Is it the end of the internet as we know it?

The Internet has only existed since the 1970's -- and now it's starting to see its limits. A lot of people think "the Internet has a limit?" Oh yes. It might be just a free-for-all source of media, but there are only so many IP addresses one can think of before it gets to be too much.

Those researching the matter say that within 18 months, the number of avaliable IP addresses will decrease significantly, to the point where the Internet may not be able to expand anymore. That doesn't mean it will cease to work completely -- good God, the world would come to an end if that were the case -- it just means that it would make it very difficult for new content to appear and limit new devices. There is a solution though! Right now, most of the world runs on the IPv4, Internet Protocol Addressing Scheme version 4. This is what provides avaliable addresses for new sites, approximately 4 billion of them. The proposed cure is to move over to IPv6, which has trillions of address ready for use. However, adaptation to this protocol has proven to be a little difficult, which may cause a technology crunch.

It's an idea -- a good one -- but it all depends if people want to act now while there's still a chance -- or face an excruciationg Internet crunch in the future. It's one of those situations where it has a simple solution, but people may not have the patience for it. But it is a simple solution: basically update the internet; that much I like. However, if the switch to IPv6 is slow and causes problems for the world society, I fear people will reject the idea and end up bringing the Internet to a stalemate.

Link to the original article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/27/internet.crunch.2012/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

30 Years of Pac-man

Everyone from the 1980's and later can recognize the ever-reminiscent "wakka wakka wakka", colorful ghosts and fruits, and the simple, pellet-eating yellow circle known as PAC-MAN.

Today is the 30 year anniversary of the loveable arcade character that is not only the single most sold coin-operated game, but also the most memorable. Parents, and maybe even grandparents can remember playing this game when it came out. "Pac-Man was licensed for distribution in the U.S. by Midway, a division of Bally, and it reached American shores in October 1980, at a time when shooter games such as Space Invaders ruled the arcades.
Its light-hearted originality and simplicity -- players needed only to move a joystick -- made it an immediate hit. Some speculated that Pac-Man became popular in bars in part because gamers needed only one hand to play and could hold a drink in the other. In the first 15 months after its release in the U.S., Namco sold more than 100,000 arcade units, while fans spent more than $1 billion in quarters to fuel what would become known as "Pac-Man fever."

Truly, this is a milestone of rememberance for the popular arcade character. Without him as the face of arcade gaming, it was doubtful the industry would've been as popular as it was. Asteroids is a close second, but everyone who's anyone knows Pac-man by face, color, sound, and name. And it was a nice touch, for anyone that noticed, that Google changed their logo to a fully-functioning Pac-man replica. Let's just say that I not only wasted more time in class than I ever have before -- but I also got a personal highscore. (I was only sad that it could not be saved for later play.)

Link to the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/21/pac-man.game.anniversary/index.html

Advertising is cheap!

If there's a story a person should follow, it's the story of Alec Brownstein. He was just another guy looking to find a better job. So what's the best way to find a new job? Why, Google of course!

It was simply really: Alec was fond of Googling his favorite creative directors, and found that they had no sponsers linked to their names. So, he purchased Google AdWords attached to their names for mere pennies to have this message display at the top of the page whenever someone searched one of the creative directors' names:

"Hey, [creative director's name]: Goooogling [sic] yourself is a lot of fun. Hiring me is fun, too" (which linked to his site, alecbrownstein.com)

After a few months, he recieved multiple calls from almost every single director and was offered two jobs. ...How much did this endeavor cost? 6 dollars.

I must say that this guy definitely knows his audience. Most people wouldn't think to do something so strange as to buy ads on Google for the people they idolized. But, as Alec states, "Don't be afraid to put yourself out there in an interesting way," he said. "The people who you want to work for can't hire you any less than they already are. So shoot for the moon." Maybe next summer, it wouldn't hurt to buy some ads for Disney and Dreamworks and hope for a job!

Link to the original article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/14/google.job/index.html

The anti-gay rights activist gone...gay?

George Rekers. Not the most popular name out, certainly not bigger than Lady Gaga and such -- but it might just become very famous very fast.

