- Photoshopping Illegal? France Set to Regulate Airbrushed Pics
September 25, 2009 – Photoshopping illegal? France set to regulate airbrushed pics, requiring disclaimer: “Retouched photograph aimed at changing a person’s physical appearance.”
September 25, 2009 – Photoshopping illegal? France set to regulate airbrushed pics, requiring disclaimer: “Retouched photograph aimed at changing a person’s physical appearance.”
September 23, 2009 – Real-time geographic visualization for Twitter trends.
Jennifer Van Grove on Google’s new Fast Flip way of viewing online news:
On first look, Fast Flip feels like a bit flop. While certainly unique, it’s likely to appeal to a very small segment of online news consumers. Sure, the online news reading experience could be improved, but Fast Flip is more of a tangential approach than it is a step in a revolutionary direction.
Google Launches a New Way to Read the News
Great technology, but why for online news? Seems a more obvious solution for viewing print news…
Update: If it stored the full webpage of individual news items it would of course be a fantastic historical archive, with a better viewing experience than the Wayback Machine. Don’t think that is the intention though.
September 15, 2009 – Google Wave: 5 Ways It Could Change the Web, by Ben Parr.
1. Wave-Powered Forums, 2. Wave-powered Commenting System, 3. Wave-Based Content Management System, 4. Wave for Customer Support, 5. Wave for Education.
September 11, 2009 – The battle to host dialogue: Facebook @Mentions: Five Ways They Could Impact Twitter.
Local Florida weekly Conch Color is to charge City Commission election candidates for campaign coverage in their weekly publication.
Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida pointed out that a ‘pay to play’ approach will not only leave some of the less wealthy candidates out of the race (even more so in light of the current economic climate), but will also leave the public in the dark as to who actually is the best candidate for the job.
Despite candidate Marquardt’s protestations for Oosterhoudt to reconsider, reminding the publisher that ‘freedom of the press is a guaranteed right under the Constitution’, Oosterhoudt wrote that ‘freedom of the press does not ensure campaign coverage, just a level playing field. And you have to pay to play.’
Although Oosterhoudt told The Citizen that he will publish a photo that shows all candidates, without giving preference to those who advertise, it has done little to calm the flames of outrage from parties and fundraises – who attribute the reality of the situation to little more that the pragmatics of a capitalist system at work.”
Via:
Paid election-coverage policy a “breach of editorial independence”. – Editors Weblog
September 9, 2009 – Florida weekly Conch Color to charge City Commission election candidates for campaign coverage in their weekly publication. What?!
Michael Buerk talks to bloggers and critics from Sri Lanka, Iran, Burma, and Iraq on BBC World Service.
‘Authenticity’ is what citizen journalists believe they are about, seeing themselves as Davids fighting against Goliaths. But critics point to problems of fakery, manipulation, partisanship, bias, and lack of accountability. Why it should be assumed that ‘the little man’ is necessarily morally superior to ‘the big organisation’?
Yet in countries where freedom of expression is repressed, it is bloggers who are challenging authoritarian regimes in ways traditional journalists cannot. Citizen journalists are enabling the rest of us to read stories and to see pictures that repressive regimes would rather stayed secret.
The critics remain vocal. What has really been achieved? Small victories, perhaps, but no Watergates as yet. And will this phenomenon extend democracy or end in chaos?
[...]
‘What is going on,’ he reports, ‘is a struggle between old power and new technology for the control of cyberspace itself.’”
Listen to part one of the broadcast here:
BBC World Service – Documentaries – Citizen journalism – democracy or chaos?
We finally convinced the School to introduce recycling bins in our part of the University! Well, trialling it at least – one floor of the building initially and then the rest of the School if it works out. You’ve got to start somewhere, right?
Well, my immediate feeling was: great! But this is negligible compared to how much we could be doing!
So I fired off an email to colleagues suggesting we should consider a more encompassing green strategy for reducing our overall impact on the environment – including reducing paper waste from our day-to-day routines (especially meetings!), reducing carbon footprint of travel, reducing energy consumption and switching to green electricity.
This appears to have gone down well with several positive responses – Paul Denison even pointing to the excellent work already having been done by the University in the previous year. In his own words:
SAM [School of Arts and Media] initiated a university wide discussion last year under the banner of ‘sustees‘. A symposium was held and week-long series of talks and activities held. The university is now looking to incorporate sustainability into its corporate responsibility statement and I have been part of this consultation. We have also developed a new programme in sustainable design which is hoping to recruit this year.
What also followed was a string of suggestions as to what we could do – three specifically about removing paper from our workflows:
Clearly then the solution to removing paper from academics’ workflow appears, at least in the above examples, to be the use of electronic resources – one way or another. Thus my question is this: will this ‘paperless’ office actually pollute more or less? That is, what is the net benefit (indeed if any) in environmental impact of replacing paper with electronic resources?
Some issues to consider:
These points might appear as if they are going to have a miniscule impact, but just as each single sheet of paper has a minimal impact on its own, it is the cumulative volume of each usage that causes a problem.
Of course, there are other practical advantages and disadvantages by moving away from paper – deserving of a blog post in their own right. However, my concern here is that we must not immediately assume that just because we can remove one problem (the arguably wasteful use of paper), we are necessarily free from the larger impact of this problem (environmental impact, or if you like carbon footprint, of academia).Indeed any strategy that considers the reduction in wasteful use of paper should simultaneously consider how to minimise the impact of the electronic resources that replaces this – for instance by reducing the need for repeatedly accessing information, by streamlining procedures that rely on this information, and (perhaps most obviously) move to using renewable energy sources to support this increased use in electricity.
Please feel free to offer your thoughts and comments below – the above is just my stream of consciousness on the issue. I particularly welcome any feedback on research that compares the environmental impact of paper use versus electronic resources. I’m sure there is a threshold where one becomes more environmentally friendly than the other, but would love to know what it is!