The newspapers are fruit dying in the tree, falling off trunks already crumbling with rot, branches sweep low, drop into the swamp.
The television channels blurt out judgements by the hour as politicians entertain their captains who seem to believe they are creating reality and have therefore some right to listen in to their creations so employ people to collect information turning a blind eye to the methods, legal or illegal, that may have to be employed to arrive at the articles they have published. The failure to question this and for management to be subject to a level of discipline that befits the crime the board would have to have examined this, so instead of putting it right, a news institution is hijacked for dark purposes and then to essentially commit crimes of some magnitude, from which it published salacious details that seemed extraordinarily personal and indeed were the result of wire taps into the private lives of people, thereby subjecting them to criminal intrusion and electing to play puppet master and implicate themselves into police investigation.
The application of the law by police who have accepted bribes to not investigate serious breaches of personal integrity and basic law by a commercial organisation that intends to control a much larger slice of things than anyone should, thus weakening democratic intelligent examination of truth by certifying salacious lies and exposures of illegally obtained information they had no legal right to obtain let alone promulgate and which they did with no regard to the actual harm they may have caused to potential legal positions.
And the discussion is not of what to do about things but how to appear to the voters.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Technical directions
Facebook announces integration with Skype.
What is next? Twitter integrated with Wikipedia?
The obvious problem with this is that Skype is a utility and FB is a platform that has morphed from being a list of your true friends into a promotional tool of connectivity and a platform for ap development - like iphone and andriod.
So instead of making better distinct products, the software giant are combining essentially into homogenised communications platforms that are remarkably similar in effect (how we use them). They all essentially want to be our phone company?
Meantime, Google fights its war on six fronts.
Strangely, that opens up opportunities for innovation.
What is next? Twitter integrated with Wikipedia?
The obvious problem with this is that Skype is a utility and FB is a platform that has morphed from being a list of your true friends into a promotional tool of connectivity and a platform for ap development - like iphone and andriod.
So instead of making better distinct products, the software giant are combining essentially into homogenised communications platforms that are remarkably similar in effect (how we use them). They all essentially want to be our phone company?
Meantime, Google fights its war on six fronts.
Strangely, that opens up opportunities for innovation.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The Rise of the Smartphone
Handheld terminal devices have been around for years. But to make it a useful object more technology was required to connect data with the very business of living. The radio is an increasingly strange medium until they caught on to publically available channels. The creation of interesting content is not a technology, it is an art. So the established institutions had a head start, if only they could get a handle on the technology. The artist invariably benefits as the technology becomes a commodity but in the early days of Psion organisers and electronic diaries. That the organiser supported a decent programming language that programmed input that could then be loaded into the central server only existed locally. No wireless. The Psion organiser carved a little market out from the otherwise dull landscape of personal organisers because it had a logical language.
What is so interesting about obsolete technology that was not network aware and the current ap revolution in the mobile sphere?
It is that a certain set of logical evolutions are supported: interoperability, online access and video capability as well as voice means along with communication there is a plethora of useful goodies that could be downloaded and used for free or near free.
So what is next? What makes a mobile ap useful and how to make money from it? How to build a business with mobile aps.
Consider this: Your company gives you a smart phone. You can work on it at any time, entering data on a blue
What is so interesting about obsolete technology that was not network aware and the current ap revolution in the mobile sphere?
It is that a certain set of logical evolutions are supported: interoperability, online access and video capability as well as voice means along with communication there is a plethora of useful goodies that could be downloaded and used for free or near free.
So what is next? What makes a mobile ap useful and how to make money from it? How to build a business with mobile aps.
Consider this: Your company gives you a smart phone. You can work on it at any time, entering data on a blue
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Security and Big Companies
Big companies that hold personal information of their client base have an inherent duty to protect this information properly. It is utter nonsense to claim that this is not possible - it is entirely possible. But when constructing a huge edifice of systems it is very hard to see potential bugs and entry points.
But an intrusion of this nature reveals a company is an emperor with no clothes. It is an absence of infrastructure methods and good practise as well as planning for intrusions. So many big companies executive boards do not understand how technology can protect them or where their risks lie.
"No system is infallible" followed by challenges to prove everyone wrong is not the solution to this huge problem. Sequestered validation services and heavy encryption of personal details is.
The opaque and ridiculously complex terms and conditions you sign AFTER purchase to protect such companies from their own failures is highlighted by this and similar incidences. The worst is obviously what we do not know and hiding behind lawyers is simply the wrong security policy.
Sony Playstation Hack
Who is at fault, and why?
