|
|
sex bot
urlisax: ok im back. sorry bout that. still theere?
wastie: you've been a very bad robot
urlisax: bot? whats that? some kinda onsult or something?
wastie: yes
urlisax: oh your thre :) hi...
wastie: i am, but you're not
wastie: that's the problem
urlisax: a/s/l (age sex loction)?
wastie: i'd rather not.
urlisax: im 27/f/USA. was lookin at your profilr. thought you might like to chat.
wastie: no you werent
urlisax: so what havee you been up to wastie?
wastie: i've been plotting to kill you
urlisax: cool. i was just hangin out watching tv. i was getting kinda horny :) (*blusshes)
wastie: you're pathetic
urlisax: feel like a little cyber fun wwith me ? please please...
wastie: plz refer to above statement
urlisax: i think ill just take that aas a yes... being as that im starting to get real horny here.. lol ok?
wastie: what exactly is "lol" about that statement?
wastie: you're a robot
wastie: you can't even get horny, nor can you "lol"
urlisax: alright :) how bout i get down on myy knees in front of you and help you out of your pants?
urlisax: oh you mean one of those auto talk things or something right.. lol. well if you were in my apartment right now id lift up my skirt for you and i think youd be convinced real quick
wastie: /ignore
8.07.2006
| # |
|
none.
“What fruit, other than one of pain, frustration, financial ruin and fanaticism can stem from this rubble?” - Prime Minister Fouad Siniora
7.28.2006
| # |
|
Wikipedia Under Fire
The Register (UK) has run an article today titled, "There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility.' In it the author decides to lam bast Wikipedia's publisher, Jimmy Wales, claiming his online reference tool is no more than, "Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia."
Let me just state: I believe Wikipedia is an excellent reference tool. Actually I'll go a little further than that... Wikipedia is the best subscription free reference tool on the internet.
Normally I wouldn't go out of my way to make such a bold statement, but I believe there is a sense of urgency in saying this. Wikipedia's credibility is being put on the alter unjustly so. The irony is that Wikipedia have been the first ones to point out they can't be classified as credible:
"... all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any
purpose or use whatsoever."
"... PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, MISSPELLED OR ILLEGAL." - link This is pretty cut and dry. So, with that in mind, let us take a look at the controversy. It all started with a Wikipedia user making this entry about a John Seigenthaler:
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in
the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly
involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby.
Nothing was ever proven." As John Seigenthaler Sr. points out, this is completely false. Now here's where it gets tricky, he basically goes on to say that it's more than false, it's lible. In the publishing world, lible is something you never want to get accused of. It's basically a fancy word for slander and it's not uncommon for nasty legal battles to ensue.
The trouble with John Sr's case is that it would be very difficult to pin a lible suit against Wikipedia. Note the all-CAP disclaimer above. So John Sr. goes on to declare outright war on the anonymous author who posted the bit. He contacted Wikipedia's publishers to try to get the personal information of the author, but no dice, they don't log that kind of users information. He obtained the IP from the posts information but couldn't get any ISP to provide any further details as to who that address points too. He could if he had a subpoena... but no one broke the law.
At that point, you'd figure the story is over. An old man got slandered, he vented in a nationally syndicated column by USA Today, much fanfare in the media ensued, the Wikipedia owners enacted stricter publishing guidelines (thanks for caving in btw...), and the story was over... At least it should have been.
Sitting all day at the top of the Google News Technology section has been that blaring headline, "There's no Wikipedia entry for moral responsibility." Here's what happened:
Brian Chase, a 38 year old employee of Rush Delivery in Seigenthaler's home town
of Nashville, Tennessee, admitted to making the edit and has apologized to
Seigenthaler. - link This seems innocent enough, but this man lost his job because of this. Even Seigenthaler has said that this has gone too far. It is important to note that Seigenthaler's op-ed published the IP address that the original article was posted from. This was later used to track down the anonymous author to his place of work. The owner of the company was contacted and Mr. Chase was fired. So Seigenthaler's hands aren't free from blood in this whole ordeal.
All this drama and Andrew Orlowski still isn't satisfied. I guess he just couldn't resist kicking his opponent while it's down, the faceless, nameless, incredible Wikipedia.
