Why Twitter Rocks

<Link>

Twitter, with its 140 character per message limitation, is no match for the capacity to put a lifetime online the way a member of Facebook can or the ability to watch the Michael Jackson funeral online the way viewers of CNN.com can.

It would probably be hard to get the average user of Twitter to say much about what he or she would lose if the service disappeared. Obviously, research shows that many of these people are Twitter members in name only. Many others seem to use the service infrequently. That leaves some number of “hardcore” people who spend a substantial part of their time sending each other Tweets for the better part of some or, in unfortunate cases, most days. Twitter is for them, a cell phone without a voice. Based on that analogy most of the time spent on Twitter has no redeeming social or economic value, unless it connects the agoraphobic or the desperately lonely.

It may be old fashioned to look at the value of a business based on whether it provides any real service to the people who are its “customers.”  The best way to evaluate that may simply be to ask what would happen if Twitter suddenly went away. In the case of McDonald’s (MCD), Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), or Wal-Mart (WMT) a sudden disappearance would be a really big problem for its customers.

If Twitter closes, or ceases to operate because its service is constantly interrupted, no one would be really affected.

Douglas A. McIntyre

Douglas’s article, What If Twitter Folds, is just awful. He basically compares twitter to cellphones and then goes on to explain how twitter is useless except for “the agoraphobic or the desperately lonely”. (I find it fascinating how morons who do not comprehend a technology immediately assume it’s for the losers of the society).

A brief rant about twitter.

The first thing you have to understand is that twitter is not new. It’s been around in the form of IRC (Internet Relay Channels) for quite a while now. Ask enterprising journalists how they got their news during the parliament troubles in USSR in 1991.

I agree that most of what’s on twitter is mindless chatter. But once you see signs of mindless chatter, it is your fault if you encourage it or participate in it. You can easily ignore the mindless chatter and if you do not do so, please don’t complain about being told what your friend had for breakfast. Mindless tweets are something that journalists love to brandish about again and again and I swear, it’s these journalists who encourage idiots to continue broadcasting their life.

What I find fascinating about twitter is the ability to streamline the tweets as per your requirement. I want to hear from some news organisations, from the popular bloggers, from close friends, from people who share my passion for running, passion for tennis, passion for formula 1 racing etc.

The company I work for is following the trends on twitter closely and wants to integrate it within the company platform. How that will work? No clue but the point is that companies are paying attention to this technology and just because 40.5% of tweets are about what one did a few minutes ago, does not mean that MSM dismiss the rest of the tweets which continue to inspire and entertain.

So, to go back to the question, what would happen if twitter folds? I can only answer that question with another question : Dougie boy, did you ask the Iranians that question, Douglas?

……..the State Department asked Twitter not to go down at its original time last night in order to allow Iranians to tweet out what’s happening in their cities. It also seems that U.S. officials are watching the chatter on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and elsewhere to keep up-to-speed with the situation on the ground.

UPDATE : I just noticed the header on the article bashing twitter. FAIL……Hilarious!!!

Fail

Advertisements

Christie Blatchford : Dumb Fucking Stupid

Update (1MAy2013) : Man I seem to sound like  one of those hyperventilating fear mongers from FOX or SUN news. Apologies to Ms. Blatchford. I must have been really upset to write trash talk like this.

How many times are we going to have to point to globeandmail the obvious? On a personal level I have no idea what kind of person she is but on a professional level, Christie Blatchford is dumb fucking stupid.

Here is her latest shit regarding the controversy surrounding taped conversations of Lisa Raitt (the minister for Natural Resources) :

On the tape, Ms. MacDonnell said the isotope issue is confusing to a lot of people. “But it’s sexy,” Ms. Raitt replied. “Radioactive leaks. Cancer.” It was clear as a bell she wasn’t talking about cancer being sexy. About Ms. Aglukkaq, Ms. Raitt said, “Oh. Leona. I’m so disappointed.” Ms. MacDonnell said, “I wonder if it’s her staff trying to shield her from it or whether she is just terrified.”