Millions of Sony users will blame the company for inadequate protection of personal data. A class action suit is most likely impossible as a remedy, it achieves very little. That is why we have extensive terms and conditions, to protect corporate interests from predatory attacks.
Sony will blame the hackers for stealing their assets. 80 million online paying customers can expect a marketing onslaught. Using this data for criminal purposes is too obvious, short term and risky.
Legally and obviously the people at fault here is you and me. We must act to say no to unreasonable terms for software use. The law should protect you. It can not. Neither can many of the monolithic companies that sell stuff online. It is traditionally an anarchistic arrangement - you feel secure because nearly everyone on the web is equally at some risk so it is normally bad luck if you get hit with a virus. But the systematic theft of a user base is the fault of the law.
The law must keep up with the environment in which it operates. How? By regulating the big companies so they can not escape change due to the nature of their contracts with their consumers they so carelessly betray. The law must enforce certain checks and measures - the banking industry has learned the value of iron bound security, and now the globalised business needs to invest in the minds of clever security designers to foil attempts to steal their IP and their customers.
Instead of encouraging the politicians to talk about practical measures, the media tend to highlight the horror of credit card theft. They are just bits of plastic with numbers on them and the banks could be regulated into instantly replacing all Sony users with new numbers for their accounts.
So many applications rely on email as a valid point of contact. Until Google is raided at least gmail is pretty much that. Unless you type in the wrong address, you can still be fairly certain of a private channel without much effort.
Sony really should have protected their user information with better security design.
But an intrusion of this nature reveals a company is an emperor with no clothes. It is an absence of infrastructure methods and good practise as well as planning for intrusions. So many big companies executive boards do not understand how technology can protect them or where their risks lie.
"No system is infallible" followed by challenges to prove everyone wrong is not the solution to this huge problem. Sequestered validation services and heavy encryption of personal details is.
The opaque and ridiculously complex terms and conditions you sign AFTER purchase to protect such companies from their own failures is highlighted by this and similar incidences. The worst is obviously what we do not know and hiding behind lawyers is simply the wrong security policy.
Sony Playstation Hack
Who is at fault, and why?
Millions of Sony users will blame the company for inadequate protection of personal data. A class action suit is most likely impossible as a remedy, it achieves very little. That is why we have extensive terms and conditions, to protect corporate interests from predatory attacks.
Sony will blame the hackers for stealing their assets. 80 million online paying customers can expect a marketing onslaught. Using this data for criminal purposes is too obvious, short term and risky.
Legally and obviously the people at fault here is you and me. We must act to say no to unreasonable terms for software use. The law should protect you. It can not. Neither can many of the monolithic companies that sell stuff online. It is traditionally an anarchistic arrangement - you feel secure because nearly everyone on the web is equally at some risk so it is normally bad luck if you get hit with a virus. But the systematic theft of a user base is the fault of the law.
The law must keep up with the environment in which it operates. How? By regulating the big companies so they can not escape change due to the nature of their contracts with their consumers they so carelessly betray. The law must enforce certain checks and measures - the banking industry has learned the value of iron bound security, and now the globalised business needs to invest in the minds of clever security designers to foil attempts to steal their IP and their customers.
Instead of encouraging the politicians to talk about practical measures, the media tend to highlight the horror of credit card theft. They are just bits of plastic with numbers on them and the banks could be regulated into instantly replacing all Sony users with new numbers for their accounts.
So many applications rely on email as a valid point of contact. Until Google is raided at least gmail is pretty much that. Unless you type in the wrong address, you can still be fairly certain of a private channel without much effort.
Sony really should have protected their user information with better security design.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The real value of Media
The state of civilisation is indirectly related to the fierce accuracy of its media. Not so much in factual reportage, although that is essential, but the ability to speak the language of a large a slice of people as possible.
The media is there to specialise attention. To bring about that Platonic wish reflected into Derrida that difference is essential to everything. The nightmare is when most media is similar enough that there is only a singular point to be viewed. The concentration of images and events that inform the public what is the effects of the decisions of power has a manifest value.
The rise of social networking is a false trail for newspapers. Yes some of it is useful. Being able to discuss the news with a like or different minded but similarly fascinated attention - the harnessing of a conversation that reveals seems to be the goal. More content we can read and consume and set fire to opinions with, discuss, digress, digest.
What is the point of the multifaceted view of the world? It is not exactly rational to tell lies or stories that are made up. It pays to be real, alive, truthful. The published media make money by selling advertising and spend it on writers and reportage. A news organisation can make stories and then license it to other players who make media. Television news has provided a face to go with the stories. Somehow it seems essential but tells you less than a newspaper yet it is far more popular.
