Social-networking sites can threaten more than grades

We’ve all seen the way social-networking sites such as Facebook connect us to friends and family.

The site, started by computer science students, has more than 400 million users and is quickly changing the way we communicate with each other.

Although it’s a great distraction during lulls in lecture and homework, users are beginning to notice some negative consequences of Facebook use.

Last April, an Ohio State University study found that college students who use Facebook spend less time studying and have lower GPAs than students who don’t use it.

“We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying—but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study. “There’s a disconnect between students’ claim that Facebook use doesn’t impact their studies and our finding showing they had lower grades and spent less time studying.”

Connecting with others on the web causes users to experience a range of emotions, particularly in romantic relationships.

A study, published in the CyberPsychology & Behavior Journal concluded that there is a “significant association between time spent on Facebook and jealousy-related feelings and behaviors experienced on Facebook by college students.”

Some observers are even noticing that Facebook is exposing them to health risks. Because profile updates often include only a brief sentence, users aren’t given time to assess the value of the statement and its true meaning, says Jim Schumacher, a suite101.com contributor.

“In the long run, such a habit forms insensitive and numb personalities, as they are reading the most intimate and sometimes most horrible details of others’ lives without the need of reacting to them as they would have to in a real conversation,” he said.

Although there still hasn’t been a complete and credible study proving the negative effects of social-networking sites, the field of questions is green for behavioral scientists.

“We have to ask the questions, ‘What happens to young people when they spend hours and hours with the computer? Are they getting outdoors? Are they exercising? Are they learning to talk to each other face to face?’ ” said Gary Small, professor of psychiatry at UCLA.

One of the big questions is whether social networking is actually bringing people closer together. Users often connect without the deep interaction or one-on-one physical contact that allows people to gauge each other’s sincerity and veracity needed to achieve a close relationship.

Maybe it’s just good enough to use social networking as a way to stay in touch, kill time and quickly access information, such as someone’s phone number or address.

The very fact that we engage on these sites means we care and want to connect with each other. In terms of the depth of that connection, it’s up to the individual user to decide what that means.

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/social-networking-sites-can-threaten-more-than-grades-1.2159483

Technology necessary to stop inversion

Sometimes in the winter, Salt Lake City air gets so bad you could mistakenly think you’re in a big city such as Beijing or Los Angeles.

Particularly in January along the Wasatch Front, Utah notoriously has had bad air. It’s so bad, in fact, that the National Science Foundation just approved $1.3 million to fund a study to collect better data as to why the inversion occurs.

So far this year, more than 20 health warnings have been issued by Utah environmental officials because of the bad air quality. The dirty air causes many people to cough, sneeze and have flu-like symptoms.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Utah has been given the distinction of having the worst air in America—several times.

Professor John Horel of the U’s department of atmospheric sciences is one of the principal investigators of the study about the inversion. He said this will be the largest field study of atmospheric conditions in Utah in more than a decade.

“This study is going to identify the weather that contributes to the development, maintenance and breakup of these inversions,” he said. “What is different about our study is the goal to improve the simulation and eventual prediction of the weather conditions associated with the pollution events.”

Because much of that money—$550,000—will come back to the U in the form of students and researchers setting up equipment and collecting and analyzing data, it’s difficult to turn up your nose at the study. However, because it is commonly known that the inversion results from cold-air pockets that trap pollutants and fog, it seems like an superfluous exercise that can be predicted with Doppler radar.

Another use of the money could be investing in weather modification technology. As seen with the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, the Chinese are fine-tuning their ability to make it rain on the eve of major events.

China’s Weather Modification Office employs 37,000 people. Essentially, it uses rocket launchers loaded with cloud-seeding compounds to either moisten clouds or drain them, depending on the need. Utah definitely has the need for wind and moisture to clear out the valley when cold pockets gather and dirty the air.

Yes, solutions such as carpooling, riding public transportation and staying indoors should definitely be put into practice by people doing their part as good citizens to reduce pollution. However, when circumstances beyond our control come into play, it makes sense to adopt creative answers to solve the problem.

By investing in weather modification technology and equipment, Utah can implement immediate solutions that will cut down on the poor visibility and lung congestion caused by the bad air.

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/technology-necessary-to-stop-inversion-1.2149332

Sundance film furthers division between gay, LDS communities

With last week’s Sundance film “8: The Mormon Proposition,” the heated and drawn out debate on gay-marriage is again in full swing. The film follows a young gay couple who are fighting for the recognition of their marriage. As usual, the LDS Church is cast as the antagonist because it urged members to donate their time and money to passing California’s Proposition 8. A yes vote reversed a court mandated law allowing gays to marry.

Ironically, many Mormons feel the same discrimination as gays. This was clearly manifest during the Prop 8 fallout when Mormons were bullied out of jobs, temple worship was postponed by obstructive protest rallies, meeting houses were vandalized and the Church was and still is the butt of late night jokes.

Even the Super Bowl has been targeted by inflammatory rhetoric. A gay-dating website wanted to air a 30-second commercial showing two men watching the game, brushing hands in the potato chip bowl and then engaging in a passionate make-out session. The company said CBS is discriminating against them by not airing the ad, when in fact the company couldn’t pay for the ad by verifying its credit status.

Often forgotten in the Prop 8 debate is that the decision was not made by the Mormons, but by California voters. In fact, every time the issue has been put to a popular vote across the country, thirty-one times in a row, same-sex marriage has been rejected.

Yet, in their persistent frustration, many pro-gay debaters continue using politically charged words like “hate,” “bigot” and “attack” to demand acceptance. This only serves to drive a deeper wedge at the expense of positive dialogue that will eventually lead to more rights.

The forthcoming 2010 US Census will provide better statistics, but the 2000 Census reported 1.5 percent of Americans consider themselves gay. Redefining the term “marriage” will open churches up to discriminatory lawsuits that will cost millions of dollars and change their protected religious practices. This not only violates the Constitution’s first amendment, but bowing to a small minority shouting over a loud media megaphone is absurd.

Most Christian, Islamic, and Jewish churches fight battles against immoral actions, not people. Churches believe that homosexuality is a choice and wrong (per God) because it is a question of morality. Marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by the US government and shouldn’t be viewed as a negotiable right. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. It also tells states they do not need to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage.

Before you type your comments calling me an intolerant bigot, let me state the position I buy into. The term ‘anti-gay’ is completely wrong and hateful. Tolerance and striving to build others who are willing to meet you halfway should always be guiding principles in our relationships.

All men and women are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This guiding creed has not been accomplished when gay people are beaten and killed for the lifestyle they’ve chosen to pursue. It hasn’t been accomplished when life has become so dark they take their life because they don’t know how to live in a society that hates them.

It should be illegal to discriminate against gay individuals in housing, employment matters and other limited rights. We shouldn’t oppose civil unions for gays, as long as those rights don't infringe on religious liberties. Giving the word ‘marriage’ to gays infringes on the religious liberties of those who practice traditional marriage.

Lines need to be drawn to protect the freedoms we all enjoy. An open mind of course is important, but not to the point where your moral compass goes out the window. If giving "equal rights" to one party infringes on the rights of another, then it's not good policy or legislation. This essentially unravels the singular purpose American colonists founded this nation and crafted the Constitution. When you change the definition of marriage, you allow lawyers and judges to begin pushing churches around.