Blog - Unity Behind Diversity

Searching for beauty in the dissonance

Tagged: Google

Watch Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017) subtitle english

2x9v5k84hg

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (20)

Degooglifying (Part III): Web Search

This post is part of a series in which I am detailing my move away from centralized, proprietary network services. Previous posts in this series: email, feed reader.

Of all Google services, you’d think the hardest to replace would be search. Yet, although search is critical for navigating the web, the switching costs are low — no data portability issues, easy to use more than one search engine, etc. Unfortunately, there isn’t a straightforward libre web search solution ready yet, but switching away from Google to something that’s at least more privacy-friendly is easy to do now.

Quick Alternative: DuckDuckGo

In on sense, degooglifying search is easy: use DuckDuckGo. DuckDuckGo has a strong no-tracking aproach to privacy. The !bang syntax is awesome (hello !wikipedia), the search results are decent (though I still often !g for more technical, targeted or convoluted searches), it doesn’t have any search-plus-your-world nonsense or whatever walled garden stuff Google has been experimenting with lately, and it’s pretty solid on the privacy side. After just a few days, DuckDuckGo replaced Google as my default search engine, and my wife has since switched over as well.

The switch from Google Search to DuckDuckGo is incredibly easy and well worth it. If you’re still using Google Search, give DuckDuckGo a try — you’ve got nothing to lose.

But… DuckDuckGo isn’t a final destination. Remember: the point of this exercise isn’t for me to “leave Google,” but to leave Google’s proprietary, centralized, walled gardens for free and autonomous alternatives. DuckDuckGo is a step towards autonomy, as web search sans tracking, but it is still centralized and proprietary.

Web Search Freedom

A libre search solution calls for a much bigger change — from proprietary to free, from centralized to distributed, from a giant database to a peer-to-peer network — not just a change in search engines, but a revolution in web search.

YaCy

Last summer, I ran a search engine out of my living room for a few months: YaCy — a cross-platform, free software, decentralized, peer-to-peer search engine. Rather than relying on a single centralized search provider, YaCy users can install the software on their own computers and connect to a network of other YaCy users to perform web searches. It’s a libre, non-tracking, censorship-resistant web search network. The problem was that it wasn’t stable or mature enough last summer to power my daily web searches. I intend to install it again soon, because as a peer-to-peer effort it needs users and usage in order to improve, but an intermediate step like DuckDuckGo is necessary in the meantime.

Although YaCy is designed to be installed on your own computer, there is a public web search portal available as a demo.

Seeks

Seeks is another interesting project that takes a different approach to web search freedom. Seeks is “an open, decentralized platform for collaborative search, filtering and content curation.” As far as I understand, Seeks doesn’t replace existing search engines, but it adds a distributed network layer on top of them, giving users more control over search queries and results. That is, Seeks is a P2P collaborative filter for web search rather than a P2P indexer like YaCy. Rather than replacing web indexing, Seeks is focused on the privacy, control, and trust surrounding search queries and results, even if it sits on top of proprietary search engines.

Seeks also has a public web search portal (and DuckDuckGo supports !seeks). As you can tell, its results are much better than YaCy’s, but Seeks is tackling a smaller problem and still relying on existing search engines to index the web.

Conclusion

DuckDuckGo, though proprietary and centralized, provides some major privacy advantages over Google and is ready to be used today — especially with Google just a !g away.

But web search freedom requires a revolution like that envisioned by YaCy or Seeks. Seeks seems like more of a practical, incremental and realistic solution, but it still depends on proprietary search. YaCy is more of a complete solution, but it’s not clear whether its vision is technically feasible.

I intend to experiment with both of these projects — p2p services need users to improve — and continue to watch this space for new developments.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Post a Comment

Degooglifying (Part II): Feed Reader

This post is part of a series in which I am detailing my move away from centralized, proprietary network services. Previous posts in this series: email.

Next to email, replacing Google Reader as my feed reader was relatively easy, though I’ve chosen to use the move as an opportunity to clean out my feed subscriptions, rather than doing a straight export/import. I’ve replaced Google Reader with two free software feed readers: Liferea (desktop) and Tiny Tiny RSS (web).

