Category: Media

  • On air: Does Facebook improve your life?

    We had another case recently, when a mother Twitted as his son lay dying.
    Though the concept is is good, its utility depends on its usage.Unfortunately you can not control what is being posted on th net;nor can you stop any criminal actions arising out of it.The more you try to regulate , more the people shall circumvent it.
    So, as with all technological innovations, you have to take with a pinch of salt.

    Story:

    In our meeting today we all were able to come up with a story regarding Facebook. From the case of Anthony Stancl the American teenager who blackmailed fellow students at his secondary school into having sex after using their Facebook images . To a story here in the UK about Craig Lynch, he is on the run from police after absconding from prison three months ago, but is still finding time to update his Facebook page. And apparently according to a British study a fifth of divorces are due to Facebook.
    http://ramanisblog.in/wp-admin/post-new.php

  • Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

    Revolting, to say the least.Could not have taken place without Wiki’s knowledge9?).
    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 22nd, 2009
    241 Comments Comment on this article
    If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists
    Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.
    Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.
    Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
    Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Or so Wikipedia claimed in its feeble, there’s-really-not-much-we-can-do response to anxious questions from one of Watts Up With That’s readers.
    In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.
    If this is true, it doesn’t seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia’s entries. Here he is – unless its just someone with an identical name – busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let’s hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri. And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann’s entry. And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums – name of Stephan Schulz – helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article appears on Connolley’s Wikipedia entry. And here he is deleting criticism of himself.
    Connolley, it should also be noted, was one of the founder members of Real Climate – the friends-of-Michael-Mann propaganda outfit (aka “The Hockey Team”) which, in the guise of disinterested science, pumps out climate-fear-promoting hysteria on AGW and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with the ManBearPig “consensus”.
    Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann:
    >> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
    >> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
    >> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
    >> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
    >> know if any comments…
    >>
    and here are some of his associates:
    From: Phil Jones
    To: William M Connolley ,Caspar Ammann
    Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
    Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000
    Cc: Tom Crowley ,”Michael E. Mann” , “raymond s. bradley” , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig ,gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org,garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , “Raymond P.” ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, “Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)” , “Jenkins, Geoff” , “Warrilow, David \(GA\)” , Tom Wigley ,mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, “Folland, Chris”
    Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia’s entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to “Climate Change”) is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists.
    Nope, this isn’t a problem that is going to go away. Wikipedia may well be beyond redemption – as this useful resource site for Wiki-inaccuracies would seem to suggest. Like so many hippyish notions, Jimmy Wales’s idea of a free encyclopedia for everyone was a noble intention which has been cruelly and horribly abused by some very ugly people.
    Do you want to know just how ugly? I’ve been saving the worst till last. Here it is: William Connelley’s Wikipedia photograph.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

  • Will the search giant shutter its local operations in China?

    Rumors have been flying about Google’s future in China ever since the company’s China head, Kai-Fu Lee, resigned in early September to start an incubator lab in Beijing. His departure seemed awfully abrupt.

    Lee scurried to set up an office for his incubator, raise a fund and assemble a team from thousands of job seekers. Lee’s PR reps in China and the Valley hyped his new project as his fulfillment of a dream to coach young Chinese entrepreneurs and support their best start-up ideas.

    My venture investing sources in Beijing and Shanghai suspected then that there was more to Lee’s departure than was being told. Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin want to exit China and Lee knew this, my sources speculated. Certainly, the rush to the exit door by Google ( GOOG – news – people ) staff in Beijing since September suggests that.

    Indeed, Google has been trying to become the top search engine in China for nearly a decade, without success. Google hasn’t said it is shuttering its local operations in China, but the company plans to power its Chinese search business from its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters.

    Why did the mighty Google fail in China? For years, the company fumbled with inferior search results and unreliable service, not to mention censorship issues and that annoying upstart Baidu, which raced ahead with innovative technology that had a search algorithm for generating results that were more relevant in Mandarin.

    To compete with Baidu head on, Google set up business on Chinese soil, recruited former Microsoft ( MSFT – news – people ) exec Lee, and began to gain traction. Lee hired more than 100 Beijing-based engineers and linguists. The effort moved the needle on Google’s market share to 31% in 2009 from 21% in 2007.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/google-baidu-internet-intelligent-technology-fannin.html?partner=asia_newsletter

  • News Anchor Can’t Stop Laughing While Describing A Gruesome Murder (VIDEO)

    Revolting to say the least.
    This local news anchor just cannot keep it together while she describes a gruesome murder. A man in Michigan was arrested on suspicion of chopping up his wife, and the anchor narrating cannot stop laughing. At least she managed to wipe the smile off her face when the camera turned back to her.

