RSS: industryterm:internet age

industryterm:internet age

  • @simplicissimus
    Simplicissimus
    2
    @etraces
    @02myseenthis01
    2

    The science of fake news | Science
    ▻http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1094.full

    https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/359/6380/1094/F1.large.jpg

    Summary
    The rise of fake news highlights the erosion of long-standing institutional bulwarks against misinformation in the internet age. Concern over the problem is global. However, much remains unknown regarding the vulnerabilities of individuals, institutions, and society to manipulations by malicious actors. A new system of safeguards is needed. Below, we discuss extant social and computer science research regarding belief in fake news and the mechanisms by which it spreads. Fake news has a long history, but we focus on unanswered scientific questions raised by the proliferation of its most recent, politically oriented incarnation. Beyond selected references in the text, suggested further reading can be found in the supplementary materials.

    article accessible

    Simplicissimus
    • @simplicissimus
      Simplicissimus

      A Future Agenda
      Our call is to promote interdisciplinary research to reduce the spread of fake news and to address the underlying pathologies it has revealed. Failures of the U.S. news media in the early 20th century led to the rise of journalistic norms and practices that, although imperfect, generally served us well by striving to provide objective, credible information. We must redesign our information ecosystem in the 21st century. This effort must be global in scope, as many countries, some of which have never developed a robust news ecosystem, face challenges around fake and real news that are more acute than in the United States. More broadly, we must answer a fundamental question: How can we create a news ecosystem and culture that values and promotes truth?

      Simplicissimus
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @thibnton
    tbn PUBLIC DOMAIN

    Inside X, Google’s Moonshot Factory |The Atlantic (novembre 2017)
    ▻https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/x-google-moonshot-factory/540648

    (…) The decline in U.S. productivity growth since the 1970s puzzles economists; potential explanations range from an aging workforce to the rise of new monopolies. But John Fernald, an economist at the Federal Reserve, says we can’t rule out a drought of breakthrough inventions. He points out that the notable exception to the post-1970 decline in productivity occurred from 1995 to 2004, when businesses throughout the economy finally figured out information technology and the internet. “It’s possible that productivity took off, and then slowed down, because we picked all the low-hanging fruit from the information-technology wave,” Fernald told me.

    The U.S. economy continues to reap the benefits of IT breakthroughs, some of which are now almost 50 years old. But where will the next brilliant technology shock come from? As total federal R&D spending has declined—from nearly 12 percent of the budget in the 1960s to 4 percent today—some analysts have argued that corporate America has picked up the slack. But public companies don’t really invest in experimental research; their R&D is much more D than R. A 2015 study from Duke University found that since 1980, there has been a “shift away from scientific research by large corporations”—the triumph of short-term innovation over long-term invention.

    The decline of scientific research in America has serious implications. In 2015, MIT published a devastating report on the landmark scientific achievements of the previous year, including the first spacecraft landing on a comet, the discovery of the Higgs boson particle, and the creation of the world’s fastest supercomputer. None of these was an American-led accomplishment. The first two were the products of a 10-year European-led consortium. The supercomputer was built in China.

    As the MIT researchers pointed out, many of the commercial breakthroughs of the past few years have depended on inventions that occurred decades ago, and most of those were the results of government investment. From 2012 to 2016, the U.S. was the world’s leading oil producer. This was largely thanks to hydraulic fracturing experiments, or fracking, which emerged from federally funded research into drilling technology after the 1970s oil crisis. The recent surge in new cancer drugs and therapies can be traced back to the War on Cancer announced in 1971. But the report pointed to more than a dozen research areas where the United States is falling behind, including robotics, batteries, and synthetic biology. “As competitive pressures have increased, basic research has essentially disappeared from U.S. companies,” the authors wrote.

    It is in danger of disappearing from the federal government as well. The White House budget this year proposed cutting funding for the National Institutes of Health, the crown jewel of U.S. biomedical research, by $5.8 billion, or 18 percent. It proposed slashing funding for disease research, wiping out federal climate-change science, and eliminating the Energy Department’s celebrated research division, arpa-e.

    The Trump administration’s thesis seems to be that the private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive technology. But this view is ahistorical. Almost every ingredient of the internet age came from government-funded scientists or research labs purposefully detached from the vagaries of the free market. The transistor, the fundamental unit of electronics hardware, was invented at Bell Labs, inside a government-sanctioned monopoly. The first model of the internet was developed at the government’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, now called darpa. In the 1970s, several of the agency’s scientists took their vision of computers connected through a worldwide network to Xerox parc.

    “There is still a huge misconception today that big leaps in technology come from companies racing to make money, but they do not,” says Jon Gertner, the author of The Idea Factory, a history of Bell Labs. “Companies are really good at combining existing breakthroughs in ways that consumers like. But the breakthroughs come from patient and curious scientists, not the rush to market.” In this regard, X’s methodical approach to invention, while it might invite sneering from judgmental critics and profit-hungry investors, is one of its most admirable qualities. Its pace and its patience are of another era.

