. For a year, I would leave behind online life to attend more closely to what we Internet people call meatspace.

My bosses at Grist, supportive as always, agreed to an unpaid sabbatical. A year with no salary is not nothing, but my wife brings home considerably more of the bacon than I do anyway, so with some belt tightening, we figured we could manage me taking my feet off the pedals and coasting a bit. If you're wondering, yes, my wife is the coolest person on the planet, and yes, she will get her year someday.

In August 2013, I wrote a post announcing my plan to unplug. I explained that I was desperately burned out and cited two goals for my year off: to regain my physical health and work on a novel. I was a little nervous I'd be deemed a weenie; instead my post unleashed a torrent of goodwill. Soon there were more than 300 comments, almost every one positive and supportive (the Internet equivalent of Sasquatch riding by on a unicorn). People e-mailed, they called, they wrote actual paper letters. I heard two things over and over again: "I know exactly how you feel" and "I'm so glad you're doing this."

Lots and lots of people would like a break from hyperconnected life, but very few have concrete plans to take one. It's not surprising: in white-collar work, the expectation of round-the-clock connectivity has become pervasive, bleeding into nights, weekends, and vacations. A survey by the Center for Creative Leadership found that smartphone-carrying professionals "report interacting with work a whopping 13.5 hours every workday."

And for more and more Americans, social circles have moved at least partially online. According to Pew Research, as of 2013, 73 percent of adult Internet users are on social media. Among those 18 to 29, it's now 89 percent. It has long since become many people's primary means of keeping tabs on friends and family. Being offline can feel like being invisible.

So it was with trepidation that I began my sabbatical on September 1, 2013. I didn't go full Luddite or "quit the Internet." I used Google Maps to get around, maintained my long-running Words with Friends rivalry with my aunt, and bought flip-flops on Zappos. But I did have some hard-and-fast rules: no work, work-related e-mail, or work-related reading. No daily news cycles or social media. Most of all, I would not blog, tweet, share, pin, like, star, favorite, or forward anything. Internet David Roberts would go silent.

By the time you read this, I'll be back to the grind. While I haven't unearthed any cosmic truths (except: not working beats working), over the past year I have developed some tools and techniques that help me feel calmer, more at peace, and better equipped to navigate the pings of modern life.

Will it be enough? I don't know.

I was standing on my locked left leg, hunched over, trying to grab the bottom of my lifted-up right foot, and after a few slippery failures I had a grip. Hey, hot yoga isn't so hard!

My fingers were turning white with the effort when the teacher said, "And now, lift your leg straight up in front of you and lock your knee." My laugh, a strangled snort, produced a sprinkler of sweat. I thought it was gallows humor. The teacher gave me a look as all around legs popped up, locked in perfect right angles, torsos bent double.

I spent most of that first class on my back, trying to slow my racing heart, pondering the great irony that after years of sedentary living it was exercise that was going to kill me. I almost didn't go back.

Those early days of screenlessness were bewildering. My mind, wound up like a top for years, continued spinning. I experienced sporadic surges of angst and adrenaline, sure I was supposed to be doing... something. I'd pull my phone out every few minutes, even though no one was e-mailing me and I'd uninstalled all social-media apps. The habits and mental agitations of digital work life persisted like phantom limbs.

My symptoms were testament to the power of what psychologists call variable intermittent reinforcement. Famed behaviorist B. F. Skinner discovered long ago that if you really want to ingrain a habit, you encourage it with rewards that arrive at variable times, in variable sizes. The lab rat knows that it will periodically be given food for pressing the lever, but not exactly when or how much. The result: a compulsive rat.

It's the same with humans. Variable intermittent reinforcement explains why slot machines are so enthralling, why video games contain hidden caches of coins or weapons, and why we're all helpless before our e-mail accounts. One time you check your inbox and there's a single new message, from LinkedIn, which reminds you that you can't figure out how to delete your LinkedIn account. Sad face. The next time you check, you have five new messages, including one from an old friend and another from a potential employer. Happy face! So you check, check, check.

What's true of e-mail is true of more and more software-the hot trend is to "gamify" everything, which just means using intermittent reinforcement to hook users. It's no accident that you can earn points or badges in virtually every app these days.

The kinds of rewards offered in online communities are particularly compelling, based on what Dan Siegel, a UCLA professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mindsight Institute, calls contingent communication. It happens, he told me, when "a signal sent gets a signal back." That simple act, evoking a response from another mind, is a key feature of early childhood development and remains "deeply rewarding," Siegel said, satisfying primordial instincts shaped by our evolution as a social species.

A 2012 study by two Boston University psychologists found that Facebook use is driven by two "primary needs"-the "need for self-presentation" and the "need to belong." Broadcast and be acknowledged: that's a ping. Each one affirms our existence as efficacious agents in the world and prompts a squirt of reinforcing hormones from the brain's reward center. "That," Siegel said, "is why people will respond to a text while driving a two-ton vehicle."

We online denizens come to need these regular low-level jolts and get antsy without them. That's why I was tweeting in the bathroom. That's why your friends around the table at the bar are all staring at their phones. Ordinary life has come to seem torpid and drab relative to the cascade of affirmations we find in contingent online communication.

When I cut myself off from the cycle, I went into withdrawal. Hot yoga was the first step in my recovery. I chose it somewhat at random, but it turned out to be just what the life coach ordered.

Though scientific research into the cognitive and emotional effects of hyperconnectivity remains nascent, there is no shortage of counsel available to the frazzled. The anxieties of modern digital life have created a burgeoning industry of websites, consultants, therapists, and "thought leaders" devoted to easing our always-on angst.

They tend to fall into two broad camps. The first preaches the gospel of "life hacking," which amounts, as one upbeat blog put it, to "project-managing your life." For the life hacker, productivity is the ur-goal. Distractions, inefficiencies, and bad habits are blockages to be flushed by performance-boosting tweaks. And so they offer better to-do lists and time schedulers, four-minute workouts and five-minute power naps, e-mail filters and syncers of various things with various other things. Modern digital life cannot be avoided, they say, but it can be managed and optimized.

I've attempted to adopt some life-hacking techniques over the years. I've certainly wasted countless hours reading about them. But they tend to require a level of stick-to-itiveness and self-discipline that I lack. How does one muster the wherewithal to implement and maintain all that stuff anyway?

Ah, here it is, on Lifehack.com's " 29 Ways to Beat Procrastination Once and For All " list: "Become mindful." Reminds me of that old joke about how an economist proposes to open a can: "First, assume a can opener."

And then there's the second camp, which approaches digital overload from a groovier, more spiritual angle. Here we are encouraged to "disconnect to reconnect," according to the tagline of Digital Detox, a Bay Area organizer of device-free workshops and retreats. A flier for events the group cohosted in L.A. and San Francisco in March to celebrate a National Day of Unplugging promised an "analog zone" with friendship bracelets, face painting, nicknaming, typewriters, and smiles. Writer and critic Nathan Jurgenson has dubbed this crowd, which now includes such worthies as Arianna Huffington and Deepak Chopra, " the disconnectionists."

Whether tech-based life-hacking tricks or smile-based wellness retreats, it's all premised on mindfulness, that all-important but elusive quality about which so much ink has recently been spilled. So gripped has the professional class become that a Time cover story earlier this year declared " The Mindful Revolution."

So how does one become mindful? The most common prescription is regular meditation, which research suggests has all sorts of surprising benefits: it improves mood and cognitive performance; it strengthens (literally puts more folds in) the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that coordinates conscious thought and self-regulation; and it enhances your ability to accurately assess your inner states. One recent Canadian study found that introspection "becomes more accurate with increasing meditation experience."

For beginners, at least, meditation means sitting quietly, alone with your thoughts, for as long as you can stand it, which isn't very long. A recent study published in Science found that many participants "preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts," which I have to say I completely get.

That, it became clear, was the real benefit of my sweaty yoga: it was a back-door route to meditation. Moving through the postures, I was forced to draw focus to my breath, again and again. My mind never emptied-I'll probably need a few decades for that-but over the ensuing months I became more able to observe my thoughts, worries, and distractions as they arrived, acknowledge them, and let them go.

Oh, and I finally got my leg up.

As my mind began to spin down, I discovered that calm was like a drug. It felt so good, so decadent, just to sit in the early afternoon with my feet propped on the windowsill, watching wind brush the trees in the front yard. I was hooked.

In December, I called psychology professor and researcher Larry D. Rosen, author of iDisorder: Understanding Our Obsession with Technology and Overcoming Its Hold on Us. "I could put an EEG tap on your head and measure the activity while you're sitting at your computer," he said, "and then I could have you go take a walk. What I would likely see is your brain activity diminish rapidly." What this suggests, he said, is that "technology is highly overloading our brains" and, conversely, that "certain things calm our brains." Simple enough.

Rosen mentioned taking lots of short breaks, finding offline social groups, and, of course, meditation, but I kept coming back to walking. Just before I started my sabbatical, my wife bought me one of those wristband fitness trackers that count your steps. (The absurdity of wiring myself for a break from technology did not escape me.) It comes with a built-in goal of 10,000 steps a day-about five miles. Running, you could do that in 40 minutes, but I loathe running with great fervor, so I walked. My dog Forest and I have since logged 1,400 miles on winding urban hikes through Seattle's tucked-away paths, stairways, and parks. That's 2,723,487 steps, but who's counting?

My rambles have taken me through many miles of greenspace, which, as scientists are belatedly discovering, is a kind of wonder drug itself, with many of the same benefits as meditation. When I chatted with researcher and naturopathic physician Alan Logan, coauthor of 2012's Your Brain on Nature, he described experiments in which cognitively fatigued subjects are taken on a walk, some through a concrete environment, some through urban greenspace. "You come back and you repeat the cognitive testing," he said, "and whether it's memory recall, target identification, or your attention overall, it's consistently far better after having taken a nature walk."

What's going on? Nature provides what University of Michigan psychologist Stephen Kaplan has termed soft fascinations. (Dibs on the band name.) We are shaped by evolution to heed the ebb and flow of drifting clouds, rustling grass, and singing birds. Unlike voluntary or directed attention-the kind required by, say, a spreadsheet-"effortless attention" produces no fatigue. It's the mental equivalent of floating on your back, and a rested mind is a more productive mind.

In his new book, The Distraction Addiction, technology scholar Alex Soojung-Kim Pang notes that the pace of walking encourages contemplation and reverie. While the conscious mind is wandering, the subconscious is chugging away, which is why moments of insight or creativity come so often during activities that allow daydreaming-taking a shower, weeding the garden. Thinkers from Rousseau to Thoreau to Nietzsche have sworn by walking. Charles Darwin found it so important, he had a specially designed trail constructed on his property.

Reliably, after about a half-hour of walking, ideas start bubbling up. During one longer jaunt on Seattle's Interurban Trail, I found myself telling Forest all about the proper structure and casting of a hypothetical HBO series made from Lloyd Alexander's 1960s fantasy novels, The Chronicles of Prydain. (Producers, call me!) After that, I started carrying a little voice recorder to capture stray thoughts.

By January, my days had settled into a rhythm. When I wasn't walking or at yoga, I was doing yard work, reading novels, visiting with friends, fumbling away at a bass guitar, or enjoying time with the kids. Since I wasn't working, they were no longer in after-school care, and in those hazy, unstructured afternoon hours before dinner we'd play catch or lie around the living room trading comic books. I spent hours at a time absorbed in a single activity. My mind felt quieter, less jumpy.

Still, going into my sabbatical I knew I needed at least one real blowout experience, my own private mindfulness retreat. So I convinced two old friends to rent a cabin with me near Utah's Brighton Ski Resort for an entire month, beginning in mid-January. One owned his own company, the other had recently been bought out of his, and both were feeling as midlife-y as I was.

It took a while for us to relax into just being, with nothing else to do. We snowboarded, played cards, cooked meals, and laughed at inside jokes. It doesn't sound like much, but it has more weight in my memory than any number of online dramas.

A couple of weeks into the trip, we were blessed with an enormous powder dump. In the lung-pinching crisp of the following morning, we were among the first on the chairlift. We headed straight for our favorite grove of trees and found them transformed, a crystalline, untracked landscape of white. I sailed into the open pines with no one else in sight, no sound but the soft shh-shh of fresh snow being pushed aside, no sense of effort or separation. And I thought, This is it. This is as far away as I will ever get.

Just a few weeks later, at the end of February, I wound up in a distressingly familiar position: standing at my computer, surrounded by empty chip bags and Trader Joe's chocolate-covered-whatever boxes. It was almost two in the morning, and I'd just emerged, blinking and dazed, from an hour lost to some online rathole. (I think it was reading reviews of bass-guitar cables, despite already owning a perfectly good bass-guitar cable.) I felt that old sour stew of anxiety, guilt, and exhaustion.

For months, I'd been fiddling around with an outline for a near-future sci-fi novel. I had all kinds of ideas about how things might go if I were writing for fun rather than work, after months of meditative, screen-free activities.

Things did not go that way. Instead, I spent long hours attached to a screen, distracted and diffuse, producing little but feeling obligated to remain there until I coughed up enough to justify my miserable existence-in short, right back where I was before my break. I threw up my hands that night, actually slammed them on the keyboard and startled Forest from his sleep.

It wasn't the challenge of creative writing that stymied me so much as the blasted computer. Every time I ventured back into its orbit, I confronted a minefield of deeply ingrained habits. My old routines-clear inbox of new e-mail, check RSS feeds, read TV-show recaps, update apps, check e-mail again-were under way before I knew it. The slightest cues triggered them, even the physical act of resting my hands on the keyboard.

My budding mindfulness was proving inadequate in the circumstance I most needed it. It was dispiriting, but it also raised a question: Just how mindful should you have to be to get anything done these days? Must every professional be bodhisattva?

One striking feature of the digital-self-help literature is that it treats distraction, overload, and frazzlement almost entirely as personal challenges. If you're stressed out and unable to concentrate, you're not enlightened enough. Meditate harder.

The problem with this approach is that it sidesteps what sociologists call political economy, the larger social and economic forces at work in our lives. As author, activist, and documentary filmmaker Astra Taylor argues in her rousing new book, The People's Platform, discourse about online technologies almost always elides "the thorny issue of the larger social structures in which we and our technologies are embedded."

Because most Web services are "free"-that is, supported by advertising-their very survival depends on distracting and bewitching their users. Silicon Valley software engineers design apps that way on purpose; they're quite clever at it. Because America's culture of professional overwork and exhaustion is unrestrained by workplace regulations or conventions governing e-mail, unceasing connectivity has become an unspoken job requirement. Because social groups coalesce and plan online, even brief screenless periods breed FOMO, the fear of missing out.

There's only so much any individual can do in the face of these forces. Mindfulness may be a necessary form of self-care, even self-defense, but it is not a solution to digital unease any more than driving a Prius is a solution to climate change. Instead of just treating our anxieties exclusively as a symptom of poorly engineered minds in need of hacking, perhaps we also ought to see them as a collective challenge, to be addressed through social and political action. Hey, we could start a hashtag.

Still, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to work in the culture you have, not the culture you might want. One has to get on with things, and Internet David Roberts has to go back to work soon.

Like a shuttle nearing a planet's gravitational field, I'm preparing for reentry. That means implementing survival strategies. Some I've been working on all year; others will go into effect only when I return to Grist.

First, I'm holding on to the three most centering, mind-calming practices I developed during the break. There's yoga, of course, which I can no longer imagine doing without. There's walking. And there's bass guitar, my delight in which is undiminished by lack of skill. (If I accomplished nothing else this year, at least I learned the Game of Thrones theme on bass.)

For at least one or two hours every workday, I'm going to use an app called Freedom to cut off my Internet connection entirely. That will be my time for deep focus.

Come hell or high water, I will take regular, scheduled breaks from screens: 15 minutes of nonscreen activity for every two hours at the computer. I'll take a short walk, play with Forest, get coffee with a friend, or just sit and look out the window. (I'm telling you, it's underrated.) That's about an hour of mental recharging per eight-hour workday-not perfect, but a big improvement.

I don't plan to swear off social media. Unlike some disconnectionists, I don't view online relationships as toxic or inauthentic. I benefit from them enormously. But I do want to keep that ping time corralled, so it doesn't smear into everything else. That means turning off all push notifications and checking e-mail and social media only when I've decided to, not when they buzz at me. The ideal cycle, in my hopeful imagination, is a period of singular concentration, followed by a limited period of pinging, followed by a period of rest, exercise, or social interaction, away from screens. Four or five of those cycles add up to a productive day, with rhythm and variety.

When I'm writing, I want to write with full focus. When I'm pinging, I want to ping without angst or guilt. When I'm with my family, I want to be with my family, not half in my phone. It is the challenge of our age, in work and in life: to do one thing at a time, what one has consciously chosen to do and only that, and to do it with care and attention.

I hope I'm up to it. That any of us are.

Last summer, Huck decided he wanted to get serious about baseball. Since then we've worn patches on either side of the backyard, tossing the ball after school. He improved enough that he tried out in the fall and moved up to Little League a year early. Late in the season, his coaches discovered that he could pitch, and he went on to save a few post-season play-off nail-biters.

A couple of weeks ago, he and I were throwing again out back. That hesitant, clumsy kid from last summer is gone. Now he likes to tug his cap and spit in the dirt and make it look easy.

We'd settled in, and neither of us had spoken for a while. Sun dappled the grass, the air was scented with lilac, and the ball hit our gloves with reassuring thumps. I looked at Huck then, aglow in the late-afternoon light, and I felt an upwelling of sadness, so sudden and overwhelming my eyes blurred with tears. I saw with unforgiving clarity that the moment would pass; it was already passing, even as I contemplated it. Life slides by from the present to the past so fast it sometimes seems we barely get a glimpse, barely get to register anything before we're gone. Yet death is coming for all of us. Even me. Even Huck.

And then, just as quickly, a sense of joy and profound relief. I hadn't missed it. However ephemeral the moment was, I was there, in it, fully present for it. The breeze was cool on my skin, I had nowhere else to be, and Huck was winding up.
David Roberts (@drgrist) is back to writing about climate politics for grist.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A star political blogger for Grist.org, David Roberts spent so much time posting and Tweeting and staring at screens that he almost went nuts. So he pulled the plug for a year, restarting his relationship with technology and actively seeking health, balance, and adventure in the real world.

# data[].attributes.body
what is it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the world's poorest nations are getting to grips with technology

The digital divide, like many other economic or social problems, is a global issue.
From the most switched on countries such as Sweden to the poorest nations in Africa there is a widening gap between those with access to technology and those without.

The gap between countries on the same continent is also getting wider.

According to figures from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Sweden has a mere 12% of its population offline compared to 56.5% in Greece.

The scale of a country's digital divide reflects the condition of its economy, says ITU analyst Vanessa Gray.

"In Sweden there is a population that is highly educated and a culture of trying new things whereas in Greece income levels and educational levels are lower," she said.

League tables are important to keep nations on their toes, she thinks.

"Being able to compare gives them the incentive to do better. Governments need to know where they stand and learn from other countries," she says.

Finland, which currently has around 13% of its population offline, is so confident it can solve its digital inclusion problems it has recently declared internet access to be a basic human right.

Its public libraries have moved beyond being places where people can gain their first experiences online to offering laptop doctors who trouble-shoot a wide range of technology issues.
Wi-fi villages
Eastern Europe has traditionally lagged behind its western counterparts in terms of economics but countries such as Hungary are investing heavily in high-speed fibre-optic cables.

Despite the blue sky thinking on infrastructure, Hungary has no national e-inclusion policy and there are concerns that the networks will be far more sophisticated than citizens' understanding or use of them.

There are some efforts to conquer the problem and a wi-fi village programme is reaching out to those of its population living in rural poverty, 80% of whom are Roma or Gypsies.

So far 115 rural villages have been provided with wi-fi, offering internet access to 2,000 families living below the poverty line. The target for this year is to reach 30,000.

As well as providing the infrastructure, the project also sells recycled PCs to local Roma people for about 80 euros.

The PCs run Linux and users are trained to user Google's web applications such as Gmail and Google Docs.

One villager managed to make contact with an old friend and secured temporary jobs for himself and 20 other villagers on a construction site for a new road.

Others have started e-learning programmes while one resident used his new-found skill to make a movie about Roma culture which is on YouTube and has been watched by 90,000 people.
Barren deserts

Keeping people that are part of minority communities in touch with their culture is an invaluable service that the internet can perform.

As one of the world's most advanced economies, the US is often held up as a weathervane for the state of the internet. While internet access is high in America in general, use among Native Americans stands at less than 10% according to a study conducted by the New America Foundation (NAF).

Even analogue phone lines only reach one in three families in many tribal communities, while less than 10% of respondents to a major NAF survey had universal mobile phone coverage in their community.

"Tribal homelands have stood like barren deserts in pockets across the technology-rich lands of the United States," says report author Sascha Meinrath.

The NAF study drew together views from more than 120 tribes living in 28 states across America.

It found that connected Native Americans paid substantially more for their internet access but those who are connected, use their connection more widely than the national average.

RezKast, the first Native American YouTube is currently sweeping through the community and the internet has had some more life-changing impacts too.

Five clinics in Leech Lake, a reservation with 16 villages and 4,079 residents, is using telemedicine.

It allows individuals from remote communities to access specialised health care

"This is saving peoples' lives," said network director Frank Reese.

Mr Meinrath thinks the example of the Native Americans can be replicated around the world as long as there is a willingness to teach skills alongside making kit and access available.

"It is incredibly rare that broadband connectivity won't improve the lives of those who use it effectively, in much the same way that books improve the lives of the literate. However, providing books to everyone doesn't help those who cannot read in the first place," he said.

It could be time for a major rethink on how to deal with the digital divide he thinks.

"When it comes to broadband connectivity, the era of 'if you build it, they will come', is rapidly drawing to a close in industrialised countries," he said.

"Now we need to begin far more holistic interventions to reach those remaining offline. And if some folks claim to simply not want to be online, that's their choice - though I view it as akin to pridefully claiming that you don't read books."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of the world's poorest nations are getting to grips with technology The digital divide, like many other economic or social problems, is a global issue. From the most switched on countries such as Sweden to the poorest nations in Africa there is a widening gap between those with access to technology and those without.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spread of internet has not conquered 'digital divide' between rich and poor – report

# data[].attributes.subject
Spread of internet has not conquered 'digital divide' between rich and poor – report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rapid spread of the internet and mobile phones around the globe has failed to deliver the expected boost to jobs and growth, the World Bank has revealed in a report that highlights a growing digital divide between rich and poor.

The Bank said no other technology has reached more people in so short a time as the internet, but warned that the development potential of technological change had yet to be reaped.

According to the Bank's new "World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends", the number of people connected to the internet has more than tripled in the past decade, from 1 billion to an estimated 3.5 billion. In many developing countries, more families own a mobile phone than have access to electricity or clean water.

But the report said the benefits of rapid digital expansion had been skewed towards the better-off and the more highly skilled, who were better able to take advantage of the new technologies. By comparison, 4 billion people - or 60% of the world's population - had no access to the internet.

"Digital technologies are transforming the worlds of business, work and government," said Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank's president. "We must continue to connect everyone and leave no one behind, because the cost of lost opportunities is enormous.

"But for digital dividends to be widely shared among all parts of society, countries also need to improve their business climate, invest in people's education and health, and promote good governance."

The Bank said digital technology could be transformational. It said 40% of adults in east Africa pay utility bills using a mobile phone, while 8 million entrepreneurs in China - a third of them women - use an e-commerce platform to sell goods domestically and export to 120 countries. The report said text messages were proving useful in reminding people with HIV to take life-saving drugs, while teacher absenteeism in Uganda had been tackled by headteachers using mobile phones to monitor attendance and transmit data to a central database.

Even so, the effect of technology on global productivity, expansion of opportunity for the poor and middle class, and the spread of accountable governance had been less than expected. Digital technologies were spreading rapidly, but digital dividends - growth, jobs and services - had lagged behind.

The Bank said the digital divide should be closed by making the internet universal, affordable, open and safe. It also said that delivering the development potential of new technology would require regulations to ensure competition among business, action to improve skills, and more accountable institutions.

Kaushik Basu, the Bank's chief economist, said: "It is an amazing transformation that today 40% of the world's population is connected by the internet. While these achievements are to be celebrated, this is also occasion to be mindful that we do not create a new underclass.

"With nearly 20% of the world's population unable to read and write, the spread of digital technologies alone is unlikely to spell the end of the global knowledge divide."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spread of internet has not conquered 'digital divide' between rich and poor - report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rapid spread of the internet and mobile phones around the globe has failed to deliver the expected boost to jobs and growth, the World Bank has revealed in a report that highlights a growing digital divide between rich and poor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I. Total number of streams versus total number of downloads (2015)

II. Total revenues from streaming versus total revenues from downloads (2015).

Methodology.

Sources: Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Nielsen data for 2015, supplied to Digital Music News. Nielsen data finalized and supplied to DMN in January of 2016; RIAA data furnished earlier this month.

Streaming figures includes audio and video on-demand data from leading platforms like Spotify, YouTube/VEVO, Google Play, SoundCloud, Beats/Apple Music, MediaNet, Rhapsody, Xbox Music, and others. Streaming data is on-demand only, and doesn't include 'non-interactive' internet radio platforms like Pandora, iHeartRadio, or Slacker (though this may be incorporated as a comparison for later).

Total on-demand interactions and total track/album downloads calculated by Nielsen Soundscan, and reflect paid-only downloads (i.e., not pirated, torrented, stream-ripped, etc., downloads). Revenue figures calculated entirely by RIAA, released earlier this month. 'Streaming vs. Downloading' comparison is a US-based comparison, with both Nielsen and the RIAA national data monitors.

Projections into 2016 (and beyond).

In terms of overall growth and projections, the disparities between paid downloads and streaming will only intensify. According to RIAA data, 'Download Single' sales plunged 14.9 percent last year alone (in terms of total transactions), with 'Download Album' sales dropping 7.0 percent (also in terms of total transactions). Those declines are likely to intensify in 2016, while streaming is highly likely to continue surging.

Within streaming, weak revenues could be addressed by an increase in paid subscribers, who drive far greater revenue and free, ad-supported users. Paid subscribers are definitely increasing: just recently, Spotify announced its 30 millionth paying subscriber (worldwide), Apple Music is pushing past 11 million (from nothing last year), and Tidal has just announced its 3 millionth subscriber (from roughly 1 million last year). That said, YouTube remains the fastest-growing streaming platform, and Spotify's total user base is estimated to have reached 100 million.
Written while listening to Mark Storie on the Toolroom Radio podcast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Streaming Music vs. Downloading, 2015 - Digital Music News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sources: Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Nielsen data for 2015, supplied to Digital Music News. Nielsen data finalized and supplied to DMN in January of 2016; RIAA data furnished earlier this month. Streaming figures includes audio and video on-demand data from leading platforms like Spotify, YouTube/VEVO, Google Play, SoundCloud, Beats/Apple Music, MediaNet, Rhapsody, Xbox Music, and others.

# data[].attributes.headline
How disconnecting the internet could help our identity

# data[].attributes.subject
How disconnecting the internet could help our identity

# data[].attributes.body
As the internet has developed and social media has grown, people's online identity has shifted increasingly away from their real-life personas. But how has this online influence changed us?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the internet has developed and social media has grown, people's online identity has shifted increasingly away from their real-life personas. But how has this online influence changed us?

In 1993, in the early days of the world wide web, a cartoon appeared in The New Yorker.

It showed a dog, sitting at a computer, turning to another dog and saying: "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

The cartoon by Peter Steiner and one of the magazine's most reproduced ever, captures the thrill of those early days when the internet, then a matter of slow dial-up connections and clunky text-only "bulletin boards", provided a way for people to reengineer their identity online.

Men could pose as women, the young as old, amateurs as experts, country loners as sophisticated urbanites.

Last year, 22 years on, The New Yorker published another cartoon on the subject, drawn by Kaamran Hafeez. This time, two dogs are watching their owner surf the web. The caption: "Remember when, on the internet, nobody knew who you were?"

The internet has had a huge impact on our sense of identity since its explosion into popular use about 25 years ago. It has brought into our lives people, ideas, viewpoints and cultures that, otherwise, we would never have met or heard of.

And that has forced us to reconsider our identities in comparison with theirs. It has allowed us to ally with people with a similar outlook and become part of their group, even if they live thousands of miles away.

And, above all, it has given us a way to re-engineer our identity almost continually and discover what it is like to be someone very different from our "real" selves.

This is not new, of course. Through make-up, clothing, the music we like, the books we read, the opinions we express, the people we vote for, and so on for ever, we have always been busy defining and redefining our identity.

But, before the internet, that busy-ness took place in the small arena of our friends, family and colleagues - and indeed, much of it was about developing separate identities to show to each group.

Now the potential audience for our identity - and so much of identity is about performance - has increased to levels that, a quarter of a century ago, we would have had only if we were a film star or a rock musician.

If we have 300 friends on Facebook and each of them has 300 friends - and many people, of course, have more - that's 90,000 people who are two degrees of separation away.

And even if 90% of those are duplicates (people who are also friends with our friends), that leaves 9,000 people observing our life, Like-ing, or not, our opinions and commenting on our photos.

That's an audience that would have been almost impossible, for someone not working in the arts, politics or the media, to reach in pre-internet times. Now it's commonplace. Is it surprising that many of us spend a huge amount of time managing our online identity?

Not only has the internet given us these vastly bigger audiences for our identity, it has changed the way we understand how other people see us, from a (usually) private and intimate process to a very public scrutiny of who we are.

Through Likes, comments, ratings and so on, we receive almost instantaneous feedback on the adjustments we make to our identity, and these then become part of our identity itself, as other people can see them.