The real goal of online media is to tell you more than a newspaper while doing so with the communication clarity of well concepted ideas.
The reason TV works in real time is the reason that it does not work as a library. Not as an advertising medium. It is too easy to avoid the advertising.
Which explains the medium of online communities. These harness a voice, an identity that people can grasp onto and talk with each other. But that should never be the limit, a news media is about something more than entertainment and presentation of the news.
The mistake with AI is to use it to replace humans. No reason to do that, we like what we like because we do not know what it will be and the moment of not realising that is better than one where all is predictable. We learn plenty from significant surprises.
A news experience engages its readership with a provocative compelling discussion.
It does not take contention, but directed irritation. Many planned paths of contention.
Muted design gives a paper a silent identity.
The media is there to specialise attention. To bring about that Platonic wish reflected into Derrida that difference is essential to everything. The nightmare is when most media is similar enough that there is only a singular point to be viewed. The concentration of images and events that inform the public what is the effects of the decisions of power has a manifest value.
The rise of social networking is a false trail for newspapers. Yes some of it is useful. Being able to discuss the news with a like or different minded but similarly fascinated attention - the harnessing of a conversation that reveals seems to be the goal. More content we can read and consume and set fire to opinions with, discuss, digress, digest.
What is the point of the multifaceted view of the world? It is not exactly rational to tell lies or stories that are made up. It pays to be real, alive, truthful. The published media make money by selling advertising and spend it on writers and reportage. A news organisation can make stories and then license it to other players who make media. Television news has provided a face to go with the stories. Somehow it seems essential but tells you less than a newspaper yet it is far more popular.
The real goal of online media is to tell you more than a newspaper while doing so with the communication clarity of well concepted ideas.
The reason TV works in real time is the reason that it does not work as a library. Not as an advertising medium. It is too easy to avoid the advertising.
Which explains the medium of online communities. These harness a voice, an identity that people can grasp onto and talk with each other. But that should never be the limit, a news media is about something more than entertainment and presentation of the news.
The mistake with AI is to use it to replace humans. No reason to do that, we like what we like because we do not know what it will be and the moment of not realising that is better than one where all is predictable. We learn plenty from significant surprises.
A news experience engages its readership with a provocative compelling discussion.
It does not take contention, but directed irritation. Many planned paths of contention.
Muted design gives a paper a silent identity.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Free Information
James Murdoch wants to keep his assets out of the British Library
"The heir to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation empire attacked the British Library yesterday for "harming the market" in print journalism by allowing online access to its vast newspaper archive. James Murdoch, head of News Corp in Europe and Asia, spoke out days ahead of his company's big gamble in introducing charges for access to the websites of The Times and The Sunday Times."
- The Independent
Our Response:
What is he? A protectionist? There has always been a market for free information, history is not for sale!
It is a legal human right to know what happened from many points of view. Every other news media organisation recognises that their copyright expires and their writings may become public domain in good time. This does not stop Murdoch adding value to his assets. Just look at how Fox and Friends embellish the news for the select audience of the fixed minds of Right wing fundamentalist Americans who love to see their fiendish representation of things. It is nothing more than an archive of fiction. Let them protect it and remove their opinions from the stream of common history.
Excellent idea James. Keep it out of human history.
"The heir to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation empire attacked the British Library yesterday for "harming the market" in print journalism by allowing online access to its vast newspaper archive. James Murdoch, head of News Corp in Europe and Asia, spoke out days ahead of his company's big gamble in introducing charges for access to the websites of The Times and The Sunday Times."
- The Independent
Our Response:
What is he? A protectionist? There has always been a market for free information, history is not for sale!
It is a legal human right to know what happened from many points of view. Every other news media organisation recognises that their copyright expires and their writings may become public domain in good time. This does not stop Murdoch adding value to his assets. Just look at how Fox and Friends embellish the news for the select audience of the fixed minds of Right wing fundamentalist Americans who love to see their fiendish representation of things. It is nothing more than an archive of fiction. Let them protect it and remove their opinions from the stream of common history.
Excellent idea James. Keep it out of human history.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
How is social media not a bubble?
The "real" or what used to be to sometimes called "bricks and morter" media - the news and magazine media who charge handsomely for advertising and pay well for quality content is being continuously pronounced "dead by social media". And then they go on about how social media will one day make money, but until then being content with dribbles of aggregating income for any old content (quality not being the issue).
