Not too long ago, iPhone OS 4.0 beta 4 was released! I’m not sure if this is old news — I admit, I’m a bit out of the loop…

But tethering! That has to be somewhat fresh news… iPhone OS 4.0 beta has a tethering option! iPhone user? Not excited? Yeah, I wasn’t very excited either when I read about it on Engadget, Boy Genius Report and Gizmodo. Why? I had no idea what tethering was until just a few minutes ago. What was all this hype over tethering!

Contrary to what I initially thought (it’s nowhere near a virtual game of iPhone tetherball), “tethering” is the use of a mobile device as a makeshift modem to connect another device to the internet. The connection is usually made through Bluetooth or a (USB, perhaps) cable. About.com gave the best breakdown I came across in my ADD-limited timespan spent looking up the term. Tethering is particularly useful when you have no other means to connect to the internet. It also may save a bit of dough if you already have an unlimited data plan — no need for a broadband or wireless access card when you can tether off your unlimited data plan. And it may also be more secure than surfing from a public wi-fi hotspot. When I think of tethering, I think of a cell phone… and a wireless card… meshed together. If that confuses you more, I apologize… Anyway, apparently, tethering is highly anticipated.

Now, that I know what tethering is… I’d say I’m more excited… uh… well, for those iPhone users (which I am not — I oddly live in the stone age when it comes to upgrading my tech; I blame this on lack of funds).

To set up tethering — navigate over to your settings to see the new option. A pop-up will ask if you want to set up tethering on this account, just go to the website and follow the directions. There’s a quick video of someone doing this below, for those… more visual learners.

If you aren’t seeing the option to set up tethering, just reset your network settings. Once you’ve got it set up, feel free to share your experiences, frustrations, likes, dislikes, and all that jazz.

Now, there’s isn’t a given day where I don’t check my email, stalk my friends on Facebook, track the weather (for biking preparedness), chat with other online addicts friends or just surf the web at least once. Okay, granted, working online and writing a blog doesn’t help…  But, when I see half my friends on their smart phone obsessively replying every constant ding from a new email or text message… or when any vacation I take with friends or family entails at least one person bringing their laptop… or when I dine at a restaurant and see the entire table next to me typing away on their data-capable phones rather than actually conversing with each other… I start to wonder. Is the Internet more of a hindrance than it is helpful? We were just fine without it before, but does that mean we could do it again?

The internet has definitely become the stem of many controversial issues — take Australian censorship or the ethical usage of Internet regarding patients for example. What we thought was already a small world (after all), has been made even smaller and more accessible through the world wide web. Email. Instant message. VoIP. Streaming media. Technology has evolved and zipped light years past the days of the Pony Express and Morse code.

Of course, with the good, comes the bad — there’s always that balance, right? Internet has caused a rise in negligence and violence. The Sydney Morning Herald notes a couple of instances:

Last month, a couple let their three-month-old starve while they raised a virtual child in an online game, spending most of their days at an internet cafe instead of caring for their newborn, police said.

That baby died of malnutrition. Oh, and hold on, there’s another one:

In February, a 22-year-old bludgeoned his mother to death for “nagging” him about playing internet games, police said. He then played games online for hours, paying with his mother’s credit card, a police statement said.

In South Korea, where these two instances occurred, more than 90% of households have broadband internet access. In addition, 24-hour internet cafes are abundant in Asia. As an alternative to staying the night at a hotel, much of the younger population partying late hours in Japan opt to spend the night at a 24-hour internet cafe until the train systems start back up in the morning. In Taiwan, internet cafes have become a popular hangouts — even ranging from cheap, affordable facilities to ritzy, expensive surroundings. Dr. Kim Tae-hoon, a psychiatrist who treats teenagers for internet addiction says, “In South Korea, it’s easier for citizens to play online games than to invest in their offline personal relations through face-to-face conversations.” He continues by noting, “People are becoming growingly numb to human interaction.”