    #innovation #États-Unis #Google_X #Internet #histoire

    tbn PUBLIC DOMAIN
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @kassem
    Kassem CC BY-NC-SA
    4
    @mad_meg
    @sinehebdo
    @02myseenthis01
    @najort
    4

    Is the staggeringly profitable #business of scientific publishing bad for #science? | Science | The Guardian
    ►https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9e135a20cf9fee927748a64d2530218ea37aef27/0_356_9051_5432/master/9051.jpg?w=1200&h=630&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&bm=normal&ba=bottom%2Cleft&blend64=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWRzLmd1aW0uY28udWsvMjAxNi8wNS8yNS9vdmVybGF5LWxvZ28tMTIwMC05MF9vcHQucG5n&s=48c3d82daa6741c7d6d265be179f099f

    The core of Elsevier’s operation is in scientific journals, the weekly or monthly publications in which scientists share their results. Despite the narrow audience, scientific publishing is a remarkably big business. With total global revenues of more than £19bn, it weighs in somewhere between the recording and the film industries in size, but it is far more profitable. In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.

    [...]

    It is difficult to overstate how much power a journal editor now had to shape a scientist’s career and the direction of science itself. “Young people tell me all the time, ‘If I don’t publish in CNS [a common acronym for Cell/Nature/Science, the most prestigious journals in biology], I won’t get a job,” says Schekman. He compared the pursuit of high-impact #publications to an incentive system as rotten as banking bonuses. “They have a very big #influence on where science goes,” he said.

    And so science became a strange co-production between scientists and journal editors, with the former increasingly pursuing discoveries that would impress the latter. These days, given a choice of projects, a scientist will almost always reject both the prosaic work of confirming or disproving past studies, and the decades-long pursuit of a risky “moonshot”, in favour of a middle ground: a topic that is popular with editors and likely to yield regular publications. “Academics are incentivised to produce research that caters to these demands,” said the biologist and Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner in a 2014 interview, calling the system “corrupt.”

    Kassem CC BY-NC-SA
    • @cdb_77
      CDB_77

      #Robert_Maxwell #Reed-Elsevier #Elsevier #multinationales #business #Pergamon

      With total global revenues of more than £19bn, it weighs in somewhere between the recording and the film industries in size, but it is far more profitable. In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.

      #profit

      In order to make money, a traditional publisher – say, a magazine – first has to cover a multitude of costs: it pays writers for the articles; it employs editors to commission, shape and check the articles; and it pays to distribute the finished product to subscribers and retailers. All of this is expensive, and successful magazines typically make profits of around 12-15%.

      The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.

      A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.

      Many scientists also believe that the publishing industry exerts too much influence over what scientists choose to study, which is ultimately bad for science itself. Journals prize new and spectacular results – after all, they are in the business of selling subscriptions – and scientists, knowing exactly what kind of work gets published, align their submissions accordingly. This produces a steady stream of papers, the importance of which is immediately apparent. But it also means that scientists do not have an accurate map of their field of inquiry. Researchers may end up inadvertently exploring dead ends that their fellow scientists have already run up against, solely because the information about previous failures has never been given space in the pages of the relevant scientific publications

      It is hard to believe that what is essentially a for-profit oligopoly functioning within an otherwise heavily regulated, government-funded enterprise can avoid extinction in the long run. But publishing has been deeply enmeshed in the science profession for decades. Today, every scientist knows that their career depends on being published, and professional success is especially determined by getting work into the most prestigious journals. The long, slow, nearly directionless work pursued by some of the most influential scientists of the 20th century is no longer a viable career option. Under today’s system, the father of genetic sequencing, Fred Sanger, who published very little in the two decades between his 1958 and 1980 Nobel prizes, may well have found himself out of a job.

      Improbable as it might sound, few people in the last century have done more to shape the way science is conducted today than Maxwell.

      Scientific articles are about unique discoveries: one article cannot substitute for another. If a serious new journal appeared, scientists would simply request that their university library subscribe to that one as well. If Maxwell was creating three times as many journals as his competition, he would make three times more money.

      “At the start of my career, nobody took much notice of where you published, and then everything changed in 1974 with Cell,” Randy Schekman, the Berkeley molecular biologist and Nobel prize winner, told me. #Cell (now owned by Elsevier) was a journal started by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to showcase the newly ascendant field of molecular biology. It was edited by a young biologist named #Ben_Lewin, who approached his work with an intense, almost literary bent. Lewin prized long, rigorous papers that answered big questions – often representing years of research that would have yielded multiple papers in other venues – and, breaking with the idea that journals were passive instruments to communicate science, he rejected far more papers than he published.