Ms. Raitt replied: “I think her staff is trying to shield her. Oh God. She’s such a capable woman, but it’s hard for her to come out of a co-operative government into this rough-and-tumble. She had a question in the House yesterday, or two days ago, that planked. I really hope she never gets anything hot.”

This is irresponsible? Disparaging? Disgusting? This is what prompted Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe to yesterday invoke the spectre of breast-cancer patients needing tests being told that a cabinet minister called their disease sexy; now, that’s disgusting.

Irresponsible – errrrr, yes.

Disparaging – errrrr, of course.

Disgusting – errrr, yeah.

I don’t think Christie has a clue what the fuck she is talking about. And hearing her use that screeching voice on The Bill Carroll show (another apologist for Lisa Raitt and the conservatives in general) this morning to say over and over again “she did nothing wrong” is  moronic on many levels.

The minister WAS referring to cancer as being a sexy ISSUE for her which, in political jargon means, “lots of public attention for me”. How the hell can anyone be idiotic enough to talk about an issue of life and death for the advancement of her political career in such a cavalier way in front of her aides, driver, etc.? I have listened to the conversations and it was fairly obvious she is trying to say – this is a great issue as it will get a me a lot of publicity as soon as I fix it.

The problem is, a few months later from that conversation, she is nowhere near fixing it. In fact, Canada is ready to bring in private parties and transfer the knowledge of isotopes production to them!! Instead of fixing the problem, she has ended up mucking it further and that’s why we on the progressive side are having this fit of outrage.

And, Christie, please don’t throw her brother’s death by cancer in our face. We are not exactly stupid to immediately say “oooooh her brother died of cancer so she is never going to use any issue with cancer to advance her career”.

From what I understand from your nonsensical piece on the globeandmail.com today, you are saying “oh what the hell. She was just being herself. We are all like that so leave her alone”. And if that really is your defense, then you are more idiotic than I thought.

Because all said and done, there is nothing on that tape that can’t be put to rest with the correct apology. All the minister had to say was, it was a private conversation and she is sorry if some people got hurt because of it. That’s all. But conservatives being blockheads, they had to put on a display of sheer arogance. They went to the court to try and stop the release of the tape!!! Why? Because the public might hear a private conversation??? BTW, it’s not private when you are talking in front of a driver as the judge has confirmed.

This is what is wrong with this whole issue. The conservative government is not trying to govern Canada. Rather they are trying to RULE Canada. They want their agenda, their policies, their opinions thrust on everyone even though 65% of the Canadian population opposes them.

And that’s what you fail to understand, Ms Blatchford. And that’s why you are dumb fucking stupid.

Update : She finally apologised. I think we can now put the matter to rest.

Boo Hoo – File Sharing Is Bad.

One of the issues that lights me up is the issue of file sharing. I am one of those who believes that file sharing is essential to the music business and it should be incorporated in the business models of today’s music businesses. I know that quite a few bands have tried file sharing with varying degrees of success. Here is a perspective from an insider :

My observation is based on a lot of trying and failing, as well as being a moderate user of filesharing myself — mainly to check out stuff I read about but cannot get my hands on in the local store back here in Norway.

My concern is about this argument, which has been seen in most any debate about this subject for the last 10 years, usually formulated roughly as below:

“Filesharing will provide massive marketing to new artists, and drive forward a new and more dynamic music market.”

I beg to differ.

Well, I think he gets it wrong right away.

Filesharing is not an outlet to massively increase the sales of a new artist at all. Filesharing is conduit for the new artist to introduce themselves to the world who would, normally, ignore the new artist because of prohibitive initial costs. Why in the world would I spend money on downloading songs from a new artist only to find out that it was money wasted? I would rather (and I often do) download songs, give them a listen and then pay a subscription fee. Not only that but the next time the artist releases their new album, I do not go to the filesharing sites at all and download their music right away.