A reading list can be very personal, and it can also be very misleading out of context. For example, my reading list suggests all sorts of things about my religious and political views, about the communities to which I may be connected, etc. Though, it would take some analysis to try and figure out why I subscribe to any particular feed. Is the author’s view one I espouse and whole-heartedly hold as my own? One I find interesting, challenging, or thought-provoking? Or one I utterly disagree with yet want to learn more about?

There is something private about a complete reading list, much like the books you might check out from the library or the videos you might rent from a store. As we get more of this content through the internet, it’s easy for these lists (and even more behavioural data about how we interact with them) to be compiled in large, centralized, proprietary databases, alongside all sorts of other personal information that would not be available to a traditional Blockbuster or public library. Besides the software fredom issues, this is another revealing personal dataset that I can claim more control over by exercising software freedom, rather than dumping it into a big centralized, proprietary database. Both software freedom and privacy issues are at play here.

Desktop Client: Liferea

Liferea is a desktop feed reader for GNU/Linux. Google Reader was my first feed reader, so a desktop feed reader was a bit of an adjustment, but there are a few things I really like about it:

  • Native application: It integrates well with my desktop, with something like Ubuntu’s Messaging Menu, and it’s a client that feels somewhat familiar in GNOME.
  • Control over update frequency: One of the things that bugged me about Google Reader is it constantly checks for new content, whether or not you want it to. Sometimes, I don’t want to see anything new until tomorrow. It’s nice to be able to click update, read, and then let it be until I choose to update again. (Though, the downside is missing material if you don’t update often enough.)
  • Integration with Google Reader / Tiny Tiny RSS: This is a killer feature. You can use Liferea to read feeds through the Google Reader API, and recent versions have added support for a tt-rss backend as well. This helped with my transition because I could use Liferea as a front-end for Google Reader before I was prepared to migrate my feeds, to test it out, to ease the transition, etc. And, I will be able to use Liferea and tt-rss together to have both desktop and web-based clients.
  • Embedded Web Browser: This is also a killer feature. Websites that don’t have full-text feeds and only offer a content snippet are annoying in Google Reader, because you have to leave Reader to see the full content. But, in Liferea, you can tell it to automatically load content for a feed using the embedded web browser instead of just viewing the snippet, or hit enter on any feed entry to load the URL using the embedded browser. It even has basic tabbed browsing support, so you don’t have to flip back and forth between your web browser and your feed reader. This makes reading content from non-full-text feeds easy without leaving Liferea.
  • Integrated Comments: Liferea can detect comment feeds on many blogs, and it shows a handful of comments underneath entries. Combine this with a quick enter key to visit the web page with the embedded browser, and you no longer have to leave the feed reader to participate in the comments. This is a nice step up from the usual isolation of a feed reader from comment threads.
  • Authentication support for protected feeds: This is a useful feature for subscribing to protected content, such as an updates feed on an internal wiki.

I tested Liferea as a Google Reader front end, then migrated subscriptions group by group (giving me a chance to re-organize, though I could have just used an OPML export/import), and once I upgrade to Liferea 1.8, I’ll connect it to tt-rss.

Other Desktop Clients: RSSOwl is a free software, cross-platform (Windows, Mac OS X, GNU/Linux) feed reader, which also has Google Reader integration. I have only tried this briefly, so that I could recommend it to Windows users.

Web Client: Tiny Tiny RSS

Tiny Tiny RSS is a web-based feed reader, similar to Google Reader, but free software that you can run on your own web server. There are some feeds I read all the time, and others I’ll skim or catch up on when I have a chance. For the must-read feeds, it makes a huge difference to be able to read them from my mobile computer. With Google Reader, I used grr, and there is a mobile web interface. I migrated my must-read feeds to tt-rss instead of Liferea so that I’d have easy access to them while away from my laptop, while still having the ability to use Liferea when on my laptop with it’s tt-rss integration. I’m moving more and more feeds into tt-rss, though I plan to leave some less frequently updated, less important feeds or feeds that are difficult to read from my mobile in Liferea only.