      Suddenly, where you published became immensely important. Other editors took a similarly activist approach in the hopes of replicating Cell’s success. Publishers also adopted a metric called “#impact_factor,” invented in the 1960s by #Eugene_Garfield, a librarian and linguist, as a rough calculation of how often papers in a given journal are cited in other papers. For publishers, it became a way to rank and advertise the scientific reach of their products. The new-look journals, with their emphasis on big results, shot to the top of these new rankings, and scientists who published in “high-impact” journals were rewarded with jobs and funding. Almost overnight, a new currency of prestige had been created in the scientific world. (Garfield later referred to his creation as “like nuclear energy … a mixed blessing”.)

      And so science became a strange co-production between scientists and journal editors, with the former increasingly pursuing discoveries that would impress the latter. These days, given a choice of projects, a scientist will almost always reject both the prosaic work of confirming or disproving past studies, and the decades-long pursuit of a risky “moonshot”, in favour of a middle ground: a topic that is popular with editors and likely to yield regular publications. “Academics are incentivised to produce research that caters to these demands,” said the biologist and Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner in a 2014 interview, calling the system “corrupt.”

      As Maxwell had predicted, competition didn’t drive down prices. Between 1975 and 1985, the average price of a journal doubled. The New York Times reported that in 1984 it cost $2,500 to subscribe to the journal Brain Research; in 1988, it cost more than $5,000. That same year, Harvard Library overran its research journal budget by half a million dollars.

      Scientists occasionally questioned the fairness of this hugely profitable business to which they supplied their work for free, but it was university librarians who first realised the trap in the market Maxwell had created. The librarians used university funds to buy journals on behalf of scientists. Maxwell was well aware of this. “Scientists are not as price-conscious as other professionals, mainly because they are not spending their own money,” he told his publication Global Business in a 1988 interview. And since there was no way to swap one journal for another, cheaper one, the result was, Maxwell continued, “a perpetual financing machine”. Librarians were locked into a series of thousands of tiny monopolies. There were now more than a million scientific articles being published a year, and they had to buy all of them at whatever price the publishers wanted.

      With the purchase of Pergamon’s 400-strong catalogue, Elsevier now controlled more than 1,000 scientific journals, making it by far the largest scientific publisher in the world.

      At the time of the merger, Charkin, the former Macmillan CEO, recalls advising Pierre Vinken, the CEO of Elsevier, that Pergamon was a mature business, and that Elsevier had overpaid for it. But Vinken had no doubts, Charkin recalled: “He said, ‘You have no idea how profitable these journals are once you stop doing anything. When you’re building a journal, you spend time getting good editorial boards, you treat them well, you give them dinners. Then you market the thing and your salespeople go out there to sell subscriptions, which is slow and tough, and you try to make the journal as good as possible. That’s what happened at Pergamon. And then we buy it and we stop doing all that stuff and then the cash just pours out and you wouldn’t believe how wonderful it is.’ He was right and I was wrong.”

      By 1994, three years after acquiring Pergamon, Elsevier had raised its prices by 50%. Universities complained that their budgets were stretched to breaking point – the US-based Publishers Weekly reported librarians referring to a “doomsday machine” in their industry – and, for the first time, they began cancelling subscriptions to less popular journals.

      In 1998, Elsevier rolled out its plan for the internet age, which would come to be called “The Big Deal”. It offered electronic access to bundles of hundreds of journals at a time: a university would pay a set fee each year – according to a report based on freedom of information requests, Cornell University’s 2009 tab was just short of $2m – and any student or professor could download any journal they wanted through Elsevier’s website. Universities signed up en masse.

      Those predicting Elsevier’s downfall had assumed scientists experimenting with sharing their work for free online could slowly outcompete Elsevier’s titles by replacing them one at a time. In response, Elsevier created a switch that fused Maxwell’s thousands of tiny monopolies into one so large that, like a basic resource – say water, or power – it was impossible for universities to do without. Pay, and the scientific lights stayed on, but refuse, and up to a quarter of the scientific literature would go dark at any one institution. It concentrated immense power in the hands of the largest publishers, and Elsevier’s profits began another steep rise that would lead them into the billions by the 2010s. In 2015, a Financial Times article anointed Elsevier “the business the internet could not kill”.

      Publishers are now wound so tightly around the various organs of the scientific body that no single effort has been able to dislodge them. In a 2015 report, an information scientist from the University of Montreal, Vincent Larivière, showed that Elsevier owned 24% of the scientific journal market, while Maxwell’s old partners Springer, and his crosstown rivals Wiley-Blackwell, controlled about another 12% each. These three companies accounted for half the market. (An Elsevier representative familiar with the report told me that by their own estimate they publish only 16% of the scientific literature.)

      Elsevier says its primary goal is to facilitate the work of scientists and other researchers. An Elsevier rep noted that the company received 1.5m article submissions last year, and published 420,000; 14 million scientists entrust Elsevier to publish their results, and 800,000 scientists donate their time to help them with editing and peer-review.

