So, ultimately it looks like we can learn an interesting tidbit from this whole mini-debacle: if the Parakey co-founder is chipping in on something pertaining to friend request confirmation, that could be a cool peek into what’s to come from Facebook’s new buy.Well they’ve bought some of Mozilla’s brains anyway. Should provide some interesting competion to Google Gears. I wonder if this will mean there’s a chance the platform will open up?
Social networking site Facebook has bought internet start-up, Parakey, run by two of the co-creators of the popular web browser, Mozilla Firefox.
Parakey is described as a platform that “bridges the gap between information on the web and the desktop”.
As part of the deal, which is for an undisclosed sum, Mozilla Firefox founders Blake Ross and Joe Hewitt will help to develop the Facebook site.
[EDIT: Just reading about a Facebook glitch and lo and behold, it’s Blake Ross who is doing the announcing:
A comment on the Mashable post Sunday night from Blake Ross, co-founder of recent Facebook acquisition Parakey, explained, “This is a bug that will be fixed soon. Trust me, we find this as annoying as you do,” Ross wrote.
So, ultimately it looks like we can learn an interesting tidbit from this whole mini-debacle: if the Parakey co-founder is chipping in on something pertaining to friend request confirmation, that could be a cool peek into what’s to come from Facebook’s new buy.
I remember reading a post by a Microsoft employee saying that even with Microsoft’s huge resources many wished-for functionalities in core software aren’t developed because budgets need to end somewhere. Likewise in quality testing, there’s a limit to how much you can actually test for - both in terms of resources but also in terms of time.
Techies and the love of all things green make uncomfortable but not uncommon bedfellows. Phil Manchester asks the question Is ‘green’ software possible? (Reg Developer) and finds that Microsoft isn’t too bad.
Fortunately, there’s some hope in the future for IT development and enviromental responsibility to coexist:
Two topical trends in software development could also make software production greener. One is open source software, now widely supported by the green lobby. Open source tends to use less resources and - because of the collaborative development process - to be more efficient.
More efficient, ‘greener’ coding strategies could, ironically, also come from developments in high performance computing. The requirement to devise smarter software to exploit parallel, multiprocessor architectures will inevitably mean more efficient use of hardware resources and better coding techniques all round. It could even mark a return to the obsessions of an earlier age of software development when resources were scarce - when, indeed, hardware was big, energy inefficient and expensive.
Many of the social web services (Facebook, Pownce, MySpace, Twitter, etc.) have messaging services so you can communication with your “friends”. Most of the services will only ping you on communication channels outside their website (e-mail, SMS/text messaging, feeds (RSS), etc.) and require the person to go back to the website to see the message, with the exception of Twitter which does this properly.
Here is where things are horribly broken. The closed services (except Twitter) will let you know you have a message on their service on your choice of communication channel (e-mail, SMS, or RSS), but not all offer all options. When a message arrives for you in the service the service pings you in the communication channel to let you know you have a message. But, rather than give you the message it points you back to the website to the message (Facebook does provide SMS chunked messages, but not e-mail). This means they are sending a message to a platform that works really well for messaging, just to let you know you have a message, but not deliver that message. This adds extra steps for the people using the service, rather than making a simple streamlined service that truly connects people.
Technology now actively enables our public agendas but this often comes at the expense of many of our private ones.
I was at the Mobile Media 2007 conference recently and Genevieve Bell gave a brilliant keynote overview. She raised the point that our human nature means that we will want to lie and obfuscate but now our technology rats on us.
I remember when video phones were touted to take over talk but here we are some years later and not only have video phones not had their predicted uptake but the grossly overpriced text messaging is still rampantly popular. Simply we like to control our communications but we don’t realise (or forget) how much information does actually leak out if someone is looking for it.
It is a supremely disturbing thought to know that while I carry my mobile phone and it is switched on, my every movements are being recorded and stored. There are no requirements to de-identify that data in the system either immediately or after a specific period of time. In fact, it’s been a big surprise present for law enforcement agencies in their unending battle against crime as they can now present seemingly credible evidence that someone was at a particular place at a particular time because that’s where their mobile was.