This is not quiet feedback from close friends - the traditional way that we understand how our identity is perceived. This is the opinion of the masses, viewed by the masses.

Social media has, in part, become a huge exercise in public judgement. And, as anyone who has been shamed or bullied online knows, it can be incredibly powerful.

In small groups of individuals who know each other, the clash between how we see our identity and how others see it can be managed. Managing our identity on the internet takes much more work.

A man called "Jack" told the Guardian recently that he checks his social media profiles tens of times a day and how that takes him away from the physical world around him.

"I'll often see moments as 'good content' for my social media followers," he said. "It's almost like the photographing and sharing of a cool time is more important than actually appreciating it in real life."

This ability to comment on others, often from a distance, has given us a significant power without much corresponding responsibility.

Online, we regularly rate and comment on people and services in ways that, if we are British at least, we wouldn't think of doing face to face - and that changes our own identities too, from, to put it crudely, being reasonable human beings to acting as cowardly bullies.

The internet is heralded as being about connection. But in many ways it has given us the opportunity to disconnect our acts from their effects. How often do we, for example, consider the consequences of giving an Uber driver a low rating because we didn't like the way they spoke to us?

Yet falling below an average score of 4.5 stars puts Uber drivers at serious risk of being thrown off the network. Is that really what we had in mind when we tapped out our rating on the way out of the cab?

As well being a world of huge numbers, the internet is also about very high speeds - churning big numbers very quickly is about the only thing computers are good at. And we humans are in danger of trying to keep up with it - a race we can never win.

This means that the world feels much faster than it did even a quarter of a century ago. The same effect was felt in the early days of the industrial revolution in the late 18th Century.

We fret about replying quickly to emails and WhatsApp messages, we worry about not having instant answers to problems we face in life - the illusion created by Google - and we also flit very quickly between identities.

A good example of this is online activism. There are many organisations online that bring about significant change in the world by amassing the power of large numbers of people. And the internet gives us a way of expressing our opinions on geopolitical developments even from a long way away.

But, encouraged, I think, by the speed of the internet, we are also very fickle in the campaigns we support, because they require almost no effort to get involved.

Is it still the case that #weareallCharlieHebdo? Or that we are desperately concerned about the fate of the 200 schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram in northern Nigeria in 2014? Or was it just too easy to send a tweet or sign a petition and then move on?

In one sense, of course, the world has (sadly) long been like this, with the news-cycle's intrinsic short attention span feeding our own. But identity is just as much about purpose and a cause as it is about appearance and opinion, and it is about our actions too. And when those actions stop at clicking on a link and entering our email address, it makes our identity, at the very least, dangerously superficial and fragile.

But, for me, the biggest threat to our identities comes from the internet's noise. I teach at The School of Life, which was set up by the philosopher Alain de Botton to help people think better about the lives they live.

About the author

David Baker is a journalist and broadcaster with a special interest in technology's impact on humanity. He was the founding managing editor of Wired in the UK and teaches at The School of Life in London and Brazil.

Many of the people who come to our classes complain of the difficulty of finding their "true" identity in amongst all the conflicting messages and demands of the world around them.

This idea, that, somewhere deep down, is the "real" us, is as old as philosophy itself. And it is probably the bedrock of our identity, because it involves things like our values, our sense of purpose, the beliefs that make us who we are. This is a long way from identity as defined by our culture or ethnicity, or as defined by the things we buy and Like.

It is more intimate than that, the part of us that keeps us understanding who we are when the rest of the world becomes overwhelming and confusing. At the School we often pose the question, "Are you living the life you want to be living, or the life other people want you to live?" (It comes from Socrates.)

The internet has brought the opinions of others flooding into our own lives as never before, and it is threatening our ability to understand who we really are.

To discover our true selves, maybe it's time to disconnect. Not for ever, that would be throwing away the baby with the bathwater, but for significant periods of our days, weeks, months. Because, with disconnection comes quiet and with quiet comes the ability to reflect.

In researching my World Service documentary Default World, for the BBC's season on identity, I spoke to a lot of people about their experience of technology.

Many said they were trying to spend less time online, taking a break from Facebook, connecting only when they needed to. And they spoke with pleasure of rediscovering the physical world around them and the world of human-to-human interaction, unmediated by computers. I think this is encouraging.

We are still learning how to be on the internet, what effect this huge network of computers, server farms, fibre-optic cables and radio signals - a network we have built ourselves - has on our sense of self. We are at the moment, as Thoreau said of people in the industrial revolution, "tools of our tools".

Disconnecting gives us a chance turn the tables - to see the internet not as something that overwhelms us but as a tool, which we use as and when we need it. Only then can we really understand who we are and what we can give the world. And that, deep down, is the real root of our identity.
As people become increasingly connected and more mobile, the BBC is exploring how identities are changing.
Catch up with programmes, downloads and clips from the season.

Where are you going? - The surprising answers to a simple question

Default World - The morals of the technical elite

Why I'm Not Just Blind - Must blind people be either inspirational or deserving pity?
Learn more about the Default World Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine's email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox. is broadcast on the BBC World Service at 18:00 GMT on Saturday 2 April and at 11:00 GMT on Sunday 3 April - catch up on BBC iPlayer Radio BBC's Identity season, find all the programme s or join the discussion on Twitter using the hashtag #BBCIdentity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the internet has developed and social media has grown, people's online identity has shifted increasingly away from their real-life personas. But how has this online influence changed us? In 1993, in the early days of the world wide web, a cartoon appeared in The New Yorker.

# data[].attributes.headline
Online activism: it's easy to click, but just as easy to disengage

# data[].attributes.subject
Online activism: it's easy to click, but just as easy to disengage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Essential to the co-ordination of both the London riots and the Arab Spring - many words have been spilled about the importance of the internet in recent social change. But beneath the hype, the impact of some online activism may be more modest.

In the land of social media, the position of "armchair activist" is open to all. You can change your profile picture to raise awareness, share videos and articles and keep in touch with charities by liking their pages. Making a difference seems pretty easy in the digital age. But is your contribution any deeper than a click?

Outdoors, get-chilly-and-maybe-a-little-dirty activism isn't for everyone, and someone's dedication to an online cause may well be very real. Millions of people have passed the 500-friend milestone on Facebook, giving them a potentially powerful network to broadcast over. But while the online lobby may have a loud voice, it appears their impact is still a little muted. A new study has found that the majority of people who "like" a Facebook page for a cause don't follow up that gesture with a donation. Return rates for charities and campaigns on Facebook can be a tenth of those for traditional routes such as mail solicitation. It's easy to click, but just as easy to disengage.

The study, published in the Journal of Sociological Science, looked at the Save Darfur page on Facebook. At its height, this cause was one of the largest on the social network. The research team analysed the behaviour of its members over a 989-day period. Out of the one million-plus people who had signed up, less than 3000 ever donated, raising around $90,000 over three years - pitiful statistics compared to the wider Darfur campaign, which raised over $1m in 2008 alone. As the authors point out, the page simply conjured the "illusion of activism rather than facilitating the real thing".

The foremost difference between the online and offline branches of the Save Darfur campaign is the very public and visible nature of online membership. Being safe in the company of a million members may reduce each individual's incentive to contribute. Or perhaps, the visibility of membership was the main motivation for joining in the first place. Another recent study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, supports this explanation. The study found that people who joined a cause publicly were, when asked, less willing to stuff envelopes for the cause than those who joined in private.

So while the digital age may enhance the power of those that are already active, it can't seem to drag the rest out of their armchairs.
Rosalie Tostevin is the Himalayas programme officer at Get more articles like this sent direct to your inbox by signing up for free membership to the Guardian Media Network - this content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Geology for Global Development Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Online activism: it's easy to click, but just as easy to disengage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Essential to the co-ordination of both the London riots and the Arab Spring - many words have been spilled about the importance of the internet in recent social change. But beneath the hype, the impact of some online activism may be more modest.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Really Important Reasons to Stop Dismissing Online Activism

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Really Important Reasons to Stop Dismissing Online Activism

# data[].attributes.body
are you a "keyboard warrior"?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As someone who does a great deal of digital activism and online writing, I've been called a "keyboard warrior" more times than I could count.
I'm commonly told that I should stop talking about oppression and "do something" about it.
There is this common misconception that all online activism is " slacktivism," that it's not "real" activism, that it's all useless, and that it's not as important or effective as offline activism.

But this is simply not the case.

In fact, those arguments are problematic because they doesn't recognize that 1) talking and doing are not mutually exclusive and 2) talking online is educating people, and thus, doing something - something extremely important, I might add.

I would not be where I am today if it weren't for online activism. It's given me a community, enabled me to educate myself, and enhanced the offline activism that I've done.

This is not to say online activism is perfect.

There are many limitations to online activism, and there are plenty things we need to work on to make it more accessible for marginalized people.

I'm also not insinuating that online activism is better than offline activism. Both kinds of activism are necessary, useful and important. Ideally, the two kinds of activism should co-exist without being disparaged or hierarchized.

And yes, some forms of online activism can do more harm than good. Sometimes, online activism can perpetuate oppressive ideas - consider how certain online breast cancer awareness campaigns can be cissexist, misogynistic, and generally ineffective.

As with all forms of activism, it's important that we think about it critically, so that we can try to make it better .

But online activism is definitely not inherently useless - on the contrary, there are many reasons why online activism can be an effective way to fight oppression.

Let's take a look at some of the reasons why we should stop dismissing online activism.

1. Online Activism Can Be More Accessible toPeople with Disabilities

In many ways, online activism can be more accessible for people with various challenges, illnesses, and disabilities.

As someone with anxiety, I've previously struggled with speaking in groups. Online activism enabled me to discuss my experiences without feeling as anxious.

Eventually, I found that online activism helped me gain enough confidence to speak and engage with others in person.

Online activism can also be more accessible to chronically (and temporarily) sick and disabled people . As much as we activist may be working towards creating more accessible protest spaces and organizing gatherings, we still have a long way to go.

We still struggle with having ASL interpreters for the Deaf community, with establishing protest routes that are safe and viable for people who use mobility devices and with ensuring to show up scent free so our friends with MSC can rally as well.

As Ellen Clifford , of the campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) stated,

"Disabled people have taken social media and made it into their own medium, where they can have a voice on equal terms with their non-disabled counterparts, something not often afforded by society as a whole."

Of course, there are a number of people with disabilities, illnesses and challenges that don't find the internet to be any more accessible. But for those who do, online activism can help them form a huge support network and an outlet of expression.

Additionally, online activism can be more accessible to people in rural areas, people without transportation, and people who are often busy with work or other activities.

If we dismiss online activism, we dismiss the input and work of people who have difficulty accessing most forms of activism.

This means we risk invisibilizing them and losing their valuable perspectives.

In order to have a movement that is truly inclusive and intersectional, it's vital that we embrace anything that makes it more accessible - including online activism.

2. Online Activism Can Be Used to Build Community

The Internet can be a very difficult, stressful place. It can also be a place for community, comfort, validation, and love.

As someone who has been sexually assaulted, I struggled with feeling lonely, isolated, and worthless for quite some time.

Thanks to the Internet, I was able to connect with a group of amazing online activists who helped me to feel validated and loved.

This community supported me to begin and maintain the process of healing after my assault.

Eventually, I plucked up the courage to tell my family and friends about my rape. I am certain that I would not be where I am today if it weren't for those so-called "keyboard warriors."

Come to think of it, most of my closest friends are people I met or got to know through online social justice activism.

I met my current partner on a Facebook thread where they were defending the feminist merits of Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda." One of my closest friends is someone I met on Twitter.

The Internet enables people all over the world to connect with, and mutually support, one another. Those relationships can incredibly valuable, especially to marginalized communities.

3. Online Activism Can Be Used to Educate

Because the Internet is a place where people exchange information, it's a great medium for education - especially around social justice issues.

If it weren't for the Internet, I definitely wouldn't be as sensitive to issues around race.

The Internet has provided me with plenty of accessible material that has enabled me to educate myself and - I hope - push back against oppression.

I've also seen many other people - including my classmates, friends and family - become more sensitive to social justice issues by educating themselves on the Internet. I don't think I personally know anyone who hasn't learnt something from the Internet, whether they used that education for harm or good.

Because online activism can be more accessible for people who are marginalized in various ways, it means we can access their perspectives easily.

This means that our education can be broadened and deepened through online activism.

The internet has enabled us to both give and receive content that offers insight into people's lived experiences. This means that it's now easier for us to educate and find education online.

4. Online Activism Can Help People Pool Resources

Connecting with people online can enable people to pool resources for the greater good.

Crowdfunding on platforms like GoFundMe and Indigogo have helped a great deal of individuals. They've also enabled people to fundraise for various activist efforts.

Online activism can also help people share and exchange their skills.

I'm a part of a community where people use their skills to help one another in exchange for help with things they struggle with.

I regularly proofread articles and help people manage social media accounts in exchange for help with graphic designing, writing transcripts, and creating videos.

Our online communities enable us to engage with a diverse group of people with different skills and areas of expertise.

We enhance our work and activism through using these valuable connections. This exchange of skills is also a beautiful way in which people can serve and help one another.

5. Online Activism Can Increase the Efficacy of Offline Activism

As I mentioned earlier, online activism should ideally co-exist with offline activism.

For example, I'm a part of the Gender Action Project , a student activist society at my university. We use our social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter to advertise our events, start online discussions, and draw attention to important issues.

I can guarantee you that fewer people would be aware of our offline events if it weren't for our social media presence.

We're certainly not the only ones. A range of people use social media to organize offline activism. Consider how Twitter is used to organize and publicize activism around #BlackLivesMatter .

The truth is that online activism can have a huge influence on the mainstream media and other institutions.

For example, feminist icon Ani DiFranco was recently criticized after scheduling a songwriting retreat at a former plantation. A great number of people called her out on this - and rightfully so - through social media. This eventually propelled her to the retreat.

Earlier this year, in my own country, thousands of South African students demanded the removal of a statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town. This was partially done through social media and the use of hashtags such as #RhodesMustFall .

When the statue was removed, we continued a movement that calls for radical, intersectional transformation in our country's universities. We use social media to enhance our protests, publicize our activism, and connect with other students around the country.

These are just a few examples of the myriad of ways activists use social media and online activism to enhance offline activism. That said, there are a number of things we need to work on in order to make online activism less limited and exclusionary.

For example, we need to remember that online activism is only accessible as much as what the internet is accessible.

While Internet access increases year by year, quality Internet connections are still reserved mostly for those with class privilege. The quality and cost of internet access differs from country to country. While many people may have access to the internet, they aren't all able to do bandwidth-intensive activities such as watch videos, create content, and conduct video calls.

Online activism, in its current state, is by no means perfect.

But this doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

Dismissing all forms of online activism as "slacktivism" is a common, but deeply misguided approach.

In order to make our activism as effective and inclusive as possible, we need to recognize the power of the Internet and use it to its full potential.
Sian Ferguson is a Contributing Writer at Everyday Feminism and a queer, polyamorous, South African feminist who is currently studying towards a Bachelor of Arts majoring in English and Anthropology. Originally from Cape Town, she now studies at Rhodes University in Grahamstown, where she works as vice-chair of the Gender Action Project. She has been featured as a guest writer on websites such as Women24 and Foxy Box, while also writing for her personal blog. Follow her on Twitter @sianfergs. Read her articles here.

Filed Under: Tagged With: Articles, Fem 101 Posts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Really Important Reasons to Stop Dismissing Online Activism - Everyday Feminism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As someone who does a great deal of digital activism and online writing, I've been called a "keyboard warrior" more times than I could count. I'm commonly told that I should stop talking about oppression and "do something" about it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Viewpoint: When Internet activism actually matters

# data[].attributes.subject
Viewpoint: When Internet activism actually matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The trouble with viral campaigns for fundraising and awareness-building is that they typically don't influence as much offline behavior.

"Like," "retweet" or simply film yourself getting drenched in ice water, and your role is finished.

This is one of the key criticisms repeatedly leveled at the Internet activism most visible on social media. Everyone from advertisers looking to generate sales to politicians looking to rack up votes is looking for the magic formula to convert online engagement to real world action.

Consider two examples:

The worldwide state of HIV and AIDS is improving: new infections are down, the number of people living with the diseases (thanks to new antiretroviral drugs) is increasing, and the World Health Organization (WHO) is optimistic that the world is on the threshold of seeing the first AIDS-free generation in coming years.

The UN's first crowdsourced effort to tackle the spread of AIDS, CrowdOutAids, began in 2012 and is central to their global approach developed for the coming year.

Meanwhile, the #BringOurGirlsBack movement is virtually silent. Sure, its founding members are still trying to keep attention on the fact that the nearly 300 kidnapped girls have not been freed or rescued, but worldwide interest seems to have waned.

These days there are only about 50 daily tweets using the hashtag, compared to a peak of some 200 thousand per day during the summer when it got started. In terms of digital metrics, the campaign for the kidnapped girls would appear successful: huge numbers of followers, worldwide trending, thousands of signatures on petitions to the Nigerian government and official condemnation from the U.S. government.

But the social media activity didn't generate practical action, and the girls remain missing, while the collective attention of the web community wanders to something new.

Certain non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and public health advocates are slowly recognizing that they share an inherent advantage -- if they can learn to capitalize on it.

Complex social movements attempting to confront issues like racism or advance a particular leader draw lines, where conflicting interests can confuse the issue. Health-related advocacy, at its best, combines self-interest (and, frankly, fear) with fluid networks and communities, leveraging peer-pressure and concern to change behavior.

When news of Ebola cases in the U.S. hit the web, conversation blew up on social media (as did advice of varying accuracy and relevance on how to control the disease's spread). The challenge with Ebola, as with most public health concerns, is less winning attention or shares than it is controlling the flow of information to keep it grounded in fact.

Fear -- of getting sick, of the unknown potential of a disease, or even of death -- can certainly drive action and sharing, but the most viral content online tends to be positive.

Indignation at terrorist groups, or shared outrage toward a politician, can certainly unite some... for a while. Ultimately, showing concern for friends, family and the people behind the online communities helps push both sharing and individual action further than fear or anger alone could.

When it comes to remote areas and developing nations, this blend of human psychology and the flow of social sharing becomes even more powerful. Mobile devices, already the most popular way to engage with social networks online, are also leading the charge toward connectivity around the world.

Across Africa, even as the infrastructure for home Internet access makes its slow crawl forward, mobile Internet access is far and away more popular due to its lower cost and relative convenience.

For many, social media is the first form the internet is likely to take. Viral content will be all that new Internet-users get to see.

This kind of media has a short half-life: within three months or less, most content has gotten more than 75% of the social shares it ever will.

While the average online lifespan means certain death to campaigns for hearts and minds, one big push toward, say, disease awareness and avoidance can go further and have a bigger impact through the internet than any other medium.

Online activism has its shortcomings, but with public health matters, the value of 'share' can truly be the difference between life and death.

Edgar Wilson is a student at Amherst College. This story originally appeared on the USA TODAY College blog, a news source produced for college students by student journalists. The blog closed in September of 2017.
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2KTtsTN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Viewpoint: When Internet activism actually matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The trouble with viral campaigns for fundraising and awareness-building is that they typically don't influence as much offline behavior. "Like," "retweet" or simply film yourself getting drenched in ice water, and your role is finished. This is one of the key criticisms repeatedly leveled at the Internet activism most visible on social media.

# data[].attributes.headline
Technology Is Disrupting Crime. Are You Ready?

# data[].attributes.subject
Technology Is Disrupting Crime. Are You Ready?

# data[].attributes.headline
These Companies Are Eliminating Their Gender Pay Gaps

# data[].attributes.subject
These Companies Are Eliminating Their Gender Pay Gaps

# data[].attributes.body
Elon Musk’s SpaceX will follow Salesforce, Apple, Intel, and the Gap and perform an audit to ensure equal pay for women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Original tech reporting and analysis that's made by, and for, humans.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to stay relevant in an evolving digital culture

# data[].attributes.subject
How to stay relevant in an evolving digital culture

# data[].attributes.body
with over 82% of the developed world connected, Much of the information we consume nowadays is via pixels, not paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Much of the information we consume nowadays is via pixels, not paper. The Internet is now over 20 years old, with 82 percent of the developed world connected according to the International Telecommunication Union. Many of the services we use everyday - such as Facebook and Twitter - have been around for at least 10 years.

"The social media revolution is not a revolution anymore," Charlie Weaver, publisher of Emerald Media Group at the University of Oregon, said.

Love it or hate it, this new world of information is not going away. At this rate, more than seven billion people will have access to the Internet by 2035, according to data from the ITU. Instead of fighting progress, we need to discuss how to use digital media effectively.

One group that has really struggled to adapt to the digital landscape is news organizations. In the fragmented world of publishing platforms, retaining an audience is a challenge as readers have an ever-increasing deluge of information at their fingertips.

"Physical media has kind of a weird place on a college campus. You're kind of in a bubble."
-Tony Wagner, Digital Production Assistant for Marketplace

As a student news publication, The Torch also struggles with adjusting to digital media. We know we need to move forward, or risk being stuck in the past. In an effort to adapt to a digital-first workflow, several of our staffers attended the recent Associated Collegiate Press conference, which was held over the Feb. 18-21 weekend. Hundreds converged in Los Angeles to share ideas on how to be exceptional journalists, and at the same time transition to the web.

"Physical media has kind of a weird place on a college campus," Tony Wagner, digital production assistant for Marketplace from American Public Media, said. "You're kind of in a bubble." People tend to be more apt to pick up a student newspaper or magazine, if nothing else for the novelty and a desire to be a part of the campus community, Wagner added.

There will always be a segment of readers who prefer a print product, but most people nowadays consume information in a digital form.

With half of all of Internet-using adults getting their news straight from their feeds on Facebook, according to the Pew Research Center, it's important for news organizations to provide trusted information on these digital platforms. This is even more important for students, as unbiased information about their campus can be hard to find. Student news publications offer a source of information about campus life that is often neglected by other media, and is balanced by journalistic ethics and a student perspective.

For many, it's not just access to information that is important, it's also the voice and tone that the information conveys.

"Having personality is your brand as a writer, and people are going to follow you if they find you are interesting," Devin Desjarlais, public relations manager for Omelet, said during a session on how to create a successful online presence.

In the drive to attract new readers, some publications forget that people ultimately want good content as much as they want it immediately, but just because McDonald's offers salad doesn't mean it's healthy.

"It's a culture of trying to get things online as soon as they happen but not sacrificing the quality of the product," Ryan Hagen, reporter for the San Bernardino Sun, said.

Balancing those two goals can be tricky, and in some areas of journalism, the demand for posting information instantly has been trumping the merit of creating quality stories. This is a fine line, and staying true to the ethical standards of journalism should remain the number one priority.

"It's a culture of trying to get things online as soon as they happen but not sacrificing the quality of the product." - Ryan Hagen, Reporter for the San Bernardino Sun

Journalism programs that are teaching convergent media are now offering web development skills in their training programs, including programming and digital strategy.

"I'm literally learning HTML, CSS, JQuery and Javascript in one of my classes," Linh Nguyen, journalism major at San Jose State University, said. "It's weird."

The ability to do more than just write or photograph a story is crucial in this ever-evolving digital space. Almost everyone that we spoke to could not stress enough the importance of being able to do a little bit of everything.

"In the last year especially, we [at Marketplace] saw a lot of people getting poached by players that weren't even in the mix a year and a half ago," Wagner said, referring to how companies like Audible and Midroll Media are stealing away employees who have strong digital skill sets.

As the world becomes more invested in the digital space, a diversity of skills will be necessary for everyone, not just journalists. From writing, to photography and web design, to humor and many others, it is critical to have a multifaceted skillset.

As the student media of Lane Community College, The Torch is committed to making the transition to a digital-first publication. Not only to provide valuable information about our campus where people read it most, but also to provide a learning lab for those who wish to learn these skills.

The Torch will evolve and will always be relevant, because there will always be an important story to tell about our campus community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to stay relevant in an evolving digital culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much of the information we consume nowadays is via pixels, not paper. The Internet is now over 20 years old, with 82 percent of the developed world connected according to the International Telecommunication Union. Many of the services we use everyday - such as Facebook and Twitter - have...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Also recommended: BuzzFeed. So we'll see you in about 30 days have a great month everybody! Just kidding. But seriously, I was just about to poke God.

This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. Learn more or post your buzz!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Also recommended: BuzzFeed. So we'll see you in about 30 days have a great month everybody! Just kidding. But seriously, I was just about to poke God. This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. Learn more or post your buzz!

# data[].attributes.body
Today it seems like that no matter where you go, there is one language that is spoken everywhere: technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today it seems like that no matter where you go, there is one language that is spoken everywhere: technology.

Posted on June 7, 2012, at 10:38 a.m. ET

Eugene Hoshiko / AP

A man, one of the first customers who queued up to purchase a new smartphone iPhone 4S, shows off his new phone at an Apple Store early Friday, Jan. 13, 2012 in Shanghai, China.

A few weeks ago, I needed to grab dinner after a long day covering a tech conference in an unfamiliar town. It turned out that the number one restaurant in the whole burg, according to TripAdvisor, was on the way back to my hotel. So yay, I wandered over there. Handsome place, wood paneling, nice little bar; I was seated near a window as the sun set on the bustling street, and soon a lovely, willowy girl arrived who took my order for chicken curry and a glass of wine.

Then she noticed my new phone lying on the table. "Is that a Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket?!" she asked excitedly, her eyes shining.

"Beats me," I said. "I just got whatever 4G phone that seemed like the best deal." She was exactly right, though. (And it was a crazy good deal - 20 bucks for a refurb on AT&T. I had dropped my beloved tiny little HTC Aria once too often.) I handed her the phone so she could mess around with it for a minute or two. How crazy is it, I thought, that this kid knew exactly what kind of phone it was - aren't there millions of kinds of phones? Especially since we were in downtown Belgrade.

Technology has become the lingua franca of the world's under-30s. They don't just all speak English - they speak Rails and Ubuntu. They know how to work every telephone, and they know all the ins and outs of Tumblr and Twitter - 107.8 million of Twitter's 140 million active users are international users, while 750 million of Facebook's 900 million users are outside of the U.S. This fluency is quite thrilling to us dinosaurs; it's fantastic the way the youngs can operate in any new environment or on any new device without a moment's puzzlement.

Even though I programmed my first database application in, like, 1991 (Paradox!! so fun!), my first hard drive held 20MB and I still kind of miss Windows 3.1, it still takes me a while to get up to speed on a newfangled phone, tablet or camera. Not so for those who grew up on a digital interface, rather than an analog one. And this combination of fluency, brains, optimism and general tattooed awesomeness is apparently the same whether you are in Serbia, France or the U.S. These are the international digital natives.

This is a little-understood dynamic of the Internet age; since today's young people get perspectives from everywhere at once, they've created a global youth culture of immense power, size and uniformity. The Serbian kids are just like the ones in London and Brooklyn: short beard, sleeve tattoo, left politics, espresso, bicycle, faded t-shirt, beer, narrow trousers. Along with the global spread of technology has come the global spread of its lingua franca - English - and these powerful twinned forces are unifying the youth cultures of almost every nation. These are the first true citizens of the world, who can relate to their peers from anywhere on earth in a newly comprehensive and inclusive manner.

Adam Berry / Getty Images

BERLIN, GERMANY - MAY 13: A German Pirate Party supporter holds a rainbow flag with the Party's logo on it as he watches a baseball game near an election party at the former Tempelhof airport, now a public park, on May 13, 2012 in Berlin, Germany.

In the olden times, when we went abroad and met our fellow twenty-somethings, there were a few things we all had in common, to be sure. Beer has been the lingua franca among the twenty-somethings forever. And music. But to share ideas with a stranger who didn't speak your language used to be very difficult, and necessarily resulted in relatively primitive exchanges.

Now there is a technologically derived division of Us and Them: those who have mastered the 21st century literacy of the Internet, and those who haven't. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on geopolitics, though the rise of the Pirates in Europe is beginning to provide interesting indications.

The Pirate Party was founded in Sweden just six years ago, seeking to reform copyright laws, abolish the patent system, and protect freedom of information, privacy and anonymity. Last month, representatives from 28 countries convened in Prague for the Pirate Parties International General Assembly. The party has already achieved an incredible 11 percent penetration in recent polling in Germany, despite their stripped-down platform, and has taken 45 out of 1,890 seats in regional parliaments. The Swedes have elected two Pirates as Members of the European Parliament. As German novelist Juli Zeh wrote the other week in the Guardian: "Anyone who wants to understand the potential of the Pirate Party must first realise that the internet is more than a technical means to an end and more than a playground for file sharers. The internet is the birthplace and living space of a communication society and therefore the key to the transformation of an era."

It would be a mistake to discount the global spread of English as a factor in the unification of youth culture, but the kind of English that is required for tech fluency is fairly rudimentary. That is to say, today's real fluency comes less from having mastered English, and far more from having mastered the intricacies of science and technology, as the global character of academic and tech conferences increasingly shows - English as shorthand, used globally to facilitate many another purpose. "It is an indisputable fact that in the 21st century English has become a global lingua franca with non-native speakers of the language outnumbering its native speakers," as Hülmbauer et al. wrote in a splendid 2008 paper in Synergies: Europe that argues for a mellow response to the increasing adoption of English. "[English as a lingua franca] is not, therefore, to be regarded as a fixed, all-dominating language but as a flexible communicative means interacting with other languages and integrated into a larger framework of multilingualism."

AFP / Getty Images

Demonstrators wearing Anonymous Guy Fawkes masks attend a protest against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on February 11, 2012 in Paris.

It should be noted above all that English isn't just the language of Western culture anymore: far more importantly, now that it is the language of the internet, the need for technological fluency is likely driving the need to learn English, rather than the other way around.

