July 1, 2010 Technology, The Internet
It’s a sad day in Internet history. The Feds shut down Ninjavideo and now I have to go somewhere else to watch seasons of TV shows that are off the air, somewhere else to find out whether a new film is worth buying on DVD. Did you read that right, Mr. Executive? I’m still going to watch your shows and your films somewhere else.
What have the film and television industries got to win from stomping down Internet ‘piracy’? They say they’re protecting their creations but a real artist would never complain about free distribution of their work. Why? It’s free publicity. You say they have “no respect for creativity or innovation” and yet you’re the ones stunting the growth! The artist wins nothing from ending so-called ‘piracy’ and they can’t stop it anyways. When they shut down one site four more jump in to take it’s place.
I’ve said it before: these big industries don’t understand the Basic Mechanics of the Internet and so they shoot themselves in the foot; they try to hold their guts in when their belly has already been sliced open. How juvenile! How insecure! Lashing out against those that want to spread their work is a desperate move, a symptom of a failing industry. I don’t know what they think they’re winning by these reactionary tactics but it’s not money and it’s not fans.
May 11, 2010 Technology
One of my customers in the restaurant last night was a little girl, who could not have been older than one year old; who could not even speak to me, if she could speak at all; and who sat in a high chair and flipped through photos and videos on an iPhone with more dexterity than you would expect out of any fully grown, intelligent adult with a college education. Read on »
May 6, 2010 Technology
“Throughout history side effects have proven more dangerous than direct effects. If, for example, global warming makes digital technology’s side effects irrelevant, our concerns will have been obliterated by the side effect of a much older technology: industrialization.” Neville Holmes, Side Effects of Digital Technology
It seems that the more technology we invent the more likely we are to be the cause of our own extinction. Unlike the dinosaurs. They had it easy. Blame it on the asteroid, blame it on the ice age. Where have we to lay the blame? Only on ourselves.
Because if global warming doesn’t kill us first, obesity, laziness, diabetes, and a supreme lack of foresight surely will. Read on »
March 26, 2010 Technology, The Internet
Despite the intriguing new models for hyper-local journalism manifesting in the Czech Republic, pointed to briefly here, The Urbanophile thinks there’s more to it. They take a “keep your eye on the ball” approach,
‘If you want to “think global, act local”, you first need to figure out what the global means to the local. What’s the implication? That mission isn’t being carried out in Chicago or most other cities – by either the old or the new media.’
If Internet sites are tied with invisible hawsers to the geography of our world, then anyone with a voice who appears to be floating in cyberspace is missing their megaphone, present party not excluded.
I guess I’ll have to do something about that. Suggestions for a rootless vagabond?
March 3, 2010 Music, Technology, The Internet
Restricting embedded videos is a bad idea. It doesn’t benefit the business, the artists, or the consumers. In a succinct response to the restrictions record companies like EMI have placed on embedded YouTube videos, Damian Kulash, from OK Go, writes:
“[EMI] needs to recognize the basic mechanics of the Internet. Curbing the viral spread of videos isn’t benefiting the company’s bottom line, or the music it’s there to support.”
So why do large companies keep trying to work against the system? Sharing is what makes the Internet go round — one of the “basic mechanics” — but some companies missed that memo. The figures in Kulash’s article leave no room for suggestion: by restricting video sharing, companies are burning their profit, damning their artist’s popularity, and throwing away the best advertising tool on the market. Would they be happy to watch the smoke rise if they knew what started the fire? Read on »
February 19, 2010 Culture, Technology
This is beautifully designed map of predictions for our future. It was made for WIRED by Density Design. The concept comes from research done by a non-profit organization, a sort of seer collective for science. Unsurprisingly, they are called The Institute for the Future. Read on »
December 4, 2009 Technology, The Internet
If it is true that Google “is profiting from online news pages” as this BBC article claims, then if Google limits access to free news, the newspaper industry will see a correlating increase in online revenue, right?
Not necessarily. I ran across this article by the Google CEO Eric Schmidt, dated one day before that misinformed BBC article was published. Schmidt argues that it is not the fault of the popular search engine that the newspaper industry is struggling against a thinning revenue stream, especially in the online market. They are struggling because the newspaper industry has failed to adapt their methods as technology evolves.
People that read news online today don’t buy a whole paper– or two or three. They skim the headlines on news aggregates (Google News, Newser), and pick and choose which articles they wish to read. Personally, I visit a dozen different websites daily for my news fix. Schmidt calls this the “atomic unit of consumption.”
Think about it. Newspapers have used the same presentation methods for decades with little adjustment. It worked for a long time. Then TV News came along and newspapers started to struggle. Since the rise of the Internet, they have been fighting not to drown.
The technology has changed, the methods of consumption have changed, but the news industry has not. So who is really to blame?
Curiously enough, the BBC article and Schmidt’s article both cite Murdoch–in defense of opposing sides. It is not even necessary to quote BBC. Schmidt’s case trumps the BBC article in evidence and logic:
“It’s understandable to look to find someone else to blame. But as Rupert Murdoch has said, it is complacency caused by past monopolies, not technology, that has been the real threat to the news industry.”
One more thing: Schmidt mentioned a new project called Google Fast Flip:
“The theory—which seems to work in practice—is that if we make it easier to read articles, people will read more of them. Our news partners will receive the majority of the revenue generated by the display ads shown beside stories.”
This might be a win for both sides. News companies better hop on that bandwagon or start to write their own obituaries.
December 2, 2009 Technology
I am surprised by how little noise Google Wave made in the wake of its initial release. Two months later I’ve just had a chance to test it out, and still no one is talking about it. Like the rest of Google’s services, it will grow quietly, gaining members by invitation, and popularity simply by being excellent.