Some cool features:

  • Publish articles to shared feed: Google Reader had a shared articles RSS feed, and I’d piped that into blaise.ca. tt-rss has a similar RSS feed, which I’ve also been able to include on my website
  • Mobile web interface: tt-rss has a mobile web interface for webkit browsers powered by iUI. With Macuco on my N900 or the Android web browser, it works quite well — though, only for full-text feeds.
  • Filters: With tt-rss, you can create filters on feeds. So, for example, I am automatically publishing articles from the Techdirt feed that I’ve written, or I can auto-delete posts for a particular series or author that I’m not interested in to custom tailor a feed to my interests. It’s very useful for automating certain actions or reducing noise on a high-traffic feed.
  • Custom CSS: I suppose you could customize Google Reader’s styles with a GreaseMonkey script or something, but tt-rss offers custom CSS overrides and multiple themes out of the box, which is great for setting some more readable default colours.
  • API: tt-rss has an API, which allows for Liferea integration, an Android client, etc.
  • Authentication support for protected feeds: Like Liferea, tt-rss provides support for feeds requiring authentication.

As with Liferea, tt-rss gives me control over how frequently updates run, since I schedule the update job. But that control also comes without the downside of missing content if I’m away from my feed reader for a while; unlike a desktop client that needs to be open to retrieve new content, tt-rss does so in the background from the server, so it can still track new entries while I’m away. It has the benefits of Google Reader’s persistent background updates, while still giving me control over frequency and scheduling. I have the update job set to run a few specific times through the day, and tt-rss gives you the option to set an even longer update interval for any given feed.

While I was initially migrating from Google Reader to Liferea, Tiny Tiny RSS is quickly becoming my primary feed reader, while Liferea will become my primary desktop client for tt-rss and home for less frequent/important/non-full-text feeds.

Other Web Clients: NewsBlur is another web-based, free software feed reader, which is based on a more modern web stack and seems to have some neat features. I have yet to try it, and I’m not sure of the state of its mobile or API/desktop integration, which are two things I really like in tt-rss. It’s worth taking a look at though for sure. NewsBlur.com has a hosted service, if you aren’t able to run your own web server or don’t have a friend who’s running one.

Conclusion

My migration away from Google Reader is essentially complete. I have less than a dozen feeds remaining there, but mostly old or broken feeds. I no longer log into Google Reader to read anything, though I’ve got one more round of cleaning to do to empty my account. I’m currently split between Liferea and tt-rss, but with Liferea 1.8, I’ll be able to integrate the two. I also have other libre options to explore with NewsBlur and RSSOwl.

There is nothing that I miss about Google Reader, and if anything, with an embedded browser, native desktop options, integrated comments, control over update scheduling, feed filters, and authentication support for protected feeds, I have a lot of useful features now that I didn’t have with Google’s proprietary service — nevermind more software freedom and less surveillance.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (5)

Degooglifying (Part I): Email

I’ve begun to write about free (libre) network services, and the hazards of being a tenant on the web instead of a property owner. I began slowly moving away from Google in 2009, but I’ve accelerated that process since the launch of Google+. I thought I’d begin to share my process of degooglification.

To be clear, I still generally trust and respect Google, and I do believe they’re generally less evil than most, but…

  1. Despite great support for open source software, they remain a proprietary software company at their core. Google is a friend to open source infrastructure, but not to free (libre) network services. Specifically, it’s the proprietary network services I’m degoogling from.
  2. The sheer amount of data — email, contacts, documents, calendar, RSS feeds, social graph, phone calls, photos, GPS location, nevermind web searches… — aggregated into a one single account with a proprietary service provider is an obviously bad idea. Even if Google never intends to do anything bad with it, they can make mistakes. Even if Google never does anything bad itself, it’s a single vector for attack from an outsider. And it’s not your account.

Email is one of the easiest services from which to degooglify. It’s also a good example of a multi-step transition.Watch Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

Changing the front-end

The first thing I did was to stop using the Gmail web interface. I configured my Gmail account in Thunderbird, which I was already using for other email accounts. Google’s commitment to data portability often makes it easy to switch your front-end software before switching the back-end, which can make a transition much smoother. Rather than cutting over cold turkey, you can ease into a new interface. My Gmail account is still active, but it rarely sees any important email anymore. I’ve transitioned 99% of my email to other accounts on domains I control (like this one).

