jump to navigation

Copyright and the Marxists Archive April 25, 2014

Posted by Oireachtas Retort in Internet, Marxism.
24 comments

As noted by Mark P.

A statement on Marxists.org

Lawrence & Wishart, who own the copyright for the Marx Engels Collected Works, have directed us to delete all texts copied from MECW Volume 1 through 10. Accordingly, from 30th April 2014, no material from MECW is available from marxists.org.
English translations of Marx and Engels from other sources will continue to be available.

The details aren’t entirely clear, I presume the website are not at liberty to disclose much more, but this is a potentially interesting one. One notable comment I spotted

L&W own all post-1991 English translations of Marx and Engels, and all translations of Gramsci; Ocean Press own all translations in all languages of Che Guevara; Pathfinder Press own a large percentage of all English translations of Trotsky. All these organisations, were formerly Party presses, supported by the voluntary labour of dedicated Marxists, are now capitalist firms, and all are enforcing their ownership to prevent this material from being available free to the world on the internet.

The story is timeless, written in letters of blood and fire as I once read somewhere, but radicals, ‘radical publishers’ and their solicitors mirror a much larger enclosure of digital commons. Something which continues on an alarming number of fronts.

The Marxists Internet Archive is a formidable achievement in itself and in the way we think about the web in 2014. The Communist Manifesto went online in 1993. Then and since, all the work has been done for free and available for free. Used by millions, even archived at UCC. There is a bit but not a whole lot you wont find and in fifty odd languages.

So, the interesting bit. I wonder what the response will be. Will it be a few tweets, petitions and people grabbing what they can before it’s gone.  Or will there be any sort of organised response to save what is there for everyone? Could there be?

Has been suggested that there is little to be gained commercially from the take down but also that publishers may have new circumstances, owners or partners where they are obliged to take a harder line. I would be surprised if there were not suitable pre- 89 translations to plug the gap but I guess there wouldn’t be much of an issue of this were the case.

The site came under sustained attack a few years ago which allegedly originated in China.

“We are not 100 percent sure this is the Chinese government; there are a lot of possibilities,” said Brian Basgen, who has worked on the archive since 1990. But he noted that the archive has been temporarily banned by the Chinese government before, about two years ago. “There is a motive,” he said. “They have done it to us in the past. What they are doing is targeting just the Chinese files.”

This is probably much more mundane but intellectual property rights works a lot quicker than computer wizardry these days.

Below is a desk in the British Library reading room.

threes

Where Karl Marx wrote Kapital using books available to everyone.

Pin hell June 3, 2013

Posted by Tomboktu in Internet, Modernity, Technology.
3 comments

I recently succumbed to opening the online bank account that goes with my current account. (I had to — a service I needed is no longer provided in a branch.) With the online account goes a new 6-digit PIN and an eight-letter password. This weekend, I thought I would make use of this new facility and see if I can pay for an unusual purchase online. (It was one of these.) I could not remember the new passowrd. That reminded me of how much of my life involves PINs and passwords I am expected to remember:

  • the computer network at work
  • a separate number to get my payslipthe front door at work
  • a separate number for the door onto my floor at work
  • my personal laptop computer
  • my personal email account (there were two of those until ireland.com was closed)
  • my WordPress/CLR account
  • my (rarely used) Irish Left Review account
  • my account for the lgbt discussion board I pop into from time to time
  • my Irish Rail account, just so I can buy tickets online
  • the alarm at home
  • my mobile phone
  • my ATM card
  • my credit card
  • my public library account
  • the bin company account
  • my SSRN account (which I don’t need too often and have also forgotten).

I update my tax certificate each year to record the amount I paid in bin charges the previous year, and that has a PIN, but I never remember it and always fetch the envelope out of the file.

Somewhere in all of this there is a balance between security and madness. I think I’m reaching the boundary.

Anonymous again… May 29, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in British Politics, Internet.
4 comments

Difficult not to find at least some good in the news that Anonymous UK has hacked into and released EDL membership lists (and topping off a really bad week for the EDL).

Individuals claiming to be part of international hacktivist group Anonymous have published phone numbers and addresses for supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) as part of what they said was the first phase of a campaign to destroy the far-right street protest movement.

There’s no question but they’re an intriguing entity. Politically one could perhaps argue that they’re along the lines of ‘good intentions’. Read the statement allegedly from them on the EDL.