The University of Maryland conducted a study asking 200 students to give up all media (Internet, cellphones, television, music, etc.) for one day. Is it surprising that, according to the New York Times, they found “many showed signs of withdrawal, craving and anxiety along with an inability to function well without their media and social links” after just 24 hours? One student confesses, “I clearly am addicted and the dependency is sickening.”

Although the American Psychiatric Association has yet to recognize Internet addiction as a disorder, South Korea has already decided to take action against the estimated 2 million people classified to be an addict. The South Korean government will be “restricting access to popular online games, and is sending counselors to elementary schools to teach children about healthy internet usage.”

The United States’ first in-patient treatment center for Internet addiction opened for business last summer near Redmond, Washington. The center, called reSTART, gives various examples of students who have become largely in debt or even dropped out of college due to internet addiction. But erm… the $14,000 price tag for treatment could be cause for self-help in of itself — or perhaps another reason to continue on(line)?

Stanford University’s School of Medicine estimates that one in eight Americans show at least one sign of internet overuse. A Huffington Post article by therapist Lisa Haisha, even takes internet addiction one step further by examining specifics, Facebook addiction. “Since the term Internet Addiction is broad, some psychologists have identified and classified sub-categories of Internet addiction,” says Haisha.

Director of I Will Center, a government-funded counseling center in South Korea, Park Hye-kyung says, “It’s a little ironic that what was invented to make our lives better has come to make it worse for some.” Could you do without Internet? Has it harmed your way of living more so than helped it? I’m stuck; I have no idea…What do SND readers think?

The iPad is coming to stores soon… possibly.

Google mobile services have been partially blocked in China.

Nothing catching my eye just yet…

An iPhone for Verizon may debut before year end.

Microsoft has patched a number of vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer.

Hold on.

As I mindlessly scroll through Google Reader, a Washington Post article by Dana Scarton jumped out at me and caught my eye: Google and Facebook raise new issues for therapists and their clients. My mind wakes. It cranks into gear. The article makes me think. It makes me wonder. Scarton lays down a number of interesting thoughts to ponder over.

Is it ethical for a therapist to fish out a patient’s blog, Facebook, website or other readily available information on the Internet? Would that be a breach of privacy? Or a means to better understand a patient? I mean, after all, you are paying a therapist to get to know you — in a way. And the internet is publicly accessible…

Scarton describes a case where a patient overdosed on sedatives. The patient’s psychiatrist, Damir Huremovic, was forwarded a suicidal email containing links to a website and blog the patient wrote. What’s a concerned doctor to do? Well, in this case, Huremovic decided that it was okay to click on the links. Scarton writes, “after all, the Web site was in the public domain and it might contain some potentially important information for treatment.”

What do SND readers think? Scarton’s Washington Post article knocked out some great points to both sides. And goes on to take into account, what if the roles were reversed?

In a detour from our typical light-hearted overtone at SND (and killing the buzz a little — anyone watch that Community episode last week?)… I asked the opinions of a few staffers here at SoftwareMedia.com what they thought about the issue.

From the lot of people I quickly polled, we seemed to be fairly split. About half the surveyed staffers didn’t have a problem being searched online, the other half had concerns. Almost everyone agreed it wasn’t straight out black and white though. From my “discovery,” here are a few highlighted quotes:

Ashley — “I think it’s fine.  I mean, you’re going to the therapist to basically divulge your whole life anyway.  If you really want help, you should be willing to let them know everything about you. On the other hand, the therapist needs to maybe not take EVERYTHING from the internet as truth.  I feel like anything done on the internet is an extreme of yourself.”

Brandon — “(I’m) all for it. If someone has published something online, then it is available for anyone who wishes to view it. Thus if someone has something published about them without their permission they need to seek out the source and have them remove the information. Because the internet is such an open and public place, people need to be very careful about what they post.  Social networking sites are a huge source of this private information made public. And many people don’t realize just how public their information is when they publish it. But the onus is on the publisher, not the reader.”

Emily — “I think there is a lot wrong with that but honestly it’s probably a good tactic.”