And you know they probably were there doing whatever ever crime they were charged with. But what worries me is that it’s also a pretty easy way to set someone else up. Just borrow their mobile phone. In the conference, there was plenty of evidence of the disconnection between assumptions of use of mobile phones and observed actual uses. Like back the 90s when it was assumed that an email from a certain person if their email address was in the “from” field (hopefully we now know how easily that can be faked), it’s assumed all too readily that an sms is from a certain person if their number shows up. One paper talked about how teenagers in Milan played games with their mobiles, eg girls giving their phones to their friends unbeknowst to other friends. I know myself that it’s easy enough at the pub or at a party to have had stuff done to your mobile phone while your bag was unattended - I’ve had ringtones and languages changed a number of times.
Camera phones contain all the necessary ingredients for completely invasive stalking: a microphone, camera, personal data on the user, location information, a chat and call history — you name it. And victims carry them everywhere they go. All that’s missing is the software that lets stalkers take control.
This new software, called snoopware, does just that. Snoopware — both legal and illegal — enables stalkers to secretly seize control of a phone’s electronics to listen, watch and spy on their victims.
For the time being there are some things you can do:
The best cure is prevention. Don’t allow strangers to gain access to your phone. Like any other kind of software, snoopware doesn’t install itself. The leading methods for installation are physical access installation, where the user installs by clicking on an attachment or link; or via Bluetooth. By preventing potential stalkers from touching your phone, never clicking on e-mail attachments or links from strangers, and turning off Bluetooth autodiscovery, you’ll keep snoopware off your phone.
And if you do think you’ve been infected then Mike Elgan suggests some solutions like getting malware software, turning on passwords for your voicemail, downgrading your mobile to a less advanced model that doesn’t support Java or Bluetooth and/or switching carriers to one that’s better at protecting their customers.
It’s really astonishing how much opportunity the big 3 GYM had to do something truly innovative, how many assets & properties & APIs they had to turn into great platforms, how many brilliant geeks & architects & programmers could have laid out a BIG VISION — and yet how PATHETICALLY & AWFULLY they missed the mark & overlooked the biggest potential for the IntarWeb since Clarke & Andreesen birthed Mosaic.
Have to admit that I’m unhealthily addicted to facebook at the moment (though it is raising some privacy related self realisations - will write more in the next post) and it’s like it’s hit some sort of critical mass in the past few weeks judging by how many of my friends in different countries have signed up completely independently.
The ease of the facebook app system for the end user is brilliant and why the experience is just so much catchier than when I registered for a mySpace and then just got totally bored in about two minutes.
But while those apps are confined to operating within facebook it will always be limited. It’s not an OS nor a browser and who would want it to be? Do I want to do my essay writing in facebook? No way.
It may well change but pure page space is another big contraint, I’ve already run out of room on my homepage (and if it’s not linked off that then it loses most of its point) for any more apps - if I add one another has to go (or should go anyway - it’s already looking like Paradise Lost).
Quite importantly, is also the addictive nature of facebook. I’ve been calling it Crackbook because it’s almost impossible at the moment to not check to see if there have been any updates. I’m checking it more than my email and that is scary. Like I switch off any sort of instant messaging when I’m trying to be productive - I’ll switch off facebook. I don’t need my crucial app running off it and creating all that temptation.
I think far more promising is Google Gears to developing apps on web.
In the lawsuit, Urban, who married Oscar-winning actress Nicole Kidman last year and who recently ended a stint in rehab for alcohol abuse, claims the other Urban’s website is being used “in a manner likely to deceive the public into believing that the website has a connection to Plaintiff that does not exist”.
