"A new company backed by two Google billionaires, film director James Cameron and other space exploration proponents is aiming high in the hunt for natural resources—with mining asteroids the possible target.
The venture, called Planetary Resources Inc., revealed little in a press release this week except to say that it would 'overlay two critical sectors—space exploration and natural resources—to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP' and 'help ensure humanity's prosperity.' The company is formally unveiling its plans at an event Tuesday in Seattle."
- wsj.com Saturday, April 21, 2012
Need we remind you all that the last time James Cameron was involved in space mining for natural resources Sigourney Weaver had to fight to the death with an inherently evil extraterrestrial being? Just sayin'.
Google and other advertising companies have been bypassing the privacy settings of millions of people using Apple's Web browser on their iPhones and computers—tracking the Web-browsing habits of people who intended for that kind of monitoring to be blocked.
The companies used special computer code that tricks Apple's Safari Web-browsing software into letting them monitor many users. Safari, the most widely used browser on mobile devices, is designed to block such tracking by default.
Google disabled its code after being contacted by The Wall Street Journal.
This is kind of tacky on Google's part. Recently, the corporation has done a lot of marketing on how open and transparent they want to be. If you use Google in some way you may have been sent an e-mail or viewed a disclaimer about how important it is for you as an Internet user to know what's stated in the privacy policy. We think all the recent privacy talk from Google and other corporations is one attempt to self-regulate and keep Washington out of their hair and everyone else's hair.
It's unclear this evening how people will react to this news but we suspect there will be a small kerfuffle in the news cycle and ordinary human beings will stop being concerned about it - that is, if they ever start.
When we say ordinary human beings we mean people who don't have that much at stake if Google checks out their browsing habits. What are the harms associated with Google monitoring the places you visit on the Web? Our hypothesis is few. We're going to ponder what those harms could be over the next few days, framing the conversation with the following assumptions:
1. Google won't tell anyone outside of Google Inc. what you look at on the Web.
We're not certain of what Google is required to report to whom when using algorithms and computers and such to skim over your browsing but we assume the corporation keeps that info in-house. That is, to say, all the data collected on the browsing of individuals is not shared with institutions outside of Google for any purpose. This is an assumption that needs more research but we're about to go to sleep, so we'll get back to that later.
2. Employees at Google Inc. are bonded.
We're pretty sure that Google Inc. employees aren't allowed to blab or reveal anything about individual users. They probably only see that information on a "business need-to-know" basis and even when they do view it, it's probably data about vasts amounts of persons, firms, and organizations. There's no singling anyone out with names. If they were ever to break this vow of silence, they may be subject to termination or criminal inquiry. Again, this is another assumption that needs research.
3. Google's intent when checking out browsing habits is to find a way to make money or improve user experience, not to embarrass, expose, or spy on individuals.
Google is a business among other things. They made or bought stuff (like Blogger) to provide some kind of good or service to individuals, firms, and organizations in order to earn money. If one has insight into what these groups do, it might be easier to find out what business strategies would result in increased profitability. You know what doesn't sound profitable? Invading or circumventing the privacy preferences of these groups in a public way that could result in reputational risk. We assume it's in Google's best interest to keep user information private. Too much fear privacy invasion could rattle users' confidence in the corporation and their services, which could come back and bite them in the moneybag.
More on all this later...
Word of the Day:
Reputational Risk (as defined by the Federal Financial Instituions Council in their Internet Technology handbook)
"This is the risk that real and perceived errors and lapses in information technology compromise the customer’s trust in the accuracy of their account records or the thrift’s ability to safeguard the confidentiality of those records."
Last year at a friend’s house we saw something a little strange as he flipped through television channels. The television had been muted, so we only saw a glittery woman in sunglasses with male dancers (almost as flashy as she was) behind her. So much had gone into the costumes.Their garb wasn’t particularly sexy.The costumes were bright…and weird.Weirder than that was the fact that it was 10:30 p.m. and we were watching network television.
We soon learned what we saw was a performance by the one and only Lady Gaga. We were surprised.Weeks before, we’d heard the single “Just Dance” on the radio and didn’t care for it that much. It wasn’t terribly different from most things on the radio and the line “Where are my keys?I lost my phone” seemed irresponsible. That’s a situation a young woman should eschew in a crowded dance club. It would be a little while before we were able to appreciate the song’s humor, which is responsible for most of its merit.
It’s no secret that Lady Gaga is beloved. There’s wealth of communities that sing her praises. In 2009, her words were well received by a crowd of 100,000at the National Equality March in Washington, D.C. Her album “The Fame” has enjoyed 35 weeks on the Billboard 200* (We believe its release was one of the few good things about 2009). This year TIME magazine named her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. In the magazine’s annual “TIME 100” issue, Cyndi Lauper lauded her, saying, “She has an incredible pop sensibility.” An obvious truth.