    While we don’t know for sure what she found so funny, our bet is on the mugshot of the suspected murderer. He’s making bug eyes.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/news-anchor-cant-stop-lau_n_395778.html

  • Google Talks Transparency, But Hides Surveillance Stats

    Google likes to trumpet transparency and free expression, especially when it concerns the internet, part of its commitment to the corporate motto, “Don’t Be Evil.”

    But despite the company’s recent online public policy posts espousing unfettered online expression, we aren’t buying it.

    The Mountain View, California, search and advertising giant said Wednesday, for example, that it was a “company that believes deeply in free expression” and that it was “determined to continue to do our part and make new, significant contributions to promote free expression in 2010.”

    But juxtapose those and other recent statements on its public policy blog with the real facts — facts that Google won’t cough up.

    We asked Google some simple questions about how much user data it turns over to the government. These are questions at the heart of free expression, especially with a company that wants you to use its operating system, its browser, its DNS servers, its search service and its e-mail and phonecalling programs.

    Google, however, declined to address the question adequately.

    Here’s Google’s answer, as provided by spokesman Brian Richardson:

    We don’t talk about types or numbers of requests to help protect all our users. Obviously, we follow the law like any other company. When we receive a subpoena or court order, we check to see if it meets both the letter and the spirit of the law before complying. And if it doesn’t we can object or ask that the request is narrowed. We have a track record of advocating on behalf of our users.

    What is Google hiding? Are the numbers so big that Google might be seen as an agent of the government, or that people might rethink the wisdom of filling up 7 GB of free e-mail space?

    These are questions we’ve been asking of Google since 2006, when it launched its five-point plan to deal with censorship in China.

    To be fair, no other tech company and no ISP publishes this data, either.

    But there’s certainly no law against it. Google prides itself on doing brave and innovative things that other companies wouldn’t even consider doing, just because it’s the right thing to do.

    But instead, Google has chosen to side with the rest of the industry and refuse, on principle, to be open with their customers. That makes us think Google agrees with some peers that suggest that the public simply can’t handle the truth.

    Verizon, for example, recently told the government it might “confuse” the public if it released how much it charged the government to assist in collecting user data via pen register/trap-and-trace orders and wiretaps.

    Yahoo said its pricing structure amounted to “confidential commercial information” and would “shock” consumers.

    Verizon made its statements as it objected to a Freedom of Information Act request from graduate student Christopher Sogohian seeking its price sheet, and said the company receives “tens of thousands” of requests annually from law enforcement agencies for customer records and information.

    Verizon did not intend for that number to be made public. It announced the figure in a letter to the government that became public last week through a follow-up FOIA request by Soghoian.

    Sogohian’s intention was to combine the price sheets, with government data on how much it spent on getting phone and net records, to figure out how many requests the feds sent per year.

    We suspect, not unreasonably, that Google also receives “tens of thousands” of law enforcement and other requests each year for data — with most of them being lawful.

    But we don’t have any sense of how often the government or others go on a wide-open fishing expeditions.

    Google knows, but it’s not telling.

    We don’t know how many subpoenas Google turned away; how many sought search records; and how many came in civil cases, such as a divorce where an unhappy husband wanted to see what’s in his soon-to-be ex-wife’s Gmail account.

    Google defends its policy, saying it has a history of fighting for privacy. It uses the example of its successful court fight to keep bulk search records from the feds.

    What’s more, Google has belatedly become a leader in online advertising privacy, giving users the chance to see what the company’s behavioral advertising algorithms think of them, to delete categories and opt out entirely. In fact, Yahoo liked the idea enough to launch its own version just weeks ago.

    And Google on Wednesday deplored that an increasing number of governments are restricting access to information online, such as China blocking sites that could be viewed as anti-government. Google also applauded this week a bill that would force the State Department to include more information in its human rights reports.

    That’s laudable.

    Yet Google retains information, and refuses to share data that could shed a bright light over how much the government and others potentially tread on online privacy.

    Google has the chance to walk its talk, and set a standard — as it has so many times before — for the rest of the internet to follow.

    If it doesn’t, shouldn’t the company think twice about trumpeting transparency, when it won’t come clean with its own users?
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/google-talks-out-its-portal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))