      In a sense, it is not any one publisher’s fault that the scientific world seems to bend to the industry’s gravitational pull. When governments including those of China and Mexico offer financial bonuses for publishing in high-impact journals, they are not responding to a demand by any specific publisher, but following the rewards of an enormously complex system that has to accommodate the utopian ideals of science with the commercial goals of the publishers that dominate it. (“We scientists have not given a lot of thought to the water we’re swimming in,” Neal Young told me.)

      Since the early 2000s, scientists have championed an alternative to subscription publishing called “open access”. This solves the difficulty of balancing scientific and commercial imperatives by simply removing the commercial element. In practice, this usually takes the form of online journals, to which scientists pay an upfront free to cover editing costs, which then ensure the work is available free to access for anyone in perpetuity. But despite the backing of some of the biggest funding agencies in the world, including the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, only about a quarter of scientific papers are made freely available at the time of their publication.

      The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.

      Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.

      Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now.

      https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/79b12daac27e2f3ce746e0786bfe366d68ba97c7/588_0_3464_4330/master/3464.jpg?w=300&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=803da8c92901b7d42d7671f9958ce072#.jpg

      ►https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
      #Butterworths #Springer #Paul_Rosbaud #histoire #Genève #Pergamon #Oxford_United #Derby_County_FC #monopole #open_access #Sci-Hub #Alexandra_Elbakyan

      CDB_77
    • @cdb_77
      CDB_77

      Publish and be praised (article de 2003)

      It should be a public scandal that the results of publicly-funded scientific research are not available to members of the public who are interested in, or could benefit from, such access. Furthermore, many commercial publishers have exploited the effective monopoly they are given on the distribution rights to individual works and charge absurdly high rates for some of their titles, forcing libraries with limited budgets to cancel journal subscriptions and deny their researchers access to potentially critical information. The system is obsolete and broken and needs to change.

      ▻https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/09/research.highereducation

      CDB_77
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @klaus
    klaus++
    1
    @gblin
    1

    Silicon Valley exploits time and space to extend frontiers of capitalism | Evgeny Morozov | Opinion | The Guardian
    ▻https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/silicon-valley-exploits-space-evgeny-morozov

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Space_Shuttle_Program_Commemorative_Patch.png

    La frontière électronique a repoussé les limites du capitalisme en lui permettant d’occuper une partie grandissante de notre cerveau, corps et temps. Avec ce vecteur d’omniprésence touchant aux limites de son expansion c’est à l’espace interstellaire de reprendre le relais pour les fantaisies de croissance illimitée. Bienvenu dans le far-ouest de l’espace.

    The US Congress quietly passed an important piece of legislation this month. The Space Resource Exploration and Utilisation Act – yet to be signed by Barack Obama – grants American companies unconstrained rights to the mining of any resources – from water to gold. The era of space exploration is over; the era of space exploitation has begun!

    While the 1967 Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits governments from claiming planets and other celestial resources, as their property, Congress reasoned that such restrictions do not apply to the materials found and mined there.

    The bill’s timing might, at first, seem surprising – after all, Nasa, the US space agency, is almost constantly fighting against budget cuts – but is easily explained by the entrance of new space explorers on to the scene, namely the Silicon Valley billionaires who are pouring millions into “disrupting” space, Nasa, and the space programme of yore. From Google’s Eric Schmidt and Larry Page to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Tesla’s Elon Musk, Silicon Valley’s elites have committed considerable resources to the cause.

    And while the long-term plan – to mine asteroids for precious metals or water, which can then be used to fuel spaceships – might still be a decade or more away, Silicon Valley has a very different business proposition in mind. Space, for these companies, offers the most cost-effective way to wire the unconnected parts of the globe by beaming internet connectivity from balloons, drones and satellites.

    Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier
    ▻http://morphsoutpostonthedigitalfrontier.blogspot.de
    On arrive de loin. A l’époque de la space shuttle les limites du cyber-espace étaient encore inconnues et illimitées.

    Wired wrote briefly about Morph’s Outpost in the September/October 1993 issue, online at
    ▻http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/streetcred.html?pg=8

    Morph’s Outpost - By Will Kreth

    Don’t knock programmers. Contrary to popular belief, many of them do have lives and look nothing like the bespectacled, pasty-faced, Jolt-cola- slurping traitorous overweight hacker depicted in Jurassic Park (personally, I was thrilled when he got eaten in the Jeep). Some of them ride mountain bikes, kayak, play alto sax and read books by Peter Matheissen. Some of them were never interested in programming until HyperCard, while others have been working on PC’s since the birth of the Altair in the ’70s. Until recently, they’ve been stuck wading through various patently dull programming magazines for the information they needed to stay on the edge.

