Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Hola:
Una infografía con 10 APPs de Redes Sociales que más utilizan los millenials.
Un saludo
You will find more statistics at Statista
Hola:
Una infografía con 33 consejos sobre escritura en un tweet. Vía
Un saludo
33 consejos sobre escritura en un tweet
“We will not tolerate abuse of this nature on Twitter,” said Del Harvey, Twitter’s vice president of trust and safety (yes, that’s a real job; one that probably pays better than yours or mine… combined). “We have suspended a number of accounts related to this issue for violating our rules and we are in the process of evaluating how we can further improve our policies to better handle tragic situations like this one.”
In terms of specifics, Harvey says, “This includes expanding our policies regarding self-harm and private information, and improving support for family members of deceased users.”
But what does any of that actually mean? And would any of it do anything to stop people from being horrible jerks on Twitter?
The answer to that second question, in my opinion, is a big “no.”
We live in a world where everyone old enough to hold onto an iPhone has the ability to anonymously indulge their most base instincts; to say things that would they would never say to someone’s face (or even in a forum where their real names were known); to hurt others for the sheer, possibly psychotic, joy of inflicting emotional pain.
The Internet is still in its adolescence, and a small but potent section of its users are behaving accordingly.
Unfortunately, this id-liberating freedom is something we all endure because the only way to restrict it is to restrict the things that also make the Internet function as a mass-communication tool.
The true double-edged sword of the Internet. For better and worse, it also allows you to write things that you might not have the freedom to write under your own name.
On the positive end of the spectrum, Internet anonymity offers an outlet for whistleblowers, dissidents, and victims to speak openly about the harm done to them or others without fear of retribution.
At the other end of that spectrum, anonymity is used as a shield from which cowards can hide while insulting, harassing, bullying, or outing people — often people they don’t know.
But is there any way to get rid of the latter while retaining and protecting the former?
You can’t require that all Twitter accounts use real names. It not only strips away the much-needed shield of anonymity from those who don’t abuse it, and it would have the effect of creating a privileged class among corporate or group accounts, where the actual human being Tweeting for Airline X or Cable Company Z remains anonymous but individuals must be named.
Twitter also couldn’t compromise and say “you can have a publicly anonymous user name, but we’ll need verifiable proof of ID.”
We live in a time when many people are — justifiably — already concerned about the large number of people who have their personal information. Being forced to go through a vetting process where you’re sharing that data with a company for no better reason than so you can blast out 140-character notes to the public, isn’t going to go over well.
As things stand now, there is little that Twitter or its users can do to proactively avoid or block jerks. You can make your account private, limiting access to your feed to only approved members, but that doesn’t stop people from posting horrible things directed at you. At best, you can occasionally suss out a creep, troll, etc., early before it has become a nuisance and block, ignore or report that account.
But that’s the rub — it’s all reactive, just like most of the real world.
Much like we don’t arrest people for their potential to rob a bank, Twitter doesn’t suspend an account because it may someday unleash a gaggle of nastiness upon another user.
But in the real world, it’s awfully hard for a bank robber to rob a bank from jail, while a blocked Twitter user can just create a new account and get straight back to trolling, however nasty.
Twitter could — and maybe it is — tracking IP addresses of these repeat offenders, but it’s incredibly easy to fake this information and make an abusive user look like he or she is posting from somewhere they are not. If Twitter started blocking every IP address used by malicious accounts, it would inevitably end up blocking countless legitimate users whose IP addresses have been spoofed.
And with Twitter’s stock back to where it started when the company went public less than a year ago, it’s not going to be doing anything that would deflate its user base.
All Twitter can really do is respond to complaints in a more expedient manner and have a lower tolerance for nastiness. It will still be playing Whack-A-Mole with trolls, but one can always get better at playing Whack-A-Mole.
From the dawn of man, there have been insufferable, nasty people on this planet who take enjoy hurting others. The Internet has just given them a new tool for doing so.
So, just like a carpenter who really loves hammering nails, it’s inevitable that some Twitter users will continue hurling insults, Photoshopping people into obscene photos, and inexplicably thinking they are being clever.
Even if Twitter were to compel users to post their real names, or be personally accountable for violations, there are some people who just don’t care, who would be proud to be publicly called out for lacking a moral compass or any sense of empathy.
All we can do is learn how to minimize how much they bother us.
Hola:
Una infografía sobre las novedades de Windows Phone 8.1.
Un saludo
Las novedades de Windows Phone 8.1
Hola:
Una infografía sobre el mundo de los zurdos.