Allison – “At first it seems invasive but if you are turly trying to understand & help this individual I do not see any harm in it. Besides prospective employers are now doing (it), landlords. People need to watch what they share (online).”

Dave — “Well, I’m torn. On one hand, the information is out there in the public domain. On the other hand, I think it’s somewhat inappropriate (and) the information could likely be untrue.”

Okay, okay. So I’ll be fair and also throw in my two cents. I have to agree. The Internet is public domain. When I asked Kevin for his opinion he told me he had no problems with it. “My name is generic and people can never find me anyways,” he told me. Well, “Lansia” isn’t exactly a common name. An Italian car, perhaps… but I’ve never met another with my name. Hence, the slight caution I always consider when publishing personal information to the world wide web. I know that what’s published may be searched by millions (billions?) of Internet users.

With the Internet bringing the world smaller, information may not be retrieved and gathered on a completely whole new level. Just the other day, I used it to my advantage by comparing prices at the local retail store to their online competitors. There’s been no doubt about it; I’ve definitely saved a bit on my minor shopping addiction since the birth of Internet. My friend recently switched physicians with the help of the Internet. And employers and jobseekers, alike, have used the Internet to gain an upper hand. What does this potential employee portray himself? Facebook could tell. The web is a fountain of information, although sometimes dangerous. What’s true? What’s false? And what’s going too far?

Perhaps, my opinion of it all..  it’s okay for therapists to search patient information online. A random person can conduct that same search, why can’t someone that you are paying do so as well? However! It should all be taken in with a grain of salt. Someone online may not be the same person in life – literally and figuratively.

I also believe disclosure should also be important. Keely Kolmes, a psychologist who also writes on Internet ethics, says, “A lot of patients really want to think about you as existing in just that one space (while at therapy), and suddenly they’re seeing you on Twitter and blogging.” That certainly changes the way a patient may want to be perceived by his therapist. Awkward? It may be a side that the patient does not want the therapist taking into account.

Clearly, there’s much more to be debated. As Stephen Behnke, ethics director at the American Psychological Association, points out, “To write rules that allow our field to grow and develop and yet prevent (patient) harm at the same time: That’s the challenge.”

All right. Buzz kill over! Hey, lookit that… these peeps sure are ready for Easter this weekend.

In just one year, visits to Facebook increased 185% whereas, Google had only increased 9% in the same time period. Director of Media Relations at Hitwise, Matt Tatham, tells us “It shows content sharing has become a huge driving force online.” Unlike the uncertainty of searching blindly, “People want information from friends they trust, versus the anonymity of a search engine.”

The margin may be slight, but it’s a huge accomplishment in socializing the web. According to CNN Money, “Facebook had never before beaten Google over a full weeklong period.” Facebook claimed 7.07% of all US visits, Google held second at 7.03% and Yahoo Mail ranked in third with 3.8% of all US visits. Yahoo came in fourth with 3.67% — not really sure why they separated Yahoo and Yahoo Mail though…

Now, back to the present… Website Monitoring found a few more interesting statistics in regards to Facebook’s overwhelming popularity on the web.

• More than 400 million active users
• More than 60 million status updates posted each day
• More than 3 billion photos uploaded each month
• More than 3.5 million events created each month
• Average user spends more than 55 minutes on Facebook a day
• Average user has 130 friends
• Average user writes 25 comments a month

Facebook history, top 10 countries on Facebook, top 10 Facebook pages and more statistics at the Website Monitoring Blog. Yes, I’ll admit it — and also a bit ashamed to say — I am part of the 50 percent of active users logging on to Facebook in any given day. But, by being one of those users, I also feel a couple degrees closer to Kevin Bacon (is he even on Facebook?)…

In this day and age where many of us can’t get through the day without going online (and checking Facebook), Google decided to venture into the world of fiber-optic-speed Internet service. Must I reiterate my theory on how Google will eventually dominate the world? Let’s see… there’s the phone business (Nexus One), office software (Google Docs), politics, map services, Internet browser (Chrome), computer platform (Chrome OS), energy — am I missing anything?

