Uh oh, Sony. Get it together.

This post over on Bloomberg discusses very, very low ratings for Sony's stock. Sony, for as big a company as it is, is facing some of the same troubles that plague Microsoft. As consumer technology moves into the devices and services sector, Sony has had trouble keeping up since their flagship products have been in audio, video, digital cameras, and traditional PCs. All of those are being hit hard because of massive marketplace shifts and so much new competition. Their entertainment division isn't doing so well either, although it's on much better footing than electronics.

To be fair to Sony, they are a huge organization and not designed for agile shifts in direction. Additionally, their products, while outstanding in terms of build quality and design, are premium. Apple can afford to do that, Sony can't. They have already scaled back production of TVs, and sold their spectacular building in NYC for over $1 billion. Even with that massive sale, it's a short term solution.

I have faith in Sony. They need to shift into the D&S much more heavily than they are now, and really push their tablets, phones, and even laptops. They're all top-tier products but the company is too big to be kept afloat by TVs and consoles alone.

The value of virtual goods and money.

This is one view of a huge EVE Online battle. I have no idea what's going on.

Two stories for this post that address something we'll be talking about later in the semester; virtual goods that have cost real time and real money, and the very timely topic of security.

The first story involves online game EVE Online that takes place in a vast universe. In this game, players build and pilot ships, mine for materials, form and join alliances and corporations, and engage in space battles. The catch is, everything happens in real time. If something says it will take "3 days" to complete, it will take three actual days. Some things take much longer, up to months. And in a curious twist, in game currency, known as ISK, can be used for real-world items.

Recently, a huge battle erupted in this online universe, over an unpaid in-game bill no less, that is estimated to have cost the equivalent of $500,000 (UPDATE: $570,000). As the article states, one of the consequences of this battle was the destruction of what are known as Titan ships, worth about $3,000 dollars each in terms of time investment, and take real-world months to build. The currency in EVE Online, as is the case with other virtual worlds, has a real-world exchange rate, although much of it is calculated through time invested. Second Life, referenced in the above link, has a virtual economy linked much more closely with the real world. Even so, players take their ISK seriously, with a huge scandal erupting when a 200 billion-ISK heist happened back in 2008.

I am only familiar with EVE Online through third party sources, so if anyone knows more about it be sure to fill us in in the comments!

That sets us up for the next story which is much more serious, and has implications that are much more far-reaching than even outer space, virtual as it may be.

In this case, Twitter user Naoki Hiroshima, whose Twitter handle was the very in-demand '@N,' was subjected to a social-engineering attack. He had been offered as much as $50,000 for that handle in the past, and attempts to steal it have been tried before as well. However when hackers used the very non-technical social-engineering approach, they finally got through. Convincing PayPal to release the last four digits of his credit card number to them, they then used that to take over all his web sites at GoDaddy and held them hostage. In order to get those domains back, he ended up handing over the details for his @N Twitter account.

A full account of the attack, it's resolution, along with an unparalleled and mesmerizing conversation with his attackers, can be found at this link. It's a fascinating, educational, and scary read.

UPDATE: Hmmmm.

The Opera Browser

I know everyone has the browser they prefer, and it's never the Opera browser. Opera is actually *my* browser of choice; I'm using it to type this right now! I'm a big fan of the configurability of it, the speed dial screen that lets you click right to favorited sites, the button that lets you return to Speed Dial from anywhere, the search bar right on the main screen, the discover screen that summarizes news for the day, thumbnails of bookmarked sites (although no organizing those which is frustrating), almost everything about it is a positive for me.

So I saw this article yesterday talking, somewhat snarkily, about an upcoming version release of the browser, and I'm glad to see it is still moving forward considering it's a very small slice of the browser-market pie. Its greatest strides lately have been as Opera mini; an alternative browser for mobile non-Windows platforms such as iOS and Android where it functions very well.

The above image is my own Opera Speed Dial page (I should probably add that other than the two tiles in the center of the first row, the tiles in the top two rows were default). Clicking a tile takes you right to that site, you can add or remove them as you wish, search right from the page, clicking the little grid next to the URL bar takes you back to this page, there's a lot of usability here. You can even change the background image.

I'll assume most of you use one of the big four; Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari. Anyone use anything else? Dolphin, maybe? Or am I the only one in alternate browser section of the party? "Hey look, it's that guy who uses Opera! Lets get him!"

Virtual mannequins!

