This is how I feel today.
This is how I feel today.
This is how I feel today.
This story just keeps getting better. This is from the Wall Street Journal.
Since its creation in 2007, Facebook’s Data Science group has run more than 1,000 tests. One published study deconstructed how families communicate, another delved into the causes of loneliness. One test looked at how social behaviors spread through networks. In 2010, the group measured how “political mobilization messages” sent to 61 million people caused people in social networks to vote in the 2010 congressional elections.
Here’s nother reason not to trust social content silos. I’m sure Twitter can do the same thing but who is going to read the terms of service of these sites to find out?
A team of researchers, led by Adam Kramer at Facebook in Menlo Park, California, was curious to see if this phenomenon would occur online. To find out, they manipulated which posts showed up on the news feeds of more than 600,000 Facebook users. For one week, some users saw fewer posts with negative emotional words than usual, while others saw fewer posts with positive ones.
The best description I’ve seen.
The lack of editing is central, because it’s one person who’s responsible for every word. When you click the Publish button you should feel butterflies, at least sometimes, because there’s no one to pass the buck to. If someone else wrote the headline, or did a copy edit, or even reviewed what you wrote and critiqued it before it went out, it’s still writing, but it is not a blog. #
I’m reading a book called “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet” and one of the most revelatory excerpts from this book is the following:
In the end, it turned out that only thirty to thirty-three men were sampled on Crete and thirty-four on Corfu. These, then, are the founding men of the Mediterranean Diet, whose meals over the course of a few weeks fifty years ago have influenced the entire course of nutrition history in the Western Hemisphere.
I’m almost a their of the way through this book and what it’s proving, if anything, is that the general public needs to stop accepting, as gospel, what’s presented to us as “science”. We need to think critically and logically for ourselves and ask the questions of how these scientists reached their conclusions. The media is not much help in this regard because they seem to like to publish attention grabbing headlines rather than actually do some critical reporting.
I’m getting hungry for some steak and eggs now.
I ran across a story today regarding modern day slavery and even though I knew the problem still existed I didn’t know (Or didn’t want to know) that I most likely helped contribute to the enslavement of my fellow man. This story in The Guardian reports on slaves being used to prop up Thailand’s shrimp industry. Major retailers such as Walmart and Costco sell this shrimp. It’s abhorrent to think that any food that I have consumed has contributed to the continued enslavement of other human beings. I will do my best to avoid purchasing these items.
The supply chain works in this way: Slave ships plying international waters off Thailand scoop up huge quantities of “trash fish”, infant or inedible fish. The Guardian traced this fish on landing to factories where it is ground down into fishmeal for onward sale to CP Foods. The company uses this fishmeal to feed its farmed prawns, which it then ships to international customers.
The alarm over slavery in the Thai fishing industry has been sounded before by non-governmental organisations and in UN reports.
But now, for the first time, the Guardian has established how the pieces of the long, complex supply chains connect slavery to leading producers and retailers.
Valuable resources and energy expended to save cats, dogs, and other animals need to take a step back until human slavery has finally been exterminated from the world. It’s unconscionable to think that slavery still exists and that it is so infrequently reported.
The European Union has declared a war on public information. Their top court ruled that people can request removal of links from Google that they deem no longer relevant or invades their privacy.
The court decision stems from a case brought by a Spaniard, Mario Costeja González, who was concerned about the prominence given by Google to a short newspaper notice from the 1990s about a house he owned being sold off to pay debts.
Via: The New York Times
This idea is ludicrous. Public information on a publicly accessible web site is PUBLIC. Anyone anywhere can link to this information. Search results are just links and in no way push information to the fore.
The laws in places like the EU are so backwards. Mr. Gonzalez should have petitioned the newspaper that kept the text of the story on their web site. They are the ones responsible for keeping his name alive as needing to sell his house to pay off debts.
The ironic result is that Mr. Gonzalez, as a result of this case in the EU, has caused his name and the item he wanted removed to forever be searchable on the web for as long as the web exists. Think about this for one moment. The New York Times wrote about it, I put it in a block quote on this post, and now Google is able to find my site and the post on The New York Times’ site.