    The rise of interactive multimedia has given birth to a new crop of programmers, and they’re starving for deep technical information about their current (albeit over-hyped) obsession. Now they have a new magazine dedicated to their cause. Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier is the brainchild of Craig LaGrow, a founder of the popular Computer Language, and Editor-in-Chief Doug Millison. Augmenting the magazine’s seriously technical treatment of authoring environments and the like is a whimsical cartoon character named (what else?) Morph, who runs his Outpost on the boundary between cyberspace and the digital jungle. He’s the silicon- surfing Sherpa who’ll outfit you with the “intel” you need to make the right decisions on hardware, software, scripting tricks, and marketing your creations. Morph, who looks as if he just came out of a graffiti-artist’s spray-paint can, has assembled several notable names within the industry to contribute to the Outpost on a regular basis - like Rockley Miller (publisher and editor of Multimedia and Videodisc Monitor), Richard Doherty (editor of Envisioneering), Tony Bove (publisher and editor of the Macromedia User Journal and the Bove & Rhodes Inside Report), and Michael Moon (of the market research firm Gistics, Inc.). Do you know your XCMDs from CLUTs? Script-X from a 3:2 pull-down ratio for mastering a videodisc? Then Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier is a must-read for all you seasoned media fanatics surfing the Digital Pipeline.

    Digital Work CyberTrends
    ▻http://people.duke.edu/~mccann/q-work.htm
    Un an après la catastrophe de la Challenger l’espace sans fin du monde digital se traduisait en job opportunities sans limites.

    Work in Cyberspace
    Rise of the Personal Virtual Workspace
    Rise of the American Perestroika
    The Demise of the Job
    Rise of Entreployees
    Rise of the Movable Job
    Demise of the Department
    Rise of the Project
    Demise of the Hierarchy
    Rise of Multimedia in Corporations
    Big Business in Your Little PC
    Rise of the Digital Wealthy
    Devolution of Large Entities
    Rise of the Individual
    Rise of the Video Communications
    Rise of Internet Collaboration
    Rise of the Virtual Office
    Rise of Soft Factories
    Dematerialization of Manufacturing
    Put Your Knowledge to Work
    Rise of New Organizational Structures
    Demise of the Branch
    Rise of Document-centric Computing
    Rise of Intranet
    Rise of Knowledge Worker Hell
    Rise of a New Life in the Web
    Rise of Business Ecosystems
    Death of Competition
    Rise of New Industry Definitions
    Rise of Intellectual Mobility
    Rise of the Internet Job Engine
    Rise of Coordination-Intensive Business
    Rise of the Internetworked Business Structures
    Rise of Global Networks
    Rise of Globalization
    Rise of the Underdeveloped
    Rise of Free Agent, USA

    InfluenceHR | The Shift From Wellness to Well-being : Empowering a Workforce with a Whole-employee Approach
    ▻http://influencehr.com/sessions/the-shift-from-wellness-to-well-being-empowering-a-workforce-with-a-who
    Depuis on chasse du cerveau dans la silicon valley , alors il faut faire des efforts pour en attirer les meilleurs.

    Speaker:
    Dr. Michael M. Moon, CEO and Principal Analyst, ExcelHRate Research and Advisory Services
    Workplace wellness is undergoing a transformation from a limited view of employee physical wellness to a more holistic view that also includes employees’ emotional, mental, and financial well-being — inside and outside the workplace. To really engage employees, employers need to provide the right balance of resources, programs, tools, and technology to enable employees to own and manage their well-being along with building a culture that supports these initiatives. The HR vendor community has a tremendous opportunity in helping employers to empower their employees to own their well-being through innovative technologies that deliver personalized learning, feedback, and targeted interventions.

    Michael Jay Moon - Wikipedia
    ▻https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jay_Moon#Awards_and_associations
    C’est l’occasion pour les vieux hippies et les habitants de première heure de la vallée de silicone de vendre quelques conférences.

    Moon was a contributing editor for Morph’s Outpost from 1993-1995, launching the magazine and writing a monthly column. A technical publication on emerging multimedia design technology, it was based on the design of ’60s underground newspapers. He was a blogger for Customer Engagement Agencies, DAM for Marketing and Engagement Marketspace. In 2000, he co-authored Firebrands: Building Brand Loyalty in the Internet Age with Doug Millison. The book is now available in 13 languages.

    Closing the Digital Frontier - The Atlantic
    ▻http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/closing-the-digital-frontier/308131
    Une chosequi ne change jamais dans le monde capitaliste est l’incertitude. Où trouver the next big thing (#TNBT), commen investir, comment survivre. Alors les spécialistes annoncent des vérités assez simples pour plaire aux décervelés de la finance.

    The era of the Web browser’s dominance is coming to a close. And the Internet’s founding ideology—that information wants to be free, and that attempts to constrain it are not only hopeless but immoral— suddenly seems naive and stale in the new age of apps, smart phones, and pricing plans. What will this mean for the future of the media—and of the Web itself?

    Michael Hirschorn July/August 2010 Issue

    Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft : Which Will Fall First ?
    ▻http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/06/google-apple-facebook-amazon-microsoft-which-will-fall-first

    Which company will fall first, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, or Microsoft? originally appeared on Quora: the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

    Answer by Terrence Yang, Angel investor, on Quora:

    I own stock in Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft, but if I had to pick which tech giant I think will fall first, I would pick Facebook.