Changing the Backend

Gradually, I started using my blaise.ca email addresses instead of my Gmail account, until eventually I wasn’t getting much email through Gmail anymore. With my Gmail account configured in Thunderbird, it was easy to archive the contents on my computer. You can access Gmail labels as IMAP folders and just copy email from one account to another, and Thunderbird will even offer to synchronize a local copy of your Gmail account. I never used Gmail contacts, but an export and import to Thunderbird would get your data out (more on contacts another time). Lastly, I’m still monitoring my Gmail account via Thunderbird, but I could set an auto-reply and/or forwarder if I really wanted to force that last 1% over. I will probably do that eventually.

Other Considerations

There are a few other perks of a Gmail account that are pretty easy to get from libre alternatives:

  • Hosted: Not everyone is going to run their own mail server, or have a friend or family member who does. But there are hosted, libre services, like riseup.net
  • Storage space: in 2004, 1 GB of email was a huge game changer. Today, it’s not very hard to get that kind of storage space on a server for cheap.
  • Chat: Google uses the open standard XMPP for its chat service. I run my own XMPP server, and there are public Jabber services like jabber.org. I’ve simply added my Gmail contacts to my blaise@blaise.ca XMPP account. More on chat another time.
  • Conversations: The Conversations add-on provides Gmail-style conversations inside Thunderbird.
  • Spam filtering: Gmail has a good track record on spam filtering, but SpamAssassin, ClamAV and a greylisting policy can produce great results on your own server nowadays. I don’t get any more spam to my blaise.ca inbox than I do to my Gmail inbox.
  • Webmail: I love Thunderbird, but not everyone wants to use a desktop client, and you’re not always on your own computer. Roundcube is already a great free software webmail client, and it hasn’t even hit 1.0 yet. Many hosting providers already offer Roundcube to their customers.
  • Mobile: With IMAP, my email is easily accessible from and synchronized between Thunderbird, Roundcube, and my mobile computer’s IMAP client.

Email is probably the easiest thing to degooglify. It can be a smooth, gradual transition, and there are lots of good alternatives, as well as benefits from leaving Gmail. Over the next while, I’ll share my ongoing efforts to degooglify other aspects of my online life.

I’ve begun to write about free (libre) network services, and the hazards of being a tenant on the web instead of a property owner. I began slowly moving away from…

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (8)

Thumbs Down for “Like” Culture

When the “Like” button was first introduced on Facebook, it was a useful alternative to leaving a comment, another way to show you were paying attention, but it crept from posts to comments and pages, and it now permeates every aspect of the Facebook experience and defines the entire ethos of the site. What was at first a secondary option to conversation has been enshrined as the primary and defining characteristic of Facebook. Not only is it often a superficial way to interact with someone else, by just hitting “like,” but it also influences and shapes what people post and share.

Just as stand-up comedians are trained to be funny by observing which of their lines and expressions are greeted with laughter, so too are our thoughts online molded to conform to popular opinion by these buttons. A status update that is met with no likes (or a clever tweet that isn’t retweeted) becomes the equivalent of a joke met with silence. It must be rethought and rewritten. And so we don’t show our true selves online, but a mask designed to conform to the opinions of those around us.

Now, we rarely “show our true selves” offline either, but it’s not self-presentation that impairs authentic social interaction. It’s when automated, superficial interaction becomes the dominant mode of communication. A “Like” or +1 may be better for Facebook or Google than a comment — a simple binary value is easier for their algorithms to tally — but that’s not the kind of human interaction that drew me to social media.

There is so much more value in online social networking than the popularity contest, than merely pressing digital levers, like lab rats looking for pellets of social affirmation. Social technology can enable intimate and in-depth conversations where time, space and fate might otherwise not allow. Ambient awareness can maintain ties that distance and a loss of common circumstances might otherwise break. The ease of organizing can enable groups and communities to thrive where, offline, they might be dispersed. Yet, I’ve seen less of this in the evolution of Facebook and other social media, and more encouragement of the lab rat lever-pushing type interaction. Deep, rich, intimate and profound interactions — expressions of love, nostalgia, unity, shared memories, the meeting of minds, bonds of friendship or common experience — these are much harder for an algorithm to make use of than a binary +1 or “Like.”

