Profile

Cover photo
Charles Foster Kane
53,263 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

 
Is it only me or this is the doctor playing rhapsody in blue? He even has a bowtie :-)
5
Maria B-R's profile photo
 
We'll never truly know. :P I love this song. 
Add a comment...
 
Some more photos of the attack to the resistance portal in Milan. #shaperdata #ingress
7
1
Charles Foster Kane's profile photoOliver Thoms's profile photoschlapi jr's profile photo
4 comments
 
+ the longest link ;)
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Altre 6 settimane di inverno, parola di marmotta http://www.groundhog.org/
 ·  Translate
1
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Perché non partecipare a un piccolo esperimento?
Glenn Thomas originally shared:
 
This is a Google+ Ripple test.

You need to reshare this publicly for it to work!

The more reshares the more interesting the test will be.

This will be posted on imSocial.com after we complete the test.

To view the ripple: http://plus.google.com/ripples/details?activityid=K8zv4tBUioB
1
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Povero gatto di Schrodinger da quanto è che aspettiamo di sapere quale sia la sua sorte?
M Monica originally shared:
 
1
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Tom Anderson originally shared:
 
What Google and Facebook are hiding -- TED Talk. Back in July I wrote a piece about algorithms used in the stream on Facebook and Google (http://bit.ly/pBZo5Y). I argued that algorithmic sorting of feeds is OK, but it's important to let users see all the information if the want to, because computers won't always get it right. Here's an interesting TED talk that suggests there's a political reason to be wary of algorithms as well -- +Eli Pariser argues that algorithms could tends towards reinforcing one's world view, and discounting alternate opinions. Note: he's not just talking about "feeds" but all sorts of web projects that tend to "customize" the web for us. Definitely worth thinking about.
1
Davide Eynard's profile photo
 
Bellissimo. Entra ufficialmente nel programma di quest'anno di Internet Technology ;-)
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Art, GIFs, Media  - 
 
Is it only me or this is the doctor playing rhapsody in blue? He even has a bowtie :-)
3
Erica Tackett's profile photo
 
Looks like him from profile, but when the camera when to front, you can tell its nor him.
Add a comment...
 
La pioggia non ci ferma e gli illuminati neanche. Neither rain or enlightened could stop us #shaperdata #ingress
 ·  Translate
1
Charles Foster Kane's profile photo
 
This is the resistance portal in Milan while under attack from the enlightened
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Syracusis anicula deos cotidie obsecrabat ut Dionysius, crudelissimus civitatis tyrannus, incolumis sempre esset diuque viveret. Dionysius, re nova cognita, mulierem in regiam adduci iussit precumque causam quaesivit. Anicula liberius respondit : “Olim Syracusis iniquus tyrannus imperium tenebat; cum e vita excessiset, ferocior tyrannus urbis arcem occupavit, ideoque vehementer cupiebam ut eius dominatus quam brevissimus esset. Sed postea habuimus te, omnium tyrannorum saevissimum et violentissimum. Ita deos pro tua salute obsecro, ne post mortem tuam tyrannus etiam peior civitati contigat”. Tam liberum ac facetum responsum Dyonisius punire noluit et aniculam dimisit incolumen.
 ·  Translate
1
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Cercasi giocatori di Portal 2 per provare i livelli collaborativi. Looking for Portal 2 players to try the co-op levels.
 ·  Translate
1
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Lettura lunga e in inglese, però merita davvero di essere affrontata per farsi un'idea della situazione dell'informatica ai giorni nostri.
Jean-Baptiste Quéru originally shared:
 
Dizzying but invisible depth

You just went to the Google home page.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit of about how browsers work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play HTTP, HTML, CSS, ECMAscript, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let's simplify.

You just connected your computer to www.google.com.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit about how networks work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play DNS, TCP, UDP, IP, Wifi, Ethernet, DOCSIS, OC, SONET, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let's simplify.

You just typed www.google.com in the location bar of your browser.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit about how operating systems work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play a kernel, a USB host stack, an input dispatcher, an event handler, a font hinter, a sub-pixel rasterizer, a windowing system, a graphics driver, and more, all of those written in high-level languages that get processed by compilers, linkers, optimizers, interpreters, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let's simplify.

