Internet Addiction

Addiction - "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful."

Can you become addicted to the internet? We all know that humans can become physically and/or mentally dependent on things such as alcohol and drugs, but does that mean that you can become hooked on the world wide web? That depends on what it means, to you, to become hooked on something. For me, it means spending a large amount of time with and/or on something and using it instead of doing things that enrich your well being. But, again, this would depend on if you find using the internet enriching to your well being. Some may say yes, others would say no, but regardless of our opinions, usage of the internet does effects us.

This isn't a subject that has been ignored by professionals. With the rising use of the internet, faster internet speeds, better posted information and research options, and more popular social websites being created (such as Facebook), the internet has become almost vital to everyday life for some people and is used in almost every business and company, sometimes every day. And so studies have been done to measure the effects of prolonged use of the web, mainly on adolescent and young people. One study, performed by Ju-Yu Yen and his team found that in young teenagers, users with "internet addiction" had poorer mental health than those who did not and also had a higher chance of becoming engaged in substance abuse. They defined an internet abuser as someone who uses the internet frequently, has problems stopping use, has issues when not using it, has communication problems with others, and has poor health and time management as a result of using the web [2].

To some readers, this may sound silly and something that you cannot relate to. But can you? Have you ever worked on homework and decided to check your Facebook, only to find that afterward, you had spent almost an hour looking at your friends posts? You lost track of time and as a result had to hurry to finish your work. This is an example of possible misuse of the internet. Be it either checking your email, reading posts on Facebook, watching funny Youtube videos, or simply searching for music, if you find that you spend time lost on the internet instead of taking care of your real life needs, you may have a problem. But how can this be? Some people have made friends on the internet, and continued to support existing relationships with people over social networking sites. Isn't this a good thing? The answer is yes and no. Using social networking for organizing events and casual conversation is a great way to keep in touch. But as said by Natalie Ward, these relationships we form over the net "lacked the depth and opportunities for reciprocity, such as granting one favor in exchange for another, that characterize real-world relationships"[1]. Relationships that do not involve physical proximity eventually degrade and no longer have the depth, trust, and strength that come with being "friends" with someone. If you substitute spending time with your friends with staying connected with them over the internet, you are changing those relationships in a negative way. It is important to keep this in mind and not let the web detract from your friendships.

So take a minute and think about what you are doing right now. How long have you been on the computer today? And how about on your phone? How much time have you spent in the virtual world and what has it helped you get done? If the answer is nothing or a small amount, you need to strongly consider if you are becoming addicted to the internet and it's uses.
In other words, go outside. Talk to someone in person. It's good for you.





--------------------------------------------
 [1] Ward, N. (2009), Falling into the net of depression: The power of the internet to cause and worsen depressive symptoms. Retrieved from http://web.njit.edu/~naw4/NWard%20-%20Internet%20+%20Depression.pdf

[2] Yen, J.-Y., Ko, C.-H., Yen, C.-F., Chen, S.-H., Chung, W.-L. and Chen, C.-C. (2008), Psychiatric symptoms in adolescents with internet addiction: Comparison with substance use. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 62: 9–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2007.01770.x

Txting and ur Speech Skillz (lol)

Cn u read dis sentence w/o ny prob?

If so, then you are at least somewhat familiar with abbreviations and lingo used in today's text messaging or SMS (Short Message Service) communication. As you can imagine, the above sentence would most likely not be used in a formal, written document. Texting lingo as seen above is considered by many to be improper English and its use hinders and deteriorates people's formal writing and speaking skills. But is this assumption true?

 In one study, kids aged 10 to 12 were tested to see if a relationship exists between a persons use of texting and their ability to spell words. It was found that there was no relationship between a person's overall texting use and their ability to spell. It was found however, that kids who were familiar with texting had a better phonological awareness, or ability to recognize words based on their spoken sound rather than visual reading (e.g. "2day" sounds like the word "today") [1].
This brings up an interesting thought. Would someone with less than average language skills be more or less skilled at texting? In one sense, to be able to text requires a slightly deeper understand of the language the "texter" is using. To be able to recognize, understand, interpret and use texting abbreviations requires a user to have a basic, if not advanced understanding of their language. Another point of view is to consider is the length of the text messages themselves. As with the character limit on "Twitter" posts, a user may only enter so many words or letters into a single text. This forced the user to strongly consider what they are trying to say and how they say it. It forces the user to "write economically, inventively and playfully" and allows users to "play with the construction of language that they are learning about" [1].