Lady Gaga is obviously awesome. However, people tend to think so for many different reasons.Here are some of ours:
Strong Live Performance Roots
Ms. Gaga wouldn’t be out of place at a piano bar. The greatest example of this opinion would be her sit-down-and-belt-it-out ballad “Speechless,” a significant divergence from immediate predecessors like Aguilera and Spears.Not one of her songs is meant solely for radio play. They either find their home on a theatrical stage or the blaring PAs of nightclubs. Her journey from the Manhattan club scene to mainstream stardom echo Prince’s start in Minneapolis clubs where he branded Minneapolis Sound.
Ms. Gaga’s vocal and instrumental talents translate into great songwriting. She the newest incarnation of great pop singer/songwriters, following Mariah Carey (whose operatic training no doubt helped out with those awesome falsettos we enjoyed in the 90s) and, of course, Mr. Nelson. This more than can be said for her contemporaries: Ke$ha and Katy Perry are the first to come to mind.
She doesn’t lip synch at live shows! There are so few dance and pop stars that do that for all their songs. It seems like television audiences have been watching synched, synthesized performances so long, that they gape in wonder and grant validity to artists who don’t prerecord their performances. Ms. Gaga’s international, chart topping presence has increased the importance of showmanship in the pop sphere – which is definitely something to be thankful for.
A Non-Commercial Image Embraced
Ms. Gaga is often likened to pop legends like Madonna and David Bowie. While she holds a resemblance to these artists, she also resembles off-the-beaten-path musicians like Nina Hagen or transcendental cosmopolitans like Josephine Baker.In the 80s Ms. Hagen was noted for her transformation of opera into a unique brand of rock and her East German background she described as “the Bertolt Brecht/Kurt Weill tradition.”** She and Ms. Gaga are both adept at taking musical genres on the outskirts of the mainstream and presenting them grandly in popular music, i.e. interwar period German musical theater into “New York, New York” and Eastern European industrial into “Bad Romance.“Performances of either of these songs show the artists aren’t particularly concerned with fitting in – and are better off for it.
Ms. Gaga’s dedication to her unique public imagery is commendable. This year in an interview with Elle Magazine she related the story of her fight to use gothic, black and white headshots on the album covers for “The Fame Monster.” Apparently, her record label was not too keen on her body being hidden from view.After months of debate, the images photographed by Hedi Slimane made it to the cover. In the interview, she defended her taste saying, “’…I can be whoever the fuck I want to be. That’s what artists do. We choose what you see and we tell a story. And the last thing a young woman needs is another picture of a sexy pop star writhing in the sand, covered in grease, touching herself.’”***
Ms. Gaga has also taken to speaking out frankly and publicly against homophobia in the music industry; not unlike Ms. Baker’s intolerance of segregated audiences and leadership in the American Civil Rights Movement. Clay Aiken or Ricky Martin may be able to tell you how non-commercial being open about one’s sexuality is in the US music industry. Ms. Gaga’s views coupled with her influential status – at the very least – bring needed attention to a longstanding prejudice in the entertainment world.As long as she continues to preach the message of equality to members of her cultish fan base, her “Little Monsters,” she’ll continue to make the once unpopular popular.
Clarity of Vision
Lady Gaga oscillates happily and easily between pop music, performance art, and fashion. It’s probably because she’s been a disciple of each since she began songwriting in her teens. Alexander McQueen’s “Armadillo Shoes” fit as easily into her aesthetic as do the teachings of Deepak Chopra. Whether you’re into it or not, it's clear the woman knows what she believes in and knows where she wants to go with her career.
In several interviews she’s stated that she dedicates her work to her die hard fans and plans on making music for the years to come . So, at this point, it sounds like we won’t have to endure something like “Gaga: The Hastily Produced Movie.” We get to look forward to more good stuff from the first American pop innovator of the twenty-first century.
I say undoubtedly. The second installment of the Twilight film series will hit theaters on Friday. I have no doubt fans and newcomers alike will come out in droves even though their pocket books aren't as full as they might have been last autumn. Just last year, myself and others were ogling at Daniel Craig's vengeful, gorgeous James Bond in "The Quantum of Solace." It topped the box office with $67,528,882 in ticket sales, though with lame villains and little "lovin'," it failed to live up to its predecessor's name.
With the new adult audience Stephanie Meyers has garnered for herself since the opening weekend of "Twilight," there's no reason to doubt the werewolf sequel won't do better in the box office. However, I have little faith in the content of the film being as sexy or as thrilling as what we saw last year. But just how much will it make? "2012" (it's been a while since our last decent all-out disaster film) came in at number one last weekend with $65,237,614. I'm going to say Jacob will take the weekend within +/- two million of $75,300,000. I hesitate because I don't think it can beat its teen rival, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," which came in at $77,835,727 on July 15. Now the real question is, in a fight, who would kick the most ass: Jacob, Edward, Bond, or Harry? Feel free to respond!
Thanks for reading the first blog post. Coming Soon: Are You Going to See 'Precious?' NBC Never Had It, and Why They're Losing It The New Meaning of Cable TV Bilski v. Kappos. Really? Yeah, Really.