At first, I was like “groan”, but on checking it out, Keith Urban (the singer) has a case. It’s pretty deceptive for a gullible consumer. All the guy had to do was stick a little disclaimer that he wasn’t THAT Keith Urban and I’d be completely on his side (but then there probably wouldn’t be a lawsuit), instead the front page has a very suggestive “To Those Who Don’t Know, Oil Painting Is One Of My Hobbies.”
This video by Michael Wesch (Kansas State University) illustrates the flowing, intertextual and massively communal nature of our growing internet:
When we post and tag an image, we are teaching the Machine. Each time we forge a link, we teach it an idea. Think of the 100 billion times per day humans click on a web page what we think is important teaching the Machine.
Web 2.0 is linking people… … people sharing, trading, and collaborating… We’ll need to rethink a few things… copyright… authorship… identity…
It’s both a beautiful celebration and a little disturbing. Maybe I’ve watched too much Matrix.
When I checked out the YouTube page, there were 3113 comments (love the symmetry), here is a small selection:
ferment666: The more connected we become to virtual reality, the less connected we become to actual reality.
grantium: If we’re teaching the machine, who’s teaching us?
lokandfffan: you made me think alittel a lot or maby a littel who knows i dont dont ask.. but it was maeking me think how long i wasted on this computer..
jgrim9020: thats really cool…but it makes you think about if computers and machines are watching up and waitin to use it against us ( i kno i sound all nerdy and shit, but it’s kind of creepy wen u think about it)
Aigan: It makes me want to….do something….like make a website….make a difference
davecodave: i can’t read that fast. i am personally making our computers dumber. (Thanks for the reminder.)
Throughout the modern history of P2P, many networks have come and gone. Some networks achieve stunning success, like Napster, FastTrack, WinMX, AudioGalaxy, eDonkey2000, and BitTorrent. There’s an old saying that no empire lasts forever, and neither does the holder of the P2P crown. As Usenet continues to evolve and its clear advantages delineate themselves to the mainstream public, it’s very possible that in the near future, file-sharing may end up where it all began…with Usenet.
“Almost a year ago, Access Copyright (”AC”) announced - with great fanfare and some acclaim - a public domain registry project” writes Howard Knoft from Excess Copyright. [Knopf is an Ottawa-based copyright lawyer who’s been lead counsel on legal challenges both at the Copyright Board and in the Courts against the excesses of the music industry establishment. He’s regularly quoted in the mainstream media and acted against CRIA in the file sharing litigation, and continues to act against the CPCC, in which CRIA is still a major stakeholder, on the levy front.]
Showtime Networks has partnered with game publisher Broadband Libraries to offer an online gaming channel… On Broadband Networks would be a competitor to Turner Broadcasting’s GameTap gaming network that brought back fan favorites like Uru Live. According to analysts, that gaming network has become a place for smaller game companies to go in the face of big-publisher dominance in the game industry.
Was reading this article about the convicted hacker Adrian Lamo, who seems like quite a decent fellow:
Lamo’s modus operandi differed from other convicted hackers. When he successfully broke into computer networks, Lamo would notify the operators, offering to work with the companies to remedy the bugs that granted him access. He was responsible for hacks on Yahoo!, Microsoft, AOL, MCI WorldCom, broadband provider Excite@Home and more.
And his refusal to give blood for a DNA sample:
But it won’t be long before Lamo fronts court again. He’s fighting a government demand to take a blood sample for DNA profiling. Lamo opposes the “spilling of blood” on religious grounds. “Let me be clear, I’m not refusing DNA. I’m asking to give it via a buccal (cheek) swab,” he says. “I oppose the needless spilling of blood, something that every human being, really, should be against. I’m not a religious kook, I just think the Bible is very clear on this issue.”
Apart from the weirdness of not accepting an alternative means (maybe blood contains better DNA?), I thought the fact that they were wanting to enforce collection of DNA somewhat worrying. After all, he didn’t commit a violent crime. I wouldn’t have even characterised it as malicious. Shouldn’t there be some sort of sliding scale for this?
Should one non-violent infraction mean that the State has the right to profile your DNA?
