Brian Gongol
Online services still aren't turning a profit for Microsoft
More evidence that the company should consider better ways to diversify its income. Its strengths are suited to lots of areas outside the Internet-services market. The market for online services is cutthroat and rapidly evolving -- great for consumers, but terrible for suppliers. But there are scores of fields where a little bit of research, aided perhaps by computer modeling and data analysis (the kinds of things Google and Microsoft alike are very good at doing) could deliver very profitable results. Why fight it out in a fiercely competitive market with uncertain returns rather than use a company's existing strengths to leap over small hurdles?
Recommended with reservations: "Pilgrimage to Warren Buffett's Omaha"
Symantec shuts down its in-house feedback service
They're moving their interactive discussion site to Facebook only. Bad move. It might save them some trouble and some overhead cost when it comes to administration, but they're only opening themselves up to a whole host of new problems. Facebook has security troubles of its own, not to mention the fact that Facebook cannot possibly retain its standing as the premiere social-networking site for another full decade to come. Services like Facebook and Twitter are good auxiliaries, but they should never be used as the primary "storefront" for any company or organization.
Photorealism and a thought or two to chew upon
The production of extremely realistic paintings using airbrushes and digital "paint" -- not to mention ever-improving computer modeling -- is going to start posing some strange questions. For instance, if someone takes another person's photo, does the subject own the rights to his or her likeness? If that photo is then copied in a photorealistic fashion, is it still the property of the subject? If that likeness is then modeled into a 3-dimensional computer simulation, at what point is the representation still a likeness of the individual who was photographed, and when is it generic enough to resist that kind of label? Is an imprecise representation treated differently from a sophisticated reproduction? What happens when it becomes easy to model anyone -- living or dead -- into a lifelike role in a television show or a movie? What if that movie happens to be pornographic? What if you were simply walking down a public street and were photographed (as is perfectly legal) and your likeness was then used in a 3D computer-generated pornographic film without your consent? What if it were so realistic, your boss, your lawyer, your lover, and your priest couldn't tell whether it was really you or not? Anyone who doubts these questions will become important -- and soon -- hasn't seen "Avatar" or Madden NFL. Voters need to start pondering these questions? If meat cloned in a bioreactor could provide guilt-free bacon to those who self-identify as vegetarians for ethical reasons, what will be the moral status of videos created strictly in a digital environment? Will that somehow create a sort of "guilt-free" pornography, in which nobody ever feels exploited? It only sounds far-fetched for the moment. Inside of ten years, this will be a matter of serious legal debate. Somewhere between a high-resolution portrait and a stick-figure drawing, we lose the right to claim that a picture uniquely identifies us. But where is the line, and what kinds of things can happen to us on either side of that line?
Why business is done differently in the Midwest than in other parts of the US
A winter of sagging power lines continues
How AJ Jacobs outsourced his entire life
Google tries to fix early problems with Buzz
The company appears to have launched headlong into a little too much openness about its users' contacts, and now it's trying to retreat swiftly before any more damage is done
The death of a dream
It so happens there's a symbol for that
For the seafood lover in you
Gigantic Japanese spider crab moves to a captive home in Britain
How Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Oprah Winfrey landed on the same couch
Would it hurt the environment more for Chicago to disinfect its wastewater than it would help?
The long-lasting impact of civil-engineering decisions
Do yourself a favor: Take two minutes for a self-exam today
Take a minute or two and conduct some basic self-screenings for cancer. Early detection saves lives. There's lots of misinformation about cancer that finds its way around the Internet, largely because we've been trained to wait expectantly for some sort of magic-bullet solution to cancer. But cancer risks can be significantly reduced through a balanced diet, exercise, and early detection and treatment. Meanwhile, science is making great progress towards improving genetic detection, which holds great promise for some types of cancer. Instead of forwarding hoax-ridden e-mails about "cancer cures" and false threats, people should instead remind their friends and family to assess their health once a month.
Pennsylvania school district sued for taking evidence from kids' take-home laptops
A set of parents alleges that the district took pictures using their son's webcam -- while he was at home
Reports of Gordon Lightfoot's death have been greatly exaggerated
...by Twitter and the rest of the media, too
Wikipedia's list of the oldest companies in the world
The failure of any business results in the destruction of capital, so it's in the best interests of society to avoid those failures whenever the company itself isn't a flagrant destroyer of value (as, for instance, many Internet startups were during that stock-market bubble). Government's role in avoiding these failures should be to enforce fair and reasonable laws competently, and to stay out of the way otherwise. The private sector can avoid needless business destruction by planning for the long term and shunning the crooks and charlatans who promote day-trading, accounting trickery, and flash above substance.
How money changes American marriages
Cisco futurist says robots will be doing most of our work in 25 years
That might be a bit optimistic, but he's probably over-estimating the length of time before we start seeing the use of brain/computer implants. Dave Evan thinks it'll take 20 years; it'll probably only take 15. It seems unlikely that we'll all be non-workers in 25 years or even 100; robots can do a lot of things, but they can't write law or cut hair as well as humans are likely to do for quite some time. But we can undoubtedly outsource a lot of human work to machines, and we should. As Ben Franklin said, all motion is not action. The more we can free humans from drudgery and concentrate our minds on innovation and problem-solving, the better off we all will be.
Bettendorf high-school students fight confiscation of their newspaper
The school district thinks the newspaper included content that violated confidentiality rules, and the students say the confiscation represents prior restraint. Some of the students built a website to protest -- and that's the lesson of the 21st Century: Anyone can set up a protest in an instant, at virtually zero cost. Schools have to teach students how to apply their judgment to know when it's right to act and when to hold back. Judgment matters more than knowledge.
Telephone or text: 918-2-GONGOL (+1-918-246-6465)