“We have been patiently observing your organisation as you have [indoctrinated] our young with your criminal mindset.
“Your constant belligerence, like a pack of raving ignoramuses, furthers only bigotry and segregation. You have angered us considerably and summoned our wrath irrevocably.”

There’s an hint of a (undeniably well intentioned) mwahahaha ringing in the background. It continues, noting in the wake of the murder of Lee Rigby, that:

This villainous public display has thrown the United Kingdom into mourning; every community and every congregation extending their deepest condolences.

And yet, and yet, there’s an hard edge to them in terms of those who come into their focus that somehow undercuts that – as well as the fact that numerous ‘members’ have been imprisoned for their participation.

You, however, have used this as another excuse to further spread your campaign of hate, bigotry, and misinformation. Under the guise of national pride you have instigated crimes against the innocent and incited the subjugation of Muslims.

It’s fair to ask as to how much real influence all this has – different accounts offer different conclusions. And there are serious issues of representation, such groups by their nature obviously are not subject to clear democratic legitimisation – how can they?

And yet, and yet… (again) have to admit, that their targets in the main seem well chosen. Their development (evolution?) across the last decade from lulz to an approach much closer to an activist social commentary on contemporary society is remarkable, and there’s something about them, something about the often inchoate but occasionally focused actions they take that reminds of the situationists, something of that spirit.

More on this again.

Irish Pub in Cyberspace March 31, 2013

Posted by Oireachtas Retort in Culture, Internet.
add a comment

RTÉ 1995

Long before Friendster, Myspace and the current behemoths Ireland was home to one of the earliest forays into social media. Certainly an example of Irish innovation on cusp of something ground-breaking but alas, blinded by the blarney as so often is the case. Indeed, far from a tempting 12.5%, a pixelated pint of plain was your only man.

Thirty million people were on the internet according to John Gormley. That’s barely a bad day’s traffic on Cedar Lounge Revolution in this day & age though most of us are still waiting on this fibre optic business he mentions.

Dispatched from the London Independent Giles Coren writes

I have never felt so gauche in a public house, never been so aware of the established locals turning in their stools to scowl at the foreigner new at the door. I felt the darts match stop, the village bruiser pause in his pool shot.

A graphic reeled itself on to the screen of a moustachioed barman pouring a pint of stout. Nothing happened for a while, but then it seldom does, I have never had great bar presence. Then some words appeared under the barman. “Hello stranger,” he said. “Have I seen you here before? No matter. For the trouble of coming have a pint, and then choose a table by clicking on it.”

No pint materialised, but half a dozen pub tables appeared on the screen under headings like “literature”, “music”, “pub chat”. I clicked one and was offered various venues for conversation: the Beer Garden, the Upstairs Bar, the Lovers’ Table. I opted for the main lounge. I sat down and clicked up the conversation in progress. Two characters called Pinky and Perky were quipping about faeces. Dirk from Munchen was asking: “Any English ladies to talk with?” Ian announced: “I’m pissed, stoned, and in Australia.” There was a group of Chilean students asking for penpals, and someone called Neil Robinson, who stunned the assembly with, “Hello, anybody out there?”

It was, in short, full of the sort of people you try to avoid in the pub, and I was about to head for the Lovers’ Table when someone asked: “Is Neil Robinson a whoossie?” Then somebody said they thought bombing Muroroa was a great idea, and suddenly the pub was full of Australians. Seeing a chance to stir the fibre-optic soup, I addressed Perky. “Why are there so many Australians here?” I asked. “You’d think it was a pub in Earls Court, not cyberspace.” Perky loved it, and soon Pinky and his crones were spewing foul verbal venom at the Australians. The Aussies got tough. The Brits, from the safety of 10,000 miles, threatened to break beer glasses in their faces. Neil said: “I’m leaving.” And everyone said “Whoossie!” But instead of a fight there was only the impotent rage of a dozen virtual fists.

This is a pub with no booze, no women, no fruit machines, no smell of beer-stained carpet. It is a pathetic illusion of human interaction for the socially challenged. But then again, it is a pub with no fights, no filthy lavatory, and no closing time.

And best of all, as long as these idiots are leading their sim-lives down the Virtual, it keeps them out of my local.

Not quite the unfettered commentary that currently occupies the mind of legislators either. Doesn’t sound like much like an  Irish pub to me.

