by Christopher Paul on December 4, 2012 Nilay Patel writing about the internet and ‘freedom of speech’ secured by the US Constitution’s First Amendment:
So we’re living in a period of uneasy truce: people around the world are sharing their voices on the internet like never before in history, but they’re doing so under private censorship regimes equally unique in time. There is more speech than ever under more potentially unchecked control than ever. It is “a double-edged sword,” says Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Trevor Timm, with large corporations both enabling and controlling the ability for average people to reach a much larger audience than previously possible. “The top decision maker at YouTube has more censorship power than any Supreme Court justice,” he says. “We have to develop policies that better protect free speech from not only government interference but also corporate censorship.”
This shouldn’t be surprising but it’s something most people don’t realize… that private networks like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and others, can, do, and will sensor speech if they (even arbitrarily) feel it violates their Terms of Service. And it’s legal. The public outcry might be loud and acts as a balance to overzealous censorship. It also might not be the best thing for it’s business in the long term. But it doesn’t ignore the fact the First Amendment only states the Government can’t pass a law restricting speech or peaceful assembly.
via 512 Pixels
by Christopher Paul on December 3, 2012 The Atlantic has a nice article on the health benefits of coffee. They cite studies where research suggests coffee – regular or decaf – reduced the risk for Type 2 diabetes, colon, skin, and prostate cancers, and may help protect the liver. In fact, some research suggests that tea (green or otherwise) did not deliver the same health benefits of coffee and that the level of caffeine, which could also act or aid as a painkiller, had not material impact on the health benefits. Meaning, the coffee compounds and not caffeine is the source of all this brewed magic.
via Curious Rat
by Christopher Paul on December 2, 2012 iFixit posted their teardown of the new iMacs. They don’t like the changes from an upgradeability/repair perspective. Stephen Hackett isn’t too thrilled either:
Unlike previous reports, iFixIt’s teardown shows that the RAM in the 21.5-inch model is not soldered to the logic board. Getting to it, however, requires taking the whole damn thing apart. I don’t know why Apple didn’t include the service door on this machine like it does on the 27-inch iMacs, but I hope it’s something they add in a later revision. I can deal with non-replaceable RAM in notebooks, but in a desktop machine, it’s a serious WTF decision.
I happen to think most people don’t care about the RAM upgradeability. If they are told they need more RAM in the future, they’re going to take it to someone who they trust to perform the work because they don’t trust themselves; this is the same for PCs – old and Apple copycats. iFixit and Stephen are looking at it from the wrong perspective – the geek perspective. From the consumer perspective, this approach is no different than their iPhone. If, later, they learn they need to buy a new computer because it’s not upgradable, they’ll know better the next time and buy more RAM upfront. And the idea that laptops are different than desktops is silly. It’s a computer and most people buy one over the other – not one in conjunction with the other. The form factor doesn’t change the value in being able to upgrade or not.
As a computer nerd, I certainly wish it was easier to upgrade my computer. But my grandmother, father, and non-techie wife don’t care. Apple’s outward design and function is all they will see and care about.
by Christopher Paul on December 2, 2012 Michael Mulvey has a request for iOS developers who have a ‘Share via email’ option in their apps:
Please autofocus the TO: field when I select ‘Share Via Email’.
Agreed. Such a simple change would make a big difference.
by Christopher Paul on December 1, 2012 CloudFlare writes how Syria likely disconnected itself from the internet. Contrary to some published statements about lines being cut, it seems as if it was designed.
While we cannot know for sure, our network team estimates that Syria likely has a small number of edge routers. All the edge routers are controlled by Syrian Telecommunications. The systematic way in which routes were withdrawn suggests that this was done through updates in router configurations, not through a physical failure or cable cut.
They even produced a video showing how the routes were organized and eliminated.
via by way of James Duncan Davidson