As Rekers was returning from Europe, the anti-gay rights activist was seen returning with a male escort. And of course, the first assumption is: Rekers is gay himself. And his resignation from NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) only put more gas on that gossip flame. But that's far from what Rekers is saying. "I am immediately resigning my membership in NARTH to allow myself the time necessary to fight the false media reports that have been made against me," Rekers said in a statement posted on the group's website. "With the assistance of a defamation attorney, I will fight these false reports because I have not engaged in any homosexual behavior whatsoever." However, after interviews with the male escort -- his name has been changed to Lucien for protection -- it's being suggested that Rekers is just trying to cover up the fact that he is indeed homosexual.


It is a little odd that such a prominent member in the anti-gay movement would turn gay, so I honestly don't believe that his relationship with his male escort was anything more than him carrying cases and being a masseur. The modern media is just quick to make assumptions for the "gossip dollars" it brings.

Link to the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/12/anit.gay.activist.resigns/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Of course Facebook makes you happy!

Facebook dominates the web when it comes to social media. A few years ago, Myspace was the big thing -- but hey, let's be honest, when you mention Myspace, you're mostly likely to get the response, "Myspace? What's that?" So, it only makes sense that people from all across the spectrum utilize this ever-expanding social network. And now, they have an app that judges how happy you are.

Facebook created an app called "Gross National Happiness" that analyzes Facebook updates and judges certain words to determine how happy you are through the year. Most of the results have been fairly obvious: more happy around good events like holidays and Super Bowl time and less happy when bad things happen like Micheal Jackson dying. But, it's a step forward in determining the general happiness of Facebook users. They've now extended the list to 18 countries, including U.S., Canada, India, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Italy, Chile, Uruguay, Spain, Mexico, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Ireland, Venezuela and Colombia.

How lovely. Facebook is getting even more popular. Sadly, I'm not a huge Facebook user or a fan. In fact, I got a Facebook, and I hardly touch the thing. To be honest, I don't see where all this hype is coming from. Major social networking sites are just a little too revealing sometimes. And although I do find this app idea very interesting from a social and techonological standpoint, it just gives people even more advantage to stalk other people on Facebook.

Link to the original article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/06/facebook.happiness.mashable/index.html

Is this what you imagined?

Make sure you double-check where you send Grandma after she dies. Apparently, not everyone in the funeral home business follows the rules.

Investigators revoked a Maryland funeral home's license when they discovered a very gruesome sight in the garage: piles of dead bodies in body bags oozing bodily fluids. They were supposeded to be awaiting cremation and this is where they were stored instead. Some of these bodies were also donated to a university for scientific reasons, says Hari Close, president of the State Board of Morticians and Funeral Directors.

I think I can speak for many when I say that what Chambers Funeral Home & Crematorium did was wrong on so many levels. Not only it is unethical to just leave bodies lie in a garage unprotected and unpreserved in any way, knowing they are somebody's loved ones, but it's very disgusting to have them rot that much. It's a health hazard at that point. And what's more, "when invesigators inspected the funeral home they were warned by an employee, who told them, "Don't get upset about all the bodies in there," according to documents released by the state funeral board." Ummmm....yeah, when the employees aren't disturbed by rotting corpses in the back room, something's wrong.

Link to the original article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/05/maryland.funeral.home/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Supreme Court and Video Games: How Far Will It Go?

For a while now, people have wondered if video games are the reason we have more murderers, rapists, and crime in our society. (As if skewed mass media, corruption of power and recession wasn't enough to make that happen.) Apparently, it's bad enough to rope in the Supreme Court.

A Californian law banning minors from buying explict computers games was accepted for appeal to the Supreme Court. Many argued that it may be too restricting to freedom of speech; others, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, think that it's a step in the right direction to protect our kids. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions, just as we already do with movies," the governor said.

The hype of "violent video games" has been in debate since their creation. Legit studies show that video games causes kids to become aggressive, anti-social, and dehumanized from violence in real-life. However, as a gamer myself who has definitely played violent games like GTA, I say that is true -- until it wears off. Most of those side effects are only temporary. And it's like that for all games, not just the super violent ones. I've seen my little 9-year old nephew get angry at Wii Play. WII PLAY. Not Halo or Call of Duty, WII PLAY. The most non-violent game on earth. Frustration and concentration = "being aggressive". But when you're done playing, you're done being angry and you MOVE ON.

