As developers for tablets and smartphones we like to keep abreast of the latest mobile technology developments . This is a daily digest of mobile development and related technology news gathered from the BBC, the New York Times, New Scientist and the Globe and Mail to name a few. We scour the web for articles concerning, iPhone, iPad and android development, iOS and android operating systems as well as general articles on advances in mobile technology. We hope you find this useful and that it helps to keep you up to date with the latest technology developments.
Artist Launches Bonsai Trees And Other Lovely Plant Arrangements Into Space
We’ve heard that outer space is, visually speaking, a pretty majestic experience. Yet although the galaxy beyond is undoubtedly filled with stars and misty clouds for days, there aren’t any decorative touches around to spruce up the space.
Enter Tokyo-based artist Azuma Makoto, aka the official interior decorator of outer space. For Makoto’s recent artistic endeavor, entitled “EXOBIOTANICA,” he launched a 50-year-old Japanese white pine bonsai, along with an arrangement of orchids, hydrangeas, lilies and irises, into the great beyond.
The carefully arranged greenery was expelled from planet earth from Black Rock Desert, Nevada — also the location of the Burning Man Festival. The whole project was taped, thanks to the six GoPro cameras strapped to the balloons which carried the plants. As you could probably guess, the juxtaposition of crisp floral arrangement and the empty wilderness of outer space is a surreal sight to behold.
“I went to Amazon, Brazil last year and created art pieces with plants that were full of aliveness in dense forest where I could hear groan from the earth,” the artist explained to the Huffington Post. “This was a mind-blowing experience since I really felt that I was arranging the plants onto the earth. For this EXOBIOTANICA project, one of my inspiration sources was curiosity – I asked myself, ‘what would it happen when I arrange plants on the globe, from up in the sky?’ as a concept that is completely opposite of what I did in Brazil.”
The goal was simple: “I wanted to explore how flowers and plants would bloom, decay and change outside of the earth. I wanted to seek and tell how their beauties will look with the earth as its background.”
Before actually launching the flora into outer space, Makoto, in collaboration with John Powell of JP Aerospace, “experimented number of times under low-temperature and did rehearsals for camera’s angles beforehand so that we would able to estimate what would happen to some extent.” Despite all the preparations that took place, nothing could predict the staggering beauty that results from the strange and enchanting vision of a domesticated floral arrangement floating through the unbridled Milky Way.
Now that he’s tackled outer space, Makoto has set his sights on artistic destinations closer to planet earth, though just as visually compelling. “For the next steps I would like to try various conditions such as the bottom of the sea, volcano, the Arctic and the Antarctic to see what kind of expressions flowers and plants would display. These challenging concepts make me excited by only thinking about it.” We cannot wait to see where Makoto brings his lucky bouquets next.
See the breathtaking photos below and let us know your thoughts in the comments:
This Is What The World Looks Like, According To Quantum Mechanics
The realm of quantum mechanics tells us that humans experience 40 conscious moments per second. These individual frames, or sequences of “now,” amount to the way we perceive time flow. We don’t realize the gaps in between these conscious moments, hence the fluid movement of our lives.
While we live in the vivid frames that make up our experiences, one artist has attempted to capture the gaps — or blinks — in between the 40 moments. In a project that seems to stall time while illuminating its flip book-like passing, Isabel M. Martinez catches the hiccups of everyday perception in her stunning series “Quantum Blink.”
The photos are constructed from two separate exposures, snapped only instants apart. The people inside the “frames” are acting out daily rituals, crossing the street or zipping a jacket, and seem caught in a state of unreality. Rather than simply stuck in one specific moment, the subjects appear somewhere in between the sequences of activity and the blinking millisecond of stopped time.
“I am looking for the line that divides the finite (probability) from the infinite (possibility),” Chilean-born Martinez writes. “If time is a succession of instants, I want to see what lies in between them. I am after the gaps between instants of consciousness.” The striped pattern we see in the portraits “is the result of masks placed in-camera,” Martinex adds. “This feature allows me to blend two images together and at the same time keep them from fully fusing onto one another.”
Resembling a punctured piece of film, the photos are nearly incomprehensible as solid snapshots, mimicking the ins and outs of entropy. While it’s not precisely what the world might look like in a quantum vision, the work is a slightly startling project that forces the viewer to decipher what’s real and what’s imagined, effortlessly urging us to reconsider the anatomy of a second.
Who Should Decide? States' Rights, Local Authority and the Future of the Internet
“[W]ithout power and independence, a town may contain good subjects, but it can have no active citizens.” That was the conclusion of Alexis de Tocqueville after touring a youthful American Republic in the early 1830s, as recorded in his classic Democracy in America. Today we are engaged in a renewed debate about the authority of governments closest to the people.