If you want to understand websites that teach you how to flash a new ROM onto your phone or to program in a new language (or, indeed, how to build a website), your options will multiply very rapidly with even a rudimentary knowledge of English. If you want to hire a programmer at vWorker, or take a job there, you have to do it in English. This is in addition to the ordinary venues where English has traditionally been an enormous boon. For example, the top scholarly journals are still published in English; "English is given the status of royal road to journal pages," as Serdar M. Değirmencioğlu wrote last year in the Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology. In his 1983 book Haphazard Reality, Hendrik Casimir, a Dutch physicist, gives a terrific description of the pragmatic, if somewhat inelegant "broken English" used to get by in so many international contexts as "[the] general language that is used by waiters in Hawaii, prostitutes in Paris and ambassadors in Washington, by businessmen from Buenos Aires, by scientists at international meetings and by dirty-postcard peddlers in Greece-in short, by honorable people like myself all over the world."

Modern developments will always create nostalgia and regret for the world that is passing. I can't deny that traveling in Europe now makes me a little sad for the excitement and mystery of learning about new people in new countries that I felt when I first arrived there so many years ago. Nowadays, I think, we already know a great deal about one another before we set foot in a foreign town; this is doubly so for those who grew up on the Web. The whole idea of "a foreigner," I suspect, is already growing obsolete. Though one can't help regretting the passing of exoticism, just a little (the harmlessly breathless and awestruck parts of exoticism, at least), who can regret the coming of a world in which the brotherhood of man seems close enough to touch?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today it seems like that no matter where you go, there is one language that is spoken everywhere: technology. Posted on June 7, 2012, at 10:38 a.m. ET A few weeks ago, I needed to grab dinner after a long day covering a tech conference in an unfamiliar town.

# data[].attributes.body
Between the smartphones and the laptops and the tablets, your life is probably way too full of technology now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Between the smartphones and the laptops and the tablets, your life is probably way too full of technology now.

# data[].attributes.headline
These Comics Perfectly Sum Up Your Relationship With The Internet

# data[].attributes.subject
These Comics Perfectly Sum Up Your Relationship With The Internet

# data[].attributes.body
Our ever present, overly helpful friend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These Comics Perfectly Sum Up Your Relationship With The Internet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our ever present, overly helpful friend.

# data[].attributes.body
Technology, Inequality & The City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everyone says SF isn't what it was. Everyone says the past five years have changed the city tremendously. Saito sees the city floating above the earth-- above the attacks in Paris, above the refugee crisis in Europe, yet also somehow acutely responsive (evasive?). Nonetheless, the city cannot escape its own internal crisis: housing crisis (identity crisis?). Middle income families can't afford it. Long-term residents are leaving. The homeless are being pushed onto Market St., onto the doorstep of some of the world's largest tech companies, who are content to surveil and monitor, but not intervene.

Someone on the street said SF is the technological petri dish of the world, that the concomitant economic changes will spread across the globe. More routine tasks, both physical and cognitive, will be automated, shifting power from labor to capital. Markets will continue to be digitized and networked, creating massive opportunities for economic super-stars, but fewer opportunities for everyone else. All of this economic change has the effect of centralizing wealth and power; it's the best time to be a person with the right skills and the worst time to be a worker without technical expertise.

Our political institutions are incapable of keeping pace. Does that mean that the responsibility for those who aren't able to meet their own needs falls on entrepreneurs? How often do they bemoan the inefficiency of government while simultaneously deferring to those institutions, ignoring the economic, social and political ramifications of their inventions? Do the entrepreneurs ever mention ", pigovian tax, value added taxes (VAT), universal basic income (UBI) or national mutual fund distributing the ownership of capital widely and perhaps inalienably, providing a dividend stream to all citizens and ensuring the capital returns do not become highly concentrated?" (quoted from The Second Machine Age)

Today's networked city exacerbates inequality. Its geo-data and social-data facilitate both convenience and control. Technology companies model their customers and derive their location based on previous purchases, ushering them towards future purchases. Technology companies track customers through the street as relentlessly as they track them online. As companies continue promote a trade of one's rights for one's convenience, they produce more economic power and more political leverage, dangerously widening economic inequality and further reshaping the city to suit their preferences.

What kind of city is San Francisco creating with technology? Is it going to be a city in which the benefits of technological advancement reach everyone, or only a few people? Is it going to be a city where people have the freedom of privacy, or a city where they are intensively surveilled and controlled? Could San Francisco be the first city to implement some form of basic income (or related scheme)? Could it be the first city to explicitly adopt a Data Bill of Rights? It has the wealth and the expertise. We lead in technological innovation, why aren't we also leading in social and political innovation simultaneously?

In all of this, Saito's small part is probing the stream. Saito is gathering geo-located social media data from the area around Market St., but instead of using it to build models for marketing, Saito is remixing it into poems about economic damage and projecting those poems back onto the walls of the street. Saito is distributing a tool for citizen counter-surveillance, while simultaneously holding crypto-street parties where techniques for anti-surveillance are freely disseminated (inspired by Daniel Bustillio and Tim Schwartz). Saito doesn't reject technology or technology corporations, but Saito is a social futurist, who believes the benefits of the network should be shared by all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone says SF isn't what it was. Everyone says the past five years have changed the city tremendously. Saito sees the city floating above the earth-- above the attacks in Paris, above the refugee crisis in Europe, yet also somehow acutely responsive (evasive?). Nonetheless, the city cannot escape its own internal crisis: housing crisis (identity crisis?).

# data[].attributes.headline
16 Tweets About The Robot Uprising That Will Make You Laugh And Then Fear For Your Life

# data[].attributes.subject
16 Tweets About The Robot Uprising That Will Make You Laugh And Then Fear For Your Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 Tweets About The Robot Uprising That Will Make You Laugh And Then Fear For Your Life

# data[].attributes.body
The Tamagotchi was something your parents bought you when you wanted a real pet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Way back when, in the late 90s, there lived a popular toy called the Tamagotchi.

The Tamagotchi was something your parents bought you when you wanted a real pet but they didn't want to clean up real shit. When the toy was new, people thought it might be an easy way to teach kids responsibility. Quickly, though, the world realized that the Tamagotchi encouraged anything but.

In a time before iPhones and Snapchat, the Tamagotchi was your only form of pocket-sized digital entertainment. You could take it everywhere. You could bring it to the dinner table and ignore your dad asking you about your day. Hell, you could bring it to school, and sneakily feed it between classes. Then, when taking care of your Tamagotchi was no longer fun, you would just neglect and murder it. NBD.

But in 2013, the makers of the Tamagotchi set out to end this cycle of death by empowering the victims - the Tamagotchis - to flee their captors.

No, I'm not kidding. Tamagotchis have become immortal.

Thus my intended experiment - to take care of a Tamagotchi as a grown, adult-like human being - turned into something else altogether: an attempted murder.

When I first began the search for my new pet Tamagotchi, I was honestly surprised to learn that they were still being made.

Like, isn't there an app for that? I found a small selection on Amazon, and figured the seller had probably amassed a mountain of Tamagotchis in 2001 (before the great Tamagotchi crash) and was simply reselling them.

Unbelievably, when it arrived, I found that my Tamagotchi had been produced in 2013. It was much larger than the Tamagotchi of my youth, yet equally as shitty-looking. The screen was black and white and very difficult to read. Still, when I shoved a pen deep into the plastic to hit the reset button and turn it on, my heart fluttered, and I was taken back to a simpler time.

Three eggs appeared, and I was forced to pick one. This seemed unfair because maybe I wanted to raise all three? I wasn't sure if this was a case of selective abortion, or if it was more like those designer dogs that are so popular you have to purchase them while they are still in utero. Either way, it was kind of fucked up.

Anyway, I ended up with a beautiful baby girl. The eggshell remained on her head for a while, and I could not figure out a way to take it off. Just like a puppy or human baby, the Tamagotchi immediately began begging for food.

After spending entirely too long trying to figure out how to select the food icon, I was able to get my baby a meal of bread and milk.

She immediately began pooping all over the place, leading me to conclude that my Tamagotchi was both lactose- and gluten-intolerant. This was going to be a difficult process.

While the Tamagotchi was young, it required a lot of attention. It was a special time, but it also beeped a ton, and embarrassed me in front of large crowds.

Initially I was very invested in its life and health. I wanted to be a good Tamagotchi mother. I even found myself ignoring my real-life pet in favor of placating my digital pet.

But life goes on, and my Tamagotchi got a little older. It wanted to play "games." Fortunately these games were just shitty versions of Snake and other old cell phone games. I played for a little bit and amassed 50 points. I thought this meant I could finally use the "buy jewelry" feature!

I was wrong. I never figured out how to purchase jewelry for my Tamagotchi. This was likely the start of our troubles. As I was unable to provide any presents for my Tamagotchi, she responded by growing far more annoying in her neediness and beepiness.

Soon I noticed that the Tamagotchi had a feature that was missing from the original versions - if your friend is also a Tamagotchi parent, you can make them talk and play with each other. Unfortunately, none of my friends has a Tamagotchi, so I was forced to homeschool her. I tried to lecture her on art, history and the Gilded Age, but it was of no use. All the Tamagotchi wanted was to play games, eat, and shit. And it wasn't very cuddly.

The modern Tamagotchi also decided to put itself to bed at around 7:00 pm, which is way too early. On the weekends, the Tamagotchi was waking up 5 hours before me, beeping, and wallowing in its own shit. My dog sleeps in when I sleep in, so I blame the Tamagotchi for not adjusting to my schedule.

If my Tamagotchi pooped too much, and I didn't clean it, the spectre of death would begin following it. The first time this happened, I thought she was dead. Then I asked a medic to come, and the medic was able to save her life. I didn't pay for the doctor, so I'm assuming there's universal healthcare in the Tamagotchi world.

Then the Tamagotchi grew a little more, and started to look more like a cartoon dog than the baby dinosaur from Dinosaurs ("I'm the baby!"). Instead of demanding food all the time, the cartoon dog wanted to play games. All the time. I hated those games, and I was starting to hate my Tamagotchi. I just couldn't handle it anymore. I wanted her dead.

So I decided to kill her.

I put her in a drawer, and refused to feed or clean her. I checked on her every few hours, and slowly watched the poop amass on her floor. The spectre returned, and this time, I decided, I'd wait until it took her away, too.

This cruel process went on for four entire days.

On the fifth day, while I was slowly starving/shitting her to death, I noticed something highly unusual: there was a bag sitting by her feet. Did she go shopping for jewelry, I wondered. Did she get a purse?

A few hours later, I looked at the screen to find it Tamagotchiless. Instead, there was a note that read:

My Tamagotchi had packed a suitcase and dragged her sickly body away from home. I can't say I blame her, but still, I was shocked. Yes, I had attempted to murder her through neglect. But I never could have imagined that she would have enough self-awareness to see that her parent had abandoned her, and her only choices were to leave or die.

It was then that I repeated this entire process again in yet another attempt to satiate my Tamagotchi blood-lust. Again, the Tamagotchi packed up a suitcase and departed. That's when I started my research.

I had done everything. I didn't pet or play with it. I starved it and overfed it. I didn't give it medicine or clean up its poop. But still, it wouldn't die. That's when I made a startling discovery: the newer, English versions of the Tamagotchi will never die; they will only leave. It is now impossible to kill a Tamagotchi.

Apparently, the most recent version of the Tamagotchi not only cannot die, but can, in its perpetual life, become a musician, beautician, robot or a chef.

Other versions can get married and have babies. While that sounds interesting, I supremely doubt anyone has ever made it that far, as Tamagotchi blood-lust is a very real phenomenon.

I could have ended my experiment there, copping to the facts: this Tamagotchi could not die. But I don't give up.

After shaking down everyone at my office, I finally found a coworker who had an old Tamagotchi, circa 2004. I quickly snatched it out of her hands and pressed restart.

As I watched the egg bounce around, I plotted its murder.

I would feed it ONLY milk. Or perhaps I would raise it well, let it meet another Tamagotchi, and kill it just as it had finally fallen in love. There were so many options, so little time.

Then something entirely unexpected happened: It died.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I Tried To Murder My Tamagotchi And Here's What Happened

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Tamagotchi was something your parents bought you when you wanted a real pet but they didn't want to clean up real shit. When the toy was new, people thought it might be an easy way to teach kids responsibility. Quickly, though, the world realized that the Tamagotchi encouraged anything but.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A handy-dandy "bust card" from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on how to deal with the police when it comes to your digital device. (Via)

# data[].attributes.body
“Hush little laptop don’t you cry. Mommy’s gonna find you some more wifi.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Hush little laptop don't you cry. Mommy's gonna find you some more wifi."

# data[].attributes.headline
This Cat Has The Best Selfie Game You’ll Ever See

# data[].attributes.subject
This Cat Has The Best Selfie Game You’ll Ever See

# data[].attributes.body
selfies everywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Cat Has The Best Selfie Game You'll Ever See

# data[].attributes.headline
S’mores And Smiles: My Weekend At A Digital Detox Summer Camp For Adults

# data[].attributes.subject
S’mores And Smiles: My Weekend At A Digital Detox Summer Camp For Adults

# data[].attributes.body
digital detox is good for the mind, soul, and body.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I never liked summer camp as a kid.

I spent eight weeks at an all-girls sleepaway camp when I was younger, and all I remember is feeling totally overwhelmed by my emotions and fears. At age 24, I decided it was time to replace those anxious memories.

So I went back.

Nestled among the redwoods of Northern California, Camp Grounded is marketed as both a digital detox and as a weekend-long "summer camp for adults," but that doesn't entirely sum up what it is. The food is all vegan- and vegetarian-friendly, the activities are optional, and you get to decide your own bedtime. The weekend is whatever you want it to be. You're asked not to use your real name or mention your age. You're forbidden from talking about "the w-word": work.

This isn't a place for networking. This is a place for pure, unadulterated fun.

The hardest part of the three-hour ride from San Francisco out to the redwoods is the anxiety that seems to be sitting directly over my stomach. Campers around me rehearse a song to sing when we get into camp, and I worry that I've made a horrible mistake. I don't know any of these people. Who will I hang out with? What if no one likes me? Am I too cynical to truly allow myself to buy into the whole "hippie" ethos?

Hours later, I'm sitting around a fire pit next to my bunk. The camp has taken my phone from me, and my company, usually a sea of computer monitors at my office, has been replaced with a cozy circle of 12 women. I wonder what these women, some older than my mother and some younger than me, will be like; I wonder who will be the loud one, who will become overly eager about all the group activities, and who will be the quiet rebel. I have a feeling the last will be me, as it usually is.

Our introduction games end in laughter, and everyone opens up like we've known each other for weeks. When we discuss our intentions for the weekend, many of the women mention wanting to recover from the constant time crunch of their lives. Some say they feel like they've lost track of who they are because their jobs are so overwhelming. A few feel as though they don't have any space to truly be themselves. Right then, I realize how much these people need this weekend. I decide immediately that I want to honor their space to feel what they want and need. Even if I don't end up feeling anything at all.

"This is going to be one of the best weekends of your life," Fidget, the "camp director," tells us. My eyes roll to the back of my head. Part of what makes camp so fun when you're a kid is that you're unaware of how great things are. You don't experience things with a lens of nostalgia. But as an adult, you become so aware of living in your own memory; and I find myself frustrated with the idea that they would possibly be manufacturing memories for me. Can you create that type of intimacy in such a short time?

Well, Camp Grounded sure as hell tried.

Hunnybear, the leader of camp morale, starts us off with the most intense game of rock-paper-scissors I've ever seen. Everyone plays with one person, then each loser becomes the cheerleader as their opponent goes head-to-head with someone else. Whoever wins that round wins the followers and the ability to continue to play. It's amazing how quickly people get into it. Screams fill the air and everyone chants as the camp splits in two, everyone backing their opponent. This is clearly a group that is going to go all in this weekend. Their energy seeps into my veins.

The whole weekend is filled with these types of seesaw moments. One minute I'm all in, drunk with energy and excited about what is going on around me. Other times I feel like I just don't get it, and I want to pull away from what's happening. Saturday morning is one of those times: I spend the day lying in a hammock by myself and watch people participate in classes and do yoga on the lawn.

There are no clocks at Camp Grounded (which is why I can't tell you how long I spent staring at the tops of trees). Kids are less concerned about how much time they spend playing soccer. Only as an adult do you find yourself obsessing over time, which is exactly why we weren't allowed to know what time it was. We were urged to keep doing things that felt good.

I went to bed when I felt like it, not when I thought I should, and I woke up happily to the squeal of the bugle in the mornings. A counselor told me she found that on the days she didn't know what time she was waking up, she was less tired than when she knew what time it was. It makes sense. If you know you're waking up at 7 a.m. and you didn't go to bed until 3 a.m., you're aware of how tired you are. I was not.

Saturday night is when camp starts to lose me a little bit. I was told ahead of time that we would be having an "all-white dinner," but what they didn't tell us was that it would be silent. As I walk down to dinner, people are meditating. A few others are pacing back and forth; some are lying on the ground or sitting on redwood stumps. I hear muffled crying from all different spaces in the camp. It's clear that many are deeply affected by just how jarring silence can be.

I, on the other hand, can't wait to talk so I can see if I'm the only one not getting this. I open the envelope that I'm given by my counselor before I head to the field for dinner. "Write down something that is 'no longer serving' you," it says, and then you'll all throw the fear into a raging bonfire. As I watch people take deep breaths and throw those pieces of paper into the fire with such force, I wonder why I can't attach to this. Yes, I could write down my ex's name and throw it into the fire, but when I get my cell phone back on Monday, his name will still be there in my contacts. But many around me say that they felt better once they'd literally tossed that fear.

I take a seat on a large log in the back of the outdoor amphitheater. The talent show is about to begin - everyone is encouraged to participate in the show (I participate by clapping extra loud) - and in true Camp Grounded form, those who are admittedly lacking in their skills are given a bigger applause than those with true talents. It is nice to see people being truly supported, because that metaphorical safety net under each performer makes me realize that we should be champions for one another. Everyone is self-conscious, even those who say that they aren't. We should keep this in mind when interacting with those around us. We should focus on wanting the best for everyone instead of competing. But maybe it's just the incense getting to me. It smells like pinewood and happiness.

The next morning, everyone is going to yoga, and I think, Why not? Now is the time! There is no better place to be! And lots of other positive affirmations that were said to me through out the weekend. Fifteen minutes into it I remember that I hate yoga and leave.

I head toward the typewriter range. The walk is straight uphill and I become aware very quickly that I'm not an outdoor person. When I reach the typewriter range, I'm surprised to see that it's an actual former gun range that has been outfitted with typewriters. There are no computers at Camp Grounded, so this is the closest we have to a computer lab.

I spend a few minutes reading things people have left in the last few days. Many speak of self-discovery, a few speak of heartbreak. Some are so beautiful that I steal them and fill my pockets with other people's thoughts. I don't end up writing anything, but I look out over the meadow in front of me and watch a wild turkey as it clucks its way across the field. Then, out of nowhere, a deer runs, full speed through my line of vision.

I realize I've never been someplace so quiet before. Is this the moment of mental clarity that I've been waiting to have? My lukewarm feelings about camp have made me feel disconnected.

But right then, watching the long grass sway, I'm totally there. Even if it's for a short time.

I head back to the main camp ready to go all in. I walk into a game called "evolution rock-paper-scissor-shoot," which is 110% something that Hunnybear is making up on the spot. Afterward, on a laughter high, we go to pajama brunch. Seventy percent of people are in onesies, and I wonder why so many adults own these completely illogical jumpsuits. I'm instantly angry that I didn't purchase one. We finish breakfast with a sing-along that involves dancing on tables and a surprisingly on-key rendition of a Backstreet Boys song.

Sunday is color war day. I know it will be like nothing I've seen before, and when I'm told it will be the most "peaceful and epic" color war I'll ever experience, I don't doubt it for a second. The day is filled with laughter and a lot of very confusing inside jokes that I'm not even sure I understand. It feels like camp but also feels nothing like camp at the same time. Things take a weird turn.

The last portion of the color war is known as "the absurdity," and it lives up to its name. It's amazing how quickly it escalates. Two contestants are asked to put as much colored flour as they can into their mouth and then "poof" it at their opponent. Whoever is most colorful (as judged by a random counselor) wins. A girl's glasses become so covered in color that she can't see and ends up hitting her nose on the ground while looking for the bowl. She bleeds her way to the infirmary. All is fair in love and color war, man.

The next event is followed by something that l've come to call "the big regret." The judges ask four people to volunteer to compete in a haircut event. Brave souls sit with forced smiles as a random human cuts their hair. It's horrible and all I can think about is what they'll look like when they walk into their offices on Monday. But I don't have a lot of time to worry because what is next is so insane that I can't even remember what we did prior to it.

The judges ask for four volunteers who will allow the hair that has just been cut off of some guy's head to be glued to their bodies. Shockingly, four people make their way to their chairs. They take off their shirts, and the event ends in a fit of laughter and mild disgust.

The final event is a two-person relay. The first person sticks his or her face into a plate of whipped cream to find five pieces of gum to spit into a bowl. The next person takes that gum and turns it into a bubble. I gag.

At the end of it all, no one wins. Well, not really. Blue actually wins. But every team ends up donating its points to the losing team, which in turn donates its points to charity. It wasn't about winning. Nothing at camp was about winning. Not as a kid and not now. It was about playing, and it made me realize how little I play in my daily life.

I spend most of my time with my friends catching up about life and using them for emotional support, but I rarely have time to play with them the way I did at camp. As I've gotten older, the amount of inside jokes has diminished, and getting drunk takes the place of being weird.

Not at camp. At camp, people danced, ate dinner in large circles with strangers, and did cartwheels. At camp, people were truly themselves, and it was magical.

I don't know if this would have happened if we had had access to our phones. I doubt it. Not having my phone was the thing I was most nervous about heading into camp. I often use my phone as a crutch. When I'm in an awkward social situation, I immediately pull out my phone as a crutch, spending the time reading an email or writing a text message. I thought it would be terrifying to be without it, but it wasn't. It was a nice change of pace. I found myself listening better, laughing more, and living without voices in my head.

There are a lot of reasons Camp Grounded is a wholly different experience from camp as a kid. It's four days long; your mom didn't make you go; we're all adults with jobs, many with kids; and a lot of us were there with broken hearts and spirits. But what Camp Grounded was was a safe haven. A place of joy and pain and exploring and loving and laughing and a lot of crying. It made you feel lighter and reminded you why sometimes you need to just give yourself time to breathe.

At the last circle a counselor named Golden Bird asks us to clap once. She asks us to look at our hands and become aware of which hand is dominant. She then asks us to clap again. She tells us to look and see if it was different. It was.

"This is what it feels like to make a new choice," she says. "It feels awkward, and unnatural, but eventually it will feel like everything else. So try it. Once a day, twice a day." I cry.

Two hours later, on the bus back to San Francisco, I turn on my phone for the first time. I have over 400 emails, which is less than I'd expected. I don't read any of them. Instead I put it away, wrap myself in my Camp Grounded sweatshirt, and watch the redwoods as they zoom past until I fall asleep.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S'mores And Smiles: My Weekend At A Digital Detox Summer Camp For Adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I never liked summer camp as a kid. I spent eight weeks at an all-girls sleepaway camp when I was younger, and all I remember is feeling totally overwhelmed by my emotions and fears. At age 24, I decided it was time to replace those anxious memories. So I went back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Harry Potter leak is only the latest example; authorities in Japan have been trying to crack down on digital shoplifting for years.

Editorial note: Whoa! You've found a super-old post here on BuzzFeed, from an earlier era of the site. It doesn't really represent where we are anymore, and may in fact be totally broken, but we're leaving it up as a part of our early history.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Harry Potter leak is only the latest example; authorities in Japan have been trying to crack down on digital shoplifting for years. Editorial note: Whoa! You've found a super-old post here on BuzzFeed, from an earlier era of the site.

# data[].attributes.headline
#HappyBirthdayTwitter! Social network celebrates 10 years of tweets and hashtags

# data[].attributes.subject
#HappyBirthdayTwitter! Social network celebrates 10 years of tweets and hashtags

# data[].attributes.body
from nothing to a digital platform which is on it's way to over-taking facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
#HappyBirthdayTwitter! Social network celebrates 10 years of tweets and hashtags

Twitter is celebrating its 10th birthday today - 21 March

It now has 320 million users, including Katy Perry who is the most popular

Over the decade, Twitter has changed its logo and name - from Twttr

Has notched up more than 250 billion likes and 500 million tweets per day

Since the first tweet was sent in 2006, Twitter has become the go-to social network for finding out about everything from global events to celebrity gossip.

On its tenth birthday, Twitter has 320 million users including celebrities such as Harry Styles, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry and Adele, all of whom have tens of millions of followers.

Over the decade, the social network has changed its logo and name - from Twttr to Twitter - as well as notching up 250 billion likes.

Users create 500 million tweets per day and 200 billion tweets every year, with users sharing hashtags to discuss global moments, such as the terrible terrorist attacks in Paris, using #JeSuisParis.

'Lewis Wiltshire, Senior Director of Media Partnerships at Twitter, said: 'Whether it's the London 2012 Olympics, the #GBBO final, the General Election or the BRIT Awards, when big events happen, they happen on Twitter.

'The depth and breadth of content shared by our users around these big moments has made it the perfect live viewing party for the world's biggest events.'

The platform's birthday has given it a chance to reflect on such events as well as key milestones in its evolution.

Co-founder Jack Dorsey sent the first tweet in 2006, when the service was called Twttr.

In 2007, an early user called Chris Messina proposed the use of a hashtag to denote people at the same live event.

Increasingly, companies have made big announcements on Twitter, with Nasa using the social media platform to break the news of when its Mars Phoenix Lander found ice on Mars.

In a royal first in 2010, Clarence House, the Prince of Wales' private office, created a Twitter account to announce Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton and in 2012, before he appeared publicly to affirm his second presidential win, President Obama noted it on Twitter.

Within hours it became the most retweeted tweet for the year.

In more recent times, Twitter has been used to spread news of atrocities such as the Boston Marathon bombing, the 250 schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram and the horrific attacks in Paris in November, using hashtags such as #BringBackOurGirls and #PrayForParis.

More happily, the platform has been used to break big celebrity news and share selfies.

Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscars win for Best Actor in The Revenant generated 440,000 tweets per minute, more than @TheEllenShow's selfie two years earlier.

However, the now famous photograph is the most retweeted tweet ever, with 3.3 million retweets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#HappyBirthdayTwitter! Social network is 10 years old

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twitter is celebrating its 10th birthday today - 21 March It now has 320 million users, including Katy Perry who is the most popular Over the decade, Twitter has changed its logo and name - from Twttr Has notched up more than 250 billion likes and 500 million tweets per day Since the first tweet was sent in 2006, Twitter has become the go-to social network for finding out about everything from global events to celebrity gossip.

# data[].attributes.headline
Welcome to the 'Great Acceleration': From phones and PCs to fast food, author reveals how the world is getting faster

# data[].attributes.subject
Welcome to the 'Great Acceleration': From phones and PCs to fast food, author reveals how the world is getting faster

# data[].attributes.body
"the technology of convenience"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author Robert Colvile has explained the phenomenon in his new book

He explains contactless technology and Google are speeding up our lives

'Technology of convenience' includes smart homes and fitness trackers

Colvile's book 'The Great Acceleration: How the World is Getting Faster' will be available in April

Many of us take for granted how fast our phones are, the fact we no longer need to sign for shopping and Google's Instant Search.

The pace of life is the fastest its ever been and the rise of contactless technology and smart devices have put us in the midst of what's been called the 'Great Acceleration.'

Journalist and author Robert Colvile has explained our 'insatiable' desire' for speed and convenience in his upcoming book 'The Great Acceleration: How the World is Getting Faster.'

Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Colvile said we have moved 'towards a cashless, paperless economy - a world in which we no longer have to dig around in our pockets for loose change, but can simply swipe our way through lives with carefree glee.

'And this, in turn, is part of a still bigger move away from the physical to the virtual - from a world of 'dumb' objects to a world of 'smart' ones, where everything and everyone is swimming in a sea of electronic information.'

In his book, he references a number of advances from contactless technology in bank cards, and more recently phones and smartwatches.

Smart homes, and even personal assistants such as Siri and Google Now, know what people want before they do.

Technically Google Now doesn't read a user's mind, but it is capable of predicting what they will do next, before offering relevant help and information at each step without ever being asked.

It does this by using what's called 'predictive analysis'.

Predictive analysis isn't a new concept; financial services have used it for years to work out a person's credit score and how likely they are pay back a loan, for example.

Yet Google Now, along with other intelligent personal assistant apps including Osito and Grokr, uses this technology to predict how everyday smartphone owners are going to behave to speed up their daily lives.

Mr Colvile also refers to Google's Instant Search.

This 'predictive search' feature was revolutionary when it launched in 2010 because it updated search results as they were being typed, in an attempt to guess what the searcher wanted.

The technology giant claims the new feature reduces the time spent on search by two to five seconds per request, saving around 350 million hours a year.

Rolling, 24-hour news channels, Twitter and other social networks are also speeding up how we consume news and information.

As much as stories have shorter shelf-lives than before, and people who are famous one week can be easily forgotten the next, the internet means that they're never truly forgotten.

Teenagers who posted offensive statuses, embarrassing photos and bullied others online can now face difficulties getting jobs due to their 'digital legacy.'

And this fast-paced agenda is impacting our memory.

There have been countless reports that have found that because we no longer have to remember facts, or phone numbers, our memory is suffering.

Furthermore, we are better able to remember where to find something on the internet than we are at remembering the information itself.

And even companies are struggling to keep up with this increasing pace of innovation.