You just pressed a key on your keyboard.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know about bit about how input peripherals work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play a power regulator, a debouncer, an input multiplexer, a USB device stack, a USB hub stack, all of that implemented in a single chip. That chip is built around thinly sliced wafers of highly purified single-crystal silicon ingot, doped with minute quantities of other atoms that are blasted into the crystal structure, interconnected with multiple layers of aluminum or copper, that are deposited according to patterns of high-energy ultraviolet light that are focused to a precision of a fraction of a micron, connected to the outside world via thin gold wires, all inside a packaging made of a dimensionally and thermally stable resin. The doping patterns and the interconnects implement transistors, which are grouped together to create logic gates. In some parts of the chip, logic gates are combined to create arithmetic and bitwise functions, which are combined to create an ALU. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bistable loops, which are lined up into rows, which are combined with selectors to create a register bank. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bus controllers and instruction decoders and microcode to create an execution scheduler. In another part of the chip, they're combined into address and data multiplexers and timing circuitry to create a memory controller. There's even more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Can we simplify further?

In fact, very scarily, no, we can't. We can barely comprehend the complexity of a single chip in a computer keyboard, and yet there's no simpler level. The next step takes us to the software that is used to design the chip's logic, and that software itself has a level of complexity that requires to go back to the top of the loop.

Today's computers are so complex that they can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. In turn the computers used for the design and manufacture are so complex that they themselves can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. You'd have to go through many such loops to get back to a level that could possibly be re-built from scratch.

Once you start to understand how our modern devices work and how they're created, it's impossible to not be dizzy about the depth of everything that's involved, and to not be in awe about the fact that they work at all, when Murphy's law says that they simply shouldn't possibly work.

For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. That is the reason why many people can find computers so frustrating to use: there are so many things that can possibly go wrong that some of them inevitably will, but the complexity goes so deep that it's impossible for most users to be able to do anything about any error.

That is also why it's so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. The gap is so large that it's not even possible any more to have a single person be an intermediate between those two groups, and that's why e.g. we end up with those convoluted technical support call centers and their multiple tiers. Without such deep support structures, you end up with the frustrating situation that we see when end users have access to a bug database that is directly used by engineers: neither the end users nor the engineers get the information that they need to accomplish their goals.

That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs' death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie's: Steve's influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis' was much deeper. On the one hand, I can imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Jobs did and the people he inspired: probably a bit less shiny, a bit more beige, a bit more square. Deep inside, though, our devices would still work the same way and do the same things. On the other hand, I literally can't imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Ritchie did and the people he inspired. By the mid 80s, Ritchie's influence had taken over, and even back then very little remained of the pre-Ritchie world.

Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they're regulating and running. That's the ultimate bikeshedding: just like the proverbial discussions in the town hall about a nuclear power plant end up being about the paint color for the plant's bike shed, the patent discussions about modern computing systems end up being about screen sizes and icon ordering, because in both cases those are the only aspect that the people involved in the discussion are capable of discussing, even though they are irrelevant to the actual function of the overall system being discussed.
1
Add a comment...

Charles Foster Kane

Shared publicly  - 
 
Kee Hinckley originally shared:
 
I think it's time to get back to basics. More and more of my friends are leaving or being forced out of Google+. Some refused to submit a driver's license just to prove that their legal name was real. Many cannot safely socialize under their real names. Some just value their privacy. Let's ask this basic question again. Who is harmed by Google's "real name" policy?

These are the people whose voices are being limited or eliminated by Google. These are the people whom Google thinks it's okay to remove from your social network in an attempt to make their identity service fractionally more "real". These are the people whom Google thinks that even if they can safely be here, it's okay if they can't talk publicly about the same things you and I take for granted.

These aren't abstract examples. These are real people, living in the United States and around the world. People who have been harassed, discriminated against, and stalked online and off. These are your friends, your co-workers, and your neighbors. You haven't heard about their problems for the simple reason that they'd rather not talk about them under their real names. Would you? You can read some of their personal stories at the site http://my.nameis.me/.

Most of these examples have been excerpted from "Who is Harmed by a "Real Names" policy (http://j.mp/pojGSo) and my post "On Pseudonymity, Privacy and Responsibility on Google+" (http://j.mp/pJC2PO) (please read that post before arguing about why pseudonyms are or are not a good idea on Google+).

If you read just one of these examples, make it the last one.
—————
Women who don't want to be harassed online. (Women face 25 times as much online harassment as men if they use feminine-sounding usernames).

Mothers or intending mothers, who may face additional hiring, pay and promotion discrimination.