Joint Committee hearings on Social Media March 6, 2013

Posted by Oireachtas Retort in Internet.
Tags:
9 comments

..begin this morning (9.30am, room three) till Tuesday with Facebook, Google & Twitter all making an appearance.

The committee will produce a report to be presented to Pat Rabbitte sometime in the coming months.  There has been much panic and confusion in the last year or so following a number of tragic events and bizarre commentary in the press. Heat has seemingly been on TDs and the Dáil record now boasts several convoluted definitions of the word troll.

I had quick search for Committee member’s activity last week to find an average of 434 tweets between them with Senator John Whelan making up half and most of the real ones. Several haven’t said a word since they fought their last election and the rest – presumably operated by someone else – look like a parish pump newsfeed of generic Party links with the odd congratulations to the local under 14s. Not an interactive bunch.

The Oireachtas however had designated the commendable if rather unhelpful #jctcsubmission for submissions. The first hashtag to come from above if I’m not mistaken.

Chairman Tom Hayes (whom I’ve mentioned before in not unrelated circumstances) notes

Social media outlets are changing the way many of our citizens interact with one another. Some disquiet has accompanied the rise of social media, particularly in relation to the nature of abusive and unfettered commentary. As a Committee, we’ve considered over the past number of weeks how the rights of ordinary citizens can be upheld on social media outlets.

The Minister himself is due to appear so we wont see an end to unfettered commentary just yet. A report in this weekend’s Sunday Times signalled plans to ‘broaden the scope’ of the communications regulations to embrace all forms of electronic communications and something about better forms of reporting content. Though intentions were a lot lighter on detail in the Dáil last week.

Will be interesting to see how the Oireachtas handles three of our big US employers. Not least as due to their presence here, what transpires may have implications good and bad for users across the EU. The world’s tech media may even be about to get their first taste of Mattie McGrath.

Also noteworthy is the relative speed at which all this came together given the decision not to bring some of beef industry players in and indeed the pace of matters concerning media ownership.

Fergal Crehan has prepared a submission from Digital Rights Ireland and makes the point

We are in the fourth decade of the Internet’s existence. However, in some respects, in Ireland at least, the Internet only broke through to the cultural mainstream since the advent of the smartphone. What might be termed “the Irish Internet community” is to a large extent made of “digital natives”, people who have learned appropriate online behaviour over many years’ immersion in the norms of the community. At the same time, the law has kept reasonably abreast. We submit that in the areas of bullying and hate speech, two offences exist which are tailor-made, without any amendment, for use in respect of online communication. However, many hundreds of thousands of newer users of the Internet, less attuned to these norms, have flooded online in recent years, leading to a wrong belief, that “anything goes” online.

We submit that this perception has twin dangers. It lulls Internet users into behaving in ways they would not dream of behaving in daily life. It also gives legislators and even enforcers the mistaken impression that no laws exist to deal with such behaviour. Digital Rights Ireland hopes it has assisted the committee by outlining, in these submissions, that online speech is already more than adequately regulated.

and recommends

No new legislation should be introduced, but clarification should be provided on the following points:

  • That offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Act and the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act apply to online communications.
  • That intent to stir up hatred is not an essential ingredient of the offence of “Preparation and possession of material likely to stir up hatred”.
  • That Norwich Pharmacal orders are available as a means of unmasking anonymous parties, but should only be made where a substantial case is disclosed.

o Section 13 of Post Office Amendment Act 1951 should not be further amended.

o The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner should be properly funded, particularly in respect of its enforcement powers.

o Prosecutions of the offences of Harassment and Preparation and Possession of Material Likely to Stir Up Hatred should be considered, where appropriate.

o An education programme should be instituted in relation to online behaviour, applying to both adults and to children.

Which seems entirely reasonable and correct.

Anything further is ignorant if not dubious imo.

Former Storyful COO Demort Casey has written a very good piece on what the Committee might be asking if not fighting 20th century fires while a submission from Clare Daly is also available here.

Update

Video of proceedings here and full transcript should be alone shortly. Worth a watch as Senator Eames’ unique grasp of things is somewhat overshadowing the wall of ignorance on display from all sides today.

Some highlights from the Minister

At the highest level, social media have the power to be profoundly transformative – fundamentally disruptive to existing patterns of debate, existing political discourse and to existing media. Democracy has always evolved and changed along with technology; these technologies have provided citizens with a new set of tool to engage with politics, and vice versa. This is something to be welcomed and embraced, not feared.