On July 16, by a vote of 223-200, the House of Representatives voted to strip the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the authority to allow communities the right to determine their broadband futures. Republicans voted 221-4 in favor.
In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, 60 Republicans insisted that the federal government shouldn’t interfere with the 20 state laws that either prohibit or severely inhibit municipally owned broadband networks. “Without any doubt, state governments across the country understand and are more attentive to the needs of the American people than unelected federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.,” they wrote. A similar letter, signed by 11 Republican senators, asserted, “States are much closer to their citizens and can meet their needs better than an unelected bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. … State political leaders are accountable to the voters who elect them….”
The Republican rationale is that state legislatures should be given deference over Congress and federal agencies because they are closer, more attentive and more accountable to their constituents. The same reasoning should lead Republicans to agree that city councils and county commissions should be given deference over state legislatures and state agencies, but it doesn’t.
The Senate letter warned that the FCC “would be well-advised to respect state sovereignty.” But Republicans apply the principle of state sovereignty so inconsistently that it’s hard to call it a guiding principle.
In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that states could not compel online vendors without a physical presence in that state to collect sales taxes unless Congress gave permission. In May 2013 the Democratic Senate voted to give them that permission. House Republicans refused. Loss of state and local revenue for 2013 was estimated at $1.7 billion. For those who may be unaware, the issue at hand is not whether we should pay taxes when we buy goods online. Almost all states require us to do so. The question is whether online vendors must, like brick and mortar stores, collect those taxes.
Exasperated by Republicans’ hypocrisy on states’ rights, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-California) asked a Special Investigations Division (SID) to examine legislative actions since George W. Bush took office insisting the federal government would not “impose its will on states and local communities.” The 2006 report found “a wide gulf between the pro-states rhetoric of Republican leaders and the actual legislative record.” It cited 57 instances of Republican-approved bills preempting state authority.
One occurred when the Republican House voted to prohibit states and cities from demanding competition in broadband services. Using language eerily similar to that used recently by Republicans in their recent letters to the FCC, six organizations representing state and local officials maintained that state and local officials, “those closest to understanding and meeting the needs of our citizens,” should make such decisions. Republicans were unmoved.
The Paternalism of Republicans
When not hiding behind the states’-rights mantra, Republicans argue that they’re protecting us against ourselves: We might support the construction of a sure-to-fail municipally owned network. In May FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler gave the small-”d” democratic response:
I understand that the experience with community broadband is mixed, that there have been both successes and failures. But if municipal governments want to pursue it, they shouldn’t be inhibited by state laws that have been adopted at the behest of incumbent providers looking to limit competition.
The debate about whether to build a muni broadband network has proven to be one of the most considered, transparent and democratic of all policy debates, certainly far more considered than those made in Washington and state capitols
Usually citizens vote on the issue directly through ballot referenda. Corporate opponents outspend community proponents by 10- to 25-to-1 or more. In many cases state laws prohibit cities from campaigning for their own proposal.
Republicans and private telecoms maintain that cities lack the capacity to build and manage broadband networks. They’re empirically wrong. Of the 160 municipally owned broadband networks, the successes vastly outnumber the failures. Muni networks, not Google, offered the first gigabit service. Muni networks have saved their communities hundreds of millions of dollars, created tens of thousands of jobs, and become a firm foundation for economic-development initiatives.
If the FCC is allowed to proceed, it will first respond to a petition from muni networks so successful that surrounding communities want to connect to them but are forbidden by state law. In this context, the argument that the state is protecting cities against themselves is ludicrous.
That so many muni networks have succeeded is a testament to their communities’ entrepreneurialism, creativity and patience. Lawsuits delay operation for years at a significant financial cost to cities. The huge customer base of telecom companies allows them to negotiate far lower prices for cable channels than tiny muni networks. Cities that build networks often are prohibited from tapping into other city funds if needed, while private telephone and cable companies freely use profits gained from cities in which they have a monopoly to engage in predatory pricing against muni networks. After Monticello, Minnesota, built a network, Charter Communications slashed its combined cable and broadband package price from $145 to $60 per month while maintaining the higher price in nearby cities Duluth and Rochester.
The Success of Communities
For cities that persevere, the rewards can be very great. Tiny Kutztown, Pennsylvania, saved the community an estimated $2 million in its first few years, a result of lower rates by the muni network and reduced prices charged by the incumbent cable company in response to competitive pressure. In 2004 Gov. Ed Rendell gave Kutztown an award for its network. Shortly thereafter, to his lasting shame, he signed a Verizon-sponsored bill preventing other Pennsylvania communities from replicating Kutztown’s success.