I think the authour of the post is disappointed for some other reason :

But if one starts thinking about it, it has the ironic effect that TPB is a driving force of consolidating the market power of the major labels rather than driving forward any new music. The conclusion has to be that “pirates” are just as little resistant to the major label marketing as any other person. Even though there are thousands and thousands of artists out there that want their music to be shared and listened to, they are widely and effectively ignored by the masses

Well, of course the popular artists will get a larger share of the downloads. The popular music is heavily promoted by major labels and get more airplay than a small upcoming artist. It almost seems like that the authour of the post has assumed that the downloaders should download only new artists’ music, else they are “pirating” the music promoted by the major labels. That is just plain nonsense.  Here is an enlightening article on why the music industry is in the crapper. In other words, don’t agree to whatever the music/movie industry says. Quite a lot that they say is absolute shit.

The fact of the matter is that the business model that has worked so successfully for the labels/artists over the years is now in disarray because of the power of the end user. The future of music, as illustrated here, is “get to know the consumers needs and then make money out of it”…..and not shove the product down their throats whether they like it or not.

Those days are over and done with.

Update (21st April 2009) : Yup. Music piracy is a REALLY bad thing.

Barking Mad

Looks like it’s the season of dumb commentaries.

<Link>

There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and what it means to all of us.

The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism. It’s the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence.

The second major barrier to a rewarding public conversation about the impact of evolution on the way we understand the world is not named nearly as much.

It is “scientism.”

Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.

The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities).”

Okaaaaay, to be honest I have never really come across the term “scientism” but I will grant this guy the argument. But then I would ask the question, so what? Science (and consequently, the scientists) has always tackled whatever issues that come forth. I mean scientists have (kinda) solved the itch issue. So, yes, there are no boundaries for science be it a test space mission to Mars or why we fall in love.

Then this douchbag falls off the rails.

Those who unknowingly fall into the trap of scientism act as if hard science is the only way of knowing reality. If something can’t be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, they say it’s irrelevant.

Scientism is terribly limiting of human understanding. It leaves little or no place for the insights of the arts, philosophy, psychology, literature, mythology, dreams, music, the emotions or spirituality.

This has got to be dumbest thing I have heard. Read the highlighted part again. And mull over what this idiot just said. As far as I can tell, he says that if a scientist says “I can explain, through science, why when you look at the Mona Lisa, you admire the painting”, you will actually STOP admiring the painting. So if a scientist can explain to us why we fall in love, we will actually stop falling in love. The authour is basically saying : leave the “mysteries” alone.

In general, scientism leaves little or no place for the imagination, which Albert Einstein, after all, said is “everything.”

And then of course his creationism comes pouring forth :

While I am not at all persuaded by Creationists who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also have trouble with those who claim science can only support the atheistic proposal that evolution is a result of pure chance.

Such people maintain orthodox science cannot contemplate the possibility that the evolutionary process may include elements of purpose. This is an example of scientism.

Holy crap….dude, you ARE A CREATIONIST. Just because you say you don’t agree with die hard creationists does not make you any less of a creationist. “Element of purpose”? What the fuck does that even mean? It really irritates me to hear sanctimonious assholes like this guy to pooh pah the creationists and then say exactly what they are saying.

I think the proposal that humans evolved over billions of years from simpler life forms is a no-brainer.

However, I don’t believe either Darwin or neo-Darwinists have yet devised a complete picture of how evolution happens, or what drives it.

Of course it isn’t, it’s called scientific discovery. And what the scientists have so far is pretty accurate.To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of facts, in the face of reason and in the face of every innocent child looking at you for an honest explaination.

Here is the icing on the cake :

In other words…..(in the)….. viewpoint (that) represents that of many scientists, appears to believe that any discussion of evolution that does not uphold chance as the only driving force is ridiculous.

This is blinkered.

