Decisions based on lack of knowledge, why would that be? This was the question running through my mind after reading one of Nick Butler’s more recent posts, as well as the pleasing feeling I had after the realization that more and more people are becoming actively aware of the fact that non-renewable energy sources really don’t replenish: the extinguish. There is much potential for growth in the renewable energy source field, as the world becomes increasingly dependent on energy sources, and begin to look to the future to see that a change is in need.

As many activists have been calling out for decades, the planet we live on is being exhausted of resources. So why not use more of the ones that don’t disappear once used?

Nikita Puri discussed Snapchat’s rejection of Facebook’s offer to buy the company for $3bn, her view of which I completely agree on. I remember first seeing the news on newsmap, and wondering why on earth Snapchat would refuse such an offer. But then again, this is a company that in two years became worth nearly $1bn. Initially one would think such a move is too bold for such a company, which doesn’t even make any revenue. However, the company’s value increased nearly tenfold when they released their IPO, so who knows, maybe they have a plan up their sleeve to make them worth more than $3bn as well?

There are a numerous amount of reasons why people are pro or anti gay marriage, but a new side was revealed earlier this year with the new protests in the USA. A new side has been more and more openly stated; that gay marriage is good for the economy. As stated by the CEO of Goldman Sachs, “equality is good business”, which is completely coherent as if more marriages are allowed to happen, more money will be spent on such weddings, which brings in more money to individual businesses. But what about in the larger picture? 

In Washington state alone, tax revenue is projected to increase by $8m alone, and as individuals, same-sex couples are estimated to have spent $500 000 more than married couples, just because their marriage was illegal. If there are only such great benefits, to the individuals as well as the over all society, why isn’t marriage an option for everyone?

We all like having more things, but we don’t want all of our stuff to take up so much space and weight. No wonder everyone buys Macbook Air’s instead of desktops, and have apps for calculators and flashlights on our smartphones. But is there a limit to who much can still be downsized?

A newly launched company, Coin, plans to launch a card which can hold eight cards, and can control the card from an app on one’s smartphone. Although one can see the point: I know I always misplace or forget to always have whatever vast amount of cards I posses with me, their marketing strategy is to advertise another way of losing weight from one’s bag. When I noticed thing, I was baffled as to why that would be the strategy, why not market the fact that by fitting eight cards into one; your life could be a lot simpler as with Coin, if you have eight cards, on you, it means you actually have 64, and you wouldn’t have to carry all those cards around.

Coming to a new continent has brought forth many surprises, one especially which pertains to airlines. As I was booking my flight to DC, I was highly confused about the “upgrades” available at extortionate amounts: one of the offers being more leg space. Am I supposed to pay double my ticket price (or more) to receive 12.5cm more leg space? To continue my astonishment, I further found out that I have to pay extra for in flight meals, as well as to check my bag in, but I wouldn’t have to pay these charges if I upgrade to first class.

Thinking in terms of profit-maximization, this all makes sense. If there’s less leg space per person: overall there’s more space for more rows, ergo more passengers, hence more opportunity to make more profit. But why would non-North American airlines then include such things, which are labeled as benefits here, in the original price? That would depend on the vision the company has to keep going: North Americans seem to rather make more money now, when airlines from other parts of the world would rather have satisfied customers, who then return to their services.

In May, Yahoo announced that it was buying the blogging site tumblr. This lead to a huge amount of responses on the site, mainly expressing concerns over what changes Yahoo would make on the site, as most users saw the buy as more of a threat than a good change. As this change occurred, I began wondering about the reasons behind the sale, especially after the topics covered this past week in my economics class, where my professor kept stressing the image that economists focus on happiness, whereas finance specialists focus on money. This made me wonder if David Karp is turning tumblr into an “Economist” rather than a “Finance Specialist”, as he sold his site for $1.1bn, and was kept on as the CEO? Will tumblr change into a more-for-profit site, or will David Karp attempt to use his power as CEO to keep tumblr as a safe, happy space for its users?

An article was released today about the decline in positions filled in China at Foxconn, in the Financial Times. It detailed the change of Chinese no longer filling low-paid positions in poor work conditions. I found the whole concept rather interesting, as it follows the news of Kia and Hyundai hiring more people to be able to cut night shifts. Both shifts would foreshadow a drastic change in the South East Asian image of being filled with people who will do important work (for generally oversees companies) for very little pay. This means changes for Foxxcon, how many areas can they keep moving to until they run out of “cheap labour” locations?

Following the aftermath of the media hit taken by Sauder and the CUS as a result of the events in FROSH, the CUS has decided to donate a quarter of a million dollars. But with what money?  I was really confused when the CUS decided to decrease the CUS membership fee AFTER deciding to make such a great financial decision –one that will be paid off in a period of three years. Although the decision was made by the students in the voting polls, the decision regarding the CUS membership fee could have been tabled for another year. I find the decision of the CUS, and apparently of UBC to donate such a vast amount of money, to fund sex-abuse counseling, to be important, but lack the understanding as to where the money is coming from. What will this mean for us, as Sauder students, in the future? Will the CUS membership fee be increased in a year again?

As we all know, smartphones are something most people have, or want, making it a large market. The iPhone does especially well, followed by Google’s Android operating platform, which is in very many new phones, dominated by Samsung and followed by LG, following its release of the Nexus 4 phone.  However, it seems as though companies are following Apple in the sense that they want to own the system as well; to own both the interior and the exterior of the phones. Apple has its iOS system that it uses for its iPhones, Google bought Motorola and recently released its own phone, the Moto X, and now Microsoft is buying Nokia to gain smartphone ground with Windows phones. Samsung seems to be the only large company which isn’t seeking, at least yet, to have a unique operating platform for its successful Galaxy phones. But does it even need to? The success of the Galaxy phones would indicate a negative response, but how long will it be until Samsung gets tired of paying Google for its Android system-ware? Looking at the diminishing trend of phone companies, would another operating system even be a plausible challenge to take upon ones company?

I happened upon an article in the form of a timeline which depicted the events of an experiment, in which doctors in the city in the state of Alabama tracked the progress of syphilis in black men. The doctors informed the test subjects that they were receiving medicine to treat their symptoms, when in fact the subjects were only having their disease monitored. I found the article quite interesting due to the fact that people who had taken an oath to protect their patients would conduct such an unorthodox experiment. There are many ethical systems involved, most prominently duty ethics: the doctors’ duty to their oath. I kept wondering why they would take such measures and came to the conclusion that they must have considered themselves to be loyal to their research and their other patients, as the results of the experiments could have possibly helped cure many more patients than solely those who were used as test subjects.

“The Tuskegee Timeline.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 June 2011. Web. 11 Sep. 2013. <http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm>.