Don’t let thumbs and plus ones be substituted for authentic social interaction online.

When the “Like” button was first introduced on Facebook, it was a useful alternative to leaving a comment, another way to show you were paying attention, but it crept from…

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (1)

Google+ exists to organize people, but I don’t want to be “organized”

There are many things I like about Google+, but, beyond being yet another proprietary social networking service, something just doesn’t sit well with me about Google’s primary purpose. Comments by Brad Horowitz that Google+ will be connected to everything Google are a good example of what concerns me:

Google+ is Google itself. We’re extending it across all that we do — search, ads, Chrome, Android, Maps, YouTube — so that each of those services contributes to our understanding of who you are [emphasis added]

Maybe I’m naive or wrong, but it never seemed like the primary motivation behind Gmail was to sell more ads. It felt like an innovative email service that Google was able to monetize with relevant, contextual ads, not merely a means to improve Google’s ad business. But Google+ feels different. Google’s primary interest is to get access to more social information, not to create a better social networking service. Buzz or Google+ are just the means for Google to gather social data.

As Fred Wilson said with respect to Google+ as an identity service:

It begs the question of whom Google built this service for? You or them. And the answer to why you need to use your real name in the service is because they need you to.

Google is often pretty good at aligning its interests with that of its users. For example, the more useful their ads are to users, the better Google does. Or, the better your web browser is, the more you use the Internet, the more Google thrives. But with Google+, it feels like the desire for an identity data mining tool well precedes their desire to provide a useful social networking platform.

Google+ is not first and foremost “a place for friends” or a way for student life to find expression online. From Google’s hyper-engineer perspective, we are just things to be organized in the process of organization the world’s information. They’ve organized web sites, photos, maps, calendars, videos, books — now, they’re just organizing people.

Maybe Google+ is really no different from other Google services. Maybe I’m just different. I don’t want my relationships with other people, my identity, to be treated as ultimately just data to harvest, information to organize, inputs to a proprietary Google algorithm, a way to teach Google about me as some sort of data structure. Google+ seems to exist more for Google than it does for me.

I don’t want to be treated as just a thing to be organized.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (1)

[Watch] Full Movie Why Him? (2016) Online Free

Why Him? (2016) English Subtitles Full HD, Full Movie Online Watch Free, Free Movies Streaming , Free Latest Films.


Plot
‘Why Him?’ is great movie tell story about Ned, an overprotective dad, visits his daughter at Stanford where he meets his biggest nightmare: her well-meaning but socially awkward Silicon Valley billionaire boyfriend, Laird. A rivalry develops and Ned’s panic level goes through the roof when he finds himself lost in this glamorous high-tech world and learns Laird is about to pop the question. This movie have genre Comedy and have 111 minutes runtime.

Cast
James Franco as Laird Mayhew, Bryan Cranston as Ned Fleming, Zoey Deutch as Stephanie Fleming, Megan Mullally as Barb Fleming, Griffin Gluck as Scotty Fleming, Keegan-Michael Key as Gustav.

Production
The Director of this movie is John Hamburg. The film Why Him? is produced by 21 Laps Entertainment, Red Hour Films and released in December 22, 2016.

Similar Movie
Why Him? have some related movie, 3 Ninjas Kick Back, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up, Batman Begins, 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain, Django Unchained.

Watch Full Movie Why Him? (2016)

You can enjoy to watch movie in theater or by streaming in HD quality by following link on this page. If you don’t have account, you can register for FREE to make sure our visitor is human. After register you can Watch or download this movie with high quality video.