Bristol, Virginia, population 17,000, estimates its network has saved residents and businesses over $10 million. Lafayette, Louisiana, estimates savings of over $90 million. The economic and financial benefits of munis have been amply catalogued by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and its Community Broadband Initiative.
Sometimes the arguments of private corporations are bizarre. After five North Carolina cities proved muni networks could be wildly successful, Time Warner aggressively lobbied the state legislature to prohibit any imitators. Time Warner insisted it only wanted a level playing field. “The bill is intended to create a level playing field so if local governments want to provide commercial retail services in direct competition with private business, they can’t use their considerable advantages unfairly,” Time Warner declared.
You have to go a far piece to believe that tiny Salisbury, North Carolina, has a competitive edge over mammoth Time Warner, with annual revenues of $18 billion, more than 500 times greater than Salisbury’s $34-million budget, and 14 million customers to Salisbury’s Fibrant network customer base of 1,000.
But after Republicans gained control of the North Carolina legislature in 2012, the bizarre became the basis for public policy. The legislature passed the Time Warner bill.
Aside from their many quantifiable economic benefits, muni networks also generate equally important unquantifiable benefits. One is far greater accountability. No longer must people rely on distant corporations for better service. Leaders in Wilson, North Carolina, describe this benefit of muni networks as the “strangle effect.” If you have problems with the network, you can find someone locally to strangle.
For Harold DePriest, head of Chattanooga’s state-of-the-art municipally owned broadband network (and electricity company), an even more fundamental issue is involved. “[D]oes our community control our own fate, or does someone else control it?” he asks. Questions about the digital divide and net neutrality can be debated and decided at the local level, not in some distant boardroom or by Congress, federal agencies or the courts.
The Freedom to Choose
If Congress allows the FCC to proceed and the FCC overturns state bans, an even more fundamental obstacle will stand in the way. Cities and counties are not mentioned in our Constitution. This has has led courts to decide that local governments have little or no standing in our federalist system. Established law relies on the famous 1868 dictum of Judge John Foster Dillon:
Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control.
Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to foster competition. The text of the 1996 law was crystal-clear:
No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.
If a state or local government is in violation, “the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.”
If anyone doubted the meaning of the phrase “any entity,” they had only to read the congressional record. Consider Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-Mississippi) comment:
I think the rural electric associations, the municipalities, and the investor-owned utilities, are all positioned to make a real contribution in this telecommunications area, and I do think it is important that we make sure we have got the right language to accomplish what we wish accomplished here.
But the Supreme Court didn’t find the language clear at all. In 2003, by an 8-1 decision, it affirmed prohibitions on municipal networks.
The Supreme Court argued that established law considers cities and counties “created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them in its absolute discretion.”
Ultimately, then, this is a fight not about broadband but about democracy and the locus of authority. Of course, corporations prefer to fight to protect and expand their privileges in 50 remote state capitols rather than in 30,000 local communities. But genuine democracy depends on allowing, to the greatest extent possible, those who feel the impact of decisions to be a significant part in the making of those decisions.
Whatever Congress or the FCC decides, we need to challenge the concept that the communities in which we live are simply vassals of our state legislative lords. This can be done on many levels. Perhaps the most effective and productive can occur at the state capitols. A broad coalition cutting across parties and ideologies marching under the banner “freedom to choose” may be powerful enough to challenge the seemingly inexhaustible financial resources giant corporations have available to influence politics and politicians.
'Ring Cam' Lets You Record A Marriage Proposal Without Lifting A Finger
In an age when marriage proposals frequently go viral, there’s a lot of pressure to capture the big moment in just the right way.
But what if you don’t have a four-man camera crew or Hollywood-worthy film editing skills? That’s where Ring Cam comes in.
The Ring Cam, which was launched in October 2013, is basically a ring box with a tiny camera inside. So when it’s time to pop the question, the bride- or groom-to-be’s reaction is instantly captured.
Ring Cam is the brainchild of four college students from Michigan. One of its creators, Scott Brandonisio, sat down with Good Morning America to discuss the perks of the new device.
“Only the person proposing actually knows its there,” he explained. “So you’re able to capture that genuine element of surprise.”
Indeed, most viral proposal videos involve elaborate schemes in which camera men are clearly visible. As you can see from Ring Cam’s past proposals, the shocked reactions are the best part of the videos.
The gadget can be purchased for $149.00 to $249.00 from the company’s website, or you can rent the box for just $99.
Be sure to watch the Good Morning America segment above for more info.
Keep in touch! Check out HuffPost Weddings on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. Sign up for our newsletter here.
Brazil To Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes
When you think about the deadliest animal in the world, what immediately springs to mind? Sharks? Hippos? Crocodiles? While these animals may look the part, the biggest killer amongst us is much more inconspicuous, and it can deliver that one potentially fatal bite without you even noticing. I am of course referring to the mosquito. Mosquitoes kill more people each year than all other animals combined, and on average they kill even more people than humans do. It is estimated that over 1 million people die per year from mosquito-borne diseases, such as Malaria and Dengue Fever, and millions more endure pain and suffering.
Tackling this problem has proved a formidable task in the past, but a very small U.K.-based company called Oxitec has been developing and implementing an exciting and cost effective technique that could help curb vector-borne diseases in problem areas without the negative environmental impacts that other approaches often bestow. This sustainable technique, which involves the release of “sterile” insects into the wild, has already proved a success story in several dengue mosquito trials in different areas of the world, and it can also be applied to control other insect problems such as agricultural pests which risk food security. Furthermore, a factory in Brazil is set to be opened next week in order to raise and release these mosquitoes on a commercial scale in order to tackle Dengue Fever.
Dengue Fever
Dengue Fever is the fastest-growing mosquito-borne disease in the world; incidence has increased 30-fold over the last 50 years, and currently it affects around 50-100 million people each year and causes around 25,000 deaths. It’s a viral disease spread primarily by two species of mosquito; Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopticus, although the former is responsible for the majority of transmissions. Dengue is sometimes nicknamed “breakbone fever” because of the agonizing bone pain associated with the illness, and severe cases may result in the often fatal manifestation dengue hemorrhagic fever.
Currently there are no vaccines or effective antiviral drugs, meaning that mosquito control is the only viable option to control the disease.
Mosquito Control Techniques
Dengue mosquitoes may bite at any time of the day, unlike the malaria mosquitoes (Anopheles) which generally bite at night time. This means that mosquito nets aren’t going to curb infection. One possible solution is the use of insecticidal aerosols which are dispensed across infested areas, but this reactive response is far from ideal because the chemicals can persist in the environment and cause problems, and non-target species will undoubtedly also be affected. Resistance also often develops over time, rendering the chemicals useless.
Another way to control mosquitoes is the environmentally benign Sterile Insect Technique (SIT). This initially involved blasting mosquitoes with radiation in order to induce sterility, but this often damages the insects, meaning that many won’t go on to mate when released. While this may be an option for other, larger insects, it has proved for mosquitoes.
Genetically Modified Mosquitoes
Oxitec’s solution is an advancement of SIT, which involves the insertion of a lethal gene into male mosquitoes that prevents them from being able to successfully reproduce. Although the insects are not truly sterile, they can be considered sterile because they die before reaching sexual maturity. Released “sterile” males will therefore seek out females to mate with, competing with wild males, and the resultant progeny will contain the lethal gene and therefore die before they can mate. If a sufficient number of mosquitoes are released, the females will be more likely to find a “sterile” male, and a substantial drop in population can be achieved in a remarkably short period. The flight range of dengue mosquitoes is also around only 200 yards and they’re restricted to urban areas, making it easy to control populations with this technique as “zones” of release can be established to ensure sufficient area coverage.
The sophisticated yet simple system also involves the insertion of a fluorescent tag called DsRed that allows careful monitoring of mosquito populations after initial release; a “track and trace” system, says Hadyn Parry, CEO of Oxitec. This means population control can be maintained over time through repeat release, which will be guided by monitoring fluorescent mosquito levels. The technique doesn’t necessarily eliminate mosquito populations; rather it keeps them at such a low levels that disease transmission no longer occurs. Within many dengue areas, the mosquitoes are actually an invasive species that shouldn’t be there anyway, and have entered the area by hitch-hiking on boats or planes.
What if the genes stop working? Oxitec have so far looked at around 150 generations of GM mosquitoes and no resistance has been seen- the gene is stable. If the gene somehow does stop working in the field, this can be easily picked up by monitoring levels of fluorescent mosquitoes.
Should We Be Worried About These Mosquitoes?
The phrase “genetically modified” immediately rings alarm bells for many, and the controversial legacy of GM crops means it’s a no-brainer for some to immediately dismiss these insects as potentially dangerous “franken-mosquitoes” that could do more harm than good. But these GM mosquitoes are the opposite of GM crops. GM crops are designed to have advantageous traits that persist, and one concern of GM crops is the potential for hybridization with other plant species that could result in a loss of diversity and ultimately control. The Oxitec mosquitoes, however, are designed to have negative traits that won’t persist since they all die; it’s a dead-end system that can’t be picked up by other species.
The lethal genes inserted into the mosquitoes also cannot be passed onto humans, and the protein produced is non-toxic to us and isn’t found in their saliva, therefore the technique is safe. According to Parry, the environmental consequences are also negligible, and assessments are made prior to release in an area to examine whether the mosquito is a keystone species, i.e. if it is critical to the food chain of another species.
Success So Far
Oxitec’s dengue mosquitoes have so far been trialed in the Cayman Islands, Brazil and Malaysia, and within four months of release the A. aegypti populations were reduced by 85 percent. A trial in Panama was also initiated in May which will hopefully yield similar results.
Back in April, following successful trials that resulted in a 96 percent reduction in dengue mosquitoes, the National Technical Commission for Biosecurity (CTNBio) in Brazil approved the commercial release of Oxitec’s GM dengue mosquito, meaning that they can produce and release mosquitoes themselves. A factory is set to be opened next week in Campinas, New Scientists reports. As part of an expanded research program, Oxitec’s mosquitoes will be released in Jacobina, Bahia, and if approval is granted by the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency, a larger release will ensue. Bahia is just one of many areas plagued by Dengue, and a state of alert is in force in 10 rural districts.
Scaling-up these programs is simple; a coffee cup sized container contains about 3 million eggs, so tackling larger areas in future projects shouldn’t pose problems, and after an initial couple of months of training in monitoring the responsibility can be passed on to local health authorities.
Alternative Techniques To Eliminate Dengue
While Oxitec is the only company advancing GM mosquitoes, other groups are trialing alternative methods in order to reduce mosquito-borne diseases. One such example is the Eliminate Dengue (ED) research program which aims to investigate whether naturally occurring, harmless bacteria called Wolbachia can reduce the ability of mosquitoes to transmit dengue between people.
Wolbachia is estimated to be naturally present in around 60 percent of insect species, but not the mosquitoes involved in malaria and dengue transmission. It has been demonstrated that when present in A. aegypti, Wolbachia blocks dengue virus transmission by these mosquitoes, although there exists some confusion over the exact mechanism behind this.
Similar to the GM mosquitoes, projects will involve the controlled release of mosquitoes into dengue areas. These Wolbachia infected mosquitoes will breed with wild mosquitoes and consequently spread Wolbachia throughout the insect population. Laboratory tests have also shown that Wolbachia infections may also reduce the transmission of other viruses such as yellow fever. ED trials are currently underway in several countries, such as Indonesia and Australia.
One possible drawback associated with this method is that over time, the mosquitoes could adapt to infection and the protection against dengue may wear off.
Other Applications
The ever-growing human population is a burden on our resources, and food security for future generations is a problem. Oxitec are currently working on producing sterile insects to tackle agricultural pests that can damage crops, which threatens food quality and quantity.
Oxitec would also like to be able to apply their technique to the Anopheles mosquitoes that carry malaria, although since several different species transmit the malaria parasite it is a slightly more complicated situation.
Hopefully with continued efforts, implementation of this sustainable technique will result in positive changes to growing worldwide problems such as dengue fever that threaten the lives of so many people.
This article also appears on IFLScience.com
70 Percent Of Child Sex Trafficking Victims Are Sold Online: Study
In 2014, buying a child for sex online can be just as easy as selling your old couch or posting an updated resume.
Astonishing statistics dug up by Thorn, an agency that studies technology’s role in sex trafficking, found that sites like Craigslist are often used as tools for conducting business within the industry. Incredibly, 70 percent of child sex trafficking survivors surveyed by Thorn were at some point sold online.
“People are posted and sold online multiple times a day,” Asia, a survivor of sex trafficking, told Thorn. “As far as the ad that was posted up [for me]… just [like] you can go find a car, there was a picture, and a description, and a price.”
At least 105,000 children in the U.S. are being sexually exploited, according to the Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the expanding underground industry has no intention of slowing down. The FBI considers sex trafficking the fastest-growing organized crime, and online channels allowing for the exploitation are only making it easier for predators to do business. NPR reported in March that the Justice Department believes child sex trafficking could generate a staggering $32 billion a year.
Many times, pimps work as expert manipulators to start young people in the business, promising a relationship and wealth. Tina Frundt, who founded Courtney’s House in 2008 to protect children from sex trafficking, wrote on Women’s Funding Network about her experience with a coercive man who played a role in her abuse.
To Frundt, abusers are dangerous because of their misleadingly supportive nature.