Earlier this week computer giant Intel announced it was abandoning Moore's Law.

In 1965 Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Intel, described how the number of components on an integrated circuit was doubling every year.

He projected this growth rate would continue for at least another decade before in 1975 he revised the forecast to a doubling every two years.

His prediction has proved accurate, partly because the semiconductor industry has adopted it as a target for future research and development.

By 2012 the size of a single integrate circuit had fallen to 22 nanometres.

However, as transistors have decreased in size, manufacturers have been faced with a growing battle against issues such as heat that can reduce the efficiency of a chip.

In 2015, Intel confirmed the pace of advancement had slowed with the doubling rate now occurring every two and a half years.

As a result, it is now changing the way it develops new products by switching to a three-step process, rather than the current two.

But as much as the plethora of items we used to have, from address books, to calculators and encyclopedias, have been replaced by smartphones, Mr Colvile doesn't believe the increase in pace is necessarily negative.

'The one thing that is crystal clear is that the technology of convenience isn't being rammed down our throats: rather, it's something for which there is an insatiable demand, he added.

'While there are questions to be asked about who controls the data we generate, and how secure it is, what's not in doubt is that the ease and convenience of a frictionless world is something we vote for - overwhelmingly - with our feet, and with our wallets.'

Robert Colvile's book ' The Great Acceleration: How the World is Getting Faster' is published by Bloomsbury Publishing and will be available in April.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We are in the midst of a 'Great Acceleration'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author Robert Colvile has explained the phenomenon in his new book He explains contactless technology and Google are speeding up our lives 'Technology of convenience' includes smart homes and fitness trackers Colvile's book 'The Great Acceleration: How the World is Getting Faster' will be available in April Many of us take for granted how fast our phones are, the fact we no longer need to sign for shopping and Google's Instant Search.

# data[].attributes.headline
A computer could soon tell you when you're going to DIE: Scientists are developing a test to accurately predict your death

# data[].attributes.subject
A computer could soon tell you when you're going to DIE: Scientists are developing a test to accurately predict your death

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers hope the information could empower people to spend their time, and money, more wisely

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A computer could soon tell you when you're going to DIE: Scientists are developing a test to accurately predict your death

UK researchers are embarking on a huge project using vast health datasets

The aim is to be able to predict a person's longevity based on risk factors

It could shed light on the impact of long-term conditions and treatments

Researchers hope the information could empower people to spend their time, and money, more wisely

A visit to the doctors could tell you any number of things about your health such as if you're blood pressure is too high, or if you need to cut down on your drinking.

But in the future this could reach even further, extending to a simple computer test that could predict when you will die.

Researchers in the UK are embarking on a mammoth project which aims to bring together enormous datasets to pinpoint exactly when your number might be up.

By compiling information from health datasets, the team at the University of East Anglia hope to develop methods for predicting how long people will live, and so help them to spend their time, and money, more wisely.

Earlier this year, the team received an £800,000 ($1.1 million) grant from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, the UK body which trains and regulates professionals involved in risk management.

As part of the four-year project, the UEA team will bring together 'big data' on lifestyle and disease, with the aim of building a model which can predict life expectancy and a focus on the impact of long-term health conditions and their treatments.

'We want to develop software tools that use big data routinely collected by healthcare providers to forecast longevity,' explained Professor Elena Kulinskaya, from UEA's School of Computing Sciences and who is leading the research.

'When we talk about big data what we mean is data that is vast, complex and difficult to analyse.

'We want to be able to use it to see statistical life expectancy trends, based on large-scale population-based data collected over the long term.'

THE DATA BEHIND YOUR DEMISE

The project will involve collaboration between a range of experts, including data analysts, computer scientists and medical staff at UEA's medical school. In addition, the team will be assisted by technical experts at insurance company Aviva.

According to Professor Kulinskaya, the group wants to identify key factors influencing how long we will live for, including lifestyle choices, medical conditions and treatments or interventions, such as stopping smoking.

'We are particularly interested in understanding how various chronic diseases and their treatments impact life expectancy,' she added.

The UEA team believes that armed with the knowledge of when a person is set to meet their maker could empower them to make better financial decisions around pension planning and succession planning.

But it could also shed more light on the long-term impact of preventative treatments for health, such as taking statins to reduce cholesterol and to reduce a person's risk of cardiovascular disease.

'To be able to plan for retirement, and to understand how much you can spend, it is good to have some idea of your life expectancy. Our estimates of life expectancy will only be true on average, not at the individual level,' explained Professor Kulinskaya.

The move is one of a number of moves to embrace big data to improve health outcomes.

In 2012, the UK government launched the 100,000 genomes project.

This aims to collect genetic information from thousands of people in order to map the genetic variants in the human genome which may increase a person's risk of disease.

By using this information, patients could receive counselling based on their baseline risk of getting a disease and could take appropriate action, such as changing their diet or taking long-term medication.

However, concerns have been raised that making such longevity information available to insurers could risk a two-tiered system.

It could potentially mean those who are genetically predisposed to chronic disease, or whose socioeconomic circumstances increase their risk of disease, effectively makes them uninsurable.

Ethics watchdogs continue to monitor developments in the area and issue advice to government, such as the 2015 report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Professor Kulinskaya told MailOnline that no genetic data would be used for the project at UEA, but that the data will be open access and so available to everyone, including insurers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could a computer predict when you are going to die?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UK researchers are embarking on a huge project using vast health datasets The aim is to be able to predict a person's longevity based on risk factors It could shed light on the impact of long-term conditions and treatments Researchers hope the information could empower people to spend their time, and money, more wisely A visit to the doctors could tell you any number of things about your health such as if you're blood pressure is too high, or if you need to cut down on your drinking.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animals Are Taking Selfies At The L.A. Zoo Starting Today

# data[].attributes.subject
Animals Are Taking Selfies At The L.A. Zoo Starting Today

# data[].attributes.body
me, my selfie, and I.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animals Are Taking Selfies At The L.A. Zoo Starting Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google Photos is putting cameras with motion sensors in animal pens, and the results are roughly adorable as you'd imagine.

# data[].attributes.headline
The world’s first 3D printed, FDA-approved drug hits the market today	

# data[].attributes.subject
The world’s first 3D printed, FDA-approved drug hits the market today	

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since it seems like we're 3D printing everything these days, it's no surprise that one of the newest fields to jump on the bandwagon is the pharmaceutical industry. So far, a company called Aprecia Pharamceuticals has produced the only 3D printed drug to be approved by the FDA. This week, Aprecia is also becoming the first company to make their 3D printed drug, Spritam, available to the consumers in the United States.

There are certainly other pharmaceutical solutions coming out of 3D printers in labs, but they're all still in the research phase. Spritam, on the other hand, has just become available to patients in the US who suffer from seizures. Aprecia uses a 3D process called powderbed inkjet printing that makes it possible to print ingestible tablets that dissolve immediately. Taking pills can be difficult and even dangerous for some patients, including the elderly. Spritam tablets deliver large amounts of the seizure medication in each dose, and their instantly dissoluble quality makes it easy for patients to take (when prescribed by a doctor).

Aprecia led a $35 million funding round to bring a series of alternative treatment solutions to patients suffering from conditions like epilepsy and myoclonic or tonic-clonic seizures. "Spritam is designed to transform what it is like to take epilepsy medication, and is the first in a line of products we are developing to provide patients and their caregivers with additional treatment options," said Don Wetherhold, CEO of Apercia. If all the news is indeed connected behind Apercia's laboratory doors, we may see many more 3D printed ingestible medications in the future.

3D printed medical solutions have been gaining lots of attention, but progress has been mainly in the category of hardware. And medication tablets coming off a 3D printer solves more than just the important component of instant dissolution - being able to print batches of FDA approved medications could mean that instead of having to adapt to pre-approved and mass produced dosage tablets, each patient could receive an individualized dosage or even a custom combination of drugs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World's First 3D Printed Drug Hits The Market Today | Digital Trends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since it seems like we're 3D printing everything these days, it's no surprise that one of the newest fields to jump on the bandwagon is the pharmaceutical industry. So far, a company called Aprecia Pharamceuticals has produced the only 3D printed drug to be approved by the FDA.

# data[].attributes.headline
Microsoft ‘holoportation’ lets you share a room with a faraway friend	

# data[].attributes.subject
Microsoft ‘holoportation’ lets you share a room with a faraway friend	

# data[].attributes.body
is this the solution to the lonely digital age? Those who are alone, can use technology as comfort and company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shahram Izadi, principle research manager at Microsoft Research (Cambridge UK), hangs out with a co-worker in hologram form in a recently released video, and then with his daughter.

It's not a perfect re-creation: you can tell that you're looking at a hologram because of occasional glitches and an overall low polygon count. But it's not hard to imagine this being more intimate than a Skype chat.

"Imagine being able to teleport to any place, with anyone, at any time," said Izadi in the video. "That's what holoportation is all about."

The setup isn't simple. A HoloLens is required to see the holograms in realtime, and a room surrounded by 3D cameras is necessary to create them. And however good the technology becomes, there's one barrier to this feeling deeply immersive: the HoloLens itself.

You can't see other people using this tech unless you're wearing a HoloLens, and you can't make eye contact with people who are wearing the augmented reality device. To see another person's holographic face, they need to take off their headset - which means they can't see you.

In the video Izadi Interacts with his daughter Lilly, who is not wearing a HoloLens. His daughter cannot see him, and at one point almost walks straight through him because of this.

So there's a design problem here that headsets can't readily solve. But it's still a remarkable example of what sort of tech we'll have access to in the future, and it's particularly cool to see the recorded conversation played back, and even shrunk.

"It's almost like walking into a living memory, that I can see from another perspective," said Izadi.

We're excited to see how this all develops, and will do all we can to keep you informed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microsoft Shows Off Holoportation, Realtime Hologram Chat | Digital Trends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shahram Izadi, principle research manager at Microsoft Research (Cambridge UK), hangs out with a co-worker in hologram form in a recently released video, and then with his daughter. It's not a perfect re-creation: you can tell that you're looking at a hologram because of occasional glitches and an overall low polygon count.

# data[].attributes.headline
In a social world, Nikon asks, do you ‘like’ or ‘love’ your photos	

# data[].attributes.subject
In a social world, Nikon asks, do you ‘like’ or ‘love’ your photos	

# data[].attributes.body
we all like 'likes' from other people but do we 'like' or 'love' our own photos?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"While nearly everyone carries an image-capturing device, our 'loves' deserve to be captured with a quality that reflects that love; they deserve to be captured with a Nikon camera," the company writes in a release.

Cramer-Krasselt, the agency spearheading the campaign, conducted research and found "found that while people appreciate the convenience of capturing moments on mobile devices, there is a strong desire to go 'all in' on their hobbies and things they love. However, many do not document their passions with the same care they bring to actually doing, creating, or participating in them. Quality photography can help us distinguish between 'any other image' and the moments that should be captured in a quality equal to the emotion and importance of one's passions."

Because so many people now communicate through images, whether it's Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, etc., simply liking something is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't actually connote real feelings. According to Lisa Baxt, Nikon's associate general manger of Communications, "'likes' have become a form of social currency." The first TV ad, "World of Likes," shows a man living in a world where people nonchalantly apply "like" stickers on anything. The narrator asks, "Who doesn't like to 'like,' but what about 'loves'?" The scene then transitions to pets, family, holidays, and crafts, and all photographed with Nikon cameras.

Translation: Smartphone photos of the everyday are fine, but they are disposable. For the things you love and want to remember or share, you should use a "real" camera for the best image quality.

We agree that everybody should exercise a bit more thought when shooting photos, and that you could get greater image quality from a DSLR or equivalent. But if we understand the ad messaging correctly, the notion that people don't "love" what they shoot with smartphones, or that smartphones are able to properly capture what they love, is marketing spin. Yes, more people are taking photos than ever, and while there's a lot of noise in what's being posted to social media, there are a lot of gems too. Scroll through Instagram or Flickr and you'll easily find some terrific photos shot with iPhones and the like. Heck, Apple even has a whole ad campaign that's all about amazing photography you can shoot with an iPhone.

And, great image resolution isn't a requirement for great photography. For many people, photos are personal. A smartphone shot won't not look as good as a DSLR's, but if the captured moment means something special to the user, does it matter what was used to shoot it?

Like many camera companies, Nikon is looking for its voice in this changing photography landscape. The company has stopped trying to fight smartphones, but finding a way to coexist. At the 2016 International CES show, company executives acknowledged this: As photography and better cameras become increasingly more important for new smartphones, new cameras from companies like Nikon need to become more mobile and social, hence its new SnapBridge wireless connectivity that easily pairs new Nikon cameras with mobile devices. As for the ad campaign, we agree with some of the statements: a camera like a DSLR offers greater flexibility in capturing amazing photos. But to suggest that mobile photographers don't love what they shoot or that smartphones aren't capable of great photography, is a bit of stretch.

The campaign will run on TV, in cinemas, via digital media, and in print. Nikon is encouraging people to tag #NikonLove in photo posts of things they love, which will be shared in an online gallery. Which is sort of ironic, since tagging and sharing usually happens with mobile devices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In a social world, Nikon asks, do you 'like' or 'love' your photos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"While nearly everyone carries an image-capturing device, our 'loves' deserve to be captured with a quality that reflects that love; they deserve to be captured with a Nikon camera," the company writes in a release.

# data[].attributes.headline
Uber recruits new engineers with coding games while you’re on the road	

# data[].attributes.subject
Uber recruits new engineers with coding games while you’re on the road	

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Uber is on the lookout for new engineers. How can you get hired? Simply take an Uber ride and accept any hacking challenges you're invited to participate in while you're on the road.

Screenshots of the "Code on the Road" challenges have been popping up on Twitter. Uber confirmed in a report from Business Insider that it was using this technique to recruit new engineers.

Many of the Uber riders who have received invitations to try the hacking challenges have previous experience in software engineering, but Uber is quick to mention that it isn't using personal information to find potential good hires. Instead, it's simply sending invites to those users in cities with high concentrations of tech jobs, hoping to fine the diamonds in the rough. So far, the list of cities Uber is targeting includes Seattle, Austin, Boston, Denver, and Portland - each of which have a large number of jobs in tech.

"If you're in a place where a lot of people work in tech, you may see our 'Code on the Road' challenge within the rider app," said a spokesperson to Business Insider in the report. "The option to play gives interested riders the opportunity to show us their skills in a fun and different way - whether they code on the side or are pursuing a career as a developer."

There are three coding challenges in the game, and participants are given 60 seconds to complete each challenge. If you get a high enough score, you'll be prompted to contact Uber through the app, after which you'll get an email with a link to complete a job application.

Uber isn't just looking for engineers to join the company, but is also looking for hackers to improve its product. The company recently said that it would give a hefty $10,000 to any hacker who finds a security or privacy-related bug, starting on May 1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uber recruits new engineers with coding games while you're on the road

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uber is on the lookout for new engineers. How can you get hired? Simply take an Uber ride and accept any hacking challenges you're invited to participate in while you're on the road. Screenshots of the "Code on the Road" challenges have been popping up on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.headline
Apple vs. the FBI: A complete timeline of the war over tech encryption	

# data[].attributes.subject
Apple vs. the FBI: A complete timeline of the war over tech encryption	

# data[].attributes.body
so when is total security/privacy ever acceptable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not since 12 Angry Men or the OJ Simpson trial has courtroom drama so captivated the country.

A U.S. magistrate declared that the world's biggest technology company must build a tool for the FBI to access an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters, but the Cupertino company doesn't want to create a backdoor into its secure system - fearing that it could get into the wrong hands. In a surprising turn of events, the Justice Department and FBI found an alternative way to get into the phone, and the case has now been dismissed. But the reverberations will echo for years to come.

Here's everything you need to know about the controversial debate.

The feud between Apple and the FBI ended - at least for now - on March 28 when government officials told the press that a third-party managed to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone 5C. The FBI subsequently withdrew its case from the courts. There was no information regarding who unlocked the phone, or what was obtained from the device, although rumors quickly pointed to Israeli firm Cellebrite. The FBI said it was "premature to say anything about our abilities to access other phones," and the Justice Department stated that the government will continue to seek digital information from suspects' devices "either with cooperation from relevant parties or through the court system."
Read more: FBI drops its fight with Apple over shooter's recovered iPhone 5C

Although the FBI cancelled its courtroom showdown with Apple after finding an outside backdoor into the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone, the debate over how far the government can worm its gloved hand into your phone isn't over. The FBI may paint this case as a battle between privacy or security, but that is not the truth. If we sacrifice our privacy and our First Amendment rights today, we will have lost more than just peace of mind that our photos are safe and our messages are unread. We will have lost what it means to be an American living in a free society.
Read more: Apple's encryption fight isn't over, and the stakes have never been higher
After sparring with Apple in recent weeks over the creation of a backdoor into one of the San Bernardino shooter's iPhones, the United States government has decided to cancel its March 22 hearing with the Cupertino-based company. According to a new court filing presented Monday, lawyers for the Justice Department claim to have found an outside entity capable of unlocking gunman Syed Rizwan Farook's now infamous iPhone. Because of the newly presented avenue, the government says it no longer needs Apple's help in the matter.
Read more: Never mind, we got it! FBI claims it found a way into iPhone, cancels Apple hearing

Apple kicked off its media event with the elephant in the room - its battle with the FBI. "We know the iPhone is a deeply personal device," CEO Tim Cook said to members of the media at Cupertino. "For many of us, iPhone is an extension of ourselves." Cook said people need to decide how much power the government will have "over our data, and over our privacy." He said Apple didn't expect to be in this position, "at odds with our government." "We owe it to our customers and we owe it to our country," he added. "This is an issue that impacts all of us, and we will not shrink from this responsibility."
Read more: Apple's Tim Cook on FBI battle: 'We will not shrink from this responsibility'

In a wide-ranging interview published Thursday in Time magazine, Apple CEO Tim Cook granted further insight into the company's unyielding stance on encryption, and his own. Far from backing off or waffling, Cook reserved his strongest statements yet for his interview, doubling down on his dedication to privacy and suggesting that the FBI's request violates the U.S. Constitution and Americans' civil liberties.

We've collected the most powerful and revealing quotations from the transcript, and one thing's for sure: The Feds have a formidable foe, and he's not going anywhere.
Read more: No one, Tim Cook declares, 'Should have a key that turns a billion locks.'

Apple's kerfuffle with the FBI and the Justice Department appears far from over. In the company's final brief filed ahead of its March 22 court appearance, lawyers for Apple argued that the government's demands regarding the San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook's encrypted iPhone would "appall" the Founders of our nation.

It said the agencies' portrayal of the All Writs Act, a 200-year-old statute that gives courts substantial autonomy in issues of law enforcement, as an "all-powerful magic wand" was an attempt to "rewrite [the] history" of the statute, and said that the FBI was violating the rights of Apple engineers by proposing they spend "weeks" in a "super-secure facility" on behalf of the agency. And it further accused investigators of infringing on Apple's right to due process of law by forcing it "on a mission that is contrary to [its] values."
Read more: In new San Bernardino filing, Apple calls the government's arguments 'misleading'
Last Week Tonight host John Oliver thinks encryption is vital to protect our most treasured files, and he explained - hilariously, we might add - why the Apple vs. FBI case matters.

"Encryption can protect the things most important to us: our financial information, health records, dick pics, trade secrets, classified government records, dick pics, our physical location, the physical location of our dicks, credit card information, dick pics, and pictures of our dicks," Oliver said in the most recent episode of his show, which tackled encryption and the ongoing battle between Apple and the FBI.
Read more: Apple vs. FBI: John Oliver knows what we're trying to keep secret
President Barack Obama stopped by South By Southwest (SXSW) in Austin, Texas to talk about, among other things, encryption. The crux of his argument: techies shouldn't be "absolutists" on the issue, because information in your phone shouldn't be treated differently than information in your home.

Obama argued that if law enforcement can gain access to your home with a warrant, it should be able to do so with your smartphone, too. He said that end-to-end encryption with no access point for law enforcement helps criminals, but admitted that he doesn't know how it would work to create a safe key and limit the number of people with access to it, so as to prevent criminals from hacking everyone's phones.
Read more here: Obama urges techies to compromise on encryption
March 8: Snowden says FBI can hack iPhone

At Common Cause's "Blueprint for Democracy" conference, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said the FBI doesn't need Apple to hack into the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone. His response to the FBI's claim that only Apple has the "exclusive technical means" to unlock the phone?

"Respectfully, that's bullshit," he said in a video call.

In a follow up tweet, he cited an American Civil Liberties Union article, offering one example of how the FBI can bypass Apple's auto-erase feature to unlock the iPhone.

The global technological consensus is against the FBI. Why? Here&#39;s one example: https://t.co/t2JHOLK8iU #FBIvsApple https://t.co/mH1ZXOOQ1E

&mdash; Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 8, 2016

And it seems as though Americans believe that the FBI may be overreaching its power by asking Apple to comply. A Wall Street Journal and NBC News poll shows that about 42 percent of people polled say Apple should cooperate, but 47 percent say think the opposite. Around 11 percent said they weren't sure or didn't support either position.

However, across the Atlantic, French lawmakers have backed a plan to punish corporate executives of companies that do not cooperate with requests to provide access to encrypted data in terrorist investigations.
Read more: France wants to fine smartphone makers if they don't hack into criminal's phones
March 4: Steve Wozniak chimes in

Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, unsurprisingly voiced his support for Apple after making an appearance on Conan. Conan O'Brien asked for his take on the Apple vs. FBI case, and Wozniak said he sides with Apple "on this one."

"First of all I've always been related close to human rights, I'm one of the founders of the [Electronic Frontier Foundation]," Wozniak said on the show. He went on to say how the FBI picked a "lame" case, referring to how the San Bernardino's shooters phone wasn't even a personal device, but a work phone.

"Couple of times in my life, I wrote something that could be a virus that could have spread itself on Macintosh computers forever, and each time I threw away every bit of code I'd written, I was so scared inside," Wozniak said. "You do not want to let something like that out. And once you create it there's a good chance hackers will get into it, and then what if China says 'Apple you've got to give us a backdoor so we can get into any phone, even your government officials iPhones, and inspect them any time,' - that's wrong."

Apple has added a webpage offering access to amicus briefs from various groups in support of Apple's stance in the ongoing case. An Amicus curiae means someone who is a friend of the court, and in submitting an amicus brief, the individual or group is throwing support to a certain side. You can read the full roundup here.

Meanwhile, Samsung, has decided to throw its lot in with Apple. "Ensuring trust in our products and services is our top priority," a Samsung spokesman told Digital Trends in an emailed statement. "Our phones are embedded with encryption that protects privacy and content, and they do not have backdoors. When required to do so, and within the law, we work with law enforcement agencies. However, any requirement to create a backdoor could undermine consumers' trust."

The company's statements align with Apple's ethical stance, but Samsung went on to promote its encryption standards in its latest flagship devices, the S7 and the S7 Edge.

"Samsung cannot decrypt the user's encrypted phones," according to the company. "The encryption key is randomly generated for each user and the key is protected with the user's password. Default encryption is turned on for Galaxy S6 and S7."

While it supports encryption, Samsung told Bloomberg Business that it has not yet decided if the company will file an amicus brief in support of Apple.
Read more: Who's with Apple? From Google to victims' families, here's where they stand

During a hearing titled "The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans," FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the committee, along with Apple's senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell. Sewell was joined with Professor Susan Landau of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

Comey said he wants Apple to remove the guard dog so that the FBI can pick the lock and get into the shooter's iPhone. He answered many questions about the FBI's and Apple's motives, as well as technical questions. Apple's Sewell reiterated apple's positions on the case.
Read more: The Apple vs. FBI case hits the House Judiciary Committee with a bang
FBI director James Comey said he doesn't agree with Tim Cook's assessment that creating code to unlock Syed Farook's iPhone would be the "software equivalent of cancer."

"The code the judge has directed Apple to write works only on this one phone, and so the idea of it getting out in the wild and it working on my phone or your phone ... is not a real thing," Comey said in a House Intelligence Committee hearing focusing on worldwide threats.

Comey bases his argument on the fact that Apple was able to unlock iPhones before 2014 and he doesn't "remember any code getting out that let that ability loose upon the land."
Read more: FBI director discounts Apple's comment that hacking a terrorist's phone is dangerous
Apple filed a motion to vacate the FBI's request to force the company to unlock Syed Farook's iPhone, according to TechCrunch. In the motion, Apple contends the FBI is wrongfully using the All Writs Act and violating the U.S. Constitution with its request:

"No court has ever granted the government power to force companies like Apple to weaken its security systems to facilitate the government's access to private individuals' information. The All Writs Act does not support such sweeping use of judicial power, and the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution forbid it."
Read more here: Apple files a motion to vacate the FBI's request that it break encryption on terrorist's iPhone
Feb. 25: iPhone encryption could get even stronger

While this case remains undecided, Apple appears to be taking steps toward the future. In an interesting turn of events, the company hired Frederic Jacobs, who was a security engineer of Whisper Systems, developer of the Signal messaging app.

I&#39;m delighted to announce that I accepted an offer to be working with the CoreOS security team at Apple this summer.

&mdash; Frederic Jacobs (@FredericJacobs) February 25, 2016

Jacobs later clarified that it would be an "internship position," but declined to discuss the expected duration or his responsibilities.

Signal is famous for its end-to-end encryption, of with Jacobs had a major role in. The app is so secure that Edward Snowden admits to using Signal "every day." It's also one of a handful of messaging apps that's highly rated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group.

Although nothing has been said publicly, it's believed that Jacobs will assist Apple in enhancing its encryption measures even further. According to Tim Cook, Apple currently has the ability to backdoor its software, but it's possible the company is planning to develop a new version in which no one could create a backdoor, not even the creator. If that were to happen, the FBI wouldn't be able to force Apple to unlock iPhones in the future.
Read more: Edward Snowden touts Signal for your end-to-end encrypted messaging needs
Feb. 24: Tim Cook appears on World News Tonight

Tim Cook has been nothing but adamant regarding the potential problems that might stem from the FBI's request. In a recent interview with ABC's David Muir, he attempted to drive home what's at risk.

"The only way to get information - at least currently, the only way we know - would be to write a piece of software that we view as sort of the equivalent of cancer," Cook told Muir as the two sat in Cook's Cupertino office. "We think it's bad news to write. We would never write it. We have never written it - and that is what is at stake here."

Cook also reiterated Apple's initial compliance with the government. "We gave everything that we had [to the FBI]," he said. "We don't know that there's any information on the phone. We don't know whether there is or there isn't, and the FBI doesn't know. What we do know is we passed all of the information that we have on the phone and to get additional information on it or at least what the FBI would like us to do now would expose hundreds of millions of people to issues."

Cook quickly went on to stress the complexity of the issue and how it could restrict the civil liberties of Apple's customers. "If a court can ask us to write this piece of software, think about what else they could ask us to write - maybe it's an operating system for surveillance, maybe the ability for the law enforcement to turn on the camera," Cook said. "I don't know where this stops. But I do know that this is not what should be happening in this country."

Feb. 23: Not just one phone

The FBI claims it wants Apple to unlock only one iPhone, but the Justice Department is attempting to force Apple to unlock and extract data from about a dozen other iPhones. People familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal that the cases aren't connected to terrorism and the iPhones involved have less security than Farook's 5C. Prosecutors cite the 18th century All Writs Act in these cases, too.

In another unrelated case, Federal prosecutors in New York are battling Apple over an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation. A letter filed with U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on Feb. 22 implies the existence of around a dozen other cases without getting into specifics.

"In most of the cases, rather than challenge the orders in court, Apple simply deferred complying with them, without seeking appropriate judicial relief,'' the prosecutors wrote.

In another related filing, Apple listed 12 other cases since October 18, 2015, in which the FBI has compelled the company to unlock eleven iPhones and one iPad. Apple objected to ten of them and is awaiting further information on the remaining two. A table was obtained by Mashable.

The judge is now asking whether it was legal for the government to force Apple to pull data from a locked phone, which could be an indication that he is leaning towards the privacy side of the fence.

In the email titled, " Thank you for your support " Apple CEO Tim Cook noted that he sincerely believes the best solution is a proactive one, and that the U.S. government should create a commission to further discuss and reckon with the issue between law enforcement's access to technology and American civil liberties.

Apple also launched a FAQ page on the issue, clarifying that it will not willingly create anything for the FBI akin to a "master key" that can be used to access any iPhone. "The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn't abused and doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to never create it," the company says.

Meanwhile, most of the families who lost loved ones in San Bernardino are on the FBI's side. However, Carole Adams, who tragically lost her son, Robert Adams, at the hands of Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife is in full support of Apple.

Adams told the New York Post: "I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans ... This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote."

Adams made it clear that getting into Farook's iPhone is important, but she thinks it needs to be done without putting others at risk.
Read more here: Apple CEO Tim Cook opens dialogue with the public, as victims' families speak out
Feb. 21: Apple Attorney defends the company

Complying with the FBI's request could "destroy the iPhone as it exists," said Ted Olson, Apple's lead attorney, during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" on February 21. He then doubled down on Tim Cook's previous comments that a backdoor opens security holes, which would affect every iPhone and could spur abuse from foreign governments.

Olson reiterated the company's assistance in the past, and that Apple and Tim Cook have the "the greatest respect" for the FBI. However, the company "has to draw the line at recreating code, changing its iPhone, putting its engineers and creative talents to destroy the iPhone as it exists. Apple has a responsibility to maintain the trust and faith of millions of people who have depended upon Apple to produce a product that protects their privacy, their intimate personal life. This is a Pandora's Box."

Feb. 20: President Obama weighs in

The Obama administration also chimed in and told the U.S. magistrate judge, who issued the court order, that it is willing to let Apple keep possession and destroy the software created to hack into the San Bernardino shooter's phone, according to the Associated Press.

