Archive

Web Celebrations: The Return of Full RSS Feeds

Published
by
Taylor
on July 29, 2008
in Blogging
. 3 Comments

Last week I griped about Mental Floss (one of my very favorite blogs) truncating their RSS feed.  At the time I wrote:

Enter the most recent source of my web-frustration: Mental Floss.  I’ve read the Mental Floss blog (which is absolutely terrific) for about a year and a half.  While catching up on their prolific feed after a week of travel, I discovered that in early July they switched from a glorious and full feed to a sloppy partial feed.  I’m pissed.

Maybe I’m an atypical feed reader, but I suspect not.  The truth is, a partial feed decreases the likelihood that I’ll read something by approximately 100%.  [...] When content providers refuse to provide a full feed, they disrupt [my] information flow.  As a result, I read less of their material.  In other words, don’t be surprised if fewer Mental Floss items end up in my Monday Links or anywhere else on this site.  I still receive the (partial) feed, but I’m. Not. Reading. It.

Harsh I know, but hey: that’s why I have a blog.  Well folks, it brings me great joy to share this *breaking* news:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. Birmingham, ALA. Today, at 4:15pm EST, the editorial board of mental_floss magazine kept their promise to  readers and turned their blog’s RSS feed back to full blast. The feed had been temporarily disabled due to hacking issues. The gushing stream of full RSS stories hitting inboxes around the nation was quickly followed by cheers heard across America, and the popping of champagne corks distribution of celebratory juice boxes around the magazine’s headquarters.
“This is a great day for mental_floss and this is a great day for our readers!” exclaimed a triumphant Will Pearson, President of the company. “But mostly this is a great day for mental_floss.” The comment was nearly drowned out by the thunderous sounds of high-fiving and back patting taking place.

Well done, Floss Nation.  In honor of their editors seeing the light, I hereby shamelessly plug the geektacular shirts available in the Mental Floss store.

It’s a web celebration (a webebration?).  Ball’s in your court now, Freakonomics.

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user ~Twon~.

Transparent and Responsive Governance

Published
by
Taylor
on July 28, 2008
in Politics and Web 2.0
. 14 Comments

At long last, some reactions from Netroots Nation:

We’ve all witnessed the rise of social media and web 2.0 tools in electoral campaigns. But at some point, in order for that increasing participation of individuals in their chosen candidates’ political fate to influence those politicians’ actions in office, the tools of the social web must extend beyond the campaign sphere to governance itself. This idea fascinates and excites me; after all, the reason many of us welcome and trumpet social media in the campaign space is exactly because we believe that participation in elections will lead to more accountable and responsive elected officials.

It’s easy to claim success on the campaign front. Sure, there are undoubtedly miles yet to travel in terms of involving all voters in the electoral process. But if the 2004 and 2006 election cycles did not convince you that online social tools will be a staple in campaigns—large and small—from now on, just look around at 2008 candidates.

What hasn’t been as visible—or, for the most part, widely accepted—is the use of social media in governance. Fortunately, a number of folks are trying to do something about that disconnect between electoral contests and policy implementation.

Andrew Hoppin moderated a Netroots Nation panel (in the running for ‘most unwieldy panel title at Netroots Nation’) called “Transparency, Participation and Reinvention in Government in the Next Administration Through Web 2.0 Tools and Culture.” Micah Sifry quickly and thankfully renamed the panel “Rebooting Government in 2009.” Hoppin framed the discussion by sharing his own experiences working for NASA in Silicon Valley (at the Ames Research Center). He recalled his frustration, years ago, at the enormous cultural difference between surrounding Silicon Valley and the NASA compound. Outside the gates, the spirit of experimentation and opening networks was driving the success of many start-up companies that are now household names. Inside the gates at NASA, on the other hand, an antiquated culture of closed knowledge and traditional communications and public outreach persisted. (More on NASA and the culture shift that took place at every geek’s favorite government agency in my next post).

Micah Sifry, of techPresident and the Sunlight Foundation, cited efforts to shed light on the legislative process and involve citizens in governance. I’m looking forward to giving these resources a closer look; for now I’ll link to them and summarize:

Continue reading ‘Transparent and Responsive Governance’

Monday Links: July 28th, 2008

Published
by
Taylor
on July 28, 2008
in Monday Links
. 1 Comment

I’m running a bit behind blogging schedule today, but it’s Monday so cut me some slack.  Links (still good, even cold):

To celebrate 75 years of Esquire History, or perhaps in a desperate attempt to prove to the wired generation that magazines can be high tech too, Esquire will sport an electronic ink cover on its September Issue. Except for the few copies destined for the Smithsonian and other collections, that will be a 100,000 electronic pages which will be e-waste at latest when the battery runs out after 90 days.

Want to know what the estimated environmental impact of this completely useless and indulgent distraction looks like?

150 tons of CO2 equivalent, similar to the output of 15 Hummers or 20 average Americans for an entire year, and a 16% increase over the carbon footprint of a typical print publication (based on calculations by Discover Magazine, Time, and In Style). The potential environmental impact of the E Ink covers increases even more when you consider that the units are designed to be disposable after one use and they’ll make it more difficult or impossible to recycle the paper portion of the magazines.