However the novelty and power of this technology brings challenges too, right across the legal, social and personal spectrum. The same power that allows information to be shared in a free and open way also confers the ability to abuse, bully and harass others, sometimes with the benefit of anonymity.

Equally, some people have yet to fully appreciate that public messages on social media have the same legal character as if they were published in a newspaper – defamation and harassment laws apply online in just the same way as they do offline. Also, there have been experiences all over the world where people have been insulted and bullied using these media, and as we know, we have had extremely unfortunate incidents here along similar lines.

Some of these things have the character of growing pains, as soon as practice evolves and behavioural norms online become embedded, either through education or experience, some of this behaviour will mitigate. But there will always be some willing to use online media to bully, harass, or demean others. Government needs to be cognisant of the damage that these people can do, and be prepared to react in a proportionate manner.
Critically, social media or the internet didn’t lead to the invention of bullying or harassment; these behaviours existed long before that. However the nature of the internet, or at least of many of the sites involved, is such that some aggressors can either hide behind anonymity or are simply braver, or less caring, as to the effects of what they might say from the comfort and safety of their own home. For children these concerns are particularly critical; the web is their future, and social media are their media in a way that older generations will probably never be able to fully comprehend.

We must ensure that children are free to make the most positive use possible of the web, that they can take full advantage of the opportunities it offers as an educational and social tool. This will not happen if confidence in the web as a safe space for children is lost in the wider community.

The relative novelty of this area and the pervasive and broad nature of its implications pose significant challenges for governments the world over in terms of coming to terms with it however. To date, these media generally have not been subject to a formal regulatory regime akin to that used to ‘regulate’ traditional radio and television broadcast media, either in Ireland or in other jurisdictions. There is a range of reasons for this, even before you consider the challenge of keeping up with the rapidly evolving technologies involved.
The first main reason why governance in this area is so complex lies with the fact the internet governance is, and indeed has to be, conducted on a multi-jurisdictional basis. There is very little that countries can do on their own given the international basis of the web. Moreover, the system is largely operated on a multi-stakeholder model, with Governments as participants rather than controlling or ordering the process.
The second complicating factor around the governance of social media is the fact that they are, undeniably, media. This is not just due to the activity of ‘traditional’ media players in using social media, or even online media players; social media themselves are now important media players even when there are no journalists, or payment, in the picture – they are an integral part of a large and diverse media ecosystem. As such, Social Media is treated in much the same way as any media, with due consideration given to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in any measure that might impact on it.
The third main reason for this is the breadth of the implications; many different areas of Government are affected by this phenomenon and have an involvement, but no single Department or agency can steer or manage it. As Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, I have policy responsibility for providing a supportive legislative and regulatory environment to facilitate the development of high quality communications infrastructure and services. However, I do not have sole responsibility for addressing as to how that infrastructure is used.

Responsibility for measures to deal with harassment and abuse online sits with the Minister for Justice and Equality, in much the same way as his Department deals with the same issues in the offline world. To that end, his Department has established an executive agency, the Office for Internet Safety that deals explicitly with online safety.

There are solutions to these issues however. In the first instance, children, parents and teachers all require support in terms of understanding the nature of the threats that can sometimes appear online. The Department of Education have already done some very positive work in this regard, including the publication of a new Action Plan and Bullying that includes some concrete measures on cyber bullying. The Office of Internet Safety, who will present shortly, also has a number of measures in place to this end which I will leave to them to explain. Non-government players also have a role – I note particularly the work of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals in this area.

There is also a set of robust legal measures in place for defamation, introduced as recently as 2009, which covers online comment. Similarly,
Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 deals with harassment. However, while this Act deals with direct communications with someone, it does not deal with communication ‘about’ someone and at present is apparently being interpreted in a very narrow sense by the courts. We have existing mechanisms to deal with the abuse of the postal or telephone system; the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007 introduced measures dealing with the use of the telephone system to send messages that are grossly offensive, or “… indecent, obscene or menacing”, or “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to another person”.

However, it appears that there may be a gap in the legislation here in that electronic communications infrastructure is not covered by these measures and as such there is no specific mechanism available to the Gardai or the Courts to deal with the type of difficulties we have seen. (Not the case) My Department is presently considering ways of addressing any such issue.