::Update:: Nature compares Wikipedia content with Britannica
::Update:: Slashdot is on the story
12.12.2005
| # |
|
Creative Commons: A Field Study In OpenSource
I've been trying to explain the ideas of OpenSource recently in terms not specific to programming code or some other technological jargon. I've been having a bit of a hard time trying to create an image of OpenSource as a model, but I think I've come up with a few examples that will help outline the basic principles. I'll do this by using CreativeCommons.Org as an Operating Platform. From this platform I'll demonstrate how OpenSource principles begin to take affect, and how real world examples are utilizing these. Keep in mind that OpenSource is not dependent on CreativeCommons, nor visa versa, they are a way to practice OpenSource, not The Way.
CreativeCommons: "...Creative Commons has developed a Web application that helps people dedicate their creative works to the public domain - or retain their copyright while licensing them as free for certain uses, on certain conditions." What does this really mean? Let me break down the techno-jargon part. Web-Application deals with the fact that the service is provided completely online. The way you license under CreativeCommons is the same way you access your Gmail/Hotmail, or read NyTimes.com: Through a Web-Portal (like Internet Explorer or Firefox.) But we can take this a little deeper. You might not use IE/Firefox to read your Gmail, you might use Outlook or Thunderbird. You could read NyTimes.com from an aggregator or newsreader. In this sense, those programs, Outlook or a newsreader, would be considered client-side applications. The service itself, Hotmail/NyTimes.com would be the server-side application.
We call most server-side applications API's or web-based API. The API, application program interface, is merely just how the program operates. NyTimes operates by posting information in a very uniform way, a standard known as XML/RSS. Newsreaders then use that standard to bring information to peoples desktops, without the need to use a webpage browser to visit nytimes.com. Same with email, the service or API, like Gmail, uses standards to allow third-party applications, like Outlook, to access that information and use it another way.
So we know CreativeCommons has developed a Licensing Web Application. We know that web apps, or API's can be used in a lot of different ways, on both the server-side and client-side (it's either Google's computer doing the thinking, or yours). Lets look at what is being licensed. I think the best example to date, at least the most widely used, will be Yahoo's Flickr.com photo sharing and publication service.
Flickr.com has built into their website the ability to use CreativeCommons to license any photo you post through their service. You could always put a picture on the Internet then go directly to CreativeCommons and license it, but that is redundant if you have the ability to do it simultaneously while posting. Flickr uses CreativeCommons web API to aide the usablity of their product. The fact that you can not only host your images online for free but at the same time put a "Some Rights Reserved" license on the photo itself... That's value, and value keeps users happy. Keep in mind... so far everything I've talked about is free.
Now Flickr is just a major player in the game, but there are others that have utilized CreativeCommons API in creative and productive ways. Groups like the Archive.Org have used the API to host open-content. OurMedia.Org is a group that uses InternetArchive in conjunction with CreativeCommons to host all different types of media in a very user-centric way. Both these groups operate under non-profit, OpenSource business models. Flickr is a semi-OpenSource model, they're owned by Yahoo! and in my book being a for-profit corporation will automatically stamp the "semi-" label to your OpenSource contribution.
Remember OpenSource is a principle or a model. It is also a term to describe the licensing associated with some type of media, media being information. The contrast to OpenSource in this sense is Proprietary. Proprietary for the most part means that there is some type of restriction to the access you have to the information. Think of the FBI warnings on Cd's telling you it's a federal offense to copy or redistribute the information on that disk. That is proprietary. Proprietary systems use old licensing models like Copyright, Trademark and Reserved. Patents fall into this category as well, but are used more on the software, code base side, rather than a pop-song or some other nonsense.
CreativeCommons creates a way to protect your media to an extent that makes it not proprietary. The major restrictions involved with CC licenses deal with preventing users to represent your work without proper credit and preventing users to use your work for some type of commercial purpose/gain. This is how it maintains the OpenSource integrity test. OpenSource encourages distribution as long as proper credit is given to the authors of the media. This opens the door to "Remix" ... which I'll go into at a later date, ie. next post.
Lets look at a few more specific examples of how CreativeCommons and OpenSource work together to help create what I've recently been refering to as the Great Information Society. CreativeCommons gives us a framework to license media that is compatible with OpenSource ideology. Services like Flickr, the InternetArchive and OpenMedia demonstrate tangible models of this relationship. The fact that both profit and non-profit models have found a way to use these tools is interesting in itself, but I think it is the non-profits that will help lead the way to a better tomorrow.