Perhaps texting should not be seen as a fad that is destroying language, but as the next generation of communication. Languages, such as English, have evolved over time and this may simply be the next step in that process. But should texting be embraced as acceptable formal writing? The answer is no. Since many formally written papers are designed to be read and understood by a wide variety of people, they need to be written in a format that is universal. Until the abbreviations of texting are more widely known and accepted, formal language should be used. It is up to teachers and parents to teach people about the use of texting lingo. They should not teach that it is wrong and unacceptable, but instead that it should simply not be used for formal writing. There is a time and a place for texting.

Texting is not responsible for the belief that "youth have absolutely lost the skills of communication", but the next step in language evolution [2]. Texting is not going anywhere. Its use will continue to rise as the affordability of cell phones and texting plans increase. Until it is more widely known, texting lingo should be used in some cases and not in others, such as research documents. But it is certainly an acceptable form of communication and is quite effective at communicating ideas, emotions, and questions from one person to another. And isn't that what a language is supposed to be?

------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Vaidyanathan, L., & Latu, S. (2007). Social consequences of cellular (cell) phones. Retrieved from http://www.acis2007.usq.edu.au/assets/papers/93.pdf

[1] Vosloo, S. (2009). The effects of texting on literacy: modern scourge or opportunity? Retrieved from http://vosloo.net/wp-content/uploads/pubs/texting_and_literacy_apr09_sv.pdf

The Stuxnet worm and how it can Kill

"[Stuxnet is] the most refined piece of malware ever discovered ... mischief or financial reward wasn’t its purpose, it was aimed right at the heart of a critical infrastructure"
-Alan Bentley

In a previous post,"Viruses, Worms, and Bugs Oh My!", I explained some basic information about computer viruses, worms, spyware, and other harmful programs that can invade your computer and cause damage and irritation. But what is the maximum amount of damage these programs can cause? In some extreme cases, bank information can be stolen and users will have to take time to recover their funds. But most commonly, these attacker programs will simply cause annoyance and frustration.

But what if they could kill you and your family?

Introducing Stuxnet, the internet worm that can kill people. But how? How can a virtual worm harm humans? The answer to that question is by infecting powerful systems, resulting in possibly grave dangers to the world. The worm can infect computer systems designed to control mechanical sytems, such as valves, alarms, pumps, and motors. Sound dangerous? If not, consider these examples:

• The safety alarms could be disabled at a water dam, while valves designed to control water flow could be opened, allowing the dam to possibly collapse with almost no warning to the employees or surrounding residents.
• A sewage treatment plant's pumps and safety systems could be taken over by an attacker, allowing for contaminates to infect our drinking water.
• Perhaps the most frightening example, the safety systems could be disengaged at a nuclear power plant or on a pipeline. The resulting explosion could be devastating.

These are all very dangerous examples of what a computer worm like Stuxnet can do. But why is it different from other computer worms and viruses? Shouldn't these critical infrastructure companies be prepared for this? The answer is because Stuxnet is the first of its kind. Computers at industry plants do not run like our home and business computers, where we access a program, such as Microsoft Word, and make changes, such as deleting a file from our vacation picture album. The computers at plants are controlled by Industrial control systems, which govern PLCs (programmable logic controllers). Think of a PLC as a small computer that is programmed to do certain tasks, such as opening and closing a valve in a water plant. They are programmed for a very strict environment, with set limits regarding what they can and cannot do. They operate without any need for human interaction and it is through these PLCs that our industries run autonomously (1). Stuxnet infects computers that control PLCs and uploads its own code to the logic controllers, allowing for the PLC code and functions to be modified. But Stuxnet does not stop there. The code is also hidden from view, so a programmer checking for errors or infection in the PLC code will not see any trace of the malicious code inserted by Stuxnet. This makes the code very difficult to detect and remove.

On September 26, 2010, it was reported that Stuxnet had infected one of Iran's nuclear power plants. Although it caused no serious damage, it should be looked at as a proof of concept. The threat is real. And we are all at risk. It has been confirmed by Symantec that the people behind Stuxnet have been working with it for over a year, and most likely consisted of a team of five to ten people. The code allowed the worm to jump between portable storage devices and spread like the "Conflicker" worm via p2p networks (2).

With the advancement of automation, computer technology, and our world wide web, we are developing new ways to make life easier and more efficient. But we are also allowing for the possibility of new, dangerous threats. And with the movement to Smart Technology, such as the "Smart Grid", where our power systems would be controlled over a network, these threats are more dangerous than ever.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Tasu, A. S. (2004). Programmable Logic Controller. Retrieved from http://www.nipne.ro/rjp/2006_51_1-2/0305_0310.pdf

(2) Chien, E. (2010, September 30). W32.stuxnet dossier. Retrieved from http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/w32stuxnet-dossier