Tag: cnn

Will Facebook’s Web Proliferation Be Too Noisy?

Posted by Rich Harris – April 21, 2010

Ok, so I wasn’t able to make it to F8 this year but I’ve been following pretty closely. I won’t go into some big ol’ assessment about all of Facebook’s recent announcements but I will say that while @aviel on Twitter is right on with his statement: “I feel the need to say it again… Facebook has won the internet. Thanks for playing everybody.”, will Facebook proliferation make all of our feeds more insane and overloaded? I’ve slowly started to started to see the results with several of my friends “Like”ing IMDB pages and a couple others for instance.

So my questions are…..What happens when it’s a standard for big high traffic websites to add this Facebook functionality to every article? What happens when every blogger on the planet adds the new Facebook/Like plugin to their WordPress install for every post? I understand that this helps Facebook bring the entire web “to” them “for” us however now all of our feeds won’t just contain stuff we find on Facebook that we thought was cool, we’ll be seeing the result of EVERYTHING people like from all over the web shoved into our feed……or will we? When I checked out what my options were when trying to hide the content I show on the image of my friend’s activity in this post, I didn’t have the option of hiding “Like’s from IMDB”, etc. I could only hide all of the content from that person, which was not what I wanted.

Will our Facebook feeds be nothing but “Likes” pretty soon just because of sheer volume? I’m looking forward to seeing what type of controllability Facebook will provide for us so that we can Hide content like we can native or authorized Facebook games/apps. It’s a-changin’…….

Some other articles/discussions about Facebook’s announcements

ReadWriteWeb: Is the New Facebook a Deal With the Devil?

Mashable: Facebook Makes Major Announcements at F8 [LIVE]

The Facebook Blog: New Ways to Personalize Your Online Experience

CNN.com: Facebook makes it easier for users to share interests across web

DNA: Science, Subversion & The Future

Posted by Rich Harris – February 5, 2010

Opinions & Conversation

Recently I was privy to an interesting conversation on my Facebook page where I had posted an article on CNN: “The government has your baby’s DNA“, written by Elizabeth Cohen. The overall premise of this article is the debate on whether or not it’s safe and ethical to store information about a person’s DNA, or not.

At first glance after reading the article, I wondered to myself what really is the issue “problem” with this concept? So at the risk of sounding clueless, I posted the status/comment, “…not sure what the big deal is here” and I was genuine when I posted it. I’m glad I did as it brought in some really great comments.

If you push conspiracy theories aside, and fundamentalist religious practices that may be opposed to it as well, what is the real harm in retaining that data? Here are a couple posts with varying and opposing views from that conversation on Facebook:

“…so from a law sort of standpoint you could be falsely accused of a crime, your DNA coming close to matching that of the assailant. In this day and age of CSI, Bones, NCIS, etc. people think they know what they need to know about DNA. You’d pretty much be hosed. Even if you were eventually found innocent your life would pretty much be a shadow of it’s former self.”

“Big concerns are the potential for abuse by insurance companies or future employers, as well as general privacy issues with this being easy to obtain. Do you really want someone with a little cash (e.g. aforementioned employers, government, tabloid reporters, political opponents, etc) to be able to find out you have Klinefelter’s syndrome, or a predisposition to schizophrenia?”

“So I fall on the side of making genetic testing manditory for every newborn. There are so many genetic issues (David mentioned Klinefelters as an example) that if treated early can help improve the quality of life of the individual who has it. Too many people find out about this stuff later in life and say “that explains it!”. Anyway, I think once the intial screen and notification is done, the DNA should be “separated” from its owners name and used for whatever (except cloning)”

Is The Extreme Polarization of Approach The Only Option?

I think all the points I quoted above from others are completely valid. I think the bigger question here, in my opinion of course, isn’t should we retain the data or not. The bigger question really is: Can we do it in a way that is ethical so that the benefits of this data analysis are yielded by humanity while the DNA data itself is owned, protected and secured by some sort of diverse council or committee of people to keep things objective when it comes to the release of information. Membership of this council or board can have a set of strict prequisites the aid in the protection of this data and it’s proper use. For example those nominated are not allowed to have a strong affiliation with any religious sect, political ties to special interest groups or parties, etc.