    That being said:

    Zuckerberg’s latest moves include:
    Keeping control of Facebook even after he donated almost all his Facebook stock to charity. Facebook shareholder suit alleges secret texts from Marc Andreessen to Mark Zuckerberg.
    Being the only public company CEO to skip Trump’s tech summit. I bet most shareholders wanted him to attend.
    Making his 2017 resolution “to have visited and met people in every state in the US by the end of the year. After a tumultuous last year, my hope for this challenge is to get out and talk to more people about how they’re living, working, and thinking about the future.” Mark Zuckerberg - Every year I take on a personal... Maybe he is sincere in trying to better understand America, given that Facebook, together with Google, account for almost all the online ad revenue. Google and Facebook are booming. Is the rest of the digital ad business sinking?
    Zuckerberg said he is no longer an atheist and that religion is very important (hat tip Hunter Johnson). (Mark Zuckerberg says he’s no longer an atheist, believes ‘religion is very important’.)
    All of these moves are more consistent with someone laying the groundwork for a possible run for political office someday than with someone singularly focused on growing the Facebook empire. What would Steve Jobs do?
    People have speculated before about Zuckerberg’s aspirations to run for President. (Does Mark Zuckerberg Want To Run For President?)
    I believe his actions are an investment risk factor. At the margin, his latest moves drove some investors to sell Facebook stock (raising its cost of capital) and possibly providing cheaper capital to the Facebook’s competitors (if investors sell Facebook and buy Snap, for example).
    Facebook’s metrics are wrong, though others (Google?) may have the same issue. It’s not just Facebook: Digital advertisers say internet metrics are often wrong Facebook Says It Found More Miscalculated Metrics.
    Robert Scoble says spatial computing will dominate, meaning you will be able to physically walk around in the real world and see virtual items placed on them. Scobleizer - Entrepreneur in Residence.
    Scoble said he would ask Zuckerberg this: “How are you going to compete with a “mixed reality” release of the iPhone that’s coming in 11 months? I expect that iPhone will sell 60 million in first weekend…"
    Scoble goes on to say: “That’s more VR sold than all others combined. In one weekend … If I were at Facebook I’d get the entire Oculus team to pivot. Toward mixed reality glasses. Why? Microsoft’s execs already told me they are betting 100% on mixed reality (with its Microsoft HoloLens product). The strategy at Microsoft is “Cloud + Hololens.” That’s it. The entirety of a $455 billion company is betting on mixed reality.” Apple Strategy 2017. Very important change to iPhone coming (hat tip to Leo Harsha).
    Oculus headset sales are low. VR is taking longer to take off than some guessed. VR headset sales by device 2016 | Statista.
    Instagram is doing a great job copying Snap’s popular features and avoiding the unpopular ones (fast follower). But they don’t have anything like Spectacles yet. Instagram’s Best Move in 2016? Copying Snapchat — The Motley Fool Snapchat vs. Instagram: Who’s Copying Whom Most?
    Even Zuckerberg’s write-up and videos about Jarvis home AI reveals Facebook’s weaknesses. While Amazon, Google and Apple can combine hardware and software to give you a better, more seamless experience via Echo/Alexa or the Google and Apple equivalents. To date Facebook only has software.
    Some others cite Microsoft or Apple as the most likely to fail. I disagree.

    SILICON VALLEY (THE BIG FIVE) RULEZ

    Tech Companies Are Dominating the Stock Market as Never Before (July 29 2016)
    ▻http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/29/the_world_s_5_most_valuable_companies_apple_google_microsoft_amazon_facebook.

    Tech’s ‘Frightful 5’ Will Dominate Digital Life for Foreseeable Future ( JAN. 20, 2016)
    ▻https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/technology/techs-frightful-5-will-dominate-digital-life-for-foreseeable-future.html?_r

    The Big 5 are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook
    (August 2, 2016)
    ▻http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2016/8/2/the-big-5-are-apple-google-microsoft-amazon-facebook

    The Big 5 Year in Review : Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook (December 29, 2015)
    ▻https://stratechery.com/2015/the-big-5-year-in-review-apple-google-microsoft-amazon-and-facebook

    #silicon_valley #capitalisme #technologie #disruption

    klaus++
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @klaus
    klaus++
    1
    @sandburg
    1

    The Internet Age Began on August 9, 1995
    ►http://www.litkicks.com/AugustNine

    http://www.litkicks.com/sites/default/files/augustnine500.jpg

    Two separate things happened on August 9, 1995, both by chance emerging from Northern California though they had little else in common. The first was a scheduled event: the initial public offering (IPO) by Netscape, a startup tech firm designed to make software to power the Internet.
    ...
    I remember walking through the hallway at work that morning, probably heading for a coffee refill, when I saw a clump of co-workers and magazine editors talking anxiously. I thought they were talking about the Netscape IPO, but they weren’t. “Jerry Garcia died,” one of the editors said to me. “We need to replace the front page and get a new headline up, stat.”