In the serious matter of news reporting, online newspapers typically do one of two things:
a) try to sell newspapers by presenting a boiled down version of the printed news
or
b) try to sell advertising by harnessing a huge audience
or, if Rupert Murdoch has his way:
c) charging for content
At least c) drives the online media toward quality.
Aggregation of content means representing the same things thorough the filter of online networks to score points (or dollars, on google adsense) is what this (blogging) media seems to be about. For this writer, it is simply a way to write and get hundreds (or if successful a few million) readers. From there the sky is the limit.
A bit like the investment in the property bubble, or the sharemarket bubble or the dot.com boom/bust - the proliferation of "media media media" for its own sake continually dilates the audience. The differenced is, that what I write today can work tomorrow. What I publish in a newspaper is designed to expire tomorrow (or soon enough). The same can be observed with comment aggregation mechanisms (facebook, twitter, et al). What is published today becomes dead seaweed fairly quickly. And the most severe degredadation of content is the social marketers - these creatures demand you find out from them "how to gain 50,000 followers" using the same method they used? The age of media competition is not dead, and if I happen to find out how to gain 50,000 genuine followers, it is merely an illusion to say that I benefit by telling these 50,000 people how to compete. It is a co-operative ideal, and one that is bound to come undone when you consider the mathematics.
The concept that you "own your network" - that when an "important person" tweets or blogs, then their 50,000 followers will go crazy is just fiction. That 100 of them may be watching and relay your wisdom is the goal. Respect your network if the one you have is genuine.
There is wisdom in vertical markets. They do not have to be hierachial to succeed, however. Content may be "king" (what a silly metaphor, but it is one that stuck), but the king has to wear interesting clothes or eventually the signal to noise ratio does nothing for it.
The real trick (in my opinion) is to create something worth reading, which is why this writer needs an editor instead of a stream of irrelevance as comments or votes or whatever. In the end, if you do not care how popular you are, but prepare fascinating, dramatic and mouth watering content then your network will transmit it. If they are interested.
But if all you do is inform others how you tricked 50,000 people into registering interest with a non-existent free gift (the infamous give away ebook and selling webpages that go on and on scrolling for hours of fun persuasion) and expect to make millions, you are inflating a bubble that will not work as well as compelling, interesting or even valuable content.
In the serious matter of news reporting, online newspapers typically do one of two things:
a) try to sell newspapers by presenting a boiled down version of the printed news
or
b) try to sell advertising by harnessing a huge audience
or, if Rupert Murdoch has his way:
c) charging for content
At least c) drives the online media toward quality.
Aggregation of content means representing the same things thorough the filter of online networks to score points (or dollars, on google adsense) is what this (blogging) media seems to be about. For this writer, it is simply a way to write and get hundreds (or if successful a few million) readers. From there the sky is the limit.
A bit like the investment in the property bubble, or the sharemarket bubble or the dot.com boom/bust - the proliferation of "media media media" for its own sake continually dilates the audience. The differenced is, that what I write today can work tomorrow. What I publish in a newspaper is designed to expire tomorrow (or soon enough). The same can be observed with comment aggregation mechanisms (facebook, twitter, et al). What is published today becomes dead seaweed fairly quickly. And the most severe degredadation of content is the social marketers - these creatures demand you find out from them "how to gain 50,000 followers" using the same method they used? The age of media competition is not dead, and if I happen to find out how to gain 50,000 genuine followers, it is merely an illusion to say that I benefit by telling these 50,000 people how to compete. It is a co-operative ideal, and one that is bound to come undone when you consider the mathematics.
The concept that you "own your network" - that when an "important person" tweets or blogs, then their 50,000 followers will go crazy is just fiction. That 100 of them may be watching and relay your wisdom is the goal. Respect your network if the one you have is genuine.
There is wisdom in vertical markets. They do not have to be hierachial to succeed, however. Content may be "king" (what a silly metaphor, but it is one that stuck), but the king has to wear interesting clothes or eventually the signal to noise ratio does nothing for it.
The real trick (in my opinion) is to create something worth reading, which is why this writer needs an editor instead of a stream of irrelevance as comments or votes or whatever. In the end, if you do not care how popular you are, but prepare fascinating, dramatic and mouth watering content then your network will transmit it. If they are interested.
But if all you do is inform others how you tricked 50,000 people into registering interest with a non-existent free gift (the infamous give away ebook and selling webpages that go on and on scrolling for hours of fun persuasion) and expect to make millions, you are inflating a bubble that will not work as well as compelling, interesting or even valuable content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)