Well, today Google posted a blog stating over 600 communities and 190,000 individual responses have all been rooting for Google to build a fiber network in their backyard — not literally, of course, just figuratively. Dustin and I have come to accept the fact that we just may not be competing hard enough. Topeka, Kansas was one of the first reasons we came across that proved the fiber fight would be a tough one. I mean, the mayor changed the name of their city to Google! And if that’s not enough, the Duluth, Minnesota “mayor” declared all firstborn males be named “Google Fiber.” If it’s a first born female? Well, “Googlette Fiber” of course.

Today is the last day before Google takes down their Request for Information. A more definitive number of responses will be posted on their blog  later today. Then, “over the coming months, we’ll be reviewing the responses to determine where to build,” says Google product manager, James Kelly. Google plans on thoroughly reviewing each response and thoroughly researching each possible site before making any final decisions.

Google will be announcing their “target community or communities by the end of the year.” Kelly also tells us, “our plan is to reach a total of at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people with this experiment.”

HEY GOOGLE — does this article help our cause for Salt Lake?! C’mon Salt Lake City!!

Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on Google.cn has been hard. We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we’ve faced — it’s entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China.

What does China have to say about it? Well, Xinhua, the official press of the People’s Republic of China, has a very brief comment on the matter…

Not too long after that comment, Xinhua got a bit more defensive and issued this brief article…

Could China be censoring Google by blocking the redirect anyway? It’s possible. SND readers, what do you think? Share your thoughts!

TechCrunch recently published a few interesting stats for users on Chatroulette. By using data from Chatroulette Map, “some scrappy programming, and a passionate tech community” from just under 3,000 sessions, TechCrunch found some (possibly not surprising) statistics. A few highlights below (or read the full analysis from TechCrunch).

• Half of the spins will connect you with someone in the US…
• They also found 89% of the spins came up male, and only 11% were female
• The chances of getting a webcam with no person at all are more likely than one with a single female
• 1 in 3 females appear as part of a group, whereas only 1 in 12 males appear as part of a group

Michael, one of our IT guys, praised to me how entertaining Chatroulette could be and suggested we have the staff try it out. He took the initiative, found us a webcam-loaded laptop and set it up. After witnessing a few sessions on Chatroulette with the brave souls at SoftwareMedia.com, I can’t say that Michael was wrong nor that TechCrunch’s Chatroulette stats were far off at all.

Brandon (Warehouse) — “It’s interesting. It’d be way funny with people dressed as super heroes.”
Brandon was up first and got passed off a lot after many weird looks. Oh, did I mention we dressed a mannequin to stand next to him? After a majority of male encounters, he noted “I’d do it again, if it wasn’t just people looking for chicks.”

Jeremy (Sales) and Ashley (Accounting) — “This is amazing!” “When it works!”
Our wi-fi connection on the laptop gave us a few connection problems. Michael fixed it by plugging in the Ethernet cable. Remember that TechCrunch finding? How girls are four times likely to appear in a group? Well, Ashley told us she’d only volunteer “if I have somebody with me,” most likely because she doesn’t “appreciate the half naked men” the two encountered — 1 in 8 spins bring up a R-rating or worse according to TechCrunch. But Jeremy loved it so much, he was going to start it again right when he got back to his desk.

Dustin (Development) — “Awkward.”
Dustin lucked out and got to chat up a gal from Denmark. He did tell me, “I prefer to talk to girls.” And I bet the 89% majority of male Chatroulette users prefer to talk to girls as well… He probably had the most pleasant experience, although it would be less “awkward with less people running around” — people as in co-workers looking for ways to harass him later. Ha.

Billy (Sales) — “Freaky people! It’s weird just seeing someone there.”
It was going well in the beginning… but as Billy chatted it up, he incidentally encountered a spin that was beyond a R-rating. Sorry Billy! That immediately ended his first session of Chatroulette but he hinted at the possibility of giving it another go, “cause I’m so intrigued.”