"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym, according to the Associated Press. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."

Furthermore, prosecutors aren't buying Tim Cook's argument that Apple is protecting the privacy of all its customers. The filing argues that Apple seems more concerned for its "business model and public brand marketing strategy." Decker also noted that the original order allows Apple to retain custody of the software that would be developed to decrypt the iPhone. The company even has a right to determine how it helps the government in its investigation.

According to Tom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, a federal court hearing is scheduled for March 22 in California. The Justice Department's motion to compel did not offer any penalties if Apple doesn't comply, according to Reuters. The Justice Department also declined to comment on what recourse its seeking if any. Interestingly enough, the prosecutors acknowledged that the filing "is not legally necessary."

It appears the reason for the entire battle between the FBI and Apple is the fact that the Apple ID password on the iPhone in question was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of it. A senior Apple executive told reporters during a conference call on Friday, Feb. 19 that if that hadn't happened, the company wouldn't need to create a backdoor into the device, as the information would have been easily accessible via iCloud.

According to the unnamed executive, Apple was in discussions with the FBI since early January and proposed four different ways to recover the information. Apple even sent engineers to try these methods.

The next day, the FBI confirmed it did change the password: "The FBI worked with San Bernardino County to reset the iCloud password on December 6th, as the county owned the account and was able to reset the password in order to provide immediate access to the iCloud backup data."

However, the FBI doesn't believe this has any affect on the fact that it wants the data on the phone, stating the reset "[does] not impact Apple's ability to assist with the the court order under the All Writs Act," and adding that "the government's objective was, and still is, to extract as much evidence as possible from the phone."
Read more: Apple says the FBI changed terrorists' iPhone password

In this case, the FBI has to rely on cracking the phone's encryption, because Farook's iPhone 5C doesn't have a fingerprint scanner. If the device were an iPhone 5S, 6/6Plus, or 6S/6S Plus, however, the FBI may have considered using the dead suspect's fingerprint to unlock the device, legal experts told Forbes.

"Fingerprint evidence -- unlike a password -- is physical evidence that can be compelled with a court order, overriding the objections of an accused or the next of kin of an accused," Andrea Matwyshyn, Northeastern University professor of law and a visiting research collaborator at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University told Forbes.

Marina Medvin, owner of Medvin Law, told Forbes that although forcing a living suspect to give up their fingerprint may violate 4th Amendment privacy protections, the amendment doesn't apply to the dead.

What of encryption itself? Understanding how it works in detail requires mathematical knowledge that most people simply don't have; we won't try to cover every step ( but read more juicy info here).

The AES encryption (Advanced Encryption Standard) used on the iPhone in question in this case is 256-bit AES encryption, which is very strong. No computer currently in existence can break 256-bit AES through brute-force even if it started working on the problem at the beginning of the universe. In fact, it would take hundreds of billions of years for a modern supercomputer to crack 256-bit AES just by guessing.
Read more here: Even the FBI can't defeat good encryption - here's why it works

A number of politicians, tech CEOs, privacy advocates, human rights' groups, and the shooting victims' families quickly spoke out on the Apple vs. FBI case. Everyone from Donald Trump and Glenn Beck to Edward Snowden and Sundar Pichai has weighed in on the debate. You can read all of the statements here.
Read more: Apple vs. FBI: Tech CEOs, politicians, and advocates comment

On Feb. 16, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym for the Central District of California ordered Apple to disable the iPhone's auto-erase function, a feature that deletes a smartphone's data after 10 failed passcode attempts. This would help the FBI gain access into San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook's phone to see who he and his wife were in contact with, and to confirm any ties to ISIS. The news exploded across mainstream media outlets, stirring up over a million tweets and ultimately drawing a response from CEO Tim Cook.

Apple doesn't have the means to disable the auto-erase function, which introduced tougher security measures in iOS 8 following the NSA-leak by Snowden, and Cook immediately responded to the judge's order on Feb. 17 via a letter to Apple customers denying the court order and urging consumers to take a stand for encryption and privacy. While Apple cannot disable the function, Cook says the U.S. government asking Apple to create a backdoor to the iPhone is something the company considers "too dangerous."

"The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation," Cook said in the letter. "In the wrong hands, this software - which does not exist today - would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession."

Court records state that Apple needs to write to code to create a Software Image File the FBI can use on subject devices it requires access to. The worry is that this new method would be duplicated in some way, or get into the wrong hands, risking user privacy. "The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone, so that the SIF would only load and execute on the subject device," the court order states.
Read more Read Tim Cook's strong stance on privacy and encryption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Apple vs. FBI showdown is over! Here's a full timeline of events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not since 12 Angry Men or the OJ Simpson trial has courtroom drama so captivated the country. A U.S. magistrate declared that the world's biggest technology company must build a tool for the FBI to access an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters, but the Cupertino company doesn't want to create a backdoor into its secure system - fearing that it could get into the wrong hands.

# data[].attributes.headline
Laugh it up! The 30 best April Fools’ Day tech jokes of 2016	

# data[].attributes.subject
Laugh it up! The 30 best April Fools’ Day tech jokes of 2016	

# data[].attributes.body
technology is not just all serious business...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hold on to your sides everyone, it's April Fools Day! That means a day of jocular japes is upon us, full of laugh-out-loud moments, gut-busting guffaws, cheeky chuckles, and hernia-causing hilarity. The trauma we feel when it's all over makes us wish life was this amusing every single day, and not a paltry once a year.

Sit down, make sure your surgical corset is tightly secured in case of any unexpected side-splittage, put that coffee aside (because you don't want to spit it all over your keyboard, right?) and enjoy our pick of 2016's April Fools' day pranks, jokes, and wicked wheezes.

Mark Zuckerberg x H&M

Facebook founder and fashion icon Mark Zuckerberg has teamed up with fashion retailer H&M to produce an exclusive collection, Mark for H&M. It's glorious, and consists of seven basic grey t-shirts, and a basic pair of jeans. "One less thing to think about in the morning," is the tagline. We can actually see this going on sale.

Pornhub becomes Cornhub

The front page over at that popular online video site that caters for more adult tastes, has become Cornhub. Videos have been given amusing corn-related, innuendo-laden titles. It'll make you titter.

Modstock

Hipsters are featuring in a lot of April Fools videos this year, and here's one of the best. This is what a stock photo site would be like if hipsters ran the show, making photos of 'real life.'

Google Chrome Chromebook

Think your Galaxy S7 attracts fingerprints? Wait until you get your fingers all over this beauty! Except, you won't, because it's not real. And we're a bit sad about it.

The Wooden Yoga Mat

The video to this is so subtle, and the actors so sincere, the Carved Wooden Yoga Mat really could be a real product. It's also daft enough to be, thanks to the window for your smartphone. But think about it, just how unforgiving would a wooden yoga mat be?

Google Cardboard Plastic

Yes, obvious joke is obvious, but that doesn't mean it's not highly amusing. Google Cardboard Plastic is the most up-to-date way for us to experience real reality, in all its glory.

YouTube SnoopaVision

"Now you'll see the world how I do, in 360-degrees," says Snoop Dogg, and it's all thanks to his tireless work with YouTube. It's not just the video you see above either, look out for the SnoopaVision button on several 360-degree videos, like these.

Honda emoji licence plates

According to research conducted by Honda in the U.K., 97 percent of under 30s admit emoji faces are "their main method of expressing an emotion or idea in texts and instant messages." It's only sensible for Honda to introduce emoji license plates, which will be exclusively launched in 2017. Or not.

Mini Hipster Hatch

Probably our favorite car-related April Fool yet. The Mini Hipster Hatch has windows with Instagram filters built-in, a twin-cassette deck, and a fixed-gear transmission. The interior comes in stonewash denim, and those three-spoke alloys are a real throwback to car tuning of the 1990s in the U.K. The press release comes from Hoxton in London, where a car like this would fit right in, and already does in standard form. Check out the full release here; it's a gem.

BBC Video Store

Continuing with the hipster-mocking trend, the BBC has decided that with every purchase from its online media store, you'll receive a VHS video cassette to accompany it. Watch right to the end for some "effects" that will be very familiar to those who remember watching aging video tapes.

Google's Self-Driving Bicycle

Introduced by Google Netherlands, the self-driving bike stays upright, helps avoid crashes, and even has its own app so you can call it to your location.

Mini Scissor Doors

Mini will (or won't) offer scissor doors on its 3-door Mini, the Paceman, and the convertible model, to make squeezing into the car easier in tight parking spaces, complete with an emergency system called Pyrotechnic Emergency Exit. Yes, that's PEE for short. Take a look at all the details here, and rejoice that we will (or won't) see this as an option on the 6-door Mini Clubman in 2017.

Lexus V-LCRO

That's Variable Load Coupling Rear Orientation, and the latest innovation from Lexus, which holds the driver of its RC F and GS F cars tightly in position when cornering hard. Sure, there are a few compromises, but then, isn't there always with the best new inventions?

OnePlus #GetSandstoned

This gag builds on smartphone brand OnePlus's trademark sandstone textured rear covers, seen on the OnePlus and OnePlus 2 devices. The GetSandstoned process adds the same material to four of the slipperiest things known to man - cups, soap, shoes, and the iPhone 6S. The video's a good one, so make sure to watch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Laugh it up! The 30 best April Fools' Day tech jokes of 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's that time of year again, where we all need to be wary of what we see, hear, and read. Because it may not be all it seems. That's right, it's April Fools' Day, and here are the best jokes we've found so far.

# data[].attributes.headline
Google killed its April Fools' Day joke after it allegedly lost people their jobs

# data[].attributes.subject
Google killed its April Fools' Day joke after it allegedly lost people their jobs

# data[].attributes.body
the joke was on google this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Google has abruptly killed off one of its April Fools' Day "jokes" after it caused outrage online, with multiple people claiming that it lost them their jobs.

The premise of the joke was simple. In Gmail, next to the standard "Reply" button, Google added a "Mic drop" button. Using it would reply to the email, archive it - and also add a GIF of a "Despicable Me" minion dropping a mic.

"Email's great, but sometimes you just wanna hit the eject button," Google wrote in a tongue-and-cheek blog post explaining its purpose. "Like those heated threads at work, when everyone's wrong except you (obviously). Or those times when someone's seeking group approval, but your opinion is the only one that matters (amirite?). Or maybe you just nailed it, and there's nothing more to say (bam)."

But the joke backfired - fast.

Its placement directly next to the default Reply button - replacing the "Send and archive" button - meant it was easy to click by accident, especially if a user didn't understand what it was. Google's product forums are full of furious users claiming they pressed the button by accident, often on important professional emails.
Here's how the mic-drop GIF can look in a wildly inappropriate email:
One user, Abdus Salam, wrote that he had lost out on a potential job because of the GIF. "This mic drop is perhaps the most stupid thing you could possibly come up with. I have been interviewing with this company for 3 months now and mistakenly sent the email directly to guess who? The HR! Why would you do that? I so want this job; was due to start on Monday!"

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Allan Pashby wrote: "Thanks to Mic Drop I just lost my job. I am a writer and had a deadline to meet. I sent my articles to my boss and never heard back from her. I inadvertently sent the email using the "Mic Drop" send button. There were corrections that needed to be made on my articles and I never received her replies. My boss took offense to the Mic Drop animation and assumed that I didn't reply to her because I thought her input was petty (hence the Mic Drop). I just woke up to a very angry voicemail from her which is how I found out about this 'hilarious' prank."

And The Telegraph found a third angry user who claimed: "I just sent off an email with my resume to the first person who wanted to interview me in months ... I clicked the wrong button and sent it with the mic drop. Well, I guess I'm not getting that job. Words cannot describe how pissed off I am right now. I'm actually shaking. One click, ONE CLICK and I lost the job. Goddamnit. Not funny, google. I'm going to go cry now."

Of course, considering it is April Fools' Day, it's difficult to verify whether all these stories are true. But even if some are made up, it's pretty clear there's anger over the joke. And when you consider the sheer scale of Gmail, it's not hard to believe that the feature has caused serious problems for some people.

Google has pulled the plug, removing the feature from Gmail. In a statement, a company representative said: "Well, it looks like we pranked ourselves this year. 😟 Due to a bug, the MicDrop feature inadvertently caused more headaches than laughs. We're truly sorry. The feature has been turned off. If you are still seeing it, please reload your Gmail page."

Get the latest Google stock price here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google killed its April Fools' Day joke after it allegedly lost people their jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google has abruptly killed off one of its April Fools' Day "jokes" after it caused outrage online, with multiple people claiming that it lost them their jobs. The premise of the joke was simple. In Gmail, next to the standard "Reply" button, Google added a "Mic drop" button.

# data[].attributes.body
is there a future for VR?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was first published in the April 2016 issue of WIRED magazine. Be the first to read WIRED's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online.

Oculus Rift's consumer model finally hits shelves on March 28 after two years of anticipation - with the HTC Vive and PlayStation VR soon to follow. But is this the next genre of entertainment? Or the next Kinect (all dance, no revolution)?

WIRED gathered the creators of some of the medium's best titles - Crytek's , Frontier's Elite: Dangerous, Bossa's Surgeon Simulator, ustwo's and indie developer Triangular Pixels' Unseen Diplomacy - to talk about the possibilities, and the (virtual) worlds of difficulty yet to solve.

WIRED: What was the one moment that first convinced you that VR is going to be a transformative medium?
David Braben, CEO, Frontier: My first experience with VR was with Virtuality - the multiplayer visor and joystick gaming machines in video arcades in the 90s. It was blurry, and made your eyes hurt - so it's astonishing how far we've come.

Peter Pashley, head of development, ustwo: For me, trying the original Gear VR development kit. That was a transformative moment, because it meant that it could be accessible for everyone.

Henrique Olifiers, co-founder, Bossa Studios: The moment I was really convinced was with the Vive.
When I became an actor with my hands in that world, and didn't have to rely on keyboard, mouse or gamepads. Then I became a believer.
What are your experiences of what works well with game mechanics and what you can do in VR that you aren't able to do in other platforms?
Katie Goode, creative director, Triangular Pixels: I realised early on that there's difficulty in manoeuvring players. So I could see immediately that games where the enjoyment comes from the journey may not actually work. But then I felt the physicality - I really wanted to make VR feel real. We started working on another game called Unseen Diplomacy, where it's a physical assault course - rolling underneath lasers and crawling on the floor - and that's just because of the Vive
and the ability to do room-scale VR.

DB: I'm lucky because I've got an iron stomach and don't suffer from some of the [nausea] issues. We've tried a number of different experiences, and what works very well is when your
body position matches the body position that you have with your character. A game such as Elite: Dangerous is virtually perfect, because even your hand positions match. The challenge is going to be when you get up and walk around.

Frank Vitz, creative director of Crytek: It's the disconnect between what your inner ear is telling you
and what you can display through the system. We've been experimenting with these ideas about how you can mark a position, do a quick transition. But the jury is out in terms of how to allow arbitrary movement.

HO: But it's fair to say that it's now down to content, right? The hardware itself is there. People can make games that don't make anyone feel sick.

PP: That's a really important point. We move people around in Land's End and we're gentle with it. We find that around 80 per cent of people can handle it fine, and will be in there for hours. This is partly due to two features: first is to constrain movement in a way that people are comfortable with. Second is content - because Land's End is not incredibly detailed, that lack of detail lets your brain somehow not worry about it that much.

HO: We're shifting our thinking from big levels, to small portions of a level. We hadn't done that before, because that's not especially conducive to using a mouse and a keyboard.

Many VR narratives are told from a first-person point of view - the medium gives you incredible capabilities to do that. But are we limiting our imaginations?

PP: For VR experiences to be worth putting the headset on, it's got to be something that makes the most of you being somewhere.

HO: The most interesting experience I've had in VR was multiplayer. That is the most powerful experience.

PP: I think that highlights the "uncanny valley" amplification that VR does. Seeing that reality is suddenly so much more powerful than all the fake stuff around you.
How do you introduce players to the medium, making them understand those limitations?
KG: We've got an interesting experience of that. In Unseen Diplomacy you have to use the Vive controller to undo a screwdriver. We've found people who were gamers struggle with this - they were trying to press the buttons. But the non-gamers knew instantly how to use a screwdriver: they'd pick it up, they'd twist it around.

PP: It's almost the inverse problem - we need to teach game developers not to teach players but to try to just do things that people do naturally.

DB: When a controller first came out for consoles there was resistance. People were looking at their feet. Now they expect to know how to use a controller - so much so that games often don't
even show the buttons for it. The issue that's not being discussed with VR is the ballooning of the play space. How many people are going to have a five-metre space clear of furniture?

PP: That's the 3D TV equivalent of VR - nobody's going to do that. I think VR is going to become a static experience.

KG: When we started playing with [Oculus Rift] development kits, people didn't know they could move their heads.

PP: At the beginning of Land's End, the first thing it says is, "Please turn around".

FV: Another interesting thing is, as an engine maker, we're trying to support multiple devices. How can we standardise, so that people can enjoy the game through a variety of devices?
Peter previously said that he thinks mobile VR is more likely to reach mass adoption. What are the hardware problems left to solve?
KG: To be frank, Elite: Dangerous is not going to run on Google Cardboard, is it?

DB: That isn't necessarily the case because it could stream from another device. We're in the very early days. And the danger, actually, is if too many people adopt it too quickly they will join during what we all should recognise will be a learning period.

HO: There are already big games out there that should not be played, really. If someone tries them, that is the end of their VR experience forever. Going with gamepads is absolutely not the right way to go. This is a 30-year-old input method. Once you've tried the position controls from the Vive or Oculus there is no going back.

PP: We'll have a separation between very input-light experiences, which use something like the Oculus Remote, and then other - dare I say "enthusiast" - titles, which may need bespoke hardware.

DB: There's a third way we're likely to see, which I'll call "soft AR" - where you can see your hands because it has processed them with a camera or whatever, so you don't need a controller.

FV: Like the Leap Motion system, for example.
What do you think about The Void, the VR amusement park? Are we going to go back to physical arcade spaces?
KG: I love the idea.

PP: I think it might end up like karaoke, where you go somewhere with a group of friends to go through a half-hour experience.

FV: Theme parks are still the place to explore those experiences.

DB: My fear, as a parent, is kids are already disengaged on their Xboxes or their PlayStations. When they've got headphones and a great lump on the front of their face - from a parent's point of view, you have no idea what they're watching. For it to go mass market we have to think about that. I think Sony have done so - with PlayStation VR, you can also see [what's happening] on the screen.

KG: We had a four-year-old using the Gear. We put her in, and she's asking, "Oh, where's Dad, I can hear you, Dad!" She was so convinced she was there that she started walking off, and there was
a set of stairs - we had to hold her in place. That's scary.

HO: How long do you think mass market will take, in your opinion?

PP: When you look at the US, where The New York Times has just sent out 1.3 million Google Cardboards viewers to their readers - access to mobile VR is getting to the point of mass market.

FV: A year or two, maybe?
The film-maker Chris Milk talks about VR's potential to elicit empathy. What are you most excited about for the future, in terms of new experiences?
HO: Pairing AI with virtual reality. Getting non-player characters which are clever, which understand emotion. Game AI has been on a different path from general use AI for quite some time - they will have to go back to the point of making AI more narrative driven.

FV: If I look at a character, and they know I'm looking at them, I immediately feel like there's a connection.

DB: Eye contact is so important in human interaction, and VR and AR allows us to do that in a powerful way.

KG: I'm really looking forward to the physicality. This is part of the reason we did a virtual physical assault course, where you're literally crawling around.

PP: Empathy - seeing somebody else's world - could be powerful.

This article was first published in the April 2016 issue of WIRED magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the future of VR? We asked the experts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article was first published in the April 2016 issue of WIRED magazine. Be the first to read WIRED's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online.

# data[].attributes.headline
We must make the digital world central to sociological research

# data[].attributes.subject
We must make the digital world central to sociological research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How we connect socially in the digital world must now become a central feature of sociologial study. Sociologists need to learn how to use digital media for professional purposes, but they must also explore the impact of these media. Deborah Lupton issues a call to keyboards.
What is digital sociology? Why is the term not commonly used, when the terms 'digital anthropology', 'digital cultures' and 'digital humanities' have been employed for some years? I have not yet come across any book that uses 'digital sociology' in its title (there are, of course, several books that focus on various aspects of the digital world from a sociological perspective without using this term). The only course I have discovered thus far which uses the term 'digital sociology' to describe itself is a MA/Msc in Digital Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London. The term 'digital social sciences' tends to be used quite narrowly to refer to the use of quantitative methods ('webometrics') to analyse digital data.

Although 'digital sociology' does not yet seem to be in regular use, sociologists have engaged in research related to the internet since its inception. They have addressed many varied social issues relating to online communities, cyberspace and cyber-identities. Such research has attracted many different names, dispersed across multiple interests, whether it is entitled 'cybersociology', 'the sociology of the internet', 'the sociology of online communities', 'the sociology of social media', 'the sociology of cyberculture' or something else again. While the term 'cyber' was in vogue in the 1990s and early 2000s, reference to the 'cyber' seems to have been largely replaced by the 'digital' now that the internet has become more pervasive, moving from desktops to devices that can be worn on the body and transported to many locations, allowing the user to be constantly connected to the net. 'Digital sociology' encapsulates the concerns previously addressed by 'cybersociology' and extends into this new era of mobile digital computer use. It is a neat descriptive term that also references other disciplines and their use of the term 'digital'.

Despite the body of literature referred to above, it has been argued that in general sociologists have been slow to take up research involving social media and to personally engage in using social media for professional practice, such as blogging and Twitter (Daniels and Feagin, 2011; see also my earlier post 'Where are all the sociology blogs?'). The sociology of digital technologies/digital sociology or whatever term is adopted must surely begin to expand as a sub-discipline in sociology, given the increasing prevalence of digital technologies. They are becoming an increasingly integral part of everyday life for many people in the developed world across the lifespan. Preschools and child care centres are now starting to advertise that they offer tablet computers as part of their facilities. At the other end of the lifespan, Wiis are used to support mobility for the residents of aged care facilities and social media devices are being introduced to older people to encourage them to engage in social connection from home. Digital sociology can offer a means by which the impact, development and use of these technologies and their impact upon and incorporation into social worlds and concepts of selfhood may be investigated, analysed and understood.

It seems to me that given the ways in which digital technologies have infiltrated everyday life and have become such an important dimension of how people gather information and connect socially with others the digital world should now be a central feature of sociological study and research. Not only should sociologists learn to use digital media for professional purposes, they should also be undertaking research that is able to explore the impact of these media in everyday life from a critical and reflexive perspective. Some sociologists have begun to do this: for examples see Gehl (2011) on the representation and management of the professional self online and Burrows (2012) on how metrics are having an impact upon academic practice and selfhood.

To summarise, here are the main activities in which digital sociologists can engage:

Professional digital practice: using digital media tools for professional purposes: to build networks, construct an e-profile, publicise and share research and instruct students.

Sociological analyses of digital use: researching the ways in which people's use of digital media configures their sense of selves, their embodiment and their social relations.

Digital data analysis: using digital data for social research, either quantitative or qualitative.

Critical digital sociology: undertaking reflexive and critical analysis of digital media informed by social and cultural theory.

This blog post is an edited version of Deborah's Storify presentation 'Digital Sociology', which includes much more detail and many weblinks to relevant courses, books, articles and blog posts as well as a list of further resources (it can be Note: This article gives the views of theauthor, and not the position of the Impact of Social Sciences blog, nor of the London School of Economics. viewed here).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We must make the digital world central to sociological research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How we connect socially in the digital world must now become a central feature of sociologial study. Sociologists need to learn how to use digital media for professional purposes, but they must also explore the impact of these media. Deborah Lupton issues a call to keyboards. What is digital sociology?

# data[].attributes.body
online dating through the eyes of a sociologist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A couple of months ago, I was sitting at a bar minding my own business when the woman next to me did something strange. Surrounded by potential partners, she pulled out her phone, hid it coyly beneath the counter, and opened the online dating app Tinder. On her screen, images of men appeared and then disappeared to the left and right, depending on the direction in which she wiped.

I felt a deep sense a rejection -- not personally, but on behalf of everyone at the bar. Instead of interacting with the people around her, she chose to search for a companion elsewhere online.

I wondered to myself, is this what online dating has done to us? Is it creating a new reality in which people actively avoid real-life interactions?

Of course, others have worried about these sorts of questions before. But the fear that online dating is changing us, collectively, that it's creating unhealthy habits and preferences that aren't in our best interests, is being driven more by paranoia than it is by actual facts.

"There are a lot of theories out there about how online dating is bad for us," Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford who has been conducting a long-running study of online dating, told me the other day. "And mostly they're pretty unfounded."

Rosenfeld, who has been keeping tabs on the dating lives of more than 3,000 people, has gleaned many insights about the growing role of apps like Tinder. They are important today - roughly one of every four straight couples now meet on the Internet. (For gay couples, it's more like two out of every three). The apps have been surprisingly successful -- and in ways many people would not expect.

In fact, by several measures, online dating has proved even more useful - both to individuals and society - than the traditional avenues it has replaced.

I spoke with Rosenfeld to hear more about his research, to learn about the ways in which the rise of online dating is defining modern love, and to talk about the biggest misconceptions people have about online dating. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
You have one of the most unique data sets about modern romance. What have you learned about how people date today?
Well, one of the first things you have to know to understand how dating - or really courtship rituals, since not everyone calls it dating - has changed over time is that the age of marriage in the United States has increased dramatically over time. People used to marry in their early 20s, which meant that most dating that was done, or most courting that was done, was done with the intention of settling down right away. And that's not the life that young people lead anymore. The age of first marriage is now in the late twenties, and more people in their 30s and even 40s are deciding not to settle down.

The rise of phone apps and online dating websites gives people access to more potential partners than they could meet at work or in the neighborhood. It makes it easier for someone who is looking for something very specific in a partner to find what they are looking for. It also helps the people who use the apps by allowing them to enjoy a pattern of regular hookups that don't have to lead to relationships. I think these things are definitely characteristic of modern romance.
Part of what you have uncovered during your research is how drastic the rise of online dating has been. That's something not everyone thinks this is a good thing. Why are many people skeptical?
The worry about online dating comes from theories about how too much choice might be bad for you. The idea is that if you're faced with too many options you will find it harder to pick one, that too much choice is demotivating. We see this in consumer goods - if there are too many flavors of jam at the store, for instance, you might feel that it's just too complicated to consider the jam aisle, you might end up skipping it all together, you might decide it's not worth settling down with one jam.
What do you think?
I don't think that that theory, even if it's true for something like jam, applies to dating. I actually don't see in my data any negative repercussions for people who meet partners online. In fact, people who meet their partners online are not more likely to break up - they don't have more transitory relationships. Once you're in a relationship with somebody, it doesn't really matter how you met that other person. There are online sites that cater to hookups, sure, but there are also online sites that cater to people looking for long-term relationships. What's more, many people who meet in the online sites that cater to hookups end up in long-term relationships. This environment, mind you, is just like the one we see in the offline world.

There's no obvious pattern by which people who meet online are worse off. And, conversely, online dating has real benefits. For people who have a hard time finding partners in their day-to-day, face-to-face life, the larger subset of potential partners online is a big advantage for them. For folks who are meeting people everyday-really younger people in their early twenties-online dating is relevant, but it really becomes a powerful force for people in thin dating markets.

In a 2012 paper, I wrote about how among heterosexuals, the people who are most likely to use online dating are the middle-aged folks, because they're the ones in the thinnest dating market. It's harder to feel alone when you're 23, because everyone is a potential partner. But when you get to 40, most people your age are already settled down.
So it's fair to say that the experience, at least from a bird's-eye view, isn't as different as we make it out to be? At the very least, it isn't worse in the way many say?
Yes, I think that's definitely right.

Look, there's always a fear that comes with a new technology. The idea that the new technology is going to undervalue some really important social values is real and rampant. People have had that fear about the telephone and the automobile. They have even had it about things like washing machines. If people weren't going to go to the laundromat to wash their clothes together, how would we spend time together? That was something people were legitimately concerned about. But now that we have washing machines - and know that people still talk to each other - it's clear that that fear was overblown, that it was unnecessary.

I think the same fears are expressed a lot about the phone apps and Internet dating. The worry is that it's going to make people more superficial. If you look at apps like Tinder and Grinder, they mostly function by allowing people to look at others' pictures. The profiles, as many know, are very brief. It's kind of superficial. But it's superficial because we're kind of superficial; it's like that because humans are like that. Judging what someone else looks like first is not an attribute of technology, it's an attribute of how we look at people. Dating, both modern and not, is a fairly superficial endeavor.

When you walk into a room, whether it's a singles bar or a church, you're making these same sorts of judgments, the same kind of subconscious evaluations. It's not the technology that makes people superficial. How someone else looks is important to us - it always has been. The visual cortex of our brain has a very powerful hold on how we interact with the world around us. There's nothing wrong or really new with prioritizing that.
One of the most interesting things you have found is that online dating, despite its reputation, actually seems to usher people toward marriage in a way real life dating doesn't. Can you elaborate?
That's right. One of the things I have found out as part of my research is that people who meet online actually progress to marriage faster than people who meet offline. I think this is happening for many reasons.

No. 1: You can be more selective because you have a bigger group to select from. When you're using online dating, and there's the possibility of selecting on characteristics that you know you're going to like, you're going to know a lot more about people before a first date.

No. 2: There tends to be extensive communication before the first date. A lot the information-gathering that courtship is really about is sped up by the information you can gather from the profiles and from a person before actually meeting them.
What's the difference in terms of the timetable - between how quickly people marry through online and real-life dating?
If you look at the couples who stay together, about half of the couples who meet through online dating have transitioned to marriage by year four of the relationship. If you look at people who didn't meet through online dating, the time frame is much longer - half of those couples transition to marriage by year 10 of the relationship. So there's a substantial difference.