Un saludo
El mundo de los zurdos
Apple isn’t saying. The Portland Oregonian has given this story quite a bit of coverage, and they keep checking back with Apple to find out whether the company is willing to further explain what happened. The company has confirmed that the receipt is genuine and this incident really did happen, but won’t provide any more information than that.
An Apple Store is one of the last places on earth we would expect to see someone aim silent anti-gay slurs at a customer, but maybe that’s just falling back on geographic and brand stereotypes.
“Its really not okay, especially in a city where we like to believe we are progressive,” the customer told the Oregonian. He asked a store manager to refund the purchase price of his set of headphones, and the manager agreed. No refund has happened yet, though, and the purchase took place last Friday. He has also offered to help prevent similar incidents by giving store employees cultural competency training, but hasn’t heard back about that offer.
According to the Oregonian, Apple Store staff asked the man for his e-mail address, and he chose not to provide one. Some online commenters who claim to be former Apple Store workers say that this field is required, so it’s possible that someone just typed some nonsense that looks like an e-mail address in order to finish the transaction. It’s also possible that another employee typed in the false address during a different transaction that was then tied to this customer’s credit card, making the source of the offending faux address hard to figure out.
What really happened in that e-mail input box? The managers and employees of the store are the only ones who might know, and Apple corporate hasn’t clarified things one way or the other. If it was intentional, that’s unacceptable and insensitive. If it was accidental, well, let it serve as a lesson to be careful when mashing your fingers on the keyboard to create fake e-mail addresses.
Portland Apple Store receipt: What if the characters a customer found insulting were a mistake? [Oregonian]
(End Clothing)
Because we all know the inconvenience of having too much money and not enough stuff to spend it on, you can now kill two birds with one stone: Never worry about getting your spanking white shoes dirty by buying pre-muddied kicks for the bargain price of $215. Saves you time and stress over the inevitable, and provides a way to dispose of that extra income.
Across the pond where they call sneakers “trainers,” ShortList.com notes the utter despair of dirtying up your own new shoes.
That brings us to a joint effort between designer Kazuki Kuraishi and conceptual artist Ryan Gander, along with Adidas Originals, to create these weird shoes/works of art (?) called the Adidas x KZK ZXZ 750 RG 84-Lab.
It’s not real mud that will end up all over your floors (I buy pre-muddied floors, anyway), as the brown stuff is just a clever paint job.
The pair retail for only £129, or about $215 here. But again, mud is free.
Nicholas Negroponte spoke with Big Think about the impossibility — and undesirability — of true neutrality in an entirely digital world.
Negroponte is not a new player in the world of high tech. His career in computer technology spans more than 40 years. He’s the chairman emeritus of the MIT media lab and founder of One Laptop Per Child. He also helped launch Wired, where he wrote a monthly column about the increasing transformation of everything into digital things. Negroponte’s 1996 book Being Digital discussed the eventual doom of physical media (like the then still relatively new CD-ROM) and shift into a world of, as he frequently says, bits, not atoms.
In other words, the man is an expert who’s been in the field for a long time, and who has no fear of the digital future (and the digital now). And yet, he says, net neutrality is not actually a good idea.
“The term net neutrality has a little bit of a pejorative ring,” says Negroponte. “How would you want something not to be neutral? … Neutrality seems to be a feature of good. And so yeah, you kind of want this to be net neutral,” he says.
But, there’s, well, a “but.”
“But the truth is all bits are not created equal,” Negroponte continues, explaining just how much more data — how many more bits — some kinds of technology use than others. An entire book, digitized, is about a megabyte. One second of HD video, though, is more than a megabyte. And it’s not just about entertainment or communication. With the internet of things dawning, everything needs access to a connection.
Take medical devices, for example. “If you have a pacemaker that transmits — this is an imaginary pacemaker now that communicates and monitors your health by sending data up to the cloud,” Negroponte suggests. “Then a few bits of your heart data are, you know, a small fraction of a book. So you have bits that represent your heart, bits that represent books, and bits that represent video. And so,” he concludes, “to argue that they’re all equal is crazy.”
Using Negroponte’s example makes his conclusion ring true. Literal life and death, in that case, would hang on the ability for certain data to move unimpeded at all times. Losing a stream of Breaking Bad halfway through a season finale might be irritating, but it’s not anywhere near the same league as interfering with a lifesaving medical device.
What we need, then, is some kind of middle ground, Negroponte suggests — but he also doesn’t quite suggest where that might be. Instead, he likens available bandwidth to a limited natural physical resource. If it’s immoral to use up all of the air, or water, or oil on frivolous things, is it perhaps also immoral to use up the internet?