    #USA #internet #grateful_dead #histoire

    klaus++
    Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire
  • @legrandmix
    benevolat-grandmix CC BY-SA

    Why Playing Music Is Great For Your Brain #Infographic || Dotted Music
    ▻http://dottedmusic.com/2016/lifestyle/why-playing-music-is-great-for-your-brain

    We live in an Internet age where people are constantly connected. People—from young children to older adults—are immersed in media at all hours of the day. Our culture is focused on finding the benefits among daily activities. On the news and online, we read new headlines and hear stories about the health benefits of drinking coffee or a glass of red wine everyday, the potential behind a trendy new diet, the mental benefit of daily exercise or yoga, the importance of physical education and sports in our school systems for the benefit of our youth, and so on and so forth.

    benevolat-grandmix CC BY-SA
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @goom
    Goom CC BY-NC-SA

    Drone racing just became a mainstream sport, thanks to ESPN — Quartz
    ▻http://qz.com/660282/drone-racing-just-became-a-mainstream-sport-thanks-to-espn

    ▻https://fpdl.vimeocdn.com/vimeo-prod-skyfire-std-us/01/2507/6/162538141/513213291.mp4?token=5712bb72_0x755e17a0efab426ce47e9dc8d95e4dfa0fe936

    What’s strange about drone racing, however, is that it’s not really like any sport that’s come before it. It’s got the fast-paced racing action of sports like Formula 1 and NASCAR, the DIY, outsidery feel of skateboarding, and the techy, sedentary nature of e-sports (or video game sports). But unlike all of these other sports, or really any sport before it, drone racing is actually best viewed from a distance, after the fact. These drones are small and travel upwards of 60 mph around large, three-dimensional racetracks. It’s hard to watch that live, in person, especially with today’s less-than-perfect technology. Millions of fans are sharing videos online of pilots juking and jiving through abandoned buildings, old power stations, parking lots, empty fields, and watching them on their phones, and laptops. But very few people are showing up to see drones races in real life. Indeed, what we may be witnessing is the birth of the first new sport of the internet age: A sport that isn’t bound by time or collective experience, but instead a sport that is atomized and doled out in digital chunks, like so many Snapchats, Instagrams, Facebook links and tweets before them. A sport for the 21st century.

    #drone #esport #VR

    Goom CC BY-NC-SA
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @reka
    Reka CC BY-NC-SA
    1
    @geneghys
    1

    Authors weigh in on the Amazon-Hachette war - World Socialist Web Site

    ▻http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/10/amaz-o10.html

    In the latest development in the long-running dispute between Amazon and publishing conglomerate Hachette, hundreds of authors, including such prominent figures as Philip Roth, Salman Rushdie and V.S. Naipaul, have added their voices to a call for an antitrust inquiry into the giant online retailer by the US Justice Department.

    Amazon, originating at the dawn of the Internet age as an online bookseller, now has a workforce of 132,000, warehouse centers in almost every corner of the globe and annual revenues fast approaching $100 billion. Its founder, Jeff Bezos, with a net wealth of about $28 billion, is currently ranked as the world’s 17th richest individual.

    #amazon #hachette #livre #corporation

    Reka CC BY-NC-SA
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @hugo
    Hugo CC BY

    Why I want to update the User Data Manifesto
    ▻http://hroy.eu/posts/why-new-user-data-manifesto

    http://hroy.eu/./posts/why-new-user-data-manifesto/Aybabtu.png

    In late 2012, a new manifesto emerged from some members of the free software community: The User Data Manifesto. Quite similar to the Franklin Street Statement on freedom and network services, the manifesto was taking another approach which I think was good: identifying a new set of rights for users, or as the manifesto puts it: “defining basic rights for people to control their own data in the internet age.”

    I have applauded the approach. However, I have had several criticism with the text itself. Which is why I have started an effort to create a new better version built on the first version. If you are interested directly into reading the discussion about the new version then you can skip the first part of this article.

    What’s wrong with the current version?

    Right now, the manifesto (...)

    Hugo CC BY
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @netlibertaire
    NetLib ART LIBRE

    Fake fake news: The Iranian time machine | FP Passport
    ▻http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/11/fake_fake_news_the_iranian_time_machine

    A good rule of thumb for news in the Internet age: If there’s a “Ha, ha, silly foreigners” story circulating on the Internet, and if 90 percent of the people writing about it are citing the Telegraph, it’s probably mostly fake, or at least highly misleading. (See Putin’s Boyz II Men booty call or Sarkozy’s fromage fatwa.

    I suspect this is the case with the story of an Iranian scientist claiming to have invented a time machine, which has been making the rounds today. (To be clear, I realize that no one actually thinks he did invent the time machine. I’m disputing whether or not the news story is real.)