This is because there are couples who meet online who get married right away. I mean, that happens with people who meet offline, too. But when you look at the data, it's just more common online. And I think that's because online you do this big, calculated search for your soul mate, and find someone else who agrees and then transition to marriage much more quickly.
Is there also a bit of a self-selection process? Is it possible that people who meet online are marrying faster because they tend to be more marriage-driven from the start?
Yeah, I mean that certainly could be. I think it's likely that people who look to online dating sites are more intent on finding a partner, especially those using sites like Match.com and eHarmony.

What's interesting is that that kind of undermines the image that critics of the new technology try to put on the new technology, which is that online dating is all about hookups and superficiality. It turns out that the Internet dating world replicates the offline dating world in a lot of ways, and even exceeds it in others. There are a lot of places you can go where people are looking for more long-term relationships, and there are a lot of places you can go where people are looking for something else.

It's not just superficiality that the Internet is about. People looking for longer-term relationships exclusively tend to choose the dating websites where profiles are more lengthy and text-driven. If you're looking for a life partner, online dating is pretty good for that.
So there's a misconception. In aggregate, it's actually doing a lot of good.
The need for love, romance, relationships and sex - these are pretty basic human needs. And the ability to match people who would have otherwise not found each other is a powerful outcome of the new technology.

About 75 percent of the people who meet online had no prior connection. They didn't have friends in common. They're families didn't know each other. So they were perfect strangers. And prior to the Internet, it was kind of hard for perfect strangers to meet. Perfect strangers didn't come into contact in that intimate sort of way. One of the real benefits of Internet search is being able to find people you might have commonalities with but otherwise would never have crossed paths with.
If we're meeting perfect strangers in ways we weren't before, is there anything to be said about online dating and the bringing together of people from different races, cultures, religions?
One of the most interesting questions about the Internet as a sort of social intermediary is whether it brings different kinds of people together more than would have been brought together before. If you think about the traditional technology of family, which was the marriage broker of the past, the family was very selective in terms of its reliance on introducing you to people of the same race, religion and class as potential partners. What's more, if you were marrying young - at the age of 20 or younger - you really could only marry people from within your close network, from your neighborhood. These were the only people you knew, and they were probably very much like you.

The question about Internet dating specifically is whether it undermines the tendency we have to marry people from similar backgrounds. The data suggests that online dating has almost as much a pattern of same-race preference as offline dating, which is a little surprising because the offline world has constraints of racial segregation that the online world was supposed to not have. But it turns out online dating sites show that there's a strong preference for same-race dating. There's pretty much the same pattern of people partnering with folks of the same race.

What's unclear is how much of this tendency online is really a result of preference and how much is due to the websites feeding you potential partners that are of the same race as you. These websites use algorithms to try to figure out who you like. And if they assume you're going to prefer people of your own race, they might feed you a steady diet of potential matches of the same race. Since the algorithms tend to be proprietary - they don't share them - we don't know whether this is skewing the data.

There are other aspects in which online dating leads to different results than offline dating. One is that people are more likely to date someone of another religion. I think that's because you can't tell what someone's religion is from their picture. On online dating, the picture marks you with gender and race pretty clearly, but religion is something that you have to dig through to figure out.

The other big difference is that same-sex couples are much more likely to meet their partner online. In my data, about 22 percent of straight couples met online. For gay couples, it's about 67 percent. Online is tremendously more efficient for gays and lesbians. And that's because it's much harder for them to identify potential partners offline.
What about socioeconomic class? Are people more likely to partner with people of different socioeconomic backgrounds when they meet online?
In my data, it's pretty much the same. The preference for partners of similar socioeconomic and education backgrounds has always been there, but it's never been an overwhelmingly strong preference. It's never been the case that people who married someone of a greater or lesser education level were ostracized in the way other attributes might have been.

From what I can tell, there's a little bit of a tendency for people - especially women - to prefer people who claim to make a lot of money. But the truth is that most profiles don't report income, and in the income ranges where most people live there isn't that much of a difference in profile attractiveness. Whereas in the actual attractiveness of their photo, there is. So social class turns out to be kind of a secondary factor.
I want to bring back the jam analogy, if that's okay. When there are more jams to choose from, do people end up trying more jams than they would otherwise before figuring out which flavor they like best? In other words, are people dating several people at once more often now because of online dating?
Relationships are different from jam in that when you get involved with somebody, they have feelings too, they have a claim on you more than the jam does, right? The jam doesn't care if you try another jam next week, but if you form a relationship with somebody, they would or at least might care.

I haven't seen that the rise of this technology has made people more skittish about commitment. One of the things that we know about relationships in the United States, contrary, I think, to what many people would guess, is that the divorce rate has been going down for a while. They have been going down since the early 1990s, when they hit their peak. So during the Internet era, during the phone app and online dating era, it's not as if people are leaving their marriages and going back out into the dating market. Even people who are regular online dating users, even people who are not looking to settle down, recognize that being in the constant churn finding someone new is hard work.

It's not all sunshine in the hookup culture. But I don't think that it defines online dating. That's not what the data say. The declining divorce rate is among many signs that the rise of this technology is not ruining relationships.

I don't know about multiple partners, specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. The people whom I have interviewed about Tinder and Grinder, some of them are on a steady diet of short relationships, where they meet a person, hook up, and then the next weekend they're looking for somebody else. Part of what's cool about the phone apps is that it's not only easier to meet people, it's easier to block people and then get them out of your space. There's a sort of safety enhancement that I think allows people to stop someone else from following them around. It makes hookup culture easier.
You speak to a lot of people as part of your research. You hear a lot of their stories. Have any stood out that somehow encapsulate the spirit of modern dating? Or is there something you've learned that others don't seem to appreciate?
I think we have a tendency to assume that settling down is what everybody wants. That's an assumption that's built into the way in which we narrate people's life histories and the way Hollywood crafts movie endings, where people end up together. They might not get married, as they tended to in most older movies, but at the very least the male protagonist and the female protagonist tend to be united by the end. That kind of theme, we assume, is what everybody wants.

There's a little bit of a tendency now to put off settling down. I don't see that as problematic. Nor, as it happens, have I found it to be the consequence of online dating.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How well online dating works, according to someone who has been studying it for years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A couple of months ago, I was sitting at a bar minding my own business when the woman next to me did something strange. Surrounded by potential partners, she pulled out her phone, hid it coyly beneath the counter, and opened the online dating app Tinder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There have been some posts recently about Digital Sociology ( here and here), and I would like to add a few comments, based on my experience developing the MA/MSc Digital Sociology at Goldsmiths together with others.

I might as well begin with my main point: I have one big fear about digital sociology, and that is that it will be seized upon as an opportunity to re-enact the drama of the 'two cultures' : I mean the debate in which humanistically inspired approaches are pitched against narrow scientistic ones - with sociologists thinking they must choose to be either 'with them or against us.' I don't think this has happened yet, but it will not necessarily be easy to avoid over the coming years: digitization has been widely and very publically framed as an opportunity for a new push in 'computational social science', and this fact alone will make it tempting for some to cast digital sociology in the role of defender of sensitive, civilized, more tolerant forms of study, over against narrowly defined scientific empiricism.

It's not that I think there aren't any problems with the narrow scientific empiricism that is celebrated in so many accounts of computational social science. There are plenty: the data-centrism, the obsession with scaling up and speeding up, the too limited definition of method in terms of the application of numerical measure - problems that have been well and subtly documented by Burrows and Savage, dana boyd, and others. But above and beyond this, the task of digital sociology surely isn't to repeat well-known distinctions, and to re-enthrench binary oppositions that are already too familiar to us - those that were central to debates of the 20 th century about the crisis of the human sciences. To pitch hermeneutics overagainst positivism again? I would like to think the role of digital sociology is to point the way beyond the oppositions between quant and qual, data and theory, and so on, and to develop practices that work across them. Digitization makes possible new creative ways of imagining and doing sociology (including what Lury and Wakeford call inventive methods). That's what makes it exciting.

If I were to quickly answer the question 'what is digital sociology?', I would say something along these lines: Digital sociology is not just about theorizing the digital society, and it is not just about applying social methods to analyse digital social life. The relations between social life and its analysis are changing in the context of digitization, and digital sociology offers a way of engaging with this. As John Law, Evelyn Ruppert, Steve Woolgar, and Lucy Suchman have discussed, the spread of digital devices affects the relation between social life and social research. For one, the means by which social life is performed and the devices through which it is recorded, observed and interpreted are increasingly the same or similar. Among many other things, this makes possible different ways of deploying social technologies in social and cultural research. Digital sociology asks: how does digitization affect the relations between researchers and researched, and those between the objects, methods, techniques of social research, broadly conceived?

Sociologists are increasingly working with digital devices, such as hashtags and geo-coding, deploying them in their own research. I don't just mean they use them to communicate their projects like everybody else (though that is an issue too). Sociological research deploys digital devices analytically, as in recent work on doing sociology with Twitter (see for an example projects by Digital Sociology students here). As Les Back has explored, and also David Beer, digitization open up new possible ways of deploying technology sociologically, and thereby, possibly, a space for experimenting with other kinds of relations between technology and sociology. Of course, sociologists must be aware that they don't grant too much power to the machine and to the algorithms. But it seems to me that they are pretty well equipped to deal with this issue: social studies of technology have been developing concepts and methods for understanding technological phenomena as collective, heterogeneous, techno-social accomplishments for years (see for a discussion this post by Tarleton Gillespie).

One final point follows from this: I think digital sociology is best understood as an inter-disciplinary practice. Of course, much sociological research today draws on a variety of disciplines, and relations between Sociology and Computing by several decades precede today's 'computational turn.' The statistical software package SPSS was developed by an inter-disciplinary team involving social researchers and computer scientists (Uprichard, Burrows et al, 2008). However, this is not necessarily acknowledged very well in how sociological methods are taught and communicated. But inter-disciplinarity may well become harder to ignore. A lot of the interesting work in digital social research today clearly and noticeably draws on a variety of skills and competences, including social theory, data visualisation, ethnographic fieldwork, design, programming and social methods, and so on. Digital sociology often involves collaborative work across disciplinary boundaries, and this is another exciting thing about it, and another reason why it would be a shame if we got too defensive about it.

By Noortje Marres.

Categories: Writing | Tags: devices, Digital Methods, science and technology studies, sociology | Permalink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been some posts recently about Digital Sociology ( here and here), and I would like to add a few comments, based on my experience developing the MA/MSc Digital Sociology at Goldsmiths together with others.

# data[].attributes.headline
Experts Question The FBI’s Thinking In Keeping iPhone Hack A Secret

# data[].attributes.subject
Experts Question The FBI’s Thinking In Keeping iPhone Hack A Secret

# data[].attributes.body
there appears to be an underlying vulnerablity in technology as something which was protrayed as being 'unhackable' has been hacked.  consequentely, there are many answered questions such as “Does the vulnerability, if left unpatched, impose significant risk?” and "does this vulnerabilty have the chance of being uncovered by the wrong hands?" to name a few

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly four months after the FBI confiscated a locked iPhone used by the man behind the San Bernardino terrorist attack, investigators have found a way to access the data inside of it.

The Justice Department has refused repeatedly to share details of how it got in, so the method they used remains a mystery, along with the identity of the outside party who showed the FBI how to penetrate the device. But even as the Justice Department has decided to keep these things a secret, at least for now, the White House has recognized that disclosing such vulnerabilities can serve the public interest. Under the government's own review process, the FBI may be obligated to share the details of the method with Apple.

Michael Daniel, a special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator, laid out the benefits and drawbacks of disclosing vulnerabilities in a 2014 White House blog post. "Too little transparency and citizens can lose faith in their government and institutions," he wrote, "while exposing too much can make it impossible to collect the intelligence we need to protect the nation."

Daniel said the government "established a disciplined, rigorous, and high-level decision-making process for vulnerability disclosure." Among the questions Daniel would ask an agency who wishes to keep a vulnerability secret:

"Does the vulnerability, if left unpatched, impose significant risk?"

"How badly do we need the intelligence we think we can get from exploiting the vulnerability?"

"How likely is it that someone else will discover the vulnerability?"

Daniel's post gave the public a glimpse into the government's internal review process for disclosure, a process that privacy experts say lacks transparency and public accountability.

Known as an equities review, the process was designed to balance the competing interests of government agencies after a new vulnerability has been discovered. In some cases, withholding a vulnerability allows the government to conduct counterintelligence or prevent criminal activity, Daniel wrote. But keeping exploits a secret can also leave the American public at risk, with consumer products and computer networks vulnerable to intruders or manipulation.

"This administration takes seriously its commitment to an open and interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet," Daniel wrote, "and in the majority of cases, responsibly disclosing a newly discovered vulnerability is clearly in the national interest."

In a call with reporters Monday, a law enforcement official declined to comment on the risk that the San Bernardino method may pose to other iPhone owners. He also declined to say if the vulnerability would be subject to the equities review process. But experts outside the government agree that it should, and that the iPhone security breach ought to trigger disclosure, so that the millions of American iPhone owners won't be exposed to the same vulnerability.

"By keeping this a secret, the FBI is essentially gambling that no one else will independently discover it," Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist at the ACLU, told BuzzFeed news. "It's unlikely that they will remain the only entity that knows about this flaw forever."

Soghoian also expressed concern about the equities review process itself. The interagency review group, overseen by the president's National Security Council, he said, is stacked with people who are inclined to keep vulnerabilities secret, in order to use exploits to conduct surveillance, hacking, counterintelligence, and law enforcement. "You have a bunch of foxes deciding how the hen house should be built," he said.

"There's not a lot we know about that equities process," Alan Butler, the senior counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told BuzzFeed News. The 2014 White House blog post is one of the few public documents about the review process. Another, from January of this year, was made public by the government only after the Electronic Frontier Foundation pursued a public records lawsuit compelling its release.

EPIC's Butler believes the government is obligated to disclose the San Bernardino iPhone method, especially considering the abundance of data that iPhones contain, in addition to personal information. "In many situations, these phones are used as keys and authenticators for other sensitive material, including critical infrastructure," Butler said.

Riana Pfefferkorn, the cryptography fellow at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, told BuzzFeed News that responsible disclosures can enable companies like Apple to "to alert their users, come up with a fix, and push it out to their users through software updates." But from the Justice Department's perspective, a successful security patch can also represent the loss of a law enforcement tool. "The key thing is that Apple can't fix what they don't know about, so the DOJ wouldn't lose this method if they keep it secret," Pfefferkorn said.

But Pfefferkorn believes the tradeoff works in favor of disclosure. Keeping the method secret would mean leaving everyone's devices less secure, she said, "so that law enforcement potentially can get access in some instances to some mobile devices used by the tiny percentage of the population who are criminals."

The law enforcement official on the press call declined to say whether the Justice Department would share details of the secret method with Apple, or whether the method would be used on additional iPhones in different investigations.

In an active New York drug case, for instance, a federal judge rejected the government's application for a court order that would force Apple to extract information from a confiscated iPhone; the Justice Department has appealed. Court documents from the New York case also revealed that 12 additional cases are pending throughout the U.S., all of which feature the government requesting that Apple pull information from encrypted devices.

Because little is known about the method outside the government, it's difficult for outside experts to gauge the risk that it may pose to the public, Jay Kaplan, a former NSA analyst and CEO of Synack, a cybersecurity firm, told BuzzFeed News. "There might not be anything for Apple to fix," he said.

"There's a lot between the conclusion that this particular phone could be accessed by a particular contractor and everyone's phone being vulnerable," said Joseph DeMarco, a former federal prosecutor who also represented law enforcement groups in support of the Justice Department in the San Bernardino case. "I think there's a lot of assumptions and steps in between that."

It's also not clear whether a nondisclosure agreement between the FBI and the unidentified third party would trump the government's obligation to disclose the vulnerability.

Ordinarily, DeMarco told BuzzFeed News, the contract between the government and the third party would govern whether the method could be shared with other parties, including additional law enforcement agencies and Apple.

Following the Snowden revelations, the Obama administration convened a special review group to assess the government's intelligence agencies. In addition to the review group recommending that the government "not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available commercial encryption," the group also advised the government to generally disclose vulnerabilities.

"In almost all instances, for widely used code, it is in the national interest to eliminate software vulnerabilities rather than to use them for US intelligence collection," states the 2013 review group report. And that principle holds true in the 2014 White House blog post: "Disclosing vulnerabilities usually makes sense."

Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney for the EFF, told BuzzFeed News that the requirements to trigger the review process - a newly discovered vulnerability that is not publically known - are clearly present in the San Bernardino case.

What's unclear, he said, is whether the government will actually follow through with the process, or weigh the public interest case for disclosure fairly. "You can imagine all kinds of workarounds. And we've found that the government plays all kinds of word games related to the intelligence context," he said.

"It's just a policy adopted by the government; there's not a lot of transparency or rules around this."

In the same way that the Apple vs. FBI dispute has made concrete what was once a more abstract disagreement over encryption, Crocker believes this case has also drawn attention to how the government cloaks what ought to be in public view.

"Everyone who is innocent and is walking around with a phone is at the same risk as a target of surveillance or hacking or whatever the government might want to engage in."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts Question The FBI's Thinking In Keeping iPhone Hack A Secret

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly four months after the FBI confiscated a locked iPhone used by the man behind the San Bernardino terrorist attack, investigators have found a way to access the data inside of it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Here’s Who Tinder Thinks Everyone Should Vote For

# data[].attributes.subject
Here’s Who Tinder Thinks Everyone Should Vote For

# data[].attributes.body
The infamous dating app is running a political quiz starting this week. With dating websites becoming increasingly, popular, using them to allow individuals to discuss and ponder over wider/public agendas might be the correct direction to go in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's Who Tinder Thinks Everyone Should Vote For

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The dating app is running a political quiz starting this week. Here are the results so far.

# data[].attributes.headline
Apple Wants The iPhone To Record Every Aspect Of Your Health

# data[].attributes.subject
Apple Wants The iPhone To Record Every Aspect Of Your Health

# data[].attributes.body
By letting iPhone users share their DNA with researchers and update their doctors, Apple is diving deeper into its vision of a complete ecosystem of your health and medical information... although seeming very positive, is there a fine line between technology and medicinal/private matters which is being crossed?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With every new device and feature, Apple further builds out its ecosystem in ways meant to make sure you never have to, or want to, leave the confines of iOS. Now, it's bringing that approach to a far more important aspect of life than media, messaging, or even payments: Apple is increasingly becoming a central hub for people to track, manage, and understand their health.

This transition began in 2014, when Apple introduced the Health app, a dashboard of health metrics. Last spring, it unveiled ResearchKit, an app framework that lets iPhone users participate in clinical studies about conditions from diabetes to breast cancer. Apple also unleashed its first wearable, the Apple Watch.

On Monday, Apple sought to widen its ecosystem even more. It announced CareKit, an app framework that will soon let iPhone users keep other people updated on the status of their health. And 23andMe, the DNA-testing startup, started letting people upload their DNA to two ResearchKit apps, so those researchers can in turn probe the potential genetic causes of their conditions. Oh, and Apple made the Watch cheaper, too.

Apple's health orbit is now set up to encompass not just patients, but also families, caregivers, doctors, hospitals, and scientists, and collect health data unprecedented in its granularity - moment-by-moment activities, heartbeats, menstrual cycles, DNA, and more. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have all that in one place; many health providers have long yearned to break down the silos that let their institutions conceal information from one another. Now, for better or worse, one of the world's most valuable companies is constructing a central place for all of it to live.

CareKit

"When we introduced ResearchKit, our goal was simply to improve medical research, and we thought our work was largely done," Jeff Williams, Apple's chief operating officer, said Monday at the company's product event in Cupertino. "But what ... became clear to us later is the very tools used to advance medical research can also be used to help people with their care."

Williams pointed to mPower, a ResearchKit app that has been studying people with Parkinson's disease for the last year. The app prompts people to evaluate how they feel after taking medications; data shows that while some patients improve, others do not. The latter group might then benefit from switching meds or changing their doses under a physician's guidance, Williams said. CareKit, available next month, will let patients give feedback to their providers and caregivers, as well as record their symptoms, remember their treatments, and see if they're recovering on track.

In traditional care, "the only way we know how people are doing with Parkinson's or any condition is on what they tell us when we see them for 15-minute visits over the span of a year. That's less than .1% of their life," Dr. Ray Dorsey, a neurology professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center who is helping lead the mPower study, told BuzzFeed News. "Now we have tools that can assess how people are doing over a course of a day, and over periods of time, using objective, likely more sensitive, high-frequency assessments."

Health startup Iodine plans to incorporate CareKit into Start, an app that lets people record their reactions to antidepressants. "Outside of their depression and their depression therapy, it lets us connect to 'What else are they doing? What other medications are they taking? What things are they doing for their health in that broader context?'" co-founder Thomas Goetz told BuzzFeed News.

It's that data - aggregated by Apple - that intrigues Goetz and the handful of other startups and hospitals that currently plan to use CareKit. "The more Start exists not just as an app, but as an integrated part of people's lives, the more impact we're going to have," he said.

DNA Collection

The news went unannounced at Apple's event, but some ResearchKit studies are now accepting arguably the most personal health data you have: your DNA.

As part of a new study about the genetics of postpartum depression, women can get a free DNA test kit from the National Institutes of Health, which has pledged to fund 25,000 of them, according to Dr. Samantha Meltzer-Brody of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

And as of Monday, 23andMe customers can opt to share their genetic information with ResearchKit apps Asthma Health and MyHeart Counts. Asthma Health now has almost 9,000 active users, and MyHeart Counts has 50,000, since they both launched a year ago. Dr. Yvonne Chan of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who is leading the asthma study, said she's interested in learning about whether genes play a role in the severity of patients' asthma attacks or how they respond to certain asthma medications.

Although there is no "buy" button for 23andMe's spit kits in these apps, the new feature will help get the word out about the service as it tries to grow its 1.2 million customer base. Researchers can also subsidize 23andMe kits for new customers, spokesperson Andy Kill told BuzzFeed News.

People seem enthusiastic about contributing to science: Chan said that 88% of Asthma Health participants agree to share their data with researchers.

Still, privacy-minded customers may want to think carefully about sharing data as personal as DNA. 23andMe members can delete their data from that service at any time; the same is true for MyHeart Counts, researchers told BuzzFeed News, and Apple doesn't collect your DNA itself. But when someone withdraws from Asthma Health, the researchers can still analyze any information, including DNA, that was submitted up to that point, Chan said.

Taken together, these health-collecting efforts are unprecedented in their comprehensiveness. "The notion of bringing in the genome and electronic medical records and data from wearable devices - each of those three perspectives is valid in and of itself but limited," said Corey Bridges, CEO of LifeMap Solutions, an app developer working on ResearchKit. "To be able to crunch the data from each of those three different perspectives, that's something we've never had as a species before."

It's also an effort that comes with risks. Researchers have questioned the accuracy of data submitted by people who will never step foot in a clinical trial center. Some participants will undoubtedly lose interest along the way. And there are all kinds of entities besides Apple vying to capture personal biometric data - Google, Samsung, Garmin, Fitbit, and Jawbone, to name a few. But Apple isn't backing down from its argument that it's " empowering " people, that bringing together the world's health information is good for the world. It's certainly good for Apple.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apple Wants The iPhone To Record Every Aspect Of Your Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With every new device and feature, Apple further builds out its ecosystem in ways meant to make sure you never have to, or want to, leave the confines of iOS. Now, it's bringing that approach to a far more important aspect of life than media, messaging, or even payments: Apple is increasingly becoming a central hub for people to track, manage, and understand their health.

# data[].attributes.headline
YOUR MCDONALD'S HAPPY MEAL BOX IS NOW A VIRTUAL REALITY HEADSET

# data[].attributes.subject
YOUR MCDONALD'S HAPPY MEAL BOX IS NOW A VIRTUAL REALITY HEADSET

# data[].attributes.body
virtual reality is everywhere and anywhere now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your McDonald's Happy Meal Box Is Now A Virtual Reality Headset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sadly, the company doesn't provide any advice for how diners are supposed to ensure the structural integrity of any VR headsets doused with food grease.

# data[].attributes.headline
Apple scores a huge victory over the FBI, as a New York judge blocks order to turn over iPhone data

# data[].attributes.subject
Apple scores a huge victory over the FBI, as a New York judge blocks order to turn over iPhone data

# data[].attributes.body
how far will we go in the name of privacy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apple has scored a major legal victory against the US Federal Bureau of Investigation over the subpoenaing of iPhone data.

A New York judge ruled today (February 29) that the Justice Department is not within its legal rights to demand Apple grant federal investigators access to phone data key to a Brooklyn drug probe.

The ruling follows four months after Apple challenged a 1789 law that the FBI cited in demanding the tech giant turn over phone details connected to ongoing investigations.

The US Department of Justice acknowledged in a statement it was "disappointed" by the New York judge's ruling.

Their press release was as follows: "As our prior court filings make clear, Apple expressly agreed to assist the government in accessing the data on this iPhone - as it had many times before in similar circumstances - and only changed course when the government's application for assistance was made public by the court.

"This phone may contain evidence that will assist us in an active criminal investigation."

This New York development comes in the wake of a California magistrate ordering Apple to make software to help the FBI gain access to a phone purportedly owned by one of December's San Bernardino mass shooters.

Apple has thus far cited privacy concerns in declining to turn over phone data to federal investigators, even vowing to take the case to the US Supreme Court.

This controversial stance by Apple has come under fire from many, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Apple is also currently opposing similar data demands from investigators in Illinois and Massachusetts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apple scores victory over FBI, as iPhone demand blocked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple has scored a major legal victory against the US Federal Bureau of Investigation over the subpoenaing of iPhone data. A New York judge ruled today (February 29) that the Justice Department is not within its legal rights to demand Apple grant federal investigators access to phone data key to a Brooklyn drug probe.

# data[].attributes.headline
VR porn and connected sex toys will create a sex-free future

# data[].attributes.subject
VR porn and connected sex toys will create a sex-free future

# data[].attributes.body
is there anything technology can't do?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We keep being told that 2016 is 'the year of VR', and it's true. Your virtual experiences won't just be limited to a bit of immersive gaming though, porn's getting in on the act too.

Getting your rocks off in the virtual world isn't going to be a purely passive experience, either.

According to porn site Naughty America - one of the VR porn pioneers - your smut-peddling VR headset will soon play nice with a few optional extras for a fully immersive, human-shunning experience.

Spelling the end of days for conventional, baby-making sex, a series of connected sex toys will react naturally to the content you're watching, creating a true-to-life visual and sensual experience.

This isn't some far-off fantasy, either. It's already happening.

"We are talking to all of those accessory and toy companies right now," Naughty America CEO Ian Paul told Digital Spy.

"One company, Kiiro, has a peripheral that, if you code your video to that peripheral, all the smart toys become cognisant of your content. If you encode it once, it works on all the smart toys, so the toys will react to what you're seeing."

This is just the start though, our post-human jollies are about to get a whole lot more techy.

"The future is taking biometric readings from these toys, and measuring excitement directly from the user, and then dynamically altering the content based on their excitement," Paul explained.

"You look down, you see an ass, it detects that you got excited and now it knows what content to feed you based on what you like. It iterates towards what you like. At that point we all give up and start living in the Matrix."

So will we, Paul. So will we.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VR porn and connected toys will make a sex-free future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We keep being told that 2016 is 'the year of VR', and it's true. Your virtual experiences won't just be limited to a bit of immersive gaming though, porn's getting in on the act too. Getting your rocks off in the virtual world isn't going to be a purely passive experience, either.

# data[].attributes.headline
Commit the ultimate tech faux pas with this MacBook selfie stick

# data[].attributes.subject
Commit the ultimate tech faux pas with this MacBook selfie stick

# data[].attributes.body
my, my selfie, and I.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to tech faux pas, selfie sticks are up there with Facebook fitness boasting and iPad gig photography.

But a group of artists in New York City are really taking the biscuit, roaming around the Big Apple with MacBooks attached to selfie sticks.

The group comprised of Moises, John Yuyi and Tom Galle aren't out to earn some serious douche points - the aim of the project is to highlight society's obsession with vanity.

We can only imagine some of the looks the artists were shot by passersby when holding these things aloft in the street. Mind you, they probably weren't much different to the reception regular selfie sticks received when they first broke onto the scene.

There have been efforts to ban selfie sticks from a number of public places, including Disneyland, St Paul's Cathedral and the O2 Arena, but even that hasn't stopped the spread of the view-blocking poles.

Fortunately, the MacBook selfie stick is not available to buy, but don't be surprised if some company or other knocks up a commercial version when the thing starts trending on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This MacBook selfie stick is the ultimate tech faux pas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to tech faux pas, selfie sticks are up there with Facebook fitness boasting and iPad gig photography. But a group of artists in New York City are really taking the biscuit, roaming around the Big Apple with MacBooks attached to selfie sticks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ada Lovelace Day founder slams girls-in-tech "publicity stunt" as prize won by boy

# data[].attributes.subject
Ada Lovelace Day founder slams girls-in-tech "publicity stunt" as prize won by boy

# data[].attributes.body
13-year-old boy wins a prominent contest aimed at encouraging girls to pursue science and technology, once again highlighting the gender inequalities in technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many are crying over a 13-year-old boy winning a prominent contest aimed at encouraging girls to pursue science and technology.

EDF Energy has come under fire from advocacy group Ada Lovelace Day and others for the results of its Pretty Curious programme - launched for girls 11 to 16.