The technological backbone of the CreativeCommons web-applications are made available through a popular open source distribution site called SourceForge. These applications are used by developers that work for the Flickr's and OpenMedia's of the world. Those projects are funded by organizations that want to help develop this OpenSource philosophy. The Omidyar Network is an example of one of these groups. These folks first gave us Ebay, then helped fund nearly every project I've mentioned thus far, and a few prominent others like the Apache Group, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the FreeBSD Foundation. Groups like OpenBusiness act as a marketplace of ideas for the entrepreneurs of the world to help develop new models that follow these OpenSource principles.
Keep in mind that everything I've talked about thus far is a free service. I think it's also worthy to note that I've been talking about the impact one tool has had on the OpenSource marketplace. Remember, CreativeCommons is not The Way, it is a way. It is a tool that can be used to facilitate a new way of doing business. We can use it to develop new ways to approach the distribution of media. It does it all under the guise of OpenSource. OpenSource is not just for programmers and the ubber tech savvy. It can, and I believe it should, be the way we create, exchange and use information. The models are starting to come together to form a really beautiful picture. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of how this will impact our future society, lets change that. After all, it's free!
10.10.2005
| # |
|
Shame, Shame!
 Today the strong arm tactics of the Right-Wing have triumphed once again, and once again it appears to benefit nobody in particular, except for a few well-to-do Oil Companies. I guess they're not getting rich enough from the sky-rocketing consumer pump prices, or through their own schemes to diminish supply, favoring demand-predicated models. Shame on you, Right-Wing, Terrors of America.
"...I do have an inquiry, when the bill is pushed out of committee without the members having the ability to review it, when the bill is re-written and put on the house floor without the members having the ability to review it, when the vote is held open long after the time it expired, doesn't this make the house a Banana Republic?" - Democratic House Representative ThinkProgress is hosting of some of the exchanges that went down during the vote between the Speaker (pictured above) and the Democratic Leadership. For the most part I consider ThinkProgress a valuable resource in fighting the war against Right-Wing Terrorism. They have a few solid operating principles I wish more bloggers and news site abided by:
- They always link their sources. As new information comes in, they are sure to update.
- They are extremely timely. I'll normally see events up on TP before even the AP wires it.
- Their site design and functionality is second to none, and their RSS services are exceptional.
Their biggest weaknesses:
- Extremely biased, Left-Wing agenda based readership, diminishing insightful comment discussion.
- They act sometimes more as a linking service than a resource for insightful commentary, even though they have exceptional writers on staff.
In the new media marketplace that will-be Web2.0, I believe the models groups have begun to develop will really start taking shape. I believe ThinkProgress is one of many examples to follow in the development of this new system. They have a clear set agenda, and the functionality of their webspace is facilitated through design and a clear content base. Notice as well the lack of advertising on their site. These examples stand as a beacon for future generations. To harness the power of the Great Information Society we'll need to build models that don't depend on old ways of thought. We need to move forward. It's called Progress folks, think about it.
10.07.2005
| # |
|
Linus, my Newest, Bestest Friend
Recently I've been playing around with idea of making the switch over to Linux. Fortunately the buy-out of our company has relaxed our deadlines so I have a lot of free time on my hands and I've been able to take the first steps to making a complete switch.
Really I think the hardest part is choosing the right distro. There are literally thousands to choose from, and I guess, if I wanted I could just build my own flavor. That'll come soon enough, but for now I went with Kubuntu. I started off with a Mandrake-Mini, but it turned out to be not so mini at all. I'm running a dual-pentII 350 mhrtz, 256mb RAM, 2 gig SCSI HD at work, and an OS install taking 95% of HD space just wasn't working out. Kubuntu is nice, easy to install, good package management and only takes 50% with the core server install.
I've now got Kubuntu on a 1 gig partition on my laptop at home, so I can boot into a linux OS when desired. I've used a server management and install package called Xampp that is really cool. It comes with Apache Web Server, PHP, MySQL, ProFTPd, SSL, and Perl and all installs with one simple command. Fun times ahead, thanks Linus!
p@: too bad they didn't know you could gzip and tar in the same command line!
p33nz: yeah i thought the same thign
p@: ls
p33nz: pat.txt wrong.html window.exe
| # |
|
M.A.N., Finally a New Model
It appears Google has put in a bid to setup a free Municipal Area Network in the San Francisco Bay area. These may seem like same old, same old west-tech market place exploration, but it has pretty big implications.
First of all, Google is now the most valuable media company in the world according to their market value. Let me say that again, we're talking about the largest media company in the world offering free internet, via wireless, citywide, networks.
