Rubénerd!

Facebook is about to go public. Typically what happens with such deals is the prospective public company enlists the assitance of an underwriter, who sells the shares on their behalf. Only a select few are given a crack at the first rounds before the stock is sold to the general public. Understandably, those who get in first make instant millions. Nice work if you can get it.

Sincerely, I've got to hand it to Mark Zuckerberg. Since starting Facebook to get the phone numbers of girls he was too embarrased to ask (darn, why didn't I think of that?), he's arguably demonstrated nothing but contempt for his users, yet here's his project on the cusp of earning billions. Meanwhile, to quote but one example, Julian Assange remains under house arrest. Think about that.

Stewart Mitchell writing for PC Pro:

Prosecutors in the US plan to start deleting data from the servers of file-sharing site Megauploads this week.

Uh huh, sure ;).

The move has lead to claims that wiping files could make it impossible for the accused to defend themselves and deprive millions of users access to their personal files.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me. I fear that access to data will be revoked, but law enforcement will maintain it to mine at a later date. On hard drives without encryption that people leave in taxis by mistake, but that's another issue.

Twitter's geo-specific censorship plan wasn't unforeseen. They're certainly not above the law. Still, with the scary new custom TLD registration rules, the undemocratically secretive ACTA nonsense, Google's decision to drop Don't Be Evil™, you can understand why some of us are a little wary of censorship in 2012, and certainly of the uncanny timing of Twitter's announcement. Reads like a gigantic distraction to me.

So despite my reservations regarding the effectiveness of blackouts, I was quiet on @Rubenerd for much of the day. The world was probably the better for it!

Regardless of where you stand on the Google+ integration into Google search results, this site is an eye opener for what it returns, and who's behind it.

Complete with an Orwellian name!

From the page:

How much better would social search be if Google surfaced results from all across the web? The results speak for themselves. We created a tool that uses Google’s own relevance measure—the ranking of their organic search results—to determine what social content should appear in the areas where Google+ results are currently hardcoded.

Now in Google's defence, they claimed on Google+ that they couldn't perform the same (or similar) thing themselves because Twitter (and presumably Facebook, etc) had closed access to their silos. Right?

All of the information in this demo comes from Google itself, and all of the ranking decisions are made by Google's own algorithms. No other services or APIs are accessed.

Ouch

Now I don't see Google+ as being a credible threat. I also still don't trust Facebook, and feel like they're playing politics here by capitalising on the stumbling of an opponent. As a service Google singled out to make an example of, you can bet the folks at Twitter also relished the opportunity to design the service.

Despite all these caveats, the results speak for themselves. Google could implement this, no question.

What's most breathtaking about this is Google did something that Facebook, Twitter and the like couldn't do: unite them. Seemingly Google didn't get the divide and conquer memo.

Not to pound a dead horse here, but I keep coming back to my theory that marketers and managers now run Google, not its otherwise talented engineers. This is clearly not a technical issue, it's a matter of PR and priorities.

The previous entry was Rubenerd.com post #4300! Time for another of our beloved pointless milestones!

What's with this post thing?

Those of you who have been reading Rubenerd.com for years... you may need to see a therapist. You may also remember for each pointless milestone I include information on an industrial cleaning device as something utterly pointless.

How did this start? A very handsome question, and I'll answer it. When I wrote the first pointless milestone, I wanted to include a relevent image, but when I typed the post number into Google Images and hit search, all I kept getting were photos of industrial cleaning devices. Since then, I've made it a habit to do this on purpose!

Yeah okay, so what's that buggy thing?

For post 4300, I uncovered the Tennant Green Machines ATLV 4300 All Terrain Litter Vacuum! From their product specifications:

• Rid-on [sic] vacuum improves the image of your community with superior litter pick-up
• Increase productivity by cleaning on all terrains: climb kerbs, navigate hills and clean along fence lines
• Low centre of gravity design provides a stable machine ride to safely protect the operator

Could this image improvement also apply to those who ride these devices? I could go for an image overhaul, I'm just saying!