Incoming search term :

Why Him? Full Episodes Online
Why Him? Watch Online
Why Him? English Episodes
Why Him? Episodes Online
Why Him? English Full Episodes Free Download
Why Him? English Full Episodes Download
Why Him? HD English Full Episodes Download
Watch Why Him? Online Free Viooz
Why Him? HD Full Episodes Online
Why Him? Watch Online
Why Him? Free Online
Why Him? Full Episodes Watch Online
Why Him? For Free Online
Why Him? English Full Episode Online
Watch Why Him? Online Viooz
Why Him? Episodes Watch Online
Why Him? Free Online
Watch Why Him? Online Megashare
Watch Why Him? Online Megashare
Why Him? For Free online
Why Him? Watch Online
Why Him? Online Free Megashare
Watch Why Him? Online Viooz
Why Him? English Episodes Free Watch Online
Why Him? English Full Episodes
Why Him? English Full Episodes Watch Online
Watch Why Him? Online Free Putlocker
Watch Stream Online Why Him?
Watch Why Him? Online Putlocker
Watch Why Him? Online Free

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (8)

Is Firefox missing the point in its response to Google Chrome?

[This post originally appeared on Techdirt.]

Seth Godin thinks Firefox is missing the point by launching new features in response to Google Chrome. He says the problem now is that “when your friends switch to Firefox, your life doesn’t get better.” Firefox needs to provide people with an incentive to spread it, so that the more people use it, the better it gets for users (think of a social networking site — you have a better experience if more of your friends join). He suggests new communication and collaboration features that only work if you have Firefox.

I think he’s missing the point.

He ignores the Firefox community. The life of a Firefox user does improve as the user base grows. A more vibrant community means better add-ons, bug fixes, security patches, phishing reports, translations/dictionaries, etc. — all members benefit. Mozilla is already providing the sort of incentive he describes. Sure, there may be ways to improve, but I don’t think they’re missing the point.

Plus, “only for Firefox users” isn’t the Mozilla approach. Mozilla wants to improve the web for everyone — not just Firefox users. Mozilla thinks your browser should be like your phone or your car; it shouldn’t matter if your friends or co-workers are using the same product. You don’t need to consider which phone carrier your friend uses before making a call, or which car your co-worker has before providing directions; you shouldn’t have to think about what browser someone uses before communicating with them online. People don’t need special browser-specific features in order to communicate browser-to-browser, that’s what web services (or add-ons) are for. Those kinds of features would make life on the web more difficult for everyone if they were Firefox specific, and if they weren’t, Google could just implement them in Chrome.

The community is one thing Firefox has that Chrome can’t copy overnight.

If you read some responses to Chrome from people at Mozilla, it doesn’t seem like they’re missing the point. Competition in the browser market is validation of Mozilla’s mission for Firefox, and Mozilla plans to compete by continuing to innovate and to involve the community. Seth Godin makes a great observation about giving people an incentive to spread your product — “people will recommend something if adoption improves their lives” — but he doesn’t mention the ways in which Mozilla has already taken that to heart. How do you think Firefox became popular in the first place?

[Read the comments on Techdirt.]

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Post a Comment

Australia: From Toronto to Sydney

We’ve arrived.

After parting with family in Toronto, we barely made it past airport security. That is, as Heather picked up her bags to walk away after being cleared and she dropped her boarding pass and stepped on it. She was ready to keep walking too, if I hadn’t spotted it. Close call!

On the flight to Vancouver, Air Canada gave me a whole can of ginger ale rather than just filling the tiny plastic cup. You come to appreciate these things very much when it’s $10 for a freaking sandwich on a 5 hour flight. (They were much more generous on the 15 hour flight to Sydney, but I don’t suppose that was by choice.)

I still don’t understand many airplane rules around electronics. I did a bluetooth sync between my Palm Pilot and my laptop over the Pacific and the plane didn’t crash. Why can I read a book on descent, but not read from the screen on my laptop or Palm?

Being without an Internet connection for so long has got me thinking about better ways to work offline. In Vancouver, I found some WiFi to quickly download new items from Google Reader using Google Gears. That got me thinking about where else could I use Gears (which is released under a free software license, by the way). Could my company use Google Gears for NateOffice for offline access to the CRM, calendar, etc as opposed to developing tools to sync with specific desktop clients? Could Gears being used in WordPress (plug-in possibly?) to make it easier to write offline? I don’t know much about Google Gears, but now I’ve got some motivation to start doing some research and play around with it.