I know to some extent I’m oversimplifying it here and that with every well-intentioned person, there are 10 people with bad intentions unfortunately. The dilemma that I have morally is this I guess….why completely avoid something that can have great benefits for those with a predisposition to diseases, syndromes, conditions and other various health problems, out of fear that it will get into the ‘wrong’ hands? Why not try and figure out a way to have an objective process that is well thought out and governed by a globally represented scientific/healthcare community to manage and protect it for good use? Of course bad people do bad shit but if we shut down every innovative and positive idea intended for the better out of fear (like doing business online), then we might not get anywhere.

Onward.

Haitian Vacation: Catastrophe And Guilt

Posted by Rich Harris – January 21, 2010

So there was a post today entitled “Haiti cruise stops draw ire, support“, published on the Travel section of CNN.com. I’m a little conflicted on this one.

First, The Obvious

Human suffering sucks. Personally I can’t even fathom what someone in Haiti, directly affected by the earthquake, the type of emotional, mental and physical trauma that has been, and continues to be, endured by those that were there; especially those native to the area. The suffering and loss of life there is incomprehensible to most of us. The world can’t do enough to help in times like this and if anything it’s a healthy slap-in-the-face reminder that….the bad traffic yesterday, the toe you stubbed and fractured on the way into the bathroom, the coffee pot that exploded all over your clothes right before heading out the door to make that meeting you are already late for….all of your bad Monday experiences are really not a big deal at all. Misery is relative but human disaster can have a silver lining if we all respond proactively and positively and take a moment to express thanks for what we DO have.

The Issue

Someone interviewed in the CNN article, who had already planned and booked a Haitian Cruise with her sister and 87 year-old mother said, “We kind of discussed it: How can you sit there and say, ‘Waiter, bring me a drink’ while I’m on a private beach … knowing that 100 miles away, people are dying…”. The good news here is that they actually thought about it, discussed it, and processed it in a way that was indicative of the fact they had a conscience. This is a good thing. That passes my test.

So should people feel guilty for going on their Haitian cruiseline vacation even though 70,000+ people just died only 100 miles away from your vacation spot? This begs the next question. Take a step back and ask yourself…with this logic…should people feel ok and justified in being more fortunate than others?

Emotional Relativity

It’s no mystery that the things we attach our emotions to are relative to our surroundings, the people in our lives, and most obviously how we were raised. That’s just reality. I will NEVER truly know what it’s like to grow up in an environment other than what I actually grew up in, and neither will you. The closest anyone will come to this is transporting ourselves into someone else’s shoes, trying to at least live a week or so like they do. But even then, most get to ‘go back’ to their actual lives.

I’ve seen lots of colorful posts on the CNN story I linked to above about this. The opinions are all over the place and it’s interesting to see, on a scale of guilt-influenced behavior, how and why people respond and react emotionally to events like the earthquake in Haiti.

Here are some comments:

“These cruise ships are delivering tons and tons of food and water to Haiti. And these supplies get distributed right away. Royal Caribbean is teamed up with Food For The Poor to help the needy. 100% of any revenue made at Labadee is donated. I would feel honored to be on one of these ships. I would get off the ship, not to party, but to buy something from a local vendor or to tip a local worker. How many people get to help so directly, in a terrible situation like this? And someone that has been at this port of call, said the local workers get to eat at the cruise’s buffet, on the beach, along with the passengers. Royal Caribbean has 10 employees missing because of the earthquake there. The employees were from Haiti and on break when it happened.”

“People die every minute of every day all over the world. I guess none of us should ever smile or go on vacations. Or is there a specified distance from which you are allowed to not be miserable?”