13-year-old Josh was given this year's prize for his kinetic energy-harnessing gaming controller over smart curtain, smart refrigerator and sleep monitor projects submitted by girls.

EDF Energy stands by Josh as its Pretty Curious winner, insisting that the contest was recently extended to young adults of both sexes to encourage fairness.

"The aim of #PrettyCurious was to encourage girls into #STEM, the #PrettyCuriousChallenge was a gender-neutral competition," EDF Energy tweeted.

"The winner was shortlisted by a panel of judges including the all-female winning team from our #PrettyCurious Glasgow workshop."

Their decision was dismissed as a "publicity stunt" by Suw Charman-Anderson, who founded the group Ada Lovelace Day to promote the study of science, technology, engineering and math among women.

"EDF Energy chose to link appearance and interest in Stem through the title of their campaign, despite many people pointing out that it was demeaning to girls," Charman-Anderson told .

"Rather than challenging stereotypes, the focus on girls' looks rather than their intelligence reinforces them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many are crying over a 13-year-old boy winning a prominent contest aimed at encouraging girls to pursue science and technology. EDF Energy has come under fire from advocacy group Ada Lovelace Day and others for the results of its Pretty Curious programme - launched for girls 11 to 16.

# data[].attributes.headline
Man Utd manager Louis van Gaal mocks Arsenal with Oscar-worthy dive on Sky, but Internet meme makers win the weekend

# data[].attributes.subject
Man Utd manager Louis van Gaal mocks Arsenal with Oscar-worthy dive on Sky, but Internet meme makers win the weekend

# data[].attributes.body
where would we be without internet memes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've all seen footballers fall dramatically to the ground and thought it was a bit over the top.

And it seems Manchester United's manager Louis Van Gaal is just as fed up as everyone else, as he mocked play by Arsenal today, making an Oscar-worthy dive on the sidelines right in front of Arsenal's manager Arsène Wenger.

The Dutchman's gesture was caught live on camera during the match - and the meme makers of the internet have been having a field day with the moment.

Within an hour, we'd seen Van Gaal being taken down by wrestler Randy Orton, threatened by a bear, enjoying himself too much on the street of Manchester, and caught in a compromising position with a pole dancer.

He's even been used as an obstacle by Heath Ledger's Joker on a skateboard.

It was also suggested that he's been taking some tips from footballer Cristiano Ronaldo.

Move over Leonardo DiCaprio - it looks like we've seen a late entry into this year's Academy Awards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Check out Man U manager's late entry to the Oscars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've all seen footballers fall dramatically to the ground and thought it was a bit over the top. And it seems Manchester United's manager Louis Van Gaal is just as fed up as everyone else, as he mocked play by Arsenal today, making an Oscar-worthy dive on the sidelines right in front of Arsenal's manager Arsène Wenger.

# data[].attributes.headline
Oscars 2016: Leonardo DiCaprio win smashes Ellen's selfie to become most tweeted about Academy Awards moment ever

# data[].attributes.subject
Oscars 2016: Leonardo DiCaprio win smashes Ellen's selfie to become most tweeted about Academy Awards moment ever

# data[].attributes.body
This beat Ellen DeGeneres's star-filled selfie record of 225,000 tweets per minute two years ago to become the most tweeted moment of an Oscars broadcast ever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People have wanted Leonardo DiCaprio to win Best Actor at the Academy Awards for years - so it's no surprise that when it finally happened, LOTS of people were talking about it.

The actor's win for The Revenant last night (February 28)generated 440,000 tweets per minute, according to Twitter.

This beat Ellen DeGeneres's star-filled selfie record of 225,000 tweets per minute two years ago to become the most tweeted moment of an Oscars broadcast ever.

Among those talking about Leo's win was Kanye West, who said he was "so so happy" for the star.

Spotlight's win for Best Picture was the second most tweeted about moment of the evening, while third was Mad Max: Fury Road winning its sixth award of the night.

Elsewhere at the awards, Brie Larson took home Best Actress for Room, while Mark Rylance and Alicia Vikander took home supporting gongs.

Follow Digital Spy for all the latest news from the Oscars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DiCaprio win is most tweeted about Oscars moment EVER

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People have wanted Leonardo DiCaprio to win Best Actor at the Academy Awards for years - so it's no surprise that when it finally happened, LOTS of people were talking about it. The actor's win for The Revenant last night (February 28)generated 440,000 tweets per minute, according to Twitter.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tinder reveals the 'most desirable' job titles in online dating

# data[].attributes.subject
Tinder reveals the 'most desirable' job titles in online dating

# data[].attributes.body
your job just isn't sexy enough.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If Tinder hasn't yet provided you with true love and you're still impotently swiping right to no avail, it turns out there may be a simple reason: your job just isn't sexy enough.

According to new research from the ubiquitous dating app, and its owner Match Group, not all professions are equally desirable.

The five most attractive professions in men on Tinder include pilot, entrepreneur, firefighter and doctor, as well as the very specific and vaguely unattainable "TV/radio personality".

In women, the top titles are physical therapist, interior designer, entrepreneur, PR/communications and teacher. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who list their job as "Model" are also high up on the list for both genders, though 'Social Media Managers' were, for some reason, considered to be more attractive than models.

While Tinder hasn't commented on the gendered expectations bound up in the relative desirability of each of these titles, it has stated that sharing job details "increases your chances of receiving a right swipe".

The app introduced the ability to add job and education details in November, and according to a press release, "millions of users have added their job to their profiles". "Adding your job to your profile is a great way to provide additional insight for potential matches," it writes.

The list was compiled based on "the occupations of user profiles that received the highest ratio of right swipes from November 2015 to January 2016".

The full list of jobs is as follows:

Men

Women

1. Physical Therapist

2. Interior Designer

3. Entrepreneur

4. PR/communications

5. Teacher

6. College Student

7. Speech Language Pathologist

8. Pharmacist

9. Social Media Manager

10. Model

11. Dental Hygienist

12. Nurse

13. Flight Attendant

14. Personal Trainer

15. Estate Agent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tinder reveals the 'most desirable' job titles in online dating

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If Tinder hasn't yet provided you with true love and you're still impotently swiping right to no avail, it turns out there may be a simple reason: your job just isn't sexy enough. According to new research from the ubiquitous dating app, and its owner Match Group, not all professions are equally desirable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Apple won't unlock iPhones for the FBI

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Apple won't unlock iPhones for the FBI

# data[].attributes.body
in an era of terror and danger, is this an example of global privacy taken to the extreme or does apple actually make a valid point? This overriding of privacy could potentially prove to be highly useful for and in the future, but could it perhaps end up in the wrong hands, and conversely cause more damage than good?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It would cost Apple "significant" time and resources to create a new operating system to unlock the San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone, the company has said, adding that such a system could never be "truly destroyed".

The company has formally filed a 65-page legal response to the court order saying it should unlock the Syed Farook's iPhone for the FBI. The document, which comes after the company was granted an extension to file its initial response, explains the "burden" it has to make the phone's data accessible to the security agency.

The company said GovtOS -- the name it's given to the theoretical operating system it would create -- would need to be able to "bypass or disable" the erase data function on the iPhone; allow electronic, rather than manual, submissions of passwords; and to remove time delays between password entry attempts. "Given the complexity of designing, creating, validating, deploying, and eradicating a bespoke operating system such as the government demands, the burden on Apple will increase significantly as the number of requests to Apple increase," the motion signed by Lisa Olle, Apple's manager for global privacy and law enforcement team, read.

The "design, creation, validation, and deployment" of the operating system would take "a substantial portion" of time to create and require up to ten engineers, Apple claimed.

The motion said this could be between two to four weeks, with more senior staff also involved in the project. These additional staff would handle project management, quality assurance, a document writer and potentially more staff. Apple went on to say that to meet the FBI's demands it would need to create new elements of code for the unlocking functions, as well as documentation, before signing the software with Apple's cryptographic key.

If a purpose-built operating system such as the one the government seeks here got into the wrong hands it would open a significant new avenue of attack, undermining the security protections that Apple spent years developing to protect its customers
Lisa Olle, Apple

The battle of words between the FBI and Apple has intensified since the initial court order. The FBI has claimed it only wants one iPhone unlocked and it is only in the specific case of Farook's device. Countering the claim, Apple said to do so would create a "dangerous precedent" that could be applied to situations with other phones and court demands, both in the US and abroad. Major technology firms, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google, have also supported Tim Cook's position.

In its motion to the court Apple added that it would need to create a version of GovtOD for each iPhone it was asked to unlock, and it could "not be truly destroyed". Apple wouldn't be able to destroy the code completely as staff would remember parts of it and the process could be replicated.

Olle, in the motion, said: "If a purpose-built operating system such as the one the government seeks here got into the wrong hands it would open a significant new avenue of attack, undermining the security protections that Apple spent years developing to protect its customers."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Apple won't unlock iPhones for the FBI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It would cost Apple "significant" time and resources to create a new operating system to unlock the San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone, the company has said, adding that such a system could never be "truly destroyed". The company has formally filed a 65-page legal response to the court order saying it should unlock the Syed Farook's iPhone for the FBI.

# data[].attributes.headline
How One App Is Delivering Birth Control To Your Door

# data[].attributes.subject
How One App Is Delivering Birth Control To Your Door

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When news of the birth control delivery app Nurx first hit, we ( and the rest of the internet) were stoked. It was immediately hailed the Uber for birth control, the Seamless for NuvaRings (that one we made up). But while those comparisons are pithy, they don't convey that Nurx is trying to be far more than just a time-saving delivery service app - its founders are hoping that it can inform women's healthcare choices and change the way people view birth control altogether.

"There are a lot of people who think the birth control pill should just be over-the-counter, like it is in over half the world," Hans Gangeskar, Nurx cofounder, told Refinery29. "And we agree with that."

While Nurx isn't literally "over-the-counter," Gangeskar explained that there are three main steps to receiving your birth control. First, you choose your brand and type. Nurx currently offerscombination pills, progesterone-only pills, the patch, NuvaRing, and emergency contraceptives, like Plan B One Step. (You can request recommendations from a doctor via the app if you're unsure which one's best for you, and Nurx also offers Truvada for PrEP, or HIV prevention.) Next, you fill out a basic health profile, which allows you to enter your weight, age, birthday, blood pressure, and health habits, such as smoking. Then, you enter either your credit card number and insurance information - and that's it. Your contraception of choice will be on its way soon after that.

According to Gangeskar, each type of contraception comes with "detailed instructions" on proper use and application, whether you get an oral contraceptive or the NuvaRing. But you're not alone if you're still not 100% sure how to use your BC. Users are encouraged to engage with the app's on-call doctors whenever they have a concern.

"You're only a message away from the doctors, so you can always send a message if you have any questions, and you can send pictures securely as well," Gangeskar said.

With low-cost birth control programs being blocked by local politicians, BC accessibility is increasingly important for the 62% of American women of reproductive age who use contraception. Other birth control apps, like Maven, a consultation resource, or Glow, which refills pre-existing prescriptions, have taken major steps toward increasing the pill's availability. And now Nurx offers a combination of these services: consultation, prescription, and delivery. In time, the ease with which one can get birth control via services like Nurx may help to change the widespread view of birth control as something that's shameful or difficult to obtain.

"We want to give our users the ability to take charge of their own healthcare and feel like they're in control, rather than someone else," Gangeskar said.

Nurx is currently available in California and, as of last week, New York. If you're in either city, you can get started on your own delivery here.

This month, we're sharing steamy personal stories, exploring ways to have even better sex, and wading through the complicated dynamics that follow us into the bedroom. Here's to a very happy February. Check out more right here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How One App Is Delivering Birth Control To Your Door

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When news of the birth control delivery app Nurx first hit, we ( and the rest of the internet) were stoked. It was immediately hailed the Uber for birth control, the Seamless for NuvaRings (that one we made up).

# data[].attributes.headline
How doctors are turning smartphones into surgeries

# data[].attributes.subject
How doctors are turning smartphones into surgeries

# data[].attributes.body
put a doctor in your pocket - convenient or dangerous?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's 2.10pm on a Tuesday afternoon and I'm video-calling my GP from my office. I made the appointment five minutes ago and I'm back at my desk within a quarter of an hour, advice on board and a prescription winging its way to my local pharmacy.

I'm trialling the "digital doctor" service Babylon Health, one of several new healthcare apps that are picking up steam in the world of tech start-ups: in January, it received $25 million (nearly £18 million) of investment, including backing from the founders of Google's AI division DeepMind, and this month the Government announced a £4.2 billion investment in digital innovation for the NHS.

Many of the services being developed are trying to tackle the problem of access to primary care - those lengthy GP appointment waiting times that keep hitting the headlines.

When we can get same-day deliveries and taxis in minutes using our phones the process of seeing a doctor does seem somewhat archaic, especially for people working full-time with long commutes who often end up either choosing to ignore potential problems or using out-of-hours services such as walk-in clinics and A&E.

Subscribing to Babylon costs £4.99 per month and allows unlimited GP appointments, access to your electronic records and an "Ask" service for questions by text.

Beyond this, paid-for features include specialist consultations, therapy sessions and tests that are sent to your home. The argument is that most of us don't need physical examinations; we need efficient diagnostic advice.

Pick-up has been particularly high with male patients, pregnant women and people seeking mental health treatment, and there have been more than 300,000 downloads since the service launched around a year ago.

The rising popularity of Fitbits and health-monitoring apps means Londoners are more in control of our own health than ever, and more comfortable using phones to supplement healthcare. A PwC report this month showed that one in four people would be willing to consult their GP via their smartphone.

Londoners get a health hit with medicinal cocktails

Dr Adrian Bull is managing director of Imperial College Health Partners, which is part of DigitalHealth.London, a network hub set up to build a viable marketplace for health tech entrepreneurs and to establish engagement with the NHS and health sector. He believes that the widespread use of services like these is not far away.

"These things will never replace a clinical physical examination," he says. "But in five years, if a doctor wants to listen to your heart via your phone, they will be able to, and it will be more accurate than a stethoscope. We must never let technology become a barrier or a hurdle between patient and clinician but insofar as these technologies can open up a new channel of communication, making it cleaner, faster, simpler - that's terrific."

Currently these services - other examples include Push Doctor and Vitality GP - are available to private patients, whether as individuals or through workplace schemes, but Babylon is also being trialled by the NHS in Essex.

The best apps for Londoners

The Babylon pool of doctors are former NHS GPs who still work at least one day a week in a surgery. Founder Dr Ali Parsa says: "The GPs providing our service are saying the same things to both patients using the service and in their surgeries - only about one in 10 patients need further investigation, perhaps a test. In the same day a patient can ask a question, book a consultant and see a specialist. Even with the most expensive private healthcare in the world they couldn't do things that quickly, simply because of the logistics."

Another service, launched in December, again by former NHS GPs, is i-GP. It asks users to fill out an assessment which uses an advanced clinical algorithm to ask further questions depending on the patients' answers before analysing if they could be treated without visiting a doctor in person.

Founder Dr Sukhbinder Noorpuri says: "We have a good insight into patient needs and demands. We understand there are limits and you can't treat everybody and that's why we have a filter system."

But the healthcare technology sector is not just dealing with problems around primary care. The future of this sector could see technology that monitors how patients use medication - containers designed with a mechanism which sends a signal to both doctor and patient confirming that tablets have been taken. Remote sensoring devices, which a patient wears on a troublesome joint, could analyse the problem and lead to a quicker, more accurate diagnosis. And sensors that monitor blood sugar or chemical levels could automatically drive responses to balance those levels.

To people who still think a visit to the doctor means a waiting room, thermometers and a friendly GP who has known you since you were born peering into your ear, the digital healthcare revolution might sound worrying, inefficient and even scary. But as Dr Parsa points out: "This is how we live now. When is the last time you went to a bank? Did you even know there is a job called 'bank manager'? Do you know the name of yours?"
@littlewondering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How doctors are turning smartphones into surgeries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's 2.10pm on a Tuesday afternoon and I'm video-calling my GP from my office. I made the appointment five minutes ago and I'm back at my desk within a quarter of an hour, advice on board and a prescription winging its way to my local pharmacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pet On Wheels makes carrying a pet on two wheels safe and practical

# data[].attributes.subject
Pet On Wheels makes carrying a pet on two wheels safe and practical

# data[].attributes.body
technology aiding in bridging together relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A dog riding aboard a two-wheeler may make for an amusing spectacle, but it can be dangerous and illegal in many countries. Pet On Wheels is a top-case designed specifically for carrying small-sized pets securely and legally on a motorcycle, scooter or bicycle.

Normally pets are not supposed to ride on any two-wheeler, yet a quick surf on the web will reveal plenty of video evidence to the contrary; most often with dogs, thanks to their adept and responsive personality. Apart from the fun side that popular videos usually focus on though, there is a practical issue at hand when a pet needs to be hauled around the city and the only available vehicle is a two-wheeler, motorized or not.

Pet On Wheels (POW) offers a solution custom-designed for this very task, and is compliant with highway and traffic codes worldwide. The Italian top case is made of injection-moulded plastic and its size can accommodate small and medium-sized pets, weighing up to 10 kg (22 lb).

It secures on a mounting plate designed to the same standards as any typical motorcycle top case, so it can be fitted to most motorcycles, scooters and bicycles, provided they're equipped with a rear rack.

It can be positioned facing either forward or backward, and it can easily be removed from the bike to carry by hand. Since it locks in place with its own key, it can be left on the parked bike while hosting gear like the helmet and gloves.

Inside the POW, the pet can relax comfortably on the included pillow, as two intakes provide fresh air while on the move. In the center of the pivoting lid a large hole with a sliding cover allows for the four-legged passenger to sit up with its head out of the carrier - dogs will probably enjoy this feature the most. An adjustable leash that attaches to the inside of the POW ensures that no one jumps out during the journey.

Most motorcycle pet carriers in the market are either fabric cases that strap onto the bike or typical motorcycle top cases transformed to pet carriers. POW brings about a welcome level of versatility, leaves the seat free for a second human passenger, and provides protection for the pet, as displayed in the video below.

The POW is now the subject of a Kickstarter campaign, where a pledge of €99 (about US$110) will get you one - if all goes according to plans. The retail price is estimated to exceed €200 ($222).

Source: Kickstarter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pet On Wheels makes carrying a pet on two wheels safe and practical

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A dog riding aboard a two-wheeler may make for an amusing spectacle, but it can be dangerous and illegal in many countries. Pet On Wheels is a top-case designed specifically for carrying small-sized pets securely and legally on a motorcycle, scooter or bicycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New research apparently confirms a phenomenon that many of us may have already suspected: excessive exposure to social media can disrupt sleep patterns. The conclusion comes from a study by a team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, which found that the longer young adults spend on social media, the more likely they are to have the quality of their sleep compromised.

This is the first time that the connection between the two has been confirmed through research, and gives physicians a new line of inquiry when assessing patients with sleep complaints. The study focused on young adults because they are the first generation to grow up using social media.

In 2014, Dr. Jessica Levenson's team sampled 1,788 US adults aged 19-32, using questionnaires to evaluate their use of social media against a measurement system for sleep disturbance. All the major platforms were included in the study, such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Tumblr.

The study found that, on average, participants used social media for 61 minutes daily and visited various social media accounts around 30 times per week. Of the total number of respondents, around 30 percent presented high levels of sleep disruption. Sleep disturbances became more likely as the regularity of visits to social media during the week increased - in these cases, it could be three times higher in comparison with those who were least active on their accounts.

The same result was observed in terms of daily amount of time spent on social media. The ones who scored the most total time had twice the risk of sleep disturbance in relation to those who spent less time on social networks.

"This may indicate that frequency of social media visits is a better predictor of sleep difficulty than overall time spent on social media," Dr. Levenson says. "If this is the case, then interventions that counter obsessive 'checking' behavior may be most effective."

The researchers say further investigating is needed, but they have raised some hypotheses to shed light on the connection between social media and poor sleep, and whether the latter could also be leading to more time on social media. According to them, staying up late to post on social media profiles, engaging in heated debates and receiving the bright light emitted by the devices (which can disrupt circadian rhythms) are possible causal factors.

The other possibility is that people take to social media to pass time when they can't sleep, which could end up exacerbating the problem.

"This cycle may be particularly problematic with social media because many forms involve interactive screen time that is stimulating and rewarding and, therefore, potentially detrimental to sleep," says senior author Brian Primack.

A paper on the research is scheduled to appear in the April issue of the journal Preventive Medicine.

Source: UPMC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New research apparently confirms a phenomenon that many of us may have already suspected: excessive exposure to social media can disrupt sleep patterns. The conclusion comes from a study by a team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, which found that the longer young adults spend on...

# data[].attributes.headline
Singapore looks to 3D printing for ambitious public housing project

# data[].attributes.subject
Singapore looks to 3D printing for ambitious public housing project

# data[].attributes.body
can technology help overcome some of the world's greatest crisis'? from genitic engineering to now 3D printing, we can create GM food, grow cells in laboratories and print in 3D which can potentially be a huge step in overcoming issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Singapore has an increasing need for public housing and is turning to 3D printing as a possible solution to their problem, reports 3D Printing Industry. At the heart of the problem is a shortage of supplies and slow build times because of the country's reliance on foreign labor in its construction projects. By using 3D printing, the island nation hopes to be able to complete construction more rapidly and efficiently using local resources and a native workforce.

With $107.7 million in government and industry funding, the Singapore Centre for 3D Printing is heading up the effort to use 3D printing for the country's public construction projects. The group is working with a 3D-printing company to explore the logistics of 3D printing to manufacture housing units one floor at a time. Each floor would be printed off-site using specialized concrete 3D printers and then moved to its final destination. The units then would be assembled one story at a time, using a stacking technique similar to building with Legos, explained Chua Chee Kai, the executive director of the Singapore Centre for 3D Printing when speaking to GovInsider.

The Singapore Centre for 3D Printing will present a building plan this year and plans to build a prototype building within the next three years. Completing the project using 3D printing technology sounds exciting, but it will be a challenge for the group. The Centre staff will be starting from scratch, developing both industrial-sized 3D printers and printable concrete suitable for use in this type of construction. The team will experiment with different designs that will utilize 3D printing for select structural components and traditional methods for those parts that cannot be 3D printed due to cost or complexity.

Construction projects are not the only focus of Singapore's 3D printing team. They group also is exploring whether 3D printing can be used to produce weaponry for the nation's military, which has struggled to find replacement parts for its aging equipment. In the field of medicine, the Centre has already 3D printed bones for animals and is looking ahead to printing other prosthetics in the coming years.

Editors' Recommendations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore Exploring 3D Printing Buildings for Public Housing | Digital Trends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Singapore has an increasing need for public housing and is turning to 3D printing as a possible solution to the country's problem. With $107.7 million in government and industry funding, the Singapore Centre for 3D Printing is heading up the effort.

# data[].attributes.headline
Study suggests women’s computer code is preferred, only if their gender is unknown	

# data[].attributes.subject
Study suggests women’s computer code is preferred, only if their gender is unknown	

# data[].attributes.body
gender and technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When justifying the conspicuous absence of women in tech, the most commonly offered explanation has always been lack of skill - women are less interested in technology, they don't pursue it as often (or as early), so by extension, when it comes to job applications, there are fewer qualified women in the mix. How could engineering teams not be majority male? Well, a new study published on PeerJ pokes a pretty damning hole in that argument - according to this research, women write better code than men on GitHub, or at the very least, their contributions are accepted more often by fellow coders. But this is only true when their gender is not known; once it's made apparent that a woman is behind the syntax, all bets are off. In fact, bets go down.

The study (which has not yet been peer reviewed), involved the analysis of nearly 1.4 million users of open source program-sharing site Github, a platform that is often referenced in job interviews among computer scientists. The 12 million strong developer community does not require that its users provide gender information, but researchers were able to determine the sex of about 1.4 million of them (12 percent), the BBC reports, "either because it was clear from the users' profiles or because their email addresses could be matched with the Google+ social network."

Based on this information, the team determined that pull requests (code change suggestions) made by women made were accepted four percent more often than those made by men. However, this proportion dropped drastically when a woman's gender was noticeable. The researchers write, "For outsiders, we see evidence for gender bias: women's acceptance rates are 71.8% when they use gender neutral profiles, but drop to 62.5% when their gender is identifiable. There is a similar drop for men, but the effect is not as strong."

"Women have a higher acceptance rate of pull requests overall, but when they're outsiders and their gender is identifiable, they have a lower acceptance rate than men," the study shows. "Our results suggest that although women on Github may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless."

Considering that major tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple all have less than 20 percent of their technical positions filled by women, this is an alarming finding.

So keep coding, ladies. Maybe one day, you'll be able to identify yourself and claim your fame.

Editors' Recommendations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Women May Be Better Coders, Study Suggests | Digital Trends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When justifying the conspicuous absence of women in tech, the most commonly offered explanation has always been lack of skill - women are less interested in technology, they don't pursue it as often (or as early), so by extension, when it comes to job applications, there are fewer qualified women in the mix.

# data[].attributes.headline
Google brings free Fiber Internet to low-income households

# data[].attributes.subject
Google brings free Fiber Internet to low-income households

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are no solar-powered drones or balloons involved in this plan to deliver Internet, but it may just be Google's best yet. On Wednesday, the Silicon Valley behemoth announced its plan to bring free Google Fiber to those who need it most: low-income Americans who currently have little to no access to the Internet. Last summer, the tech company promised to bring some 275,000 households online in conjunction with the White House's ConnectHome initiative. And now, that process has begun with 100 homes in the West Bluff public housing complex located in Kansas City. Each of these 100 households was given a free Google Fiber connection, an achievement made possible with the company's collaboration with the Housing Authority of Kansas City.

The importance of having an Internet connection has long been heralded by the Obama administration, especially in terms of education. Having this basic access can mean more "after-school programs and STEM classes, more students going online to finish their homework, more people taking advantage of resources like Khan Academy, and more families learning basic computer skills that help them be more connected," Google said in an official blog post announcement. And with its free extremely high-speed Internet connection, the web company is helping bring more and more people into the 21st century.

In the last couple months, the U.S. has been panned for its failure to deliver decent Internet service to many of its citizens, as well as the wide discrepancy in coverage that exists among different geographies and demographics.

"The U.S. has some of the most expensive broadband in the world, while lagging far behind other countries in Internet speeds," Google notes. "And for families in affordable housing, cost can be one of the biggest barriers to getting online."

But moving forward, the tech giant plans to make great strides in narrowing this problematic gap. Google says it plans to "bring gigabit Internet to select affordable housing in all of our Fiber cities," and further notes that it'll be "complementing this $0/month Internet service by working with local partners to make new investments in computer labs and digital literacy classes so residents learn the skills they need to get online."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google Fiber Is Going Free In Low-Income Households | Digital Trends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are no solar-powered drones or balloons involved in this plan to deliver Internet, but it may just be Google's best yet. On Wednesday, the Silicon Valley behemoth announced its plan to bring free Google Fiber to those who need it most: low-income Americans who currently have little to no access to the Internet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Microsoft’s Cortana gets sexually harassed, but she fights back

# data[].attributes.subject
Microsoft’s Cortana gets sexually harassed, but she fights back

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You don't have to show any skin to be sexually harassed - and you don't even have to be human to be the subject of offensive, suggestive commentary, it seems.

Deborah Harrison, an editorial writer in the Cortana division of Microsoft, told CNN that even female virtual assistants can't escape the dirty and sometimes disrespectful minds of their human users. And as AI systems become increasingly humanized, this virtual harassment is a disturbing trend.

A large part of the issue stems from the fact that the vast majority of AI assistants feature female voices. Beyond Microsoft's personal assistant, Cortana, there are Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa, and even Hollywood portrayed the operating system of the future with a sultry Scarlett Johansson. And beyond the issue of consistently conforming to gender stereotypes by using female personas in subordinate roles, it now appears that people are getting so comfortable with their AIs that these machines are being bombarded with questionable questions.

According to Harrison, when Cortana was first launched in 2014, "a good chunk of early queries were about her sex life." Now the team behind the AI is fighting back; Cortana is a true woman of the 21st century, you see, and she doesn't take any crap.

"If you say things that are particularly a**holeish to Cortana, she will get mad," said Harrison during a talk at the Re*Work Virtual Assistant Summit in San Francisco. "That's not the kind of interaction we want to encourage."

To combat this sort of behavior, Harrison and seven other Microsoft writers tasked with the fascinating job of determining how Cortana responds to inquiries have decided to be very careful with the way in which they structure this virtual woman.

While she is very clearly female - she's represented by a female avatar, and the flesh-and-blood human woman Jen Taylor supplies her actual voice - Cortana doesn't succumb to many sterotypical female pitfalls. She doesn't find herself constantly apologizing, nor does she seem particularly, well, subordinate. And according to Harrison, that's all a conscious decision made by the Microsoft team.

"We wanted to be very careful that she didn't feel subservient in any way ... or that we would set up a dynamic we didn't want to perpetuate socially," she told CNN.

A big part of creating a believable persona for a virtual assistant, Microsoft says, is to talk to human beings who have that actual job. Not only does this give them better material, but it also helps the team address harassment issues from the people who have to deal with it firsthand.

So don't mouth off to Cortana. You might not like what she says in response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microsoft's Cortana Gets Sexually Harassed & Fights Back | Digital Trends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You don't have to show any skin to be sexually harassed - and you don't even have to be human to be the subject of offensive, suggestive commentary, it seems. Deborah Harrison, an editorial writer in the Cortana division of Microsoft, told CNN that even female virtual assistants can't escape the dirty and sometimes disrespectful minds of their human users.