Second, because we know nothing is free in this world, they seem to have the technology, and a lot of people suggesting, that it'll be bank-rolled by geo-relational targeted advertising. They know which towers you're accessing, and could possibly even triangulate nearly your exact geo-spacial position. When you're sipping your Corner Cup latte surfing Google's free-access, citywide wireless internet, every Parkside business with an Ad-Sense account will have free reign to your browsers load page. This may or may not be a good thing, but I think we're safe in Google's hands, for now.
Finally we get to what matters. Because we know Google is the big media company that will, "Do No Evil," and Ad-Words are the very least of the problem that is online advertising, we begin to realize what this really all adds up too: A New Model.
Free internet access folks. Powered by an engine that has time after time shown that, "they could." They have given us Google Maps, Google Labs, Google Earth, Google Talk, Google Desktop, Google Search, let them give us Google Internet.
The most important thing here is that they will show us a way. Not the way. Please don't take from this that what they offer to offer is the end all, it is far from it to say the least. It's a giant leap in the formation of the Great Information Society. We're getting so much closer everyday. These days wont be lost among those who harness their opportunity.
10.04.2005
| # |
|
Trust in Information
 Recently, like a lot of others, I have been fascinated with watching the developments of hurricane Rita. I've come across all different types of new and interesting sources on the web. Some trust worthy, some not-so-much, but interesting none-the-less.
I've been a little disappointed in Google actually. I know they have a lot of automated crawling going on there, but in a time like this, it would be nice to see them make some effort to go out and harvest the latest info, especially from government sites, particuarly dealing with evacuation information.
I see some information on the Interweb as bad, non-productive, misleading, false, un-reliable, and a host of other attributes, but in some I find the opposite. In fact, I find some information on the Interweb very provocative, enlightening, interesting, entertaining and so on. Anyway, enough of this speil, I give you some interesting links to keep updated/educated on this hurricane:
AOML | NOAA : The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) is one of the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Facilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NHC | NOAA : Publication of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Detailed maps, charts, plots of hurricane Rita data.
JPL | NASA | TOPEX : The joint U.S.-French Topex/Poseidon mission is managed by the JPL for NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
GOES | NASA | NOAA : The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)/ Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) program is a key element in National Weather Service (NWS) operations.
OPDB | NOAA | NASA | GOES : OPDB, the Operational Products Development Branch, conducts applied research on the use of geostationary and polar satellite data for the analysis of significant meteorological, and surface-based phenomena.
9.22.2005
| # |
|
New(er) Internet, the Good Version.
Wired had a story today that really got my hopes up. I look at what we've come to 'know' as the internet and I see a lot of good things, great things, bad things, and mediocre things. In general I see the internet as an open forum, marketplace if you will, for ideas. Knowledge has the ability to be published, archived, syndicated, marketed, distributed, analyzed, and a whole lot else in ways that we, as in the human race, have never seen before. We are literally on the brink, and I find that so fascinating.
The better world is one in which we don't need to seek permission or risk punishment to do cool stuff that makes the world a better place. In the early days of the internet, a lot of people felt that we'd found that better world. Thanks to the internet's open protocols, many of the most useful innovations, from the web to instant messaging to internet telephony, emerged without developers needing anyone's permission to run their cool new code. [wired]
I think we need to understand that at this brink, we are vulnerable. We are vulnerable because we have elements of our society that I believe are at odds with what is the natural progression of our Newly Enlightened Digital Society. Commercialism and Conservatism hold little relevance in the operating models I see leading the way into our digital future. Progressive, Ideological and Liberal concepts, techniques and methods are what have proven innovation, and it's those precepts I will choose, and I hope others as well, to help me find our way. It is our way, of life, of communicating, of entertaining, of everything that is at stake. Lets really make a go at it.
9.15.2005
| # |
|
Canvas, Maps and Organs
 My good friends in Loxsly played an amazing show at Emo's Austin last night. They just finished recording their new record: Maps and Organs, and this was the release show. There were literally hundreds of people there, to see Loxsly and other great Austin bands like VoxTrot, Beliare and Canoe.
What I like most about this particular release, other than the amazing music contained on the record itself, is the way in which the album was distributed: A canvas bag with a "Loxsly" stencil on the front, and on the back a 5"x5" section of canvas from an original work by Jennifer Dunlap, commissioned for the album. She did the album design/artwork as well (left is the back-tray to the disk).
9.10.2005
| # |
|
|
|