“Those of us who were there at the beginning of the Internet never imagined that Netflix would represent 40 percent of it on Sunday afternoons,” Negroponte explains. “It was just off the charts. We just didn’t think that. There is, to me, a certain morality in that, because why the hell are you streaming video? Maybe streaming should be illegal.”
“But,” he concludes, “the point being, that all bits aren’t created equal and whether that resolves itself into net neutrality or not net neutrality is a separate story.”
Negroponte has a point: all bits may not be equal! But the most important, vital bits of data moving around are sometimes not owned by the company with the most money to spend on moving them through.
If, as Negroponte implies, all data traffic doesn’t need to be treated equally, then the next discussion becomes the question of who gets to decide for everyone else what traffic gets priority, and what gets sideline into oblivion. And that discussion is both loaded and challenging. We can all agree that pacemakers are important, sure. But are cloud-connected cars? Refrigerators? Thermostats? Ceiling fans?
And what about all that streaming video? Netflix is huge but they’re not the only streaming game in town. As we’ve seen from around the country and around the world, live streams of major events, from everyday citizens and from media, are one of the best ways for audiences to learn about major news events. What person, group, company, or other entity then would determine whose information is most important for the world to be able to learn?
Negroponte, alas, doesn’t float a suggestion to the questions his assertion raises. But he is sure that digital technology, in whatever form, is still the future.
The (6-minute) video and full transcript are available on the Big Think.
GigaOm’s Jeff John Roberts has a concise piece on the topic that anyone interested should read.
In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled [PDF] in the case of Glik v. Cunniffe that private citizens have the right to record public officials, including police, in a public place.
The court held that the First Amendment’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press… encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information.”
The ruling cites an earlier Supreme Court pronouncement that people have the right to gather news “from any source by means within the law.”
“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles,” wrote the Appeals Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.'”
The Supremes had previously stated that “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’”
And the First Circuit said this applies even more so to law enforcement officials, as they “are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties.”
“Ensuring the public’s right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abuses but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally,” wrote the court.
The Glik ruling also acknowledged limitations to citizens’ rights to record public officials.
“It may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions,” the First Circuit explained. And though it did not specifically prescribe what those limitations might be, the court noted that “peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.”
The court explained that, much like police are expected to withstand verbal challenges from citizens without threatening arrest, this “same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of ‘provocative and challenging’ speech must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.”
Regarding the question of whether or not police can tell you to delete photos from your phone, the recent Supreme Court rulings in Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie make it rather clear that they can not force you to do so.
In those cases, SCOTUS held that a warrant is needed to search a citizen’s phone, even if that citizen has been arrested. And since there is no way to tell if a photo has been taken — or what the content of a photo might be, or if it’s been deleted — without searching that phone, this tells us that an officer barking at you to “delete those photos!” can ask all that he or she wants, but it’s up to you whether or not you want to erase the images.
Adams has devised his own 150-word basic financial plan for most people, which includes sensible advice like “buy a house if you want to live in a house and can afford one” and “keep six months of expenses in a money-market fund.” In his post about investment advice, he says that it’s fine to consult an investment advisor, as long as you don’t take their advice seriously.
The reason it is legal to open a palm reading shop is that the public understands it to be entertainment and not prediction. Investment advice should be the same situation: You can buy investment advice if you want it, but not until you sign a document acknowledging that science says no one has magical stock-picking skills.
You can argue the merits of what Adams says, and his readers do in the post’s comments, but Marketwatch decided on a different tactic. Reporter Priya Anand consulted both a palm reader and an investment adviser, asking the same questions and providing them with the same information. (Well, the investment adviser didn’t check the lines on her palm, but he could have.)
The market’s future: The palm reader psychically sensed that the stock market in general is not about to crash, so that’s good. The adviser said that market “corrections” are inevitable, but since the reporter is young, she shouldn’t care what will happen in the stock market in the short term anyway.
How to invest: The adviser recommended index funds rather than picking individual stocks. The palm reader told Anand that her palm lines indicate that she isn’t good at taking advice, so she should pick her own stocks.
Both professionals counseled Anand to save about 15% to 20% of her money, but the palm reader went for a lower amount because she could tell from her palm that her client was going to have children in the future who would take care of her. Now, that’s a service that an investment adviser can’t provide.
We asked a palm reader and a financial adviser how to handle our money
How to Make More Money in Stocks [Dilbert]