Social workers, mental health workers, teachers, judges, lawyers, members of the military, journalists, academics, union activists, law enforcement, government employees, religious leaders, bank and financial industry employees, job hunters. (All are limited by not being able to talk publicly about some topics under their real names.)

People who wish to talk publicly about things their employer disagrees with.

LGBT people living in regions with no anti-discrimination policies, or where homosexuality or transgender behavior is outlawed.

People who can't, or don't feel it's safe, to scan and upload their driver's license for a complete stranger.

Parents whose legal religion, philosophy, sexual relationships, or sexuality (LGBT, poly, BDSM…) could result in social services removing their children or taking away custody, visitation, or adoption rights.

Parents protecting their children from prior abusers.

Parents blogging about raising their kids.

People blogging about family members with disabilities.

People with disabilities who are forced to choose between disclosure (leading to increased abuse, social and employment social discrimination) or isolation.

Survivors of domestic abuse who don't want to make it easy for their abusers to find them.

People currently experiencing domestic abuse.

Survivors of harassment and stalking, and people currently experiencing harassment and stalking.

Victims of crime or private people associated with a newsworthy event (like the unusual death of a family member), who may be harassed for information by news media or the general public.

People who have had an attack on their real name where someone has mounted a smear campaign to trash their public identity.

Members of any non-majority religion (or with no religion), who may experience discrimination or persecution in the real world if they disclose their religious beliefs online.

People who are questioning their religious beliefs.

People whose names subject them to discrimination based on race, religion, cultural and/or socio-economic bias (for example, anyone named "Mohammed", who might fear harassment/discrimination as a Muslim).

People with relatives living under authoritarian governments.

Prominent people and their families who want to discuss things without their fame interfering.

Anyone in a marginalized group who might be "outed" in some way.

Political dissidents, such as those involved in the 2011 "Arab Spring" uprisings.

Those involved in highly contentious political activity, around issues such as abortion, civil rights, etc.

Anyone with political views (however mild) that may be unpopular or discriminated against.

Whistleblowers.

Anyone concerned about identity theft (how many genealogy "secret" questions do you get asked which could be answered with an online search)?

People seeking physical or mental health support.

People with or recovering from substance addiction (especially women).

People who wish to find out information about marginalized sexual practices (BDSM, Polyamory…).

Authors of erotic fiction (amateur or professional).

People who discuss current or past drug use.

Sex workers.

And last but not least…

You, the next time you want to publicly discuss something which might get you fired (your opinion on Palestine?), cause you to lose friends (your politics?), upset your parents or children (your sexuality?), or simply not look good showing up in the same Google search as your resume (your views on abortion?)…so you decide to remain silent instead.

and

You, because you will never hear the unique and important views that these people could bring to conversations on Google+.
—————

When you think about this, please keep in mind that Google has drastically changed the concept of what it means to be "public". In our day-to-day lives offline, we don't carry a sign that tells complete strangers our full name, where we live, and everything we have ever said in public over the past twenty years. Yet that is exactly what happens when you speak publicly online with your real name. In the face of this new definition of "public", the ability to speak anonymously (or in online cases, pseudonymously) has become far more important than it ever was before. Offline you can go to a bar, political event, or public meeting and just use your first name, knowing that your words are not likely to be distributed to hundreds of millions of people for eternity. You can't do that online, so if you want to publicly address anything controversial, or simply something that is inappropriate next to your resume and work-related postings, you need to do so under another name. It's not a great solution, and it's not completely secure nor safe, but then, neither is speaking out in that room. These are the choices we make every day when we speak publicly. These are the choices that a new breed of generalized social networks like Facebook and Google+ are trying to take away from us.

The forum for public discourse is no longer the town hall, or newspaper, or fliers on the street. It is here on the Internet, and it is happening in communities like this, hosted by private sector companies. Social networks like Google+ are the new public commons, and Google has a responsibility to ensure that important voices are not left out of these forums.

Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil". This is the company that stood up to China's privacy violations. This is the company that refused to require real names when South Korea tried to mandate them. This is the company that has repeatedly stated that pseudonyms are an important part of public discourse. It's time for Google to step up and ensure that Google+ adheres to the same moral code as the rest of the company.

Illustration by my daughter, Shadi Fotouhi (http://dotty323.deviantart.com/). Permission granted to use with attribution under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Original link to this post at: http://j.mp/qpUEjy
1
Add a comment...
Charles hasn't shared anything on this page with you.