Nothing new there. Look at the history: Google Search’s popularity is so far-reaching it coined it’s own verb. E-mail was around for years before Gmail, and when Gmail was released no one made a lot of noise about it either. Yet, last year, Gmail ranked among the top three e-mail providers in the US. People stick with quality, and the Google name practically guarantees it.
This time around, however, their new product doesn’t have any competition. Wave is a new innovation. Here’s why: user-website interaction is static and it has been since the Internet was made. Websites load once, and no new content appears until you load that page again or click to another page.
This started to change when Ajax and ‘Web 2.0‘ began to gain traction a few years ago. An example of this can be found on social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), where new posts materialize at the top of the homepage, or in Gmail, where your inbox refreshes automatically. Those are not truly dynamic interactions, but imitations, new-fangled Ajax tricks.
Google Wave breaks through that static barrier entirely. For the first time, live interaction is possible. This is something I could only imagine when I started making websites. It’s amazing to see it implemented. But why so quiet in the media?
Because consumers haven’t been given a way to make good use of it yet. Sure, it’s cool to play with. Anyone familiar with group collaboration, especially over the web where distance and time differences often hamper progress, will immediately see the possibilities. But until developers translate their ideas over to the Wave interface, it’s just a fancy new toy that no one knows how to use.
There are some bugs to work out, too. It lags, especially when multiple users edit the same block of content. There is no direct person-to-person chat (voice or text) that I could figure how to initiate. I wish I could have hit “undo” when editing, but there doesn’t seem to be a button or hotkey for that either.
Not to worry. Google tends to lay the groundwork for their products first, and improve them over time. Have you seen what it can do? Do you think live interaction revolutionize the way we use the web?
November 19, 2009 Culture, Review, Technology
It all starts with the beat of a heart. The entrance corridor pulses red in time. Just like the beginning of a human life.
Body Worlds & The Story of the Heart is located in the Ontario Science Center and features over two hundred specimens. The complex arrangement of the cardiovascular system, especially how the heart connects with other anatomical systems, is revealed with stunning transparency.
Every figure, cross section, and model is poised to give the viewer a three hundred and sixty degree panorama. Sometimes a specific part of the system in question is accented in the display, like the major blood vessels or the nervous system, but the whole body is powered by the beating of the heart.
The full-sized figures are the premier attraction. They are frozen in the poses they are named after. The Ski Jumper is caught mid-jump. The Archer is captured right after she releases her arrow. Each of the dozen figures is arranged differently to show a unique view of the muscles and organs.
Surely, you’re thinking, these people didn’t die that way. No, they donated their bodies to science. Gunther van Hagens came up with a process called Plastination in 1977 as a smarter way to preserve organs for medical study. After much improvement, this method was brought to the public. Now Body Worlds has been seen by the eyes of millions and there are currently six exhibitions running on three continents.
The heart’s role in our life and history is emphasized throughout the exhibit, as is the importance of a healthy heart to living a happy life. The heart has always been of pivotal importance in literature and religion. Science is no different.
The exhibit runs until February 9, 2010. It is located on Don Mills Road in Toronto, south of the intersection of Don Mills and Eglinton. Entrance is $28.50 for an adult, and $18.50 for a child, which includes a ticket to Body Worlds and access to most of the Center.
July 23, 2009 Technology, The Internet
Websites can be an invaluable communication tool for people and businesses, a public canvas for an artist, or a place to upload embarrassing pictures of your drunk friends. With the economy mid-flush, every ambitious individual with a budget ought to know how to create their own web presence.
You can teach yourself and there are instant results. Anything is possible, and the limits are always expanding thanks to the pioneering forces of internet megacorporations fueled by ever growing numbers of consumers.
The Tools. To make your own website, all you really need is a computer and a text editor. You can keep the files on your hard drive and view them in a web browser (Firefox, Safari, IE, etc). Once you are brave enough to share, you will need a web host, and I recommend using an FTP Program because all web-based FTP’s are a nightmare.
The Cost. Web developers are generous people. For every web dev tool you can buy, there exists an open source version that you can download or use for free. A good web host, however, is worth the small monthly expense. It runs me $10/year for this domain and $5/month for hosting with A Small Orange. Much cheaper than your average rent. The amount of space and bandwidth you get at that cost will suffice for any personal website, as long as you are not streaming videos or offering large files for download.
Where To Start. Read the basics at W3Schools.com. Familiarize yourself with HTML and CSS. These are the two essential tools of web development. HTML is the structure, CSS the style. These two scripting languages are fused together inseparably.
Try things as you read about them to jog your memory. Don’t bother making notes because there are copious online reference charts on hand if you have to look something up later. A dedicated individual can learn the basic stockpile of HTML tags and CSS definitions inside of a couple days. If you keep at it you will be creating your own websites within the week.
Where to Go From Here. Once you cover the basics, move on to the advanced articles on W3Schools, and eventually perhaps you will tackle the Web Developer’s Handbook. Follow an ordered chaos of links from there to wherever it may lead you.
With the increasing amount of worthless content posted on the web, and given my own personal track record, I feel obligated to remind you to consider carefully before uploading anything (exceptions based on hilarity and replayability).
If you don’t have the time, or you are no good with computers, there are many wonderful freelance designers out there, totally willing to do the leg work for you and at a steal.
Want cheap? Look local. Do your research. In the end, however, as with any product, you will get what you pay for.
Good luck to you all. Read carefully, don’t skip ahead too far, and remember that Google is your friend.