I never buy clothes online. I rarely buy them in a store, for that matter, but I never buy them online. Why? Because even when buying in a store, everyone seems to size things differently. A small from one brand might fit, whereas the medium for another does the same. There’s even a few larges in my closet.

Many people do buy online, however, and those sites that sell clothes know they have to have a good return policy in case the garment isn’t what someone expected, especially in terms of size. If they don’t, word will spread and they’ll lose customers fast.

Well, problem solved! Over there on the BBC is a story about a new technology called fits.me that allows you to enter your dimensions and specifications, and it then creates a virtual you, otherwise know as an avatar; that movie title was no accident! When paired with a linked retailer, you can virtually try on the clothes to see how they will look on you specifically, and decide whether you want to order them. 

This is not new; similar technology has been around for longer than ten years. It has never quite achieved a foothold, which is surprising considering - as the article states - one in four garments are returned because of a wrong size. 

I'll say it again; I'm surprised it has taken so long for this kind of thing to become more prevalent, especially considering that online retail is so prevalent that it is impacting retail sales and causing a shift in the retail landscape. But it never will for clothing unless this takes off. 

It's all over.

Not to start the semester off with a doom and gloom post, but this is of major importance and everyone should be aware. Recently, the federal court of appeals struck down net neutrality. I saw very little news about this outside of tech circles, but it is something that affects every single one of us, and is the darkest day the Internet has had yet to face.

You see, the Internet first came on line way back in 1968, and up until January 14th every bit that traveled across that network was considered equal, and the FCC recently qualified policy stating as much - you can read the almost 200-page document here (.pdf). You want to watch Netflix? Learn how to determine the gender of a tarantula? Find out if moving to Denmark would be wise? See how much Nikes cost on Amazon? Get a list of quotes for Monty Python movies? Or any other infinite number of things you can do online? You could - It was all treated equally, and that's what net neutrality represents.

But no more.

Verizon was not pleased with the FCC making these policies and challenged them in court stating they had no right to make those policies, and Verizon won. Now, private companies, with Verizon taking the lead, have control over how those bits flow to your device. Say, for example, that Comcast, who has a stake in Hulu, decided they wanted people to use Hulu and not Netflix. They are now allowed to throttle or restrict your access to Netflix making it nigh unwatchable. That high-speed Internet connection you pay for? It's only as good as the content your provider wants you to see. Or if the provider decides they don't want you seeing anything *at all* as regards certain content, they can block it altogether. Or, for a less doomsday and more reality-based approach, they could demand higher fees from services like Netflix, which will then, of course, pass those costs on to you. And there is no recourse now.

Ahh, the good old days.

The Internet is no longer the equal exchange of ideas. The flow of information is now governed by the companies (some are saying this works in favor of the FCC, by the way).

I personally would like to see it go to the Supreme Court and I suspect it will. I was surprised it happened, and to be fair these companies, at least in the near term, would be very short-sighted to start heavy-handing content because of the backlash they know they would get. But everyone in the tech industry went crazy about it, unfortunately no one else seemed to care. But they might, once the content providers start flexing their muscle.

Welcome!

This is the blog that is used to support IS301 at Nevada State College. On this page I will be posting stories of general interest regarding the technology industry. These posts can cover anything related to the industry, from new techniques used in creating special effects for movies to the Target/Neiman Marcus security breach to implantable circuitry that can help the blind see. I am also happy to accept submissions from students on topics they feel are of interest and would like to see as a post, and begin discussion on that topic. I have left up the posts from previous semesters so you can get an idea of the kind of posts you'll see and how the blog works.

The commenting should be completely open, and not requiring a Google account. If you run into trouble let me know, and I will also need to know if you are commenting using a pseudonym (which is fine, as long as I know and can give appropriate credit). On t other hand, if an abundance of spam comments appear, I will have to mandate people register. Hopefully we can avoid that.

So without further ado, here is the first tech-related post of the semester. It may not seem very tech-related at first, but as we will see later in the session, it very much is. It turns out that Anchorman 2, a movie I'm embarrassed to admit mad me chuckle, is Paramount Picture's last movie to be filmed on 35mm film as they move over to all-digital. Other studios still use 35mm, but not for long.

One summer I worked in a movie theater where 35mm film was hand-threaded.

It's the end of an era. Film gives images a realistic, soft quality that digital doesn't provide, but I understand the need for the transition as the supporting infrastructure for film fades away and digital is so much easier to use.

Oh, there's this too, which I'm happy to hear. We'll be talking about this phenomenon too!