    NetLib ART LIBRE
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @reka
    Reka CC BY-NC-SA

    Can you trust an infographic? | Media | The Guardian

    ►http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/shortcuts/2013/jan/09/can-you-trust-an-infographic

    A pictorial display of statistics, the infographic is a huge hit in the internet age. But as one on rape figures has recently shown, they can be highly misleading

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357756594652/The-infographic-decoded.-012.jpg

    A picture apocryphally speaks a thousand words, but its 21st-century counterpart – the infographic – often says much less. It’s no surprise that the grabby and easily shared format has taken off in the internet era, and the latest graphic to go viral is one on a tough and complex problem: rape and criminal justice. Published on the Washington Post website, it shows hundreds of rapists going unreported, others escaping investigation, a tiny fraction jailed. In stark relief stand just two false accusations. It’s a startling depiction of a very real issue. But it doesn’t hold together under scrutiny: figures for the percentage of rapes reported vary from about 5% to 50%, but the graphic arbitrarily chooses 10%. The structure of the graphic implies that men tried but not found guilty of rape are, in fact, rapists. How do we know? Surely not all of them are.

    The problems come because an infographic displays in stark black and white ideas that are often, in factreality, fuzzy. So how to read themwithout getting lost in a good picture? There’s three good questions to ask:

    1. Where are these figures from? If a graphic says 67% of people believe Justin Bieber is the second coming of Jesus, who did its author ask?

    2. Does it make sense? A World Water Day graphic once claimed a slice of white bread used 1,000 litres of water, and a whole pizza 1,200 litres. Both can’t be right. It’s entirely possible neither was. A quick sense check often saves the day.

    3. What are we looking at? Boringly, you can’t always mash together data from different sources: survey data, police data and courts data all measure different stuffThe best trick, though, is to think of an infographic like a headline: it’s trying to make a point to grab your interest. But unless you believe every headline you read, you probably shouldn’t do the same with infographics either.

    #visualisation #infographie #cartographie

    Reka CC BY-NC-SA
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @fil
    Fil
    2
    @thibnton
    @rastapopoulos
    2

    User Data Manifesto
    ►http://userdatamanifesto.org

    user data manifesto
     defining basic rights for people to control their own data in the internet age

    1. Own the data
    The data that someone directly or indirectly creates belongs to the person who created it.

    2. Know where the data is stored
    Everybody should be able to know: where their personal data is physically stored, how long, on which server, in what country, and what laws apply.

    3. Choose the storage location
    Everybody should always be able to migrate their personal data to a different provider, server or their own machine at any time without being locked in to a specific vendor.

    4. Control access
    Everybody should be able to know, choose and control who has access to their own data to see or modify it.

    5. Choose the conditions
    If someone chooses to share their own data, then the owner of the data selects the sharing license and conditions.

    6. Invulnerability of data
    Everybody should be able to protect their own data against surveillance and to federate their own data for backups to prevent data loss or for any other reason.

    7. Use it optimally
    Everybody should be able to access and use their own data at all times with any device they choose and in the most convenient and easiest way for them.

    8. Server software transparency
    Server software should be free and open source software so that the source code of the software can be inspected to confirm that it works as specified.

    Fil
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @ateliermediaslibres
    L’atelier - médias libres

    [Infographic] Mobile Users Consume More News
    ►http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2012/10/infographic-mobile-users-consume-more-news.php
    Quoi qu’on pense de l’utilisation des supports mobiles pour la lecture d’information, voici quelques nouvelles données sur cette évolution aux États-Unis pour nourrir la réflexion sur la diffusion d’informations alternatives.
    ►http://www.readwriteweb.com/files/styles/610_0/public/fields/mobile_users_consume_more_news_pew_study.png

    The decline of the newspaper industry has given rise to one of the great fallacies of the Internet Age: Fewer people are consuming news. A new study from the Pew Research Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just how false this notion really is.

    According to the study, “The Future Of Mobile News,” 43% of survey respondents who own a tablet say the device increases the amount of news they see. Outside of sending and receiving email, news is the most-used function on tablets, with 37% of tablet owners reading news on a daily basis and 64% on a weekly basis. News outstrips mobile gaming (34% daily, 60% weekly), the activity widely considered to be most common on mobile devices.

    L’atelier - médias libres
    Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire
  • @thibnton
    tbn PUBLIC DOMAIN

    Nieman Reports | Frank Deford: Sports Writing in the Internet Age
    ►http://nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=102524

    In the spring of 2010 Frank Deford, a senior contributing writer at Sports Illustrated, author, and commentator on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” delivered the Red Smith Lecture in Journalism at the University of Notre Dame. He called his talk “Sportswriter Is One Word” (PDF), an at times humorous, always insightful rendering of “the carnival I hitched a ride onto in 1962.” For close to half a century he has written stories about athletes and the games they play, and now, as he assesses the technological changes in how sportswriters do their job, he provocatively states that “The end of journalism as we know it is only the beginning of better things for sports journalism. With two caveats.” An excerpt follows:

    #sportinvestigation

    tbn PUBLIC DOMAIN
    Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire