Patriot on a Bike

ADPblog

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Patriot on a bike

As a ten year old living outside Boston, I was riveted by the bicentennial of Patriots Day. The true Patriot’s Day - April 19th, 1775 -  when the “shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington and Concord. I was engrossed with the drama of Paul Revere’s ‘midnight ride’ to alert the Minutemen/farmers to grab their muskets and  run to protect their leaders and munitions. Revere heralded a threat to their freedoms and on a minute's notice they acted. Ideals of freedom and independence animated the revolution in a way that’s lost to us today. After all, how can an addict - by definition ‘dependent’ - be truly free? And according to our own President we are addicted - to oil.

What happened?  Like the minutemen, we were warned.  In 1956, a bespectacled geo-physicist—M. King Hubbert -faced the American Petroleum Institute and predicted that US oil production would reach peak output around 1970.  His employer, Shell Oil, asked him to retract his prediction, but he did not.  He was correct and his theories are now broadly accepted.  Dubbed “Hubbert’s Curve” ,  he showed that oil supply follows a predictable bell-like curve; reaching a peak, followed by decline.  Now, a mass of evidence indicates we are near if not past peak production globally. If so, the advent of an unprecedented world-wide energy crisis is upon us.

Conservation and development of alternative fuels are essential but not enough. Taken alone, they may even feed our denial.  The simple truth is that our “way of life” and prosperity are premised on cheap and plentiful petroleum. If that premise changes, society must do likewise. A drop in oil supply will intensify global competition for it.  To maintain our easy-motoring, “non-negotiable” lifestyle, more wars are likely and a permanent Middle East presence essential.  Anti-war bumper stickers on gas-guzzlers cruising around the suburbs will be ironic if not delusional.

Unlike our forebears, who needed only their musket, courage and two legs to protect their freedoms, we addicts are dependent on events and leaders in countries beyond our control.  Only an addict would shamefully ask others to sacrifice their lives while remaining unwilling to sacrifice their own lifestyle.

What’s a true patriot to do?  Even our food depends on petroleum as fertilizer and feed supplement. Change will come.  Avoiding tumultuous economic and social upheaval will depend on whether we, like the Minutemen, heed the call to act.  Yet the media ignores the global oil peak and politicians’ actions (such a recent talk about a tax credit to offset high gas prices) suspiciously resemble voter-appeasing bribes and pretexts to undermine environmental protections.  In short, our leaders offer little more than helping us find our next fix.

Patriots today must act independently—and we have choices.  We can buy locally and invest responsibly.  Live and shop in walkable communities. Use more rail and bikes. Simple acts individually can collectively prompt infrastructure changes.  It’s already happening! Increased use is pressuring the South Shore Line to build more rail cars. This week local bike coalitions are promoting National Bike to Work week while advocating for more bike paths and safety lanes. You can act by biking to work and checking their website—Michiana Bicycle Association (MBAbike.com)—for ideas.

Change isn’t easy, but compared to those who, in 1775, left their families deep in the night to defy the world’s superpower, riding a train or biking to work is hardly a profound sacrifice.  M. King Hubbert observed,  “Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know”.  Like the minutemen, we citizen-patriots need to use our heads, hearts and even our legs again. We need courage to act and even sacrifice to preserve our freedoms.

Postscript: The success of fracking in increasing production has seemingly changed this dynamic. However, we do not yet know the environmental cost of fracking which could end up being substantial. 

Contributed by David J. Hurley on 05/16/2006
Active Citizenship • Radio Essays • Permalink • Printer Friendly

http://ee.iusb.edu/index.php?/adp/blog/patriot_on_a_bike/

COPPA’s got me thinking about social media manners

December 26, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment



With the Federal Trade Commission’s revision of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), we are again confronted by the challenges of how technological progress impacts our children. Whether it is the rusty merry-go-round of social media or tangled thickets of cell phone society, technological progress, for all its advantages, has created an uncertain and, at times, threatening play area for our kids.

Even adults have to vigilantly guard against the constant threat of internet scams and hoaxes. Granted most of them are harmless, but every time someone is taken in by a dubious Facebook re-post or e-mail chain letter, their cynicism is heightened and callouses hardened. Perhaps the real threat to our children is the loss of innocence that necessarily accompanies tech savvy.

Just as disconcerting as on-line threats, the social impact of the ubiquitous use of cell phones are altering the very fabric of our social relationships.People are tethered to their cell phones in a way that was unimaginable just a decade ago.At the midnight premier of The Hobbit, the crowded theater was filled with the cool glow of smart phone screens testifying to the arrival of an age of nearly constant connection to an infinite cloud of data and social networks. How does this affect our relationships with the people sitting next to us?

Certainly there are tremendous conveniences to this phenomenon and, for parents, the ability to be in nearly constant contact with their kids provides a significant measure of comfort and security; but it also changes how we relate to each other. The intrusion of text messaging into intimate gatherings has been pronounced and disruptive.

The simple truth is this: Cell phone technology and social media have dramatically altered the fabric of our social networks and we have yet to establish new ‘rules’ to help us navigate these changes. Perhaps a better way to think about this is as manners.Only informally have conventions of behavior emerged around electronic media.For the most part, it’s a frontier environment with people cautiously figuring out appropriate behavior on the fly.This is especially true for kids whose parents are typically as baffled and confused by these changes, if not more so, than they are.

Turntable FM: My Avatar Can Dance

December 18, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment

Music is very much a social experience: Live shows, dance parties and drum circles are all expressions of the inherent social quality of the musical experience. Yet, such social aspects of music rarely carry over to the virtual world. The exception is turntable.fm, which is entirely premised on shared listening and playing music for others (Play Music Together – as its tagline states). Turntable.fm, or TT, is unlikely to ever be more than a niche application, complementing other, more prominent on-line services. It is even designed to allow songs to be added to major music services like Spotify, Last.fm, i-tunes, Amazon, and Rdio.

For many, the enjoyment of music encompasses a desire to share it. Many on-line music services facilitate ways to share songs, but a real-time, virtual music sharing experience is completely different. Hearing a song my friend plays in response to one of my spins is far more satisfying than an intelligent radio algorithm.

Inaugurated in 2011, Turntable creates a virtual dance club in which DJs take turns ‘spinning discs’ from an extensive play list or uploaded tunes. In each room there are five turntables that listeners occupy – taking turns to spin tunes. Once they choose a room to enter, listeners can get up on the table and spin tunes, or simply stand on the dance floor and listen.

Each room has a chat space for real-time conversation, which allows the service to go well beyond music sharing to function as a genuine social media site. Rooms are created by participants who select the genre, set the rules, and appoint moderators to enforce them (DJs can be booted from the turntable or the room). Don’t worry, the rules are fairly simple with a variant of “Don’t be a Di*k’ as one of the most common.

This bottom-up organizing principle works pretty well. Represented by whimsical avatars, people gravitate to rooms and build interpersonal relationships based on musical tastes and interpersonal affinities. DJs ‘fan’ each other to more easily follow each other. One of my TT friends told me she met her ‘soul mate’ on there and they are pursuing a long distance relationship.

DJs accumulate points when people dance to your song. As you amass points, your choice of avatars expands. Sometimes DJs have a ‘party’ and play a special song when they are about to pass a milestone. Friends and fans gather to put them over the top – opening up additional avatars for them to choose from.

For Turntable, the social element is essential. The app doesn’t allow a DJ to spin alone – you need to share your music to hear it. While the virtual music listening space is unique and intriguing, I find turntable’s greatest value as a musical discovery service. Not only have I massively expanded the catalogue of songs and groups with which I am familiar, but I have found out about them from friends, not an algorithm.

Not since college has my musical repertoire expanded as rapidly as the past year on turntable. So if you are seeking a virtual dorm room to spin tunes with some friends, check out Turntable FM.

Finding Music In a Virtual World

December 18, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment



A bill in Congress proposing to change the way that digital royalty rates are set provides another benchmark in the rapidly evolving economics of the music industry. The recent bill is the latest skirmish in a decade long battle to establish ‘internet-age’ playing rules that are fair to the many entities comprising the music industry.

The specifics of these issues are esoteric and a range of competing interests are in the fray. The ‘traditional’ music industry remains the most powerful and positions itself, dubiously, as representing the artists’ interests against those of upstart tech companies (as popular streaming services are considered). Of course, radio, satellite and cable media are all at the table with their particular interests.

Even the artist themselves have a say in this fight (which is a sign of some progress), but it is not always clear which approach is in their best interests. For example, a service like Pandora can dramatically increase exposure for a band – so lower royalties with higher volume may result in a net increase in pay to musicians.

The economics of the music industry has been in flux since Napster revolutionized the business. Streaming services now provide options not formerly available with various layers of consumer control distinguishing it from traditional radio models. Should streaming services pay the same commissions as radio? What about less tangible benefits offered to musicians by services like Pandora?

There is no question that the music industry has matured and musicians are more sophisticated in their use of the internet and social media. There is no shortage of successful musicians who were ‘discovered’ singing into a webcam on a crude, self-posted YouTube video.

The growth in streaming options allows listeners to enjoy tunes without buying them. Terms like ‘intelligent radio’, ‘social media integration’, and ‘music discovery service’ now are used to describe the defining features of Internet music sites. No doubt Spotify and Pandora, or some variation of these applications, are here to stay. However, notwithstanding their sharing functions and social media integration, the social aspect of on-line listening remains relatively unexplored.



Read my review of Turntable FM in the Review Section to discover an exception to the rule.

Apple Unveils the i-Robot

Apple’s $100 million commitment to develop a US-based manufacturing capacity, announced by CEO Tim Cook, will likely entail the development of sophisticated automated processes, i.e. robots. This is exciting on many levels. Apple is the kind of company that may one day introduce a line of C-3PO’s and R2D2’s. In the nearer term, investments in robotic-based manufacturing may be the only way we can compete with low labor costs in other parts of the world.

Any fan of “How its Made” knows that the use of robotics in manufacturing is nothing new. Apple, however, may be able to bring this to another level. Critics might argue that a shift to more automated processes will do little to bring manufacturing jobs to our shores. But that is short-term thinking.

Apple can certainly afford to invest the capital needed to develop a robust, automated manufacturing capacity. Reducing the operating cost of a substantial labor force with a large capital investment in sophisticated, precision manufacturing technologies is our competitive advantage. While this certainly entails fewer assembly line workers, such is the inevitable consequence of an economy shifting to high-tech. Certainly, the advent of the back-hoe put a lot of ditch diggers out of jobs, but there is little complaint about that today.

A better analogy would be the advent of another sophisticated, high tech invention over a century ago – the automobile. The automotive sector now supports a massive, varied industry. It may be difficult for us to envision a generation of Luke Skywalkers tinkering with robots in their garage, but a lot can happen over a century.

Now the test will be to see if Apple is truly taking the kind of leadership role that should reasonably be expected of them. A collaborative public-private investment in building the kind of work force that will support and benefit from a robotic-based manufacturing economy is certainly needed. There are hopeful signs, such as the Robotics Club at my son’s middle school, but my sense is that such things have yet to become the norm. What is required is private sector investment to supplement public investment in our nation’s training/educational capacity to develop the skills needed in support of this promising sector.

Of course, there is no guarantee that Apple will not be the next Skynet. To cover your bases and prepare for a Terminator-like apocalypse, consider polishing up on how to survive a robot uprising. Either way, it’s recommended to prepare for the robot-based economy of the future and hope to God they never become self-aware.

Re-post this if you Love Your Mother

November 30, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment



By now the copyright disclaimer hoax that went viral on Facebook has made its ways through most news feeds. The reaction provides an interesting glimpse into where we stand in our emerging relationship with social media. The hoax was triggered by Facebook’s posting that users could only comment, not vote, on the proposed changes to its privacy guidelines. Thousands of Facebook users re-posted a status update that claimed to legally protect their personal content from copyright infringement by Facebook.

The hoax went viral, clogging newsfeeds with pseudo-legalese claims to protect a user’s intellectual property. For the record, a status update cannot override the user agreement which all Facebook users have already agreed to and few have read.



The criticisms waged against those who propagated this hoax have ranged from the futility of such a disclaimer, comparable to placing a hex, to the delusion that anyone really cares about the intellectual property rights of one’s comments on the latest kitty video meme. The tone of these critiques has been harsh: Belittling those taken in by the hoax. Blogger Robert Scoble bluntly characterizes those who unwittingly disseminate the hoax as “idiots”, and then helpfully posts a link to Snopes.com. College humor.com produced a biting video, “Facebook Law for Idiots”. A slew of parody postings have made the rounds. One of my favorites: “In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that all the sh#t I post is mine, and if you copy it to make more use of it than I do, you’re an a##hole.” Guilty as charged. But I like its blunt honesty.

I find these responses amusing and admit to sympathy for the frustration they manifest. I have long bristled at the coercive internet hoax – originally thriving through e-mail – that implores recipients to promulgate some blather as someone’s “dying wish”. Those of us who have adopted a hardened cynicism as normative when engaging with social media have little patience for those who naively disseminate deceit.

But I think there is something more going on here. That so many re-posted this particular hoax reflects the unease that many still experience while learning how to “live” in the cyber world. The inexorable flow of our personal identity into the cyber sphere, quickened by Facebook, is a powerful wave. It’s understandable that some of us occasionally lose our footing.

The cyber world remains largely a jungle. We all seek a way through, carving out clearings where we can build structures and find security, predictability and comfort. For better or worse, Facebook has provided such a settlement. Through friends’ postings, Facebook offers a portal to the rest of the world. It helps us filter a vast web of information through a human-scale community of friends and acquaintances. It was one of my primary sources of news for the recent elections.

Facebook (at its best) offers a safe place for social discourse that I believe we desperately seek. So before we direct too much scorn at those who thought a status update might inoculate them from Facebook’s nefarious user agreements, we might remember that one does not need a user agreement to hang out in the town park. And isn’t that what Facebook has become – a new Commons? A place to create, nurture and build community?

Perhaps. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that – in our attempts to build community – we are simultaneously being commoditized. Our personal information feeds a metadata profile that customizes our advertisement content. This, I believe, is at the core of the knee-jerk reaction many had to this particular hoax. Their readiness to re-post the disclaimer arose from a vague awareness that we are Facebook’s product, not their customer. If we want to hang out on this village green, the only “rights” we have are what Facebook grants us.

I do understand the back lash directed at those who were duped. Time and again viral videos demonstrate our desire for authenticity in social media. Thus, those who promulgate deceits, even unwittingly, undermine the authenticity we seek. But the two people whose posts I saw in my newsfeed – a loving sibling, who has been a rock in hard times, and a dear friend, who is one of the most creative and intelligent people I know – are not deserving of College Humor’s derision. Let’s not forget that both the propagators of this hoax and those aggravated by them seek the same thing: A safe haven for building community through authentic social discourse on the web.

Here are some of our favorite disclaimer parodies:

” In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that no one gives a crap about the copyright attached to all of my personal details, illustrations,… By using strange words in silly languages, I notify all of my friends that I have no idea on what I’m doing. The aforementioned actions also apply to my colleagues, prospective employers, etc. Welcome to the internet. Have a cookie.”