  • Let me set a scene for you: Steve Jobs, after appearing a bit pale and very thin at Apple’s Worldwide Developer’s Conference, is the subject of various industry and media rumors about his health.  Apple’s PR department writes off concerns, saying that El Jobso was suffering from a “common bug.”  Many tech writers and bloggers don’t buy this (shocker), and continue writing speculative stories about what is going on with the Chosen One.  Well, Jobs finally responded with a phone call to NY Times business writer Joe Nocera (emphasis mine):

“This is Steve Jobs,” he began. “You think I’m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he’s above the law, and I think you’re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.” After that rather arresting opening, he went on to say that he would give me some details about his recent health problems, but only if I would agree to keep them off the record. I tried to argue him out of it, but he said he wouldn’t talk if I insisted on an on-the-record conversation. So I agreed.

Because the conversation was off the record, I cannot disclose what Mr. Jobs told me. Suffice it to say that I didn’t hear anything that contradicted the reporting that John Markoff and I did this week. While his health problems amounted to a good deal more than “a common bug,” they weren’t life-threatening and he doesn’t have a recurrence of cancer.

Well then.  Okie dokie.

  • I’ll be writing about NASA’s adoption of social media and information sharing in a post later today on open government; in the meantime, check out the amazing NASA Images website that just went live.  Unbelievable pictures.  One of my personal favorites, the untethered spacewalk:

[Hat Tip OhGizmo]

Distracted by Shoes

Published
by
a Guest
on July 24, 2008
in Advertising, Consumer Behavior, Culture and Lifestyle
. 2 Comments

The following is a guest post from Daniel H.  Welcome back, Dan!

In a recent NY Times column, David Brooks describes a deterioration in American culture over the past century, noting that “America once had a culture of thrift…but over the past decades, that unspoken code has been silently eroded,” and now we exist in a “culture of debt.”

He partially blames the effects of a rapidly growing economy, noting how some luxury items which were once unaffordable for the middle class suddenly came within financial reach (especially within the reach of creditors if not within the reach of one’s own cash).  He also blames the deterioration of the norm of personal responsibility, and claims that those who fell victim to marketing schemes were also furthering the deterioration of a norm of thriftiness, in themselves and in those around them.

I thought it was a good opinion piece, really. But the whole time I was reading the article, I kept getting distracted by shoes.

Lots of shoes.

The whole top and side of the internet page on the New York Times website was full of shoe advertisements, which of course, exist because the Times wants to collect on extra revenue whenever possible and because advertisers are willing to pay prime dollar for space on a site viewed by perhaps millions of people per day.  And so as I was challenged by Brooks’ thoughts on how we, as Americans, should seek to be wiser consumers, I also felt that this change cannot and will not happen if I do not seek to monitor the ways in which I take in information, most especially on the web, but anywhere for that matter.  If Americans truly desire to become wiser spenders, we must question our acceptance of the commercial advertising industry and its self-imposition into our day-to-day lives.

While I don’t think internet advertising is wrong at all, it might be helpful, as technology and the internet becomes more and more central to our means of gathering information, to ask several questions:  First, what space is sacred?  What space or information should not be corrupted with advertisements?  At what point, if any, is the value of information corrupted or degraded by advertisements?  Would we put corporate sponsors on our holy scriptures or governmental documents?  What about on websites that contain this kind of information?  What about good literature?  The unspoken reality here is that corporate sponsors help keep quite a bit of the internet free and available to all, which I tend to find is a good thing.  I only wonder where we go from here?

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user bcjordan.

On Prizes and Progress

Published
by
Eric
on July 23, 2008
in Energy, Environment, Politics, Space and Sustainability
. 2 Comments

Last month John McCain made a campaign promise that, if elected, he would champion a $300 million prize to develop an inexpensive and powerful automotive battery that could “leapfrog” current available batteries. While the announcement garnered some press coverage, it was covered with fervor in the political as well as technology blogosphere. In fact, it seems to have been one of the most polarizing political announcements in technology and clean-technology investment spheres since a number of candidates promised to make changes in laws regarding carried interest. Tech investors left a number of interesting commentaries on the McCain battery plan. Many deemed the intentions of the plan as noble, but the logistics poor. One of the major arguments, among others, was that the development of such a battery would have a monetary upside that would far outweigh the $300 million prize. Others argued that such money would be better used in some kind of federal R&D program that could foster emerging battery research.

These commentaries got me thinking about prizes and the inherent “carrot and stick” issues that surround such achievement-based prizes. While the clean-tech detractors certainly make interesting and very true points, they’re forgetting the intangible inspiration factor that such a prize could create. An excellent example of such inspiration success could be the $10 million Ansari X-Prize awarded in October of 2004. In the the nine years from introduction to its presentation to the Paul Allen-backed winner Mohave Aerospace Ventures, the prize inspired over twenty-six teams made up of both amateurs as well as professionals to create and successfully launch a reusable manned spacecraft in two separate flights within two weeks. What many fail to point out is that over $100 million was invested in technologies leading up to the two successful Mohave flights.

Wait, isn’t something off here? Why would Mohave and Paul Allen put up ten times the financial muscle into winning a prize that doesn’t even cover the costs of research and development? In the typical investment world such ideas are shear lunacy. In this case wouldn’t it make sense that the prize money merely inspired the group towards the end goal? Why can’t the same true for battery improvements, or wind power, or any other publicly available prize? Isn’t the mere possibility that such a prize could inspire a talented scientist or engineer to shift their efforts towards developing new technology worth forgetting a few logistical shortcomings in a plan?

There however is another important fact that many clean-tech investors have left out. Beyond talk of batteries and prizes, recent campaign statements by both major party candidates illustrate the fact that both candidates are actively interested (at least for now) in making some serious changes to federal energy policy. Placing individual candidates positions aside, if promises from both candidates hold true into a new administration shouldn’t clean-tech investors (as well as the general public) be excited about the possible sea change such policies will bring?

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user AndyArmstrong.