Casey (Development ) — “Way too much…”
Pressured by a couple of nameless co-workers, Casey gave it a go and enjoyed a very entertaining session. Would he do it again? “No, I want to keep my marriage.”

Curious for more stats? In addition to TechCrunch, Comscore also did an analysis.

If this happens, we won’t be the first to offer some sort of public Internet access. Apparently Finland has plans for 100mb broadband by 2015, as Harri Pursiainen, secretary at the transport and communications minister, believes “data connections are no longer entertainment but a necessity.” A slower 1mb broadband has been slated to start in July for the interim.

And the Finnish aren’t the only ones who believe Internet access is a right… BBC World Service recently conducted a study where “almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the Internet is a fundamental right.” The survey included the opinions of over 27,000 adults throughout 26 countries.

So, back home? Will it happen? I suppose only time will tell…

Well, according to the China Post, 1,000 taxis in Taipei will soon be offering Internet services. By March 9th, VMAX Telecom Co., one of six WiMAX licensed operators in Taiwan, will launch the service through taxis installed with WiMAX technology. “For the first time ever, taxis will be equipped with WiMAX technology to offer passengers wireless access to the Internet,” said a VMAX spokesperson. The service will be free for the initial trial period to assess whether the service will make any money long-term. As passengers use the Internet services provided during their ride, they will also be polled.

VMAX Telecom predicts the 1,000 equipped taxis will poll a minimum of 15,000 people a day. The capital city of Taipei is home to over 2.5 million people — that’s more than 10x the population of Salt Lake metro. It’s also home to a widely used bus system, train system (including the fairly new MRT) and subway system. I think it’s fair to say that Taipei is a metropolitan city where taxis are utilized fairly often. Actually, I think there was a day when I was in town and commuted in four separate taxis, all during lunch time! But, I wonder just how much the Internet can be utilized during a short car ride though…

A couple of eye-brow raising stats came out recently. The Society for New Communications Research released a study regarding journalists and their use of social media. It’s no shock that the study revealed the “use of social media tools by journalists is surging, growing in double-digit percentages in some cases.” But, as ZDNet points out… there’s interesting insight to how many of the 341 journalists surveyed are not taking advantage of social media sites.

• Over 50% of journalists do not watch videos online
• Approximately one-third of the journalists surveyed do not read blogs
• 75% don’t listen to podcasts
• More than half of the journalists do not use Twitter or other microblogging sites and tools
• Nearly one-third of these journalists don’t use social networking sites

But hey, 91% of journalists surveyed agree that new media is enhancing journalism. I wouldn’t be able to get away with not using social media and blogs at work. Then again, I wonder what percentage of these journalists are online journalists… hmm…

Liberty Mutual’s Responsibility Project stirred a few stats up for a Reuter’s article. According to the survey, 56% of Americans believe it’s “irresponsible” to be Facebook friends with your boss. More so, 62% of those surveyed said it’s wrong befriend an employee.  Other intriguing highlights:

• 52% believe it’s appropriate for companies to review the social media profiles of job candidates
• 73% don’t think it’s appropriate to update your Facebook status while at work; 72% say you shouldn’t tweet at work
• More than 40% of parents believe you shouldn’t post photos of children online
• Although just under 70% of parents are friends with their kids on Facebook or MySpace, 31% of them monitor their children’s Facebook accounts
• 72% of parents limit the time their kids spend on social media networks
• More than 80% of parents say teachers shouldn’t interact with students online

Do SND readers agree with the lot above? These findings come as sort of a surprise to me, I’ll admit. Not too long ago, I befriended my 8th grade teacher after my friend told me she was online. And I’m definitely friends with past employers… Okay, so maybe it’s different since 8th grade was a long time ago. And perhaps it depends on the relationship you’ve developed with an employer. For me, Facebook is a networking and contact tool where I’m usually eager to befriend employers and co-workers. Does that mean the cheese stands alone? Uh, I mean, do I stand alone on this? Share your thoughts!