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare my rash has stopped burning, and also, that my copyright is attached to all of my typo-riddled status updates about my banal life, my bathroom mirror Instagram self portraits, my declarations of love for my worm-addled pets, and any and all blurry photos of my unremarkable meals (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times. But first, please validate my existence by “liking” my uninformed political opinions and free-verse poetry…

By the present communique, I notify Facebook that I had no idea that this 100% free social media site’s entire business model is to aggressively pimp all the personal and private information I so blithely shovel into its gaping maw. I thought it was just free, like magic! Furthermore, I have no idea how copyright law actually works, and my relationship status isn’t really “complicated,” but making that lie public numbs the pain of loneliness.

Facebook is now what it always has been – MySpace with a paint job. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, because everyone else is doing it. If you do not publish a statement at least once, then you might actually have a life.

Urgent warning regarding your Facebook settings; FACEBOOK IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR FURNITURE AND BELONGINGS. To avoid this, do the following. Go to SETTINGS, then scroll down to OPTIONS. There, you’ll find a ticked box saying “Come Round To My House And Take All My Furniture And Belongings”. Be SURE TO UNTICK THIS BOX and tell all your friends to do the same. I failed to, which is why I’m typing this in an empty flat, on a laptop, naked.

Weird Al Yankovich – ‘Stop Forwarding that crap to me’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCSA7kKNu2Y



Hit us up on the facebooks or comment below to tell us of your favorite parody

Building Our Digital Doppelganger with Big Data

Building Our Digital Doppelganger with Big Data

December 26, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment

It’s a temptation too hard to resist. Get 10% off your purchase when you sign up for a customer loyalty card. On the face of it, it is understandable that retailers use such tools to build customer loyalty. After all, we consumers are a notoriously fickle lot. Sign up for their card, swipe it with each purchase and sometimes get discounts or special coupons for future purchases. However, there is something else going on here, and its not just about building customer loyalty.

With each swipe of the card our personal ‘data’ feeds into the Big Data machine. The discounts that motivate our behavior is what we are ‘paid’ to surrender our personal, formerly private, information. Of course, there are a wide variety of mechanisms for capturing our personal data and no shortage of sophisticated tools, algorithms, and models to make use of it. Google and Facebook may be two of the largest information gatherers out there. And most of us willingly comply with the condition that their ‘free’ services are paid for with our digitized customer profile.

What happens to all this data? The precision with which this massive amount of data is interpreted and acted upon varies widely. No doubt many have seen it manifest in an advertisement on their Facebook page promoting a product they were just researching on-line. Some find this scary, but we have largely become inured to it.

The bottom line is this: in a consumer driven economy, we, the consumers, are the raw material that drives productivity. Economies have always thrived on the exploitation of low cost, abundant resources. Copper, coal and other minerals once drove a thriving industrial economy. Fertile soil and its fruits have long been necessary for sustained prosperity. Collecting, analyzing and making practical use of our consumer behavior have replaced the extraction of exploitable resources once mined from deep in the earth.

Today the rich veins of digitized personal information feed the engines of our consumer economy. Big Data algorithms energetically seek out resources to exploit. Who knew that Twinkie eaters prefer inexpensive chardonnay and folk music? With such information in place, targeted advertising and product placement can exploit the vast, untapped wealth of esoteric consumer behavior.

Some even argue that feeding our personal data into a massive data processing machine actually results in certain efficiencies that have the advantage of reducing the clutter in our lives. After all, wouldn’t we be better off if we only received advertisements for things we have an interest in? Certainly anything that can make us better ‘consumers’ benefits a consumer-based economy, and this why Big Data is here to stay.

The defining feature of the Information Age is the vast reserves of information that is now available to us. Big Data simply refers to the tools that help make use of all this information. In the slagheap of digital clutter surrounding us, big data tools are the shovels and backhoes we use to sift through and utilize it.

We choose to participate in the Information Age when we sell our personal data in return for discounts or trade it for the privilege of participating in social media communities. Allowing the machinery of Big Data to build our digital doppelganger is the price of participation in the Information Age.It may not feel like a choice. Its inevitability is inexorable and, in fits and starts, we sometimes resist. Perhaps we think that our personal data is worth more than the 10% discount we received in return. But there are few people holding out for more.