According to Bill Mears, writer of this article, "The legislation was designed to strengthen the current rating system, and would have placed an outright ban on the sale or rental to those under 18 of games deemed excessively violent." ....Do they not do this already? Games rated M (Mature) and AO (Adult Only) by the ESRB are already restricted to 18 and older. You can't buy them at retail stores without a photo I.D. And nine times out of ten, these are also the games that are "excessively violent." So why is the Supreme Court stating the obvious? It just seems like a waste of legislation. If parents are so worried about their kids being exposed to "bad content", then they should control it. Because ten bucks says Joe isn't buying Dante's Inferno for his thirteenth birthday because he can. It's because mom and dad are buying it for him.

Link to the original article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/26/scotus.violent.video.games/index.html

Link to a related blog:

http://jamiescurrenteventsblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/high-court-accepts-case-over-violent.html?showComment=1272460878296_AIe9_BHxKTNSX2vlnkDhgEj8vpL8MA1ejkYnihon6_porlDFqwy-QB6C0gktNqB5WNSFwnVBz9f5S1oBB3TC_aI8Hs6JqBv30YBwK2IhM6KC5tAo5wCSNUjSGSAc5J0g3DoyNRFrKLd5b2ftdXvpgSy9FyF0cNf8Jx0Jgfn1D6Es0acCO3r-SWe14ZRmEY-Xu4Mu5H9DyVSxkIoX9bqQpzhP7TLPfeinc9B-l6qSHnf8b1sY0ZpQYo0i99DhztKftYQ9n-jxdlug#c3312659066889518567

All Fast Food is the Same

McDonald's and Burger King have always been long rivals. Both the burger joints try to sell cheap food to the masses. They boast different qualities that make them famous. Most teens that I've overheard say "Burger King's burgers taste good, but McDonald's fries are better." Same food, different price. Is it the same now for the famous McMuffin?

If you've watched T.V., chances are you've seen the commerical where the Burger King is breaking into the McDonald's corporation building and stealing the blueprints to the Sausage and Egg McMuffin. Obviously, that's what Burger King has done. They've made themselves more identical to their competitor. But isn't McDonald's mad? The McMuffin is their trademark! Actually, that's not the case. "We haven't received any direct feedback from competitors," said Brian Gries, Burger King's vice president of marketing impact.

To be honest, this is just a public example of businesses assimilating their products. Sure, Burger King is producing a new menu item to make themselves more popular, to give BK quality to a McDonald's product. But you don't think McDonald's isn't getting a little publicity out of this too? With the release of the commercial, people will begin to "pick sides" whether they like the BK version or the original McMuffin, just like the choose sides with the patties and fries. I already know I like the Sausage and Egg McMuffin. In fact, I just had it the other day! I think that's as far as I'll get into the subject though.

Link to the original article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/17/copycat.foods/index.html

Healthcare: Did They Get it Right This Time?

It's the biggest issue currently. Do Americans really want to have centralized healthcare, or should we just keep it the way it has been? Well, President Obama has been trying to encourage the universal healthcare bill since he became President. Many have opposed it--mainly conservatives and Republicans. But what's the situation right now?

For those that don't know, that bill is starting to make leeway. As of Thursday, the House passed a bill that "fixes" the broader healthcare reform that Obama released the Tuesday before. Most of the changes in the bill were regarding the Medicare and Medicaid taxes and such. As the article puts it, "The Democrats' fixes bill was necessary to get a reluctant House to pass the Senate's health care reform measure unchanged."