It defaults to atheism. And it assumes incorrectly that what we believe, and the way we live, is always based on provable “facts,” which do not include conjecture, speculation or imagination.

And there you have it. The whole fucking point of this opinion piece was to fault atheism….like I said – Barking Mad. And the rest of the post deginarates into a whiny, crybaby piece about how science is ruining spirituality and philosophy and it is worth reading if only to see how lunatic the authour sounds.

Update (via CanadianCynic): Wow!! Canada’s dumbest blogger likes this column. What a fucking surprise!!

Your Dumb Fucking Commentary Of The Day

<Link>

By RICK BELL

……

According to the Mounties, voices can be heard outside Knights’ house and three males are spotted. Two jump in a truck and take off.

One starts up a quad he finds just outside the house. The farmer gets in his vehicle and chases the man on the quad. About 2 km from the house, the car rams the quad off the road.

The farmer pulls out a shotgun and fires at the individual who is skedaddling away, but it isn’t a case of the buckshot stops here.

The guy is hit but keeps running. The farmer calls friends and relations to help find the man on the run, according to the police.

He is found and is brought back to where the farmer’s wheels met the fleeing quad. Police say the man sits in the passenger side of an idling truck, but when the driver steps out for a minute the guy moves behind the wheel and puts it in drive.

The suspect loses control of the truck a short way down the road, is caught again and is held until police arrive.

Brian Knight now faces a list of beefs, including assault and criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving.

The other person is up for allegedly stealing the quad and the truck.

Naturally, to top it all off, the Mounties do the usual finger wagging. Don’t take the law into your own hands. Call us and we’ll handle it.

You have to ask. Do these officers believe any of the bunkum they burp or is it just the drill they repeat because it’s the set script and this is their part to parrot?

What are you supposed to do, far from a cop shop, all alone, call the police and wait until pretty close to when hell freezes over?

Then they come, write a report and what? Do we see an arrest? And, if there is an arrest, do we see a vigorous prosecution or does it become some chickenpoop file to get off someone’s desk?

And, if there is a vigorous prosecution, will we see a conviction? And if there is a conviction, what sentence will the guilty receive? Don’t tell me. We all know the answer.

The criminal justice system is itself an injustice and if you have the intestines to say it publicly you’ll be slimed as a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal by the people who screwed the thing up in the first place.

Well, I will start by saying that Rick Bell is an idiot. No….make that a fucking idiot.

So, if I get this straight, the guy chases the thief, is able to get his property back and instead of being, rightfully, proud that he was able to get his Quad back, FIRES TWICE at the fleeing thief and then, just as a typical vigilante, calls his friends and goes on a hunt.

In what world is this guy justified in shooting a fleeing person AFTER he gains his property back? Hope they convict this guy and take his guns away. And Rick, please stop being a chest beating neanderthal. The guy has a right to defended his property, a right to defend himself. But not a right to attack once he has gained his property back. That is criminal.

Werner Patels Loves Being Kicked Around

I found a “delightful” post by a dickhead named Werner Patels. I have never really been to his blog before although I have seen him being kicked around so I should have known better when I read his post on immigration.

Immigration to Canada is a sensitive issue for me. It pains me to hear nonsense from people who are utterly delighted in being a mr-know-it-all because they had a smooth ride in immigrating to Canada. I am assuming he immigrated to Canada considering the authority with which he write his afore mentioned post.

What pissed me off right away was the way he was pulling out numbers out of his tight ass. E.g.

23% of immigrants in Canada contribute to the country’s prosperity and the other 77% cost us $18 billion (a year, according to some sources, and excluding any of the costs incurred for law enforcement in fighting crime)

I see. That bit of information is really impressive but can you back it up? I mean, where are the links? That’s ok, I will do the work for you :

demographic-and-labour-market-characteristics2

As far as I can see from this table from statcan.gc.ca, the labour participation is waaaaay above your number of 23% employed. And what is this shit about 77% costing us $18 billion!!! Dude, take a chill pill. Either give us references or stop trying to be a bad magician.