This is not an easy task; there is a delicate balance to be struck between ensuring that the constitutional rights of the individual to freedom of speech and freedom of access to information are maintained, while at the same time introducing measures that can deal with this abuse in a timely and effective manner. Determining an appropriate threshold for offences to ensure that a slew of vexatious or frivolous complaints do not arise is a challenge. We have to be aware of these difficulties, and also to ensure that the questions of intent, credible threat and the degree of menace all receive due weighting. Experience in other jurisdictions has been that this balance is not easy to strike, and we fully intend to give any measures our full consideration before implementing them.

I am convinced that it is possible to ensure that people can gain the full benefit offered by social media, in their public and private lives, while being protected against harassment or bullying of any kind, if we remain open to appropriate and sensitive intervention. These interventions must tread the infinitesimally fine line between protecting individuals and ensuring that free speech, and free and open debate, are preserved. This is difficult, make no mistake, but it is a balance that we must strike again and again, in the light of new technologies.

I look forward to hearing the outcome of the rest of your discussions Chair, and I will consider and recommendations that you may have on the subject. I know that members will be wary of making sweeping recommendations given the complexity and importance of this area, but I am sure that the Committee will be able to engage constructively and sensitively in these issues.
I wish you well in your work.

Back again with Facebook and Twitter tomorrow Thursday, 7 March, 10 am
Wednesday, 13 March, 9:30 am:  National Anti-Bullying Coalition
Wednesday, 20 March, 9:30 am: YouTube

A Left-friendly email service provider? October 15, 2012

Posted by Tomboktu in Capitalism, Community, Ethics, Internet, Other Stuff, Society, Trade Unions, Workers Rights.
9 comments

Hi Folks,

My main email account has been with ireland.com since the 1990s. Today they sent an email to say they are closing the service in less than a month (so the domain can be transferred to Tourism Ireland).

I could simpy transfer everything to my back-up gmail account, and may do that simply to ensure that I have the data. However, I was wondering of any readers of CLR know of a Left-friendly email service provider?

So, what would be Left-friendly? My ideal would be one run as a co-op, and I wouldn’t mind paying for that, but I’ve no notion if there are any or if any I might find thrpugh an internet search are secure or reliable. My second preference would be one run by a company that recognises unions. (When I got my first mobile phone, I checked with the CWU to see which providers recognised it and/or other unions. The initial reply gave me a list of companies where the union has members, but I did get an answer the specific question a few days later. I don’t know how often the union gets a query like that.)

Thanks,

Tomboktu

Dear Account Holder,

The Irish Times and Tourism Ireland today announced a digital content cooperation agreement to promote Ireland as a tourist destination. The agreement spans a number of areas, including the sale of the ireland.com domain name to Tourism Ireland. Tourism Ireland will use the ireland.com url to attract more web traffic and enhance the promotion of Ireland overseas.

As a result, we wish to inform our @ireland.com email subscribers that the service will be discontinued from November 7th, 2012. From midnight on this date, you will no longer be able to send or receive messages. You will, however, be able to access your account until December 7th for the purpose of transferring any data (i.e. emails, tasks, documents, appointments and/or contacts) currently saved on your account. We are writing to advise you of this change and to ensure the transition to a new service provider is as seamless as possible.

To aid the transition, we have provided a step-by-step guide and FAQs on ireland.com and a helpline has been established to assist wherever possible. The helpline will operate between 8am and 8pm weekdays on telephone 1890 876 666 or 01 685 6999 or email customerservice@digitalworx.ie .

We would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused to our valued customers.

John O’Shea

Head of Online, The Irish Times

An amendment to the Constitution November 18, 2009

Posted by Tomboktu in Blogging, Bunreacht na hÉireann, Ethics, Internet.
1 comment so far

I am glad to see Fine Gael catching up with the blogosphere.

This proposal was posted on livejournal some months ago. (I do like the proposed short title in section 2(2).)