“This is the same man that took me out to eat,” Frundt wrote on the website. “[He] listened to me when I wanted to complain about my parents, gave me words of advice.”
If you or someone you know is a victim of sex trafficking, contact the National Human Trafficking Resource Center by phone at 1-888-373-7888 or text BeFree (233733).
Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter
Let's Stop Persecuting 'Auschwitz Selfie Girl' for Smiling at a Camera
This selfie of a girl in front of Auschwitz has prompted unfair social media outrage.
I grew up Jewish so I’m naturally very sensitive to the horrors that took place at Auschwitz during the Holocaust. I’m also very critical of Holocaust deniers and those who would minimize what the Nazis did to Jews, gays and other “undesirables.”
But I think we need to give that young girl who took a selfie of herself at the concentration camp a break. Alabama teenager Breanna Mitchell has been vilified in social media for gross insensitivity for doing what many others have done before her.
I’ve been to concentration camps and other infamous places including ground zero in New York, Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam and battlefields in the U.S. and other countries were countless people were slaughtered, and I’ve seen people taking pictures of themselves in front of the scene with a big smile on their face. It’s natural. It’s what we’re taught to do when we stand in front of a camera.
Breanna tweeted and told a TV interviewer (scroll down to watch) that she does “understand what happened there” and had planned to visit there with her dad who died a year before she was able to make the trip.
Had this been a seasoned politician or journalist, I would criticize them (perhaps gently) for misjudgment. But this is a teenage girl who visited the site because she has a strong interest in the history of World War II and the Holocaust. If anything, she should be congratulated for caring about what happened there.
If I saw her partying at the site or trying to diminish the horror and historical importance of what happened there, I would think she was being insensitive, but smiling? Come on, we’re all taught to smile in pictures. I’d like to think I would have the judgement not to smile at such a locale, but I honestly can’t swear that I’ve never posed with a smile for a picture at such an important but horrible place.
It’s hard not to agree with her followup Tweet, asking people to “quit tweeting, to quoting, retweeting and favoriting my picture.”
Video of Breanna explaining on TV
Sharing is Caring. But Not in the Sharing Economy.
The sharing economy is taking the world by storm — creating multi-billion dollar companies overnight and inspiring millennial entrepreneurs to squeeze cash out of anything and everything they have lying around the house. The popularity of the concept isn’t surprising given Generation Y’s adoption of sustainability and zero-waste as a part of their lifestyle rather than a choice. Companies, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs riding the sharing economy wave like to call it a benevolent disruption — the organic evolution of inefficient markets that comes from empowering regular Americans to maximize their own assets.
It’s also first-rate spin from master manipulators in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street. The “sharing economy” is a reductive term that blurs the line between groundbreaking enterprises that tap into unused resources and charlatans looking for a quick payday. From unauthorized “party houses” in residential neighborhoods to profiteering from public parking spots, the so-called sharing economy is more about greed than altruism.
The underlying concept may work in economic theory, but not in practical application. The vast majority of sharing economy startups aim to build bridges between buyer and seller without any consideration for other audiences. No understanding that private and public properties only exist in the context of the community and the neighbors and peers in it. No recognition that the sale, lease or sharing of products and services cannot be conducted in a bubble.
Successful businesses value consumer loyalty, but not at the cost of alienating everyone outside of the financial transaction. Brands like Coca-Cola and Nike remain top names in spite of the occasional bump in the road because they build relationships while maintaining awareness of their community. Buzzy sharing economy companies like Airbnb and MonkeyParking ignore this business truism. In fact, they appear blind to everyone not adding to their revenue stream. They come off like professional cabals of squatters who seek to circumvent the social compact for a few bucks.
These types of startups offer a lot of sharing without caring. They claim to be unassociated third parties, taking a small fee for “facilitating” transactions between two groups interested in making a deal. It’s the same faulty logic drug dealers use to deny accountability for inexcusably anti-social behavior.
The extensive public relations campaigns and the tech media industry that laud the power of the sharing economy are deliciously ironic. They simultaneously suggest we’re all in this world together while furthering the distance between haves and have nots. More importantly, they offer a glimpse into the struggle for the soul of Silicon Valley and San Francisco. In the hotbed of American innovation, tension between millennial entrepreneurs and those outside the tech world is boiling over. Protests shut down streets, bricks are thrown at windows and name-calling has become an art form. From all corners of society, factions are at odds over rising costs, gentrification, and the #jerktech of the sharing economy.
It’s easy to view the strife as a culture clash between young and old, but even among millennials flocking to these trendy urban centers, there is a pervasive sense that the tech world is pushing the boundaries of good taste and public trust. The Daily Show’s report on the “Google Glass Explorers” tales of discrimination went viral because it’s insightful, comedic and hugely depressing to watch wealthy, intelligent, successful young people so remarkably detached from real human connection.
The “sharing, not caring” phenomenon is exacerbated by major tech media outlets, which slavishly report on every whispered rumor and idea from big tech firms. Take Fast Company’s coverage of Airbnb’s new branding campaign: a 1,500-word love letter to CEO Brian Chesky. The fluff piece – commonplace in the media coverage of the sharing economy – barely touches upon the company’s many troubling controversies. In the ode to the company’s genius, the reporter also strangely failed to recognize that the central image of the branding overhaul bears an uncanny resemblance to female genitalia.
Sycophantic media outlets aside, there’s no denying the public’s shared hatred for waiting at the checkout line, the gas pump or box office. Patience and fair play are necessary parts of life that technology can never subsume. We grudgingly accept waiting as a way to stay connected with other humans – and remember the experience of lining up for coffee is still one of the most powerful ways to make friends.
The violation of a social compact may piss people off, but cheating them out of taxpayer dollars is a more serious offense. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is waging war against armies of high-priced political and media consultants paid from Silicon Valley’s deepest pockets. Their primary argument, that their businesses are inherently impossible to regulate, is intellectually arid. All the lawyers, lobbyists and communicators in the world can’t spin away the fact that taxes are a necessary evil to pay for education, police and transportation services.
It takes time for the law to catch up to innovation, so there is no panacea on the horizon. But there are plenty of good examples of companies – like TaskRabbit and BlaBlaCar – that legitimately embrace collaborative consumption, value public trust, and don’t dodge common-sense regulation. They understand that legal circumvention never works, that there is a world beyond their digital wallets. They skip the public relations and instead work on smart solutions.
Millennial entrepreneurs enamored with the sharing economy must take a step back and think about what “sharing” really means. Think back to the first time they heard the word. On Sesame Street or Barney or another kid’s show. Right after Cookie Monster got through with the “C is for Cookie” song, it was there: “sharing is caring.” It made sense in the simple days of childhood and more sense now.
Cellphone unlocking bill without bulk unlock ban passed by House
In an unexpected move, and avoiding a potential fight, the House of Representatives has passed bill S517, aiming to make cellphone unlocking legal. The amended bill, passed by the Senate last week, was passed with no changes — a controversial clause of the bill previously passed by the House, prohibiting bulk unlocking by companies, has been removed from the final passed version.
Obama To Sign Bill Making It Legal To Unlock Your Cell Phone
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation on Friday to give mobile-phone users the right to ‘unlock’ their devices and use them on competitors’ wireless networks, something that is now technically illegal.
The legislation cleared the Senate last week. President Barack Obama said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill into law.
“The bill congress passed today is another step toward giving ordinary Americans more flexibility and choice, so that they can find a cell phone carrier that meets their needs and their budget,” Obama said.
The lawmaking follows a 2012 ruling by the Library of Congress, the minder of U.S. copyright law, that effectively made phone unlocking illegal, even after the consumer completed the contract with its wireless carrier.
U.S. wireless carriers often tether, or “lock,” smartphones to their networks to encourage consumers to renew mobile contracts. Consumers, for their part, can often buy new devices at a heavily subsidized price in return for committing to long-term contracts with a single carrier.
In December, major wireless carriers – including Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc, Sprint Corp and T-Mobile US Inc – struck a voluntary agreement with the Federal Communications Commission to make it easier for consumers to unlock their phones after contracts expire.
Under current law, someone who unlocks their phone without permission could face legal ramifications, including jail.
New legislation, welcomed by consumer advocates, reinstates the exemption given to mobile phones in the copyright law before the controversial 2012 ruling by the Library of Congress and calls on the officials there to reconsider the issue during its next round of reviews in 2015, potentially expanding the exemption to tablets and other devices.
“Today’s action by the House moves us closer to alleviating any confusion stemming from the Copyright Office’s 2012 decision,” Jot Carpenter, vice president of government affairs at the wireless association CTIA, said in a statement.
Verizon to begin throttling some 'unlimited' LTE users
Starting October 1, Verizon will begin throttling some of its “unlimited” LTE users, according to an official announcement. The carrier promises that only five percent of that group — those using 4.7GB or more per month — will be affected, and “only in places and at times when the network is experiencing high demand.” Unlimited 3G access has been throttled in a similar manner for some time.
Wikipedia Bans Changes From Anonymous House Users After 'Disruptive Editing'
Wikipedia has instituted a 10-day ban on edits from anonymous users from a single House IP address because of “persistent disruptive editing.”
The ban, which began Thursday, is in response to edits such as one that called the news source Mediaite a “sexist transphobic” blog “that automatically assumes that someone is male without any evidence.”
The changes were made after Mediaite wrote about increasingly off-kilter edits from Capitol Hill following the launch of @congressedits, a Twitter account that publicizes anonymous edits from congressional IP addresses.
The article was sparked by reporting from Pando Daily, which looked into a number of recent changes regarding conspiracy theories that were highlighted by @congressedits. For example, the “Moon landing conspiracy theories” page was edited from a House IP address to say it was “promoted by the Cuban government.”
“That same IP address recently edited the page dedicated to Diana Princess of Wales (adding in her reputation as a markswoman), COINTELPRO (removing the claim that the FBI acted illegally) and Bohemian Grove (adding the single word ‘allegedly’),” Pando Daily reported.
The user talk page for the banned House IP address now includes a lengthy back-and-forth between would-be editors and Wikipedia administrators.
“Out of over 9000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three?” one person asks, to which an administrator noted that users who sign in to their own Wikipedia account are still able to make edits from the House IP address during the ban.
Later in the thread, someone expresses anger that members of Congress would be playing on Wikipedia, to which another user says the edits are likely being made by staffers. However, there’s no way to know for sure.
(h/t The Hill)
Yahoo Harassment Case: Why No One Is Saying 'Rape'
The case of a high-profile female Yahoo executive allegedly sexually harassing her female subordinate has shocked Silicon Valley. The lawsuit filed by engineer Nan Shi claims that her boss, Maria Zhang, forced her to have sex on multiple occasions. When she complained, Yahoo did nothing to help. In fact, they fired her.
“Zhang told Plaintiff she would have a bright future at Yahoo if she had sex with her,” says the complaint. “She also stated she could take away everything from her including her job, stocks, and future if she did not do what she wanted.”
Last week, Zhang filed a counter-suit, charging defamation of character. She says Shi was a lousy employee who is simply looking for a big payoff from Yahoo.
The allegations are hardly unusual. Over the last 30 years, workplace harassment suits have become routine, as more and more women proliferate the business world and the policies and resources to support such incidents have improved dramatically. In 2011, there were over 11,000 complaints of sexual harassment made to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): 84 percent filed by women and 16 percent filed by men.
Occurrences of same-sex harassment are rare, even less than the rate of men reporting sexual harassment cases against women. However that number is on the rise. The EEOC says claims have doubled in the last five years. But you likely haven’t heard about them.
Do you remember anything about this 2009 Cheesecake Factory settlement? Or this $2 Million car dealership case from earlier this year?
“Pics Or It Didn’t Happen”
One look at the Comments section on any of the articles that have popped up in the past two weeks offers insight to why. Most don’t bear repeating. When two women are involved the popular social media retort, “pics or it didn’t happen” is among the tamest. And not surprisingly, the vast majority appear to be from men who find the abuse claims “hot.”
However when two men are involved the tone differs, radically. Comments range from homophobic slurs and hate speak to justifying behaviors as horseplay and locker room antics. And yet the Supreme Court’s 1998 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services offers clear-cut boundaries, for the latter issue at least.
One thing is crystal clear: same-sex abuse isn’t taken seriously. Despite how far the U.S. is moving forward with recognizing equality in same-sex relationships, parenting and employment rights, the notion of two people of the same sex harassing or abusing one another is considered a joke.
In fact, you’ll notice that nowhere in any of the reports has the term “rape” been used. Not once. Now imagine if a male boss had forced his female employee to have sex or risk losing her job — would that be rape?
Whether or not the alleged abuse actually took place — or if the accused Yahoo exec is even attracted to women — is moot. The message to anyone who is legitimately being abused, whether in a same-sex relationship or professional dynamic, is loud and clear. If you come forward, no one will take you seriously. Your highly painful and frightening situation will be mocked and trivialized.
Same-Sex Abuse Cases Hushed Up
And yet the latest study by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs indicates that same-sex couples are actually at greater risk of abuse than their heterosexual counterparts. According to the coalition, in 2011 there were 3,930 reported cases between LGBT couples, with the number of domestic violence deaths triple the previous year.
Abuse of any kind is an isolating experience. And the inherent isolation that many marginalized groups experience only exacerbates the problem, with some LGBT cut off from their families after “coming out” or lacking the equivalent resources made available to heterosexual individuals. There is also a false perception that women don’t hurt each other and that a fight between two men is a fair fight.
There is tremendous pressure to have same-sex relationships recognized as loving and committed — and some worry that exposing the high abuse rate will damage those effo