Is Drone Delivery the Future?

“Hey Mom, What type of bird is that?” “It’s just a delivery drone honey.” An interaction such as this could become commonplace if the FAA agrees to allow and draft rules for delivery drones from companies like Google Inc., Amazon, and DHL.

Amazon was the first to reveal the new technology in the U.S, but competitors were working on their own renditions of the helicopter/drone with package delivering capabilities simultaneously. The same system has been approved for Zookal, a textbook company, in Australia where the system is completely legal. Even a U.K. Dominos branch delivered two pizzas with a drone.

While the idea of drone delivery sounds very promising, a slew of problems also come to mind that would inhibit its' functionality.  The first potential problem, and arguably the most ludicrous, is people shooting drones down to steal packages, similar to a clay pigeon target. Aside from that, more realistic concerns of opportunistic theft and weather come to mind. The idea of a slow moving drone delivering a package could attract the attention of petty thieves nearby. In an interview with drone expert Missy Cummings, it was said that drones would only have a delivery range of 10 miles from a distribution center. They also wouldn’t be able to handle more than a light rain. Unless people live very close to a major city, this service will most likely not be available to them.

The constant push for bigger, better, faster has reached a point where it might not be helpful to improve logistics methods in this way. Until further refined, this innovation might need to slowed down and rethought in order to maximize functionality.

Will Federal College Ratings Be the New Way to Find a School?

Every fall, students around the country look for a college or university that is a fit with their academic interests, activity preferences, and financial means. While searching, many students check college ranking lists done by Time Magazine, Forbes, or U.S News to see which schools are rated highly.

Recently, President Obama introduced an ambitious plan to evaluate and rank schools based on factors such as tuition, graduation rate, student debt, and financial demographics. His goal with this system is to make college more affordable for middle class American families. According to this system, need-based federal grants would be given to students attending the universities with the highest ratings.  This new rating system, in addition to the existing rating systems, leaves an overwhelming amount of information from which student must evaluate. Which lists should students use as their primary decision-making tool? 

The average cost of public colleges and universities is climbing more than double the inflation rate, making it understandable why the Obama Administration wants to help find a solution to making college more accessible. The average student now graduates with more than $26,000 of debt. While at the same time, loan interest rates are not improving.  It’s clear that something needs to change, but I’m not sure this plan is the answer.

After reading more about President Obama’s plan, I began to wonder how the program would achieve its goal of making college more affordable. Would a school be willing to risk disrupting its current business model to reduce costs and receive a higher rating? This is quite a gamble for the schools in need of revenue. By reducing tuition costs, they would actually lose revenue relying on an uncertain and potentially small amount of federal funding. Additionally, this will force the price of private schools to decrease dramatically, which may cause the closing of schools with smaller endowments. Does this plan need modification? Should it be totally scrapped?

Technology is Making Chronic Procrastination Unavoidable

While blazing the Oregon Trail, did the pioneers stop in Colorado, figuring, Oh well, I’ll do it next year? Did cowboys lie in their tents thinking, I’ll mend that fence tomorrow? Of course not. They were Americans. They embodied the nation’s quintessential values--working hard and getting the job done, no matter what.  While it’s easy to visualize this work ethic with larger and more tangible tasks such as those, how easy is it to do so with that English paper due next week? We’re told to go home, get our work done, and go to bed, doing all of that while avoiding any number of distractions along the way.

Before computers and cellphones, procrastination was less of an issue. When doing research, the book you were reading wouldn't beep, alerting you that your friend just posted pictures from his trip. Or that the Bears just tied the game and you should watch the final four minutes. Suddenly your productivity on the assignment has dipped to zero and you find yourself scrolling through your news feed with the same level of attention you would give an ACT test. Companies have created more ways for social media and news to be accessible, and this has made it nearly impossible to remain focused. How are we able to combat all of these distractions? Do we try to convince ourselves to not look at it?

In a survey conducted by The University of Calgary, more than 80% of students report consistently procrastinating when it comes to completing their coursework.  New technology provides a steady stream of ads, notifications, and click bait, tempting users at every turn.  We must find ways to sustain focus.  Whether it be turning off all devices, setting personal deadlines, or going to a place with no distractions, we must identify strategies to keep ourselves on-task. For example, apps like Self Control provide a way to block certain sites for a set period of time, denying access even if you delete the app. Are apps like these the answer? Has the formula that digital marketers use to entice us to "click" been so perfected that we can no longer resist the temptation?

How Big is the Race Issue in the NBA? Atlanta Hawks to Go Up for Sale After Racist Remarks

While watching football this afternoon, I heard announcers talking about a second NBA team going up for sale after the owner made racist remarks. After hearing this, I was in disbelief. Another owner? Even if Donald Sterling wasn't the only owner with a racially insensitive mindset, how could another owner do this, and get caught? Upon listening further, I discovered that the Atlanta Hawk's owner, Bruce Levenson, admitted wrongdoing after an on-going, two-month NBA investigation that was made public this weekend. The investigation stemmed from an email he sent to team executives concerning business challenges with the struggling Hawks franchise.

According to his email, Black fans had “scared away the whites.” Mr. Levenson said, “I think Southern whites simply were not comfortable being in an arena or at a bar where they were in the minority.” He had earlier told the executive team that he wanted “some white cheerleaders” and “music familiar to a 40-year-old white guy,” and thought, “the kiss cam is too black.” The comments above are only part of the incriminating email.

In a league that, for all intensive purposes, is dominated by African American players, there are still owners who have a state of mind that is wholly intolerable. While Mr. Levenson has since provided a thoughtful apology on the matter and has indicated he will sell the team, the question still stands: how many more NBA owners have similar views? What is it going to take to change societal views about racism when some of the worst offenders are the very people leading our organizations? I applaud the NBA for their vigilant oversight in recent months, but it is clear that the focus on the leadership positions must continue if racism is to be eliminated in the NBA long term.