———————–

Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2009

________

As initiated

________

Image shows Official Seal of Ireland - The Irish Harp as it would be laid out on a printed version of a Bill

________

TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BILL,

2009

________

Mar a tionscnáodh

________

ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

Section

1.    Amendment of Article 35 of the Constitution.

2.    Citation.

________

TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BILL,

2009

________

BILL

entitled

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

WHEREAS by virtue of Article 46 of the Constitution any provision of the Constitution may be amended in the manner provided by that Article:

AND WHEREAS it is proposed to amend Article 35 of the Constitution:

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:

1–(1) Article 35 of the Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

(a) in the Irish text – […],

(b) in the English text –

(i) the insertion of “except as provided for in section 6” after the word “office”, and

(ii) the insert of the following section after section 5–

“6 The remuneration of a judge may be reduced during her or his continuance in office only when and to the same extent that a reduction in pay is applied to a significant proportion of workers who remuneration is supplied from public funds.”.

2–(1) The amendment of the Constitution effected by this Act shall be called the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution.

(2) This Act may be cited as the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Putting Manners on the Judiciary) Act, 2009.

_______________________________________________

AN BILLE UM AN SEACHTÚ LEASÚ IS FICHE AR AN mBUNREACHT,

2009

TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BILL, 2009

________

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

________

Purpose of Bill

The Bill is designed to amend the Constitution in order to achieve the following purpose: To make it constitutional for the pay of members of the judiciary to be reduced provided that this is done in a way and at a time that is similar to any reduction that applies to other public sector workers.

IMPACT Channel October 27, 2009

Posted by Tomboktu in Education, Health, Internet, Ireland, Irish Politics, Justice, Labour relations, Social Policy, Society, Trade Unions, Uncategorized, Unions.
9 comments

I thought regulars (and, indeed, visitors) in the Cedar Lounge Revolution might be interested in the IMPACT channel at Youtube.

At the moment it contains four films: Labels, The Nerve, They’re Everywhere and Monster.

The first two are straightforward.

Which of your wasteful public services would you cut?:

A concerned mother shares her son’s experience with his public servant speech therapist:

The second two engage in parody.

News ‘report’ on public servants:

A backroom Irish public servant comes clean:

(Further) Militarising the Internet May 5, 2009

Posted by Garibaldy in Internet.
6 comments

30-odd years ago we saw the beginning of attempts to militarise space. And now we are seeing the further militarisation of the internet. Over the last several years, there have been accusations from western powers that the Chinese, and to a lesser extent the Russians, have been engaging in cyber warfare. This does seem to have been happening to some extent, and now the US is forming a new department to engage in Cyber warfare. The Pentagon now has a Cyber Command, the head of which, according to the BBC, is also the head of the National Security Agency. So here we see how the dynamics of great power rivalry – and the reach of what used to be often referred to as the military-industrial complex – are such that any facet of life can be entangled in the military plans of the great powers.

Of course the internet started life with US military communications technology, and so it would be wrong to see this completely as the intrusion of militarism into civilian life. But it shows how even the progress made with the most democratising communication technology since the printing press can be warped by militarism. Militarism remains a very real and very prevalent aspect of life in many countries. Even in the Republic, the army has been looking for a more prominent voice in public life over the last number of years, and the efforts to produce a common EU military and foreign policy are have resulted in increased government spending on arms. With the economic crisis, even the British Tories are talking about not necessarily upgrading Trident. I suspect that a lot of the impetus behind the rising concern with cyber warfare is ensuring that the massive US military budget appears money well spent, and to raise its status in the eyes of public opinion after the scandals emanating from Iraq. It seems to me that this is another area that those of us opposed to militarism are going to have to be more aware of in coming years.

And to while away a quiet ten minutes at the weekend… August 16, 2008

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Internet.
12 comments

How about this from a site graphjam.com? I found the link in Wired magazine. Not so sure about Wired. Every issue I buy, which is only now and again, tends to be more or less the same. That said the design is great and it’s easy stuff if you want to relax.

Anyhow, as the accompanying piece in Wired notes:

Somewhere, chart guru Edward Tufte is squirming: This site’s homages to pop culture come in the form of perverted infographics. From the map indicating which countries a Flock of Seagulls deem “so far away” (Iran) to a bar graph illustrating the possibilities at the Hotel California (checking out: 100 percent; leaving: 0) and a flowchart for deciding what game console to buy (pivotal question: Do you have any friends?), GraphJam will give you newfound respect for the awesome power of Microsoft Excel.

Who’d have thunk that plain old MS Excel would have such entertainment possibilities? Anyhow, here are a few more examples for your consideration…

It’s entertaining, but soon gets a bit wearing in a way which can best be summed up by the following graph I made earlier…

%d bloggers like this: