runkeeper spinnt, aber das war tag1.

Gut, ausser Facebook ihne Adressabgleich nutz ich nix von der Liste. Erstaunlich immer wieder: die Doppelrisiken. Facebook und weitere Ortsdienste. Denselben Datenschutztod gleich mehrfach zum selben Zweck. :-)

Netter Artikel... Managment und Projektleitung die Berichte anfordern und nicht sorgsam lesen... Ganz was Neues. Wie wäre es mit: weniger anfordern, dafür lesen.

Details of what went wrong with Facebook's opening

11 is my favourite.

Very cool: MIT's Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation

A glimpse into the world of digital preservation. I love being a part of this field. I know I am geeky, but I wear it with pride!

Great family and friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_v7QrIW0zY

Sassy hotel...

Skvely chalan a 15 rokov prace P MATu. Vdaka

The author contends that FB is an ad medium. AN ineffective one which has no new way of selling ads than what people have been doing all the while.

It is true, IMO.

He says that as FB tries to keep its revenues up by decreasing CPM costs, it will force other ad-supported sites also to reduce their costs driving down the whole web.

Within the United States, Facebook is a venue for all sorts of issue and political campaigns. And yet, on the site, as a practical matter, what speech is permitted or banned is determined largely by Facebook’s terms of service. The terms function as a corporate constitution binding users to the provider’s conception of what speech is acceptable. My colleague at the New America Foundation, Rebecca MacKinnnon, in her recent book “Consent of the Networked,” calls this realm “Facebookistan.” Once Facebook users sign on and accept the terms of service, their postings are subordinate to the corporation’s rules, for as long as they choose to stay. In a place like Syria, the Facebook rules users encounter are much more permissive than local laws; in the United States, that is not so clear.

You might expect dense legalese, but the terms’ language is clear and soaring, echoing the tones of constitutional documents. Some of the declaratory sentences lay out the commitments by Facebook’s royal “We.” Others describe the obligations of the subject “You.” The terms are organized into sections, like articles. One entitled “Safety” seems to self-consciously echo the Ten Commandments: “You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user…. You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” And there is this hint of Facebook’s expansive authority: “You will not encourage or facilitate any violations of this Statement.”

The terms obfuscate Facebook’s business strategies in such simple language that the deception—the sense of what is being left out—is almost poetic: “Sometimes we get data from our advertising partners, customers, and other third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better.”

[...]The I.P.O. last week will exacerbate this tension: Facebook’s huge valuation now puts pressure on the company’s strategists to increase its revenue-per-user. That means more ads, more data mining, and more creative thinking about new ways to commercialize the personal, cultural, political, and even revolutionary activity of users.

Insight: Minute by minute, Nasdaq chaos engulfed #Facebook IPO http://t.co/ayKskjue

Join me in supporting this project on LEGO CUUSOO, so it can become an official LEGO product!