“It baffles me why people going to Haiti wouldn’t want to have some personal involvement with people beyond sitting on a beach and buying trinkets. That would be a truely rewarding vacation.”

As you can see, even though I’ve only given you a snippet of the responses, there’s quite a variety of what opinions are acceptable and which ones aren’t.

My Opinion

If you have inner peace and enjoy your life, you are not a selfish asshole. If you are on vacation or have lots of great people (family/friends) supporting you, a good job, some cool stuff in your house, etc., the positive emotional capital you’ve gained in your life from these things should not be linked to world catastrophes that happen beyond your control. I would say that if you can contribute funds, even $1 dollar, to a disaster such as this one, it’s all gravy without guilt. Every time I go into Safeway (which is often because of my teens ability to consume at an alarming rate), I’m always prompted to donate to a charitable cause on the card reader, whether it be breast cancer, leukemia, Parkinson’s, etc. I try and donate at least a few bucks to each new cause that comes through their system. It’s easy, affordable, and helps make a difference in SOME way. Should I feel guilty because I don’t donate EVERY time I’m swinging by to pick up a loaf of bread, already late to pick up my kids? No.

Do your thing, live your life, help others in need when you can.

The Obama Factor: Ridiculousness at a new level.

Posted by Rich Harris – October 9, 2009

obamaThe Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Peace Prize is for those that earned it. The announcement today that Obama was awarded this prize is a joke. It’s not a joke because Obama did anything wrong, nor do I believe he is involved in any shananigans to win it. The problem is bigger than him. The problem is with the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Check out these quotes from recent articles on CNN:

Article: Obama’s win unique among presidents

Quote: “The committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons…”

Quote: “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

———————-

Article: Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is ‘call to action’

Quote: “Some analysts have speculated that the prize could give Obama additional clout as he forms a strategy for the war in Afghanistan and attempts to engage Iran and North Korea. Another senior administration official told CNN he hopes the White House can ‘use it for the positive.’”

———————-

My Gripe.

I dig Obama. I voted for Obama. I still like him. I love what he has done for our diplomacy internationally. I believe he would be an amazing candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize depending on what he does over his first term (and possibly a second term?). All the cards are there for him to be the next person to have earned the prize.

However, if you look at the quotes I posted from CNN above, it’s clear to me that this prize was given to him based on what we hope he’ll do, what we hope he can pull off, what we hope our future will be like. His prize is based on hope and hope is not tangible, it’s an idea. In the past, this prize was always awarded to people because of their selfless vision that they executed into tangible accomplishments; visible and on record. If this is the new allowable premise to award something so prestigious then we should start handing these things out like candy to all the every day people that make huge waves in their communities, in other countries, etc. These are the ones that should be considered. Obama doesn’t have that track record (yet).

Even though Obama did not choose this outcome or most likely didn’t even plan for it, the Nobel committee has taken huge risk in setting back Obama’s progress in diplomacy by ‘handing’ it to him, and spurring more controversy, the same kind of controversy that sparked all of our protests against Bush’s krony-riddled administration. It’s carelessness and recklessness by the Nobel committee in my opinion and does Obama’s vision and effort a disservice at this point in time. Other countries that have historically hated us and are now open to at least reconsidering talking to us, could possibly now be thinking, “See! I knew something was up with Obama. Too good to be true!”. Lame.

My Hope.

It’s no surprise that Obama was humble about this and immediately reminded us that it’s not about him almost to the point of questioning it himself. That attitude is a major reason why I voted for him. I hope his vision for global peace and diplomacy is accomplished some day. I hope he makes waves when it comes to nuclear disarmament, bringing tensions and disagreements to a conversational level amongst world leaders to resolve peacefully. I believe that’s what he wants, I believe he can accomplish great things and I believe he should be recognized for it when it happens. My hopes though are just thoughts, untangible. Hopefully one day they are actual memories of things he has actually done and accomplished backed by real data and stories to support it.

I support Obama in his continued efforts but damn I hate the bullshit.

Onward.