And in a way, that is completely true. The minority party here is just dead-set in seeing that this bill fails. While I think the coverage that the universal healthcare bill entails is a bit of overkill, I think it could prove to be beneficial in the long run. Sure, kids my age won't get individual health insurance, but it isn't necessary. Most kids aren't even out of college until age 22 or so, depending on their degree. And even then, four years ain't a long wait. Additionally, I think a preventitive health care system is smart. Pay to prevent the bad stuff from happen so you don't have to worry about major health problems later. GOOD. And should some major illness or accident happen and it's over a certain amount (I do believe it's $10,000 or something close to that number), then you got the healthcare system paying for it. Everything else: out of your own pocket. But, why worry? If you got the preventitives helping you, you shouldn't get that sick, and therefore don't have to pay as much.

Hey, it's worth a try. It's not like we can get much worse as a nation. And when you can't get and further down, the only way to go...is UP.

Link to the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/health.care.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Red, White, and Rainbow: the Proud Colors of America

The issue of homosexuals is one of the hottest topics in modern America. People question it constantly. Is is moral to be gay? Should they marry? Do they deserve to serve in our military? ...Woah, woah, woah. Okay, that last one doesn't deserve to be questioned. But, our government believes that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy works just fine. Gays can serve, but they aren't allowed to be open about it -- at all. It's all good, right? Not really.

This is why Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated last Thurday that the Pentagon was going to ease up on the policy. Instead of being super strict about the issue -- where if there was even an inkling of a gay in their presence, they would discharger -- they were going to ease it towards a "common sense" view. The level of authority that can make a case against an alleged gay has also been raised so it's less likely to be just a fluke.

To be honest, I think "don't ask, don't tell" is annoying. Sure, as the United States of America, we say that we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion and so forth -- but most of the time, that just seems like a load of bull and loopholes. Homosexuals should have the same amount of rights that everyone else gets, no matter what their viewpoint is. That's why out government allows diversity. ..It's more like "diversity -- with their consent." If homosexuals want to risk their lives for out country, let them. If they want to serve their country and be able to say "I'm proud to be a gay American soldier", let them.

Link to the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/military.gays/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Time-to-celebrate-dot-com.com

Okay, well, it's not necessarily the exact date that the internet was created, but for us, it's still important. On this day - March 15, 1985 - the internet became commericialized to the public. And since commercialization required simplification, they invented the .com ending for public websites. That way, people could access web sites without having to be a computer genius. But the .com was simply the beginning. On this date, the very first dot-com website (Symbolics.com) was created. And now, 25 years later, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation now estimate that there are approx. 80 million dot-com domain names. And most of that growth only appeared in the last 15 years. The world of technology is changing fast -- but today, let us take the time to appreciate the Internet's humble beginnings.

It's hard to fathom that 1) there are that many sites out there, 2) that there was ever a time when .com didn't exist, and 3) it was mostly my generation that caused the boom of internet growth. It always seems like the Internet was this thing that's existed forever, but that's because we grew up with it. That's one of the main reasons why my generation has influenced technology so much. We adapted to it naturally, whereas the generation before us had to learn it the hard way.

Link to the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/03/15/internet.anniversery/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Taking Death Into Your Own Hands

We've all felt a little down before. That's why it's so hard for us to imagine someone feeling so sad

that they feel the need to take their own life. As told in the article CNN put up, Alexis Moore was one of those people society simply ignored, thinking it wasn't a problem. However, she was quite precise in her plan to die. Had it not been for that one kind person (named Ed for confidentiality's sake) and his concern, she would've cried then died.
Nearly one hundred people commit suicide and die on a daily basis, and she was almost one of those statistics. But stated in the article are just a few of the ways you can help out a person who you suspect to be suicidal. While most seem like common sense (be there for them, don't ignore it, etc.), they are simple gestures that could very well remind a person how important they are to others.

Personally, I do know what it's like to be very depressed, almost to the point of wanting to die, but it takes a lot more than just being sad to really be dead set in planning your own death. That what scares me about suicide. You'd almost have to be dehumanized to even consider it. I mean, some suicide cases just seem out-of-the-blue like the "Oh I made one little mistake. Now I must die," sort of situation, but most are really derived from hostile situations like abuse or neglect. If only people could just remember that... And the article's right about one thing: don't ignore it if you know about it. DO SOMETHING. All you really have to do is remind that person that you care. That's all it takes sometimes.

Link to the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/11/save.friend.suicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29