# data[].attributes.headline
92 percent of students prefer physical books to e-readers	

# data[].attributes.subject
92 percent of students prefer physical books to e-readers	

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Don't get too nostalgic about the days of paper books just yet - it looks like e-readers are still a ways away from replacing the real thing. According to research from Naomi Baron, a linguistics professor at American University, 92 percent of students still prefer to do "serious reading" using books that make use of actual ink printed on a physical page. Laptops, phones, tablets, and even e-readers all come in a distant second, the professor says.

The research involved a survey of more than 300 college students from countries around the world, including Japan, Germany, Slovakia, and the U.S., and is all for Baron's upcoming book - "Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World."

Despite the fact that 50 percent of Americans own a tablet or e-reader, and an even greater proportion own smartphones that can also support books and electronic reading materials, Baron has found that owning is not the same thing as enjoying the actual experience. Many people complain about e-readers hurting their eyes, the less-than-satisfactory battery life, and frankly, the rather impersonal feel of putting Jane Austen's classics on a Kindle. In fact, it looks like the popularity of e-readers may actually be declining - a Scholastic study notes that while 60 percent of children between the ages of 6 and 17 said they'd always want to read books in print in 2012, this number increased to 65 percent just two years later.

"There really is a physical, tactile, kinesthetic component to reading," Baron told the New Republic in a recent interview. "In the Slovakian data, when I asked what do you like most about reading in hard copy, one out of ten talked about the smell of books."

And when she asked her study subjects what they didn't like about reading on a screen, a lot of their answers had to do with the physical progress and satisfaction you get from reading a print book that just isn't there with a Nook. "They like to know how far they've gone in the book," Baron said. "You can read at the bottom of the screen what percent you've finished, but it's a totally different feel to know you've read an inch worth and you have another inch and a half to go. Or students will tell you about their visual memory of where something was on the page; that makes no sense on a screen. One student said, 'I keep forgetting who the author is. In a print book all I have to do is flip back and I see it.' There are all kinds of reasons students will give - 'I have a sense of accomplishment when I finish a book and I want to see it on the shelf.'"

Sure, e-readers serve their purpose, and Baron herself notes, "Generally speaking, if you give standardized tests on comprehension of passages, the results are about the same on a screen or on hard copy." But when it comes to personal preferences, the printed book remains king.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
92 percent of students prefer physical books to e-readers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Don't get too nostalgic about the days of paper books just yet - it looks like e-readers are still a ways away from replacing the real thing. According to research from Naomi Baron, a linguistics professor at American University, 92 percent of students still prefer to do "serious reading" using books that make use of actual ink printed on a physical page.

# data[].attributes.body
a longitutidaal study which reveals a weak link between children who play violent video games and those who grow up with violent tendencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is only a weak link between children who play violent video games and those who grow up with violent tendencies, another research paper has claimed.

The research, from a group of UK-based academics, looked at 1,800 children involved in the longterm Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. The children -- who were born around 1991 and 1992 -- completed a survey when they were eight or nine and were then quizzed when they 15.

The questions focussed on the genre of games played by the children and fed back into working out both the risk for depression and the risk for "conduct disorder", which relates to their behaviour.

The academics found there was "weak" evidence to show that those playing the violent games would misbehave. There was also no evidence of a link between between violent games and depression in adolescence. "Our results indicate that playing video games that are more likely to include violent content (i.e., shoot-em-ups) in childhood is weakly associated with an increased risk of conduct disorder in late adolescence," the research paper concluded.

The results are the latest in a growing body of evidence that disconnects misplaced fears of violent games causing children to grow up with violent tendencies.

In April an Oxford University study found that violent video games were no more likely to damage the behaviour of young children than other types of games. The research, which was focussed on primary school children in the UK, said the length the games were played for was more likely to have an impact than the type of game.

A previous longterm US study looked deeper into the issue and found that there was no link between violent games and behaviour. It also criticised previous studies which it claimed used flawed methodologies. The study, which was completed in 2014, concluded by saying that the ongoing media discussion around violence and video games was "distract[ing] society" from more important issues.

Following the large-scale hack of internet service provider TalkTalk a teenager who played violent games was arrested in connection with the hack. Media reports about the teen, who has since been bailed, drew links between games he was playing and the crime he was accused of. Members of the UK gaming industry hit back at the reports saying there was "no link between addiction or antisocial behaviour" and playing games in a "balanced" way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Violent games have 'weak' impact on kids' behaviour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is only a weak link between children who play violent video games and those who grow up with violent tendencies, another research paper has claimed. The research, from a group of UK-based academics, looked at 1,800 children involved in the longterm Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.

# data[].attributes.headline
Google is donating 25,000 Chromebooks to help refugees in Germany	

# data[].attributes.subject
Google is donating 25,000 Chromebooks to help refugees in Germany	

# data[].attributes.body
The tech giant has just announced a $5.3 million donation to various nonprofits throughout Germany, which will help them distribute chromebooks to refugees seeking to “reconnect".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ever-fickle news cycle may have already phased out much of the refugee crisis in Europe, but it would appear that it's still fresh on Google's mind. On Monday, the tech giant announced a $5.3 million donation to various nonprofits throughout Germany, which will help them distribute 25,000 Chromebooks to refugees seeking to "reconnect." The grant comes from Google.org, the company's nonprofit venture, and seeks "to facilitate easier access to education" for the thousands of displaced individuals that have established a new home in a new country.
This is by no means the first move Google has made to aid in the ongoing crisis overseas. Four months ago, the Silicon Valley firm set up a fundraising campaign to help refugees, and promised to match the $5.5 million donated by individuals during the drive. Soon thereafter, the company created the Crisis Info Hub, an open-source platform that provides practical yet crucial information to migrants, including lodging, transportation, and other logistical information.

These, Google noted, were the most basic steps the company needed to take in addressing the problem. "As they make it through a dangerous journey, the first thing refugees need is to find shelter, food and access to care," wrote Jacquelline Fuller, director of Google.org, in an official blog post. "But soon enough, they have to learn the local language, acquire skills to work in a new country, and figure out a way to continue their studies - all in an effort to reclaim and reconnect with the lives they had before." And to assist in that reclamation process will be tens of thousands of Chromebooks.

These cost-effective laptops, Fuller says, ideally serve their intended educational purpose. Not only can they easily run education or language learning applications, but they're also automatically updated with the latest features, apps, and virus protection. And moreover, Fuller adds, "they can be configured and managed by a central administrator (in this case the nonprofits) to offer relevant programs, content and materials depending on the situation."

By March, Google hopes, the first Chromebooks will have arrived, and will begin helping the refugees establish a more complete sense of belonging in their new homes.

Editors' Recommendations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google Donates 25,000 Chromebooks, $5.3M To Refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ever-fickle news cycle may have already phased out much of the refugee crisis in Europe, but it would appear that it's still fresh on Google's mind. On Monday, the tech giant announced a $5.3 million donation to various nonprofits throughout Germany, which will help them distribute 25,000 Chromebooks to refugees seeking to "reconnect."

# data[].attributes.body
Harvard are aiming to be the first to generate Al; a computerised brain which is jut as fast as proficient as the real thing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Harvard University has been awarded $28 million (£19m) to investigate why brains are so much better at learning and retaining information than artificial intelligence. The award, from the Intelligence Advanced Projects Activity (IARPA), could help make AI systems faster, smarter and more like human brains.

While many computers have a comparable storage capacity, their ability to recognise patterns and learn information does not match the human brain. But a better understanding of how neurons are connected could help develop more complex artificial intelligence.

Most neuroscientists estimate that the 'storage capacity' for the human brain ranges between 10 and 100 terabytes, with some evaluations putting the number at close to 2.5 petabytes. In terms of functionality, the human brain has a huge range -- data analysis, pattern recognition and an ability to learn and retain information are just a few processes the brain goes through on a daily basis.

A human being only need look at a car a few times to recognise one, but an AI system may need to process hundreds or even thousands of samples before it's able to retain the information. Conversely, while functionality may be more complex and varied, the human brain is unable to process the same volume of data as a computer.

Harvard's John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), Centre for Brain Studies (CBS) and Department of Molecular and Cellular Biologies will work together to record activity inside the visual cortex. This, they hope, will help us understand how neurons are connected to each other with the end goal of creating a more accurate and complex artificial intelligence system. These learnings could allow the creation of the first computer systems that can interpret, analyse and learn information as quickly and successfully as human beings.

The systems could be used to detect network invasions, read MRIs, drive cars, or complete just about any task normally reserved for human brains. The project will generate over a petabyte of data, which will be analysed by a series of complex algorithms to create a detailed 3D neural map.

at Harvard. "The project is not only pushing the boundaries of brain science, it is also pushing the boundaries of what is possible in computer science. We will reconstruct neural circuits at an unprecedented level from petabytes of structural and functional data. It requires us to make new advances in data management, high-performance computing, computer vision and network analysis".

Once the detailed neural map has been collated, the teams will try to understand exactly how connections between neurons allows the system to process information. These 'biologically-inspired' algorithms will far outperform current AI capabilities, and could see major improvements in computer vision, navigation and recognition. "This is a moonshot challenge," said project leader David Cox, assistant professor of molecular and cellular biology and computer science. "The scientific value of recording the activity of so many neurons and mapping their connections alone is enormous, but that is only the first half of the project. "As we figure out the fundamental principles governing how the brain learns, it's not hard to imagine that we'll eventually be able to design computer systems that can match, or even outperform, humans."

"We have a huge task ahead of us in this project, but at the end of the day, this research will help us understand what is special about our brains," he added. "One of the most exciting things about this project is that we are working on one of the great remaining achievements for human knowledge -- understanding how the brain works at a fundamental level."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harvard is trying to build an AI as fast as the human brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harvard University has been awarded $28 million (£19m) to investigate why brains are so much better at learning and retaining information than artificial intelligence. The award, from the Intelligence Advanced Projects Activity (IARPA), could help make AI systems faster, smarter and more like human brains.

# data[].attributes.headline
genetically modified "autistic monkeys" - animal cruelty or scientific research?

# data[].attributes.subject
genetically modified "autistic monkeys" - animal cruelty or scientific research?

# data[].attributes.body
hasn't technology just fuelled the speciesism debate and allowed humans to let their ego get the best of them, by self-allowing themselves to reach the top of the eco chain, or is technology instead just aiding "survival or the fittest"?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shanghai Institute for Biological Sciences

Scientists in China have genetically modified monkeys to give them autism in an experiment they hope will allow them to find better treatment for human sufferers of the condition.

The Shanghai Institute for Biological Sciences has generated more than twelve macaque monkeys with the genetic error that causes autistic features in humans, it reported, including repetitive speech and restricted interests.

Autism in humans, which is normally present from childhood, is characterised by difficulties communicating with other people, as well as struggling with language, speech and abstract concepts. According to the National Autistic Society, around 1 in 100 people have autism in the UK.

The macaques, who have extra copies of the MECP2 gene, display many of these characteristics -- pacing, moving in circles and low levels of interaction with other monkeys. They are also more anxious when researchers entered the cage, and showed signs of violence, anxiety and fear when challenged or looked in the eye. This, researchers say, "echoes the problems human children with the gene defect" have.

Although no one mutation causes autism, researchers believe that common circuits in the brain are affected. By watching the monkeys' behaviour, and by imaging their brains, the team hope to identify some of these circuits. They'll also be testing different forms of treatment -- deep-brain stimulation, to alleviate symptoms, and CRISPR genome editing in an attempt to reverse the genetic error.

The model isn't perfect, however -- the monkeys don't exhibit many symptoms that human sufferers do, such as seizures, and the repetitive circling that the monkeys engage in has no human analog. But the team are hopeful. "The monkeys show very similar behaviour to human autism patients," said lead researcher Zilong Qiu. "We think it provides a very unique model."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Autistic' monkeys created in Chinese lab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists in China have genetically modified monkeys to give them autism in an experiment they hope will allow them to find better treatment for human sufferers of the condition. The Shanghai Institute for Biological Sciences has generated more than twelve macaque monkeys with the genetic error that causes autistic features in humans, it reported, including repetitive speech and restricted interests.

# data[].attributes.body
impact of virtual reality gaming on cinemas and film viewings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was taken from The WIRED World in 2016 -- our fourth annual trends report, a standalone magazine in which our network of expert writers and influencers predicts what's coming next. Be the first to read WIRED's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online.
So far, the rise of virtual reality (VR) has been driven by video games. Sony's PlayStation VR and HTC's Vive, made in partnership with Valve, are built by gaming companies; Palmer Luckey built the first Oculus Rift for gaming (and recently partnered with Xbox). But in 2016, as VR headsets become available to consumers -- starting with Oculus in Q1 -- other forms of entertainment will begin to break through. The most significant: film (no, not the adult kind). Not everyone plays games, but many go to the cinema and a majority watch TV. If VR is to reach mass adoption, it will be filmed content, rather than gaming, that fuels it.

Hollywood has been slowly catching on to the potential of VR. Major studios, from Fox to Paramount, have experimented with the form through tie-ins to established franchises, from Interstellar to Game of Thrones. So far, few have been more than stunts. But with VR headset sales predicted to hit 12.2 million in 2016, according to investment bank Piper Jaffray, the industry is now taking it seriously. Head to major film festivals such as Sundance or Tribeca and you'll see scores of executives donning headsets to watch innovative, high-quality content being produced by indie filmmakers. VR tech companies have recognised the importance of video: in January 2015, Oculus launched its Story Studio, helmed by a former Pixar director, to produce film content for the platform. "Film is an antiquated term. We call them 'experiences'," says Chris Milk, founder of LA-based VR production company VRSE.works. An artist and film-maker, Milk was an early innovator in VR cinema, having produced an acclaimed music video for Beck's "Sound and Vision". Taken by the form, he founded VRSE.works, which produces VR content for companies including Vice and NBC. A typical VRSE.works film is a thrilling experience: take Walking New York, a nine-minute documentary produced for The New York Times about the French street artist JR. The short opens with the viewer sat face-to-face with the artist in his studio; as JR speaks, the viewer is free to gaze around at his work littering the space. Later, you experience a 360 ° time-lapse shot from the centre of Times Square, as if reality is warped and distorted.

At its best, film-making for virtual reality is a giddying experience: in another of Milk's films, Evolution of Verse, the viewer is approached by an onrushing train. Watch someone viewing the scene for the first time to demonstrate the power of virtual reality: some flinch, others yell. (The fear is unfounded; at the moment of impact, the train explodes into a dazzling shower of birds.) "You can't make somebody's stomach spin with a traditional film," Milk says. "We're really playing with it. We're using how it makes you feel physically to tie in with how you feel about a character."

Film-makers are also coming to terms with VR's early limitations -- for example, the frequent problem of content inducing motion sickness. "Your vestibular system registers acceleration and deceleration, but it doesn't tell you when you're already moving, which is why you can sit on an aeroplane and feel fine," says Milk. As such, VRSE.works' films now use steady, slow tracking shots, rather than the jerky cuts typical of cinema blockbusters.

Such physical experiences are profoundly different to traditional cinema -- and exciting for film-makers. "You can imagine a horror movie, for example, being a very powerful experience," says Jens Christensen, co-founder of VR startup Jaunt, which produces camera systems for VR and partners with film studios to produce content. "Nature is a great example -- feeling transported to a dangerous environment where you wouldn't normally want to be, but the camera can be there, so you get up close and personal."

VR cinema will only reach its potential if the medium can attract the quality of storytellers that cinema does. As such, VRSE.works has partnered with Annapurna Pictures founder Megan Ellison, producer of Oscar-nominated films from Zero Dark Thirty to American Hustle, to create VRSE.farm, a lab that will help both established storytellers and first-time directors create content in the form. (Among the creatives involved is director Spike Jonze.) "We're having conversations with very notable film-makers, teaching them what we've learned," Milk says.

The physical challenges of shooting for virtual reality also present a set of previously unknown challenges: you can't have a traditional set when you can see in 360°. "It's learning things like, you can't have a dolly track underneath you in a VR shot, because you can look down," Milk says. Although early VR films were typically shot using cubes of GoPros, startups such as Jaunt now sell 360° camera arrays and binaural microphones.

Some hurdles, such as the sheer amount of data involved -- from the rendering process to content delivery -- will be harder to overcome. "Not only is the capture and post-production of the content hard, but so is the delivery, as the data for even a short immersive piece is huge," says Simon Robinson, chief technology officer for The Foundry, which produces digital tools for film-makers. But other challenges, such as developing industry-wide standards with several big players entering the market, are more modest, says Christensen. "If you think about what IMAX had to do, not only did it have to build cameras and create content, it had to build theatres," he explains. "Thankfully we don't have to -- the goggles will already be out there, driven at first by gaming." "Right now there's not a mass audience you can monetise content to," Milk says. "But you'll start to see what feels like mass adoption towards the end of 2016, as everyone brings their content to market. Then things will begin to get exciting for us."

One thing that remains to be seen is how content will be consumed in VR; going to the cinema is a social experience, rarely a solitary one. "We do think the social experience is important -- and that's why it's a great validation point that Facebook bought Oculus," Christensen says. "We think it'll start with people watching in your living room, but potentially in the future you might go to a place like a movie theatre and watch it with others."

One thing film-makers are clear on: although VR is certainly the future, don't expect it to replace the big screen. "It's not going to replace TV or movies. It's a new medium," says Christensen. Milk agrees. "It's like the beginning of cinema," says Milk. "The potential for storytellers is amazing."
Oliver Franklin-Wallis is assistant editor at WIRED, and edits Play, its culture, entertainment and arts section

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Virtual reality will transform cinema in 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article was taken from The WIRED World in 2016 -- our fourth annual trends report, a standalone magazine in which our network of expert writers and influencers predicts what's coming next. Be the first to read WIRED's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online.

# data[].attributes.body
vine is now one of the most popular short video/clips sharing platform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vine turns three years old on January 24. As a part of its third anniversary, it released a list of the most-looped videos on its network as well as the biggest trends it saw over its past 12 months. While other platforms use the number of views (Facebook) or watch time (YouTube) as metrics, Vine essentially scores videos based on the number of times they are looped. These were the ones that people watched over and over.

Vine also compiled the biggest trends from its last year.

Vine added remixing tools this year to try to further encourage what people are already doing. While these weren't the most-looped Vines, they were the ones that sparked entire memes and movements;. These were the Vines that were imitated until they became genres unto themselves.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These Were The Biggest Videos And Trends Of Vine's Past Year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vine turns three years old on January 24. As a part of its third anniversary, it released a list of the most-looped videos on its network as well as the biggest trends it saw over its past 12 months.

# data[].attributes.body
what do you include in your profile to attract people?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 Bizarre Tinder Bios That'll Make You Swipe Left

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Hobbies include: Collecting toenail clippings for my rituals."

# data[].attributes.headline
stealing real-life idenitities became a "game" online, for a very shortlived time.

# data[].attributes.subject
stealing real-life idenitities became a "game" online, for a very shortlived time.

# data[].attributes.body
was your twitter profile safe?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The app is no longer available in the App Store. We've heard everyone's concerns and have decided the best thing to do is to shut down.

Stolen, an iOS game that shot to viral popularity in recent weeks, and which let Twitter users "own" each other, has shut down.

The game was simple: You could use virtual in-game currency to buy other Twitter profiles and hold them until someone else paid more for them. By default it included every Twitter profile not just people who were actually playing. Once you paid for a profile, the app would notify you that you "own" it - since most profiles are people this meant that it was typically using language notifying players that they owned another person. But players did not get to keep profiles once purchased, they could be "stolen" - the namesake of the game - by any other player who had enough to pay for the profile in question. To get more money (and thus steal and own more profiles) players could exchange real money for in-game currency.

The app's viral popularity was bolstered by its sparsely-worded, mysterious app store description and a sense of exclusivity - new players needed an invite code to join the game, unless already verified on Twitter.

It was to some extent its vocabulary - "owning" and "stealing" people that exist in the real world, without their permission or even knowledge that the game existed - that appears to have prompted Stolen's shutdown. Gadgette's Holly Brockwell complained on Wednesday that her Twitter persona was being swapped by strangers without her permission, echoing a host of complaints for the game's basic premise, and published a damning interview with its creator.

My letter 2 Twitter &amp; Apple abt my concerns w/ "Stolen!" - an app that enables online abusers 2 "own" ppl's profiles

In an interview conducted Thursday morning - before the shutdown - Siqi Chen, Stolen's 32-year-old founder, told BuzzFeed that his staff was "scrambling" to update the app in light of complaints from users that it created a venue for harassment. Chen noted that Stolen had just made some semantic tweaks to its UI today; instead of "owning" other players, users could only "steal" their profiles.

"We threw it on Product Hunt on New Year's Eve and we expected maybe 500 people to download it," he said. "It was not at all ready for general public consumption [when it went viral]."

"We take responsibility for these problems," Chen said of the complaints. "It's our product. We put it out there, and it got viral and out of control."

Following the announcement that Stolen was being removed from the App Store, BuzzFeed again reached out to Chen to see what drove the decision.

"It's just the right thing to do," he said via text message. "Whatever our intentions are, our perception and perceived harm has been out there and we didn't see any quick fix to make sure people are and feel safe."

The company announced that refunds would be available through Apple.

If you have done IAPs, refunds are available through iTunes. We appreciate all the support but shutting down the right thing to do right now

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stolen, an iOS game that shot to viral popularity in recent weeks, and which let Twitter users "own" each other, has shut down. The game was simple: You could use virtual in-game currency to buy other Twitter profiles and hold them until someone else paid more for them.

# data[].attributes.body
was the internet not created to just look at cats?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Want to take your relationship to the next level? Then why not start speaking your cat's language with Feliway.

Feliway is a synthetic pheromone that's identical to the pheromones your own cat secretes to make itself feel at home.

A surefire way to make your cat a very happy one! Visit www.feliway.co.uk to find out more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 GIFs That Perfectly Sum Up Cat Ownership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Feliway is a synthetic pheromone that's identical to the pheromones your own cat secretes to make itself feel at home. A surefire way to make your cat a very happy one! Visit www.feliway.co.uk to find out more.

# data[].attributes.body
Obama becomes the first sitting president to join snapchat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just in time for President Obama's final State of the Union address, the White House will join Snapchat Monday, BuzzFeed News has learned. The username is "WhiteHouse."

In 2015, Obama became the first sitting president to get a Twitter feed and his own Facebook page. And now he's on Snapchat.

Critics have complained the administration uses social media tools to go around the traditional press corps. The White House regularly uses Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Vine, and Instagram to publish exclusive content about the presidency - and Snapchat will be no different.

"Tomorrow, our Official Story will take you behind the scenes of the White House's State of the Union preparations, with footage and angles you won't find anywhere else," Josh Miller, Obama administration director of product management, wrote in the White House blog post making the Snapchat announcement. The blog post was obtained by BuzzFeed News ahead of the official rollout.

"In light of the number of Americans who use the service to consume news and share with their friends, the White House is joining Snapchat to engage this broad cross-section of the population in new and creative ways," Goldman wrote.

This year's State of the Union will be available on demand for free on Amazon Video. George W. Bush was the first president to stream the address live; Obama will be the first to have his State of the Union available as an on-demand video.

Snapchat, theoretically the least permanent social media platform, won't pose problems for White House archivists, an official told BuzzFeed News.

Pool / Getty Images

"With Snapchat as with other social accounts, we'll be fully compliant with PRA requirements, saving and preserving snaps for archives," the official said. "Occasionally that content may find its way onto other platforms, but you shouldn't expect all of the Snapchat content to live somewhere on our website."

Will there be presidential snaps?

Maybe not on the day of the State of the Union Tuesday, but "stay tuned for the president's participation down the line," the White House official said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2015, Obama became the first sitting president to get a Twitter feed and his own Facebook page. And now he's on Snapchat. Critics have complained the administration uses social media tools to go around the traditional press corps.

# data[].attributes.body
what other jobs/occupations in the near future wil be taken over by robots?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Robots have taken over lots of dangerous, repetitive jobs that used to be done by humans, such as putting together cars or sorting packages. But for the most part, they haven't replaced butchers, many thousands of which staff beef-packing plants all over the world. That may soon change, however-in November, JBS, the Brazilian company that is the world's largest producer of meat, bought a majority share of Scott Technology, a New Zealand company that specializes in industrial robots. The collaboration might make beef-chopping robots feasible, as NPR reports. That would provide respite for workers in dangerous jobs and might eventually save the companies money in the process.

Though robots have taken over butchering most of the billions of chickens processed in factories every year, the same hasn't happened for beef. Butchering cows requires fine-motor skills that robots simply don't yet have. No two cows are alike, so butchers have to feel the carcass to divvy up the proper cuts of meat. Cutting into the bone can lead to the spread of disease, like Mad Cow; cutting too far from it leaves meat behind, costing the company money. The butchering robots already developed rely upon vision, usually in the form of 3D scans. But without a sense of touch, JBS representatives tell NPR, those robots aren't equipped for beef.

Neither JBS nor Scott Technology has disclosed just how they will make a beef-cutting robot, but presumably it would have some way for the robot to feel or image the different consistencies of bone, tendon, and muscle on the animal.

Some workers and economically minded people might be upset about the continuous wave of automation that is changing many industries, but it's better for workers to turn over jobs in meatpacking plants to robots. The meatpacking industry puts workers at serious risk, as it has for centuries; workers experience "exposure to high noise levels, dangerous equipment, slippery floors, musculoskeletal disorders, and hazardous chemicals (including ammonia that is used as a refrigerant)," according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Human Rights Watch notes that workers often receive, "cuts, amputations, skin disease, permanent arm and shoulder damage, and even death from the force of repeated hard cutting motions," with little to no compensation for their injuries.

For now, workers are still better beef butchers than robots, and they're less expensive for companies to employ. That doesn't look like it will change in the immediate future. But as robotic technology advances, the shift towards robotic butchers may not be far behind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Robots have taken over lots of dangerous, repetitive jobs that used to be done by humans, such as putting together cars or sorting packages. But for the most part, they haven't replaced butchers, many thousands of which staff beef-packing plants all over the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
technology has opened a new platform for making education accessible to disabled individuals.

# data[].attributes.subject
technology has opened a new platform for making education accessible to disabled individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
interesting read which considers one of the potential positives to the ever-growing technological world and it's impact on those with disabilities and accessibility to education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are over 11 million people with a limiting long-term illness, impairment or disability in the UK. Many of them are using educational resources and completing university courses. Universities have a responsibility to provide these students, and all students, with the necessary learning materials regardless of their accessibility needs.

It is here, in the place where educational resources and students with disabilities intersect, that technology has a vital role to play. Technology could operate as the great equaliser. It could - and indeed, it should - help move all students towards a level playing field. This is particularly true in when it comes to learning resources, and specifically textbooks.

Textbooks are core to the university learning experience, yet for students with disabilities, particularly those with visual impairments, they can be a challenge. Static print sizes, outdated tools to translate print to speech, and complicated page layout and design can make it harder for those with a disability. This in turn impacts on the quality of their educational experience.

A study conducted by the Higher Education Academy among students in the UK indicated that resources are a common issue affecting the happiness of disabled students.

Consider another statistic: according to the Office for Disability Issues, disabled people are around three times less likely to hold any qualifications than non-disabled people, and around half as likely to hold a degree-level qualification. A total of 19.2% of working-age disabled people do not hold any formal qualification.

Technology can change things. One area in which this is true is e-textbooks, the digital representation of a print text. In the shift from print textbooks to e-textbooks, accessibility can be moved to another level. Suddenly text isn't an unchangeable object; it can be scaled up or down depending on the student's needs. Images can be read aloud through tagging tools. Access to print-fidelity page images means students can follow along in lectures page by page. Simultaneously, access to text representation (suited to screen readers and text-to-speech software) means students can adjust their e-textbook according to their needs.

Through technology, learning is becoming increasingly flexible. It can move outside the lecture hall, on to podcasts, and across devices, becoming available anywhere and at any time. The Higher Education Academy noted that students with disabilities have a need for flexibility. Technology can help provide this. Students no longer have to carry around heavy textbooks. Nor do they have to go physically to the library or bookshop to access learning materials.

Resources such as e-textbooks have taken off in the past few years. In the US, the Student E-rent Pilot Project (STEPP) programme offers e-textbooks specifically modified for accessibility, in support of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504. A survey of 1,185 students found that 77% reported having saved money by renting their textbooks, and 80% who needed an accessible textbook were satisfied with the quality of accessibility.

It's only a matter of time before similar technological developments happen in the UK. Over the past few years, concerns about the student experience for individuals with disabilities have grown. Today's students are paying more than ever for a university education. This is impacting on enrolment figures (while Ucas reports a small increase this year, following the slump in enrolment in 2012, application rates remain well down on 2011, the year before the hike in tuition fees). It is also turning students into "university consumers", who expect more resources for their increased fees.

Higher tuition fees and a growing awareness of disabilities will drive developments in technological resources. Yet there's another dimension to consider: in an era of increased fees, affordable educational resources are key. All students are concerned to find savings. Students with print-related disabilities should be able to enjoy the cost-saving benefits made possible by online learning materials. They also should be able to access the countless digital efficiencies of these resources, the types that their peers have enjoyed for years.

While technological advances have been happening, there is still more to be done. Universities, companies, and e-textbook providers need to emphasise low-barrier, commercial alternatives for all higher education accessibility needs. They need to aim to provide industry-leading access to all subject areas, including Stem subjects.

Providers need to go beyond content access and come up with more universal design study tools that assist all students. Technology has helped increase accessibility in universities, but there is still a way to go.

* Fionnuala Duggan is managing director for CourseSmart International, where she oversees its e-textbook platform and digital course material for international markets.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Technology makes higher education accessible to disabled students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are over 11 million people with a limiting long-term illness, impairment or disability in the UK. Many of them are using educational resources and completing university courses. Universities have a responsibility to provide these students, and all students, with the necessary learning materials regardless of their accessibility needs.