Here’s more on the story.
I’ve written a couple of blog posts regarding video over the Internet and Net Neutrality. The posts I wrote were based on what I was reading in the technology press and some main stream news sources. I was always skeptical to the idea of reclassifying Internet Service Providers (ISP) as common carriers mostly because of the intense push for the concept. It felt like a knee jerk reaction that might possibly cause more harm than good.
I started reading more into the Netflix-Comcast deal in which Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for so-called “priority access” to Comcast’s customers. As I dug deeper I found articles by Dan Rayburn on streamingmediablog.com that clearly explained the Netflix-Comcast deal has nothing to do with Net Neutrality at all and has to do with what’s called peering.
Commercial interconnect relationships, also referred to as paid peering agreements, have been around since the Internet started, and it’s how the Internet works. Commercial interconnect deals haveNOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY. Implying otherwise shows a complete lack of regard in understanding how traffic is and has been exchanged across networks for the past twenty years. The media as a whole should stop trying to insinuate or imply that everything that happens between two networks comes down to Net Neutrality. It doesn’t.
These peering arrangements between CDNs and ISPs or CDNs and other CDNs many times involve sharing. They agree to send and receive data across each other’s networks in a fair and equitable manner so no one network is sending an inordinate amount of data to any other network. If one network is sending way more data than they are receiving then the arrangement is lopsided and some type of payment may be necessary to balance the scales.
Content creators contract with CDN’s to help keep their costs down when serving content. For example, if I was trying to start a service out of my office to stream movies across the Internet and it was successful I could not afford the bandwidth or the servers necessary to accomplish that goal. A CDN would be necessary so the people using my service receive a quality stream.
Here’s an even better description of what CDN’s do via Ars Technica:
Video providers typically pay third-party CDNs to ensure that traffic is delivered along the most optimal route to each consumer and that heavily accessed content is cached for quick retrieval. CDNs themselves often pay ISPs for direct access to their networks. When Netflix built its own CDN, it tried to get free connections to ISP networks. While Netflix succeeded in some cases, it was forced to payboth Verizon and Comcast.
What wasn’t reported in most of the technology and main stream press is that Netflix was already paying other CDNs to manage and distribute their content. Then Netflix made a business decision to create their own CDN. Netflix’s CDN does not sell service to other content generators all it does is provide its traffic to other CDN’s or ISPs.
I’m sure there’s much here that I’m not precise about as the entire subject is highly technical and complicated. I think I’ve got the big picture though. Everything smells bad to me with what’s happening with the FCC and the net neutrality debate. What concerns me the most is the clamoring from the technology press for the FCC to declare ISPs common carriers. The last thing anyone should want is government regulation of the Internet. Regulations create just as many barriers to entry as any other fact of doing business. If you have ever started a business or even tried you know how many certifications, licenses, and other processes and fees you have to pay before you hang your shingle above your door.
Asking the FCC to regulate ISPs as common carriers may lead to consequences we don’t want. The FCC keeps throwing around the term “legal content”. If the FCC is going to regulate “legal content” on the Internet this could lead to Internet licensing. A person would need a license to post or distribute content online. Do we want this?
I keep scouring the Internet for someone to write a column on the negatives of the FCC declaring ISPs as common carriers. I haven’t found one yet. There has to be a danger here and I’d like to know what it is.
Here are links to Dan Rayburn’s posts that were eye opening and taught me a lot on how things actually work on the Internet.
A hologram of Michael Jackson was created to use at the Billboard Awards for the performance of the song, “Slave to the Rythm”. I find it ironic the song they chose for this because in watching it somehow felt wrong. It was like the spirit of Michael Jackson was no longer free. He is now a slave to the producers and owners of his likeness and music catalog to jump when they say jump. The “King of Pop” had no say whatsoever in this performance.
Maybe it feels so wrong to me because this is the first time this has happened to an artist of which I’m a fan. Maybe I’ll get used to it as they continue to do this to more performers. But, it just doesn’t feel right.
Watch for yourself.