Also, reading offline has been a welcome experience, but it’s also got me wondering why it has to be that way (offline, that is). More to come on that soon, after I do a bit more reading…

Upon arrival in Sydney, we spent the day running a few errands and scoping out the city for our return in a few weeks. I tried to sign up with 3 mobile, but it turns out they only have a 3G network (go figure). I ended up going with Optus across the street and getting a decent deal, which works out to ~10 cents per international text (as opposed to Rogers’ 60+) with a $30 AUD prepaid plan (which included the SIM card). I don’t plan to make any calls, though it’ll be nice to have the option in case we need to make last minute reservations or cancellations on the go. For phoning home, I’ve got WengoPhone working in Ubuntu. It’s less than 2 euro cents a minute for a call to a phone in Canada from my computer, which crushes anything Optus (nevermind Rogers) can offer, even considering the cost of WiFi around here (~$2-3/hour —> ~3-5 cents/minute).

We had a chance to visit Darling Harbour briefly and scope out the hotel we’re staying at during World Youth Day. We swung by the World Youth Day office to ask a few questions and pick up some information too. The excitement was contagious!

We still have no idea what we’re doing after check out in about 12 hours, but I guess that’s half the fun! Canberra is next on the itinerary… after we get some rest.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (2)

Google is making Nick Carr and Matt Asay stupid

(Note: A revised version of this article has been posted on Techdirt.)

Matt Asay writes about Nick Carr’s article in the July issue of The Atlantic, “Is Google making us stupid?” I’m not so sure that you can make such a generalization, but the Internet certainly seems to be making Nick Carr and Matt Asay stupid.

There are some valid concerns nested in there, but the tone is attention seeking and hyperbolic. More importantly, Carr seems (note: haven’t been able to read the full article) to be jumping to the wrong conclusions, as appears to be typical. What really irks me is how people make the wrong distinctions with respect to digital technology. People tend to liken it to analog technologies when it’s dissimilar (e.g. people who believe DRM is possible), and treat it like something entirely different when it is similar (e.g. now).

How is Google’s or Wikipedia’s role of “brain extension” all that different from something like paper? Sure, it’s much more powerful and works on a completely different scale, but if the fear is that we aren’t exercising our brains enough because we rely on Google, how does the same concern not apply to paper? Paper plays a role of brain extension, whether it’s through notes we write for ourselves or books we reference from a library.

According to the Radar Online, Carr writes in the article:

[S]cholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it.

I’m sorry, but how is this “chilling” (as the Radar comments)? I don’t understand why this is a problem. I skim a ton of stuff online and often make quick judgments as to whether or not its worth my time. There’s a lot of crap in the long tail. But there are also a lot of worthwhile things. Skimming is human filtering, it’s a necessary and useful part of processing the vast amount of information available online. I’m not going to read everything I find on the web. Most articles I will scan quickly, but there are many other things that I read in detail and at length.

What’s wrong with skimming?

And then there’s Matt’s attack on Twitter…

Speaking of Twitter, am I the only one who views it as further evidence of a soundbite culture that struggles even to think beyond 140-character blips?

Come on! It’s a medium! What about the famous quote? “I’ve written you a long letter because I haven’t had time to write a short one.” (paraphrased – usually attribute to Mark Twain, but it appears it may be Blaise Pascal). It’s harder to be concise. Regardless, Twitter is a medium, it’s micro-blogging. Just because you make use of a different medium doesn’t mean that it controls your thinking or prevents you from using other mediums. Did telegrams make people stupid? I use the Internet to update my Facebook status and to write 2500 word emails to stay in touch with close friends.

Twitter doesn’t make people stupid.

Nor does Google or Wikipedia or anything else. People are just stupid irrespective of technology. Myself included. I don’t do stupid things because of technology, I do stupid things because sometimes I do stupid things. We may see stupidity manifested in different ways on different mediums, but I have a hard time believing that the medium is to blame.

I’ll be watching for the article in its entirety when it comes online…

Update: The article is online. I was expecting a little more evidence, less storytelling and speculation. To Carr’s credit, he does acknowledge the counterexample of paper. Though, he doesn’t explain why skimming is problematic, aside from worrying that we’re becoming “mere decoders of information,” like computers. Did paper cause people to become mere transmitters of information? We aren’t deprived of our ability to reflect or think deeply by using Google’s search engine or by skimming through blog posts.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (1)