• 48 in / 1,219 mm vacuum head provides a wide cleaning path to improve productivity
• Ergonomic vacuum hose reaches up to 270 degrees to allow the operator to clean hard-to-reach areas without leaving the operator’s seat
• Low centre of gravity, reliable disc brakes, and standard roll-over protection contribute to operator safety

This ride on cleaning machine has disc brakes?! This ride on cleaning machine is better than some cars! Clearly, this really happy guy agrees:

Happy post #4300 everyone! Time for celebrations!

I don't know why people are so worked up about Megaupload being shut down. The case was ruled in the same manner that VCR manufacturers weren't found liable for the potential for copyright infringement, similarly ski equipment makers can't be sued if their balaclavas are used to rob banks. Finally, the operators were US citizens under US law.

Oh, wait.

The CAPTCHAS, forced waiting and hoops you had to jump through to start a download meant I rarely used Megaupload if I could avoid it. I can still appreciate this ruling as setting a dangerous precedent though.

UPDATE: If true, the operators of SOPA will have to quicky get used to this.

As I mentioned previously, I was concerned by SOPA, but was a little irritated that it was getting so much coverage in light of far more dangerous laws that had a greater chance of passing. This opinion piece from The Times via The Australian however made me think twice about the relevence of the SOPA debate.

Photo of "sopa" (heh) by Audrius Meskauskas, released under the same Creative Commons licence as my material here at Rubénerd. We're such commies!

At least he got his bias out of the way

Before we get into SOPA, some observations from the piece that should set the tone for our discussion here.

THERE was a period when I looked down the length of my not inconsiderable nose at Wikipedia.

As they say, people are wilfully ignorant of things when their jobs depend on them being wilfully ignorant of things.

The online encyclopaedia, put together by volunteers rather than experts, has an engaging way of allowing people to slip in wrong revelations [..]

He called it an encyclopedia! Most people using the tired "Wikipedia isn't accurate" chestnut don't. Still, what does any of this even have to do with SOPA?

[..] and aware that there are ingenious people out there behind keyboards deploying all possible arguments to stop the Feds, Wicked Rupert and what they call Big IP from interfering with what they see as their right to take content - music, movies, words - from anyone they can.

That isn't a strawman argument at all, we're not about protecting and keeping a level playing field for one of the few currently growing industries from rich lobbyists unfairly influencing politicians working for your sister industries in the US, we're just a bunch of good for nothing typists who are out to steal things.

David Aaronovitch, educate yourself before writing such fluff. What's Wicked Rupert and his team of phone hackers paying you for?

Okay, onto SOPA

And that brings me to my real point.

Oh good, I knew in amongst all that waffle there was going to be a point somewhere. Mmm, waffles.

There are [going to be] two sets of rules in modern society: one for the online community, the other for everyone else.

I changed the tense, because that's what SOPA is trying to accomplish, yes. Isn't it amusing when journalists (or anyone for that matter) are right, but not in the way they intended?

Wikipedia has not used its capacity to "raise awareness" on behalf, say, of the protesters of Syria, but in defence of its own interests - even if you accept the broader threat that Wales perceives.

Another shameful distraction. Wikipedia would be directly affected by this legislation. Dragging the struggles of Syrians against their government into this is pretty low blow, even for someone writing for The Australian.

Damn, now I'm hungry

Read the full piece if you want, David goes to make more condescending claims and arguments backed up by nothing. Suffice to say, if this was supposed to be an impassioned defence of big media at the hands of super evil internet folk who are only out to steal stuff, I'm underwhelmed to say the least.

Still, I have to give kudos. He taught me just how much disinformation there is about this issue online, and how important these grassroots efforts really are. I'm willing to revise my previous stance that the blackout wouldn't accomplish anything politically; if enough people write about it in their papers (for or against) it'll keep the debate going. Whether or not that translates into action we'll have to wait and see.

Wikipedia has just gone dark, though initially I didn't notice because I use NoScript. Turns out they're using JavaScript to block it for various reasons and more.

Perosnally, I reckon they should have taken the angle that they're making a statement on the technological infeasiblity of blocking material, given the internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it. Blocking data will only render people more creative in finding ways to get to it. And they will, every time.

I feel like I'm talking about The Great Firewall of Australia again!

Reminds me of that rehashed Assange quote from last year:

What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I’m a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.