Immigrants not learning to speak English or French: I agree that if a SKILLED labour is entering the country, he/she is REQUIRED to know one of these two languages. But there are numerous unskilled labourers entering the market by droves. How the fuck can you expect them to know Eng or Fr? And please don’t give me a lecture about requiring only skilled labourers in Canada. Are you going to get your emaculate hands dirty? There are jobs that skilled labourers cannot and will not do and that’s where your miners, your truck drivers, your security guards come in (BTW, I suddenly realised, that all the jobs I listed require a certain amount of skill. So what exactly is a un-skilled labourer?)

And check this para by the blabbering mouth

Not demanding that our immigrants speak our official languages is not only dangerous to the social cohesion of our country, but also extremely detrimental to the democratic process. So many votes in places like Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver are regularly cast not by the people themselves, but by party officials who, either through gestures or with the help of a corrupt translator, direct those people how to vote.

Holy Shit!!! As you can see this guy likes to paint with broad strokes. According to him there is a massive scam going on in the ethinic communities in immigration hubs of Canada’s major cities . Sure there would be some push by a politician from South Asia to court a vote from people from south Asia. But what happens when there are 3 south Asians running for the same seat from different? As far as I can tell, south Asianess goes out the window and the issues come out. And that is what is happening in the ethnic community. If this is not democratic, then I don t know what the hell democracy is anymore.

I had ignored this campaign against Patels from CC as I did not know much about him but now I would like to join the campaign : Werner Patels Banned.


Holy Shmoly, Bill Carroll’s Idioticy Continues

I know, I know, I complain and then go back to listening to his show. In my defense, I put it on between dropping my daughter off at my in-laws in the morning and the GO station to listen for weather report and the news headlines. A total of 10 minutes. And in those 10 minutes BC says something so profoundly idiotic that I have to wonder what a full show must be like.

Recently, he put on his “wall of shame” these people :

TOKYO (AFP) — A Japanese conservation group said Monday it plans to fit prosthetic front limbs to a sea turtle injured in what marine scientists believe was a shark attack.

“She should eventually be able to lay eggs on a beach.”

The injured loggerhead sea turtle, with a 74-centimetre (30-inch) long shell, was named Yu after being rescued off southwestern Japan following a suspected shark attack last summer, Akai said.

BC’s argument was, in this world of people losing their limbs and not being able to access the same medical care that this turtle is receiving, this conservation group needs to go on the wall of shame.

I really don’t understand how BC thinks? I mean, is he trying to be a moron on purpose to boost his listener-ship?I have no clue.

This group is trying to raise money for an issue that they think is important. That’s what they do. They are a conservation group and are trying to conserve another life. Sure, the easiest thing for they to do is to shoot the damn turtle but that’s not conservation. So, if they want to sell the idea to the public about prosthetic limbs for a turtle, let them.

He took calls regarding the issue, unfortunately, I had only enough time to listen to the first two calls only. And that’s when it was amply clear that BC has a bone to pick with the idea that animals have access to better medical facilities than people do in Ontario. A legit claim, no doubt about it (He cited his personal example where his daughter received a CT scan 1 year after it was requested, which I think is stretching the truth a bit but who knows. Maybe he and his wife had a bad experience with the health care system. Parents often have this complain).

So, why in the world did he not ask the legit question : Do pets have better medical facilities in Canada? Why did he go about the round about way by blaming a conservation group trying to help an animal?

Because that’s the way he works. He inflames passions amongst his listeners and then tries to have an argument with them. His second call was by a person who was defending the conservation group and BC’s argument (paraphrasing here) “you are saying that if there was an amputee child and an amputee animal in front of you, you would help the animal“.

And that’s what it comes down to. Framing an illogical, ill conceived idea and then using it to “win” the argument. He did not even give the caller to explain that in such a situation, no one would pay attention to the animal. Nope, BC had an argument to win, damn the logic.