The New York Times > AP > Technology > Voters Checking Out Other Sides' Sites

The New York Times > AP > Technology > Voters Checking Out Other Sides' Sites

Despite the fact that Pew's methodology is based on the telephone and, thus, by definition excludes wireless phone users (those of us that have permanently turned off our landline), which is hevily biased in age, education and, i think, political orientation, these results are, nevertheless, interesting and challenege the "tunnell vision" point of view. The report itself indicates that people do access information on both sides of the story, and they found not by asking people whether they access both sides of the story (the theory of self-presentation would immideatly devalue such findings because people want to appear much more knowledgeable than they actually are), but by asking them directly about specific political issues.

My major question, after reading the report is probably laughable... but how many people were sitting in front of their computers when on the phone? could they simply type everything into "Google" and check??

However, considering that Paul Reznick (whose research I admire quite a bit) is part of this project and I am sure the statistical analysis is flawless. Still, advancing age was found to be indicative of the breadth of exposire to arguments about candidates and THAT may be due to wireline-wireless distinctions more so than interest and involvement distinctions.

what I really liked though, were the "types" of presidential race information consumers outlined in the report. The technique of doing this is something I need to do for Internet users in general and haven't had the time to figure out the process (which is a bit complicated - two-step clustering).

It's also interesting that people have heard more about the issues than candidates. Granted Kerry is sort of a wild card and there hasn't been much personal dirt dug up on him yet and everyone is tired of Bush's national guard stories, but could this also be linked with gender? Historically it has been expected that women care about personal characteristics more than men do, although I do not know the research on this all too well.

High speed connections at home may be what actually allows people to consider the Internet as an alternative source of information. I suspect it is far more common to spend time reading opposing view sources with a fast connection than a costly slow connection.

Verizon Plans Focus on Wireless and Broadband

"Verizon Communications is considering shedding millions of its local wirelines to gain $30 billion to pay for the rollout of advanced fiber and wireless technologies. The company reported that its 2004 third quarter profit remained flat, while its wireless business helped push revenue up 6.7% to $18.21 billion in the third quarter 2004, up from $17.06 billion in the third quarter 2003. Verizon Communications reported losing 666,000 business and consumer wirelines in the third quarter 2004. The company is now considering dropping 15 million of its remaining wirelines and seeks to transform itself into a wireless and broadband company. (Source: Wall Street Journal) "

Whoa... now this is interesting. Verizon has been a really big player in wireline business... What's curious is that they still want to provide Broadband, but they require a phone line to have a DSL. I am guessing that many of their subscribers use the cheapest form of a phone line for DSL but use a wireless phone as their main means of communication. This is the first instance of such a shift at least as far as I know. I wonder how the baby bells will do. What kinds of bundling will they try to offer to keep their customer base? BT in Britain has done some very interesting things with offering various wireless-like services to their wireline subscribers, like SMS ability. In the land of SMS that is understandable of course (not as important here at least no quite yet).

The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Weaned on Video Games

The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Weaned on Video Games

this article is fascinating. with all the research on MMORPGs coming out saying conflicting things (its good for you, its bad for you, its good and bad for you, there are different strategies, etc.), adding young children to the mix may have two results - making the research itself of interest to a wider audience and more fundable, and creating a very interesting social impact that we will only see in about a decade. I wonder though... the part about non-traditional controls is intriguing. What about those non-traditional controls? will they be able to energyze not just the body and mind, not only teach, but also challenge and call to create?

Many people have worried about kids reading less and watching TV more, that part of the shift to a purely visual entertainment may be affecting ability to visualize and even imagination. I wonder how video games will impact this.

Lawmakers Seek Ban on Prepaid Wireless Phones in Japan

"The Liberal Democratic Party in Japan is seeking to ban the use of prepaid wireless phones, according to an Associated Press report. Culprits make calls from prepaid wireless phones, which are difficult to track, falsely claming to be a police officer or lawyer dealing with a son or daughter in trouble. The culprits demand cash be transferred quickly into a bank account to save the child. The Liberal Democratic Party's suggested ban still requires further discussion among lawmakers, making its passage unlikely in the current session of Parliament ending on December 3, 2004. (Source: Dow Jones Newswire) "

I seriously wonder whether this is a purely cultural outcome or if this will follow in other countries. In the latter case, this will severely affect the pricing structure and the economy of the wireless world. Considering that it's the teenagers that are some of the biggest users of pre-paid phones in Europe, for example, this kind of ban may bring some control back to the parents for the kinds of communication their kids engage in (it's easy to demand the logs of the phone calls at the end of every month and check who they speak to and how much).

Yahoo! Launches Service for Wireless Handsets

Internet media company Yahoo! launched its Web service targeted at U.S. wireless subscribers. The new service promises to offer easy-to-use Web search interface for wireless handsets. Yahoo!'s Web search as well as its specialized local and image search functions will be offered by Sprint, Cingular Wireless and AT&T Wireless. (Source: Reuters)

have you ever tried to do a search on the web via a phone? especially a spring phone (although AT&T is pretty horrendous too). Its ridiculous - since most web pages are not designed for a phone-based interface, it's almost impossible to find the exact pieces of information you need on a page because the screen only shows little parts of it. Curiously enough, Yahoo is offering these services with companies whose data-plans are some of the more expensive on the market.

It's not surprising though to see At&t and Cingular in the list together. Yesterday FCC approved the merger (finally, that took a while). Let the age of media and ICT super-mergers begin... the marketplace is going to be interesting for the next few years and then it will resemble that of the cable TV and baby bells - almost entirely geographically based. The wild card though, is geographical baselessness of the phone itself.

Campaign reporters grow dependent on Wi-Fi

The Wi-Fi presence on the Presidential campaign trail is proving how reporters have come to rely on the latest in technology to get their job done. When John Kerry rolls into town so does a Wi-Fi hotspot allowing high speed Internet access to the laptops of dozens of reporters and television producers covering the event. Reporters have also grown dependent on BlackBerry devices and AirCards that allow laptops access to the Web wirelessly. (Source: Wall Street Journal)"

This is really interesting. A campaign is a high-speed chase at this point, so I suppose it doesn't make sense to search for local offerings in the form of Wi-Fi, but I wonder whether this could be made usable to the public as well and how would that affect both the image of the "campaign trail" and the idea of a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot. Dependency on devices, however, is not new. People who depend on information as a source of income and profit, will use any technology that provides access to information and facility to move it from place to place faster. They will also grow dependent on these facilities especially if they become common...

What is more curious, is the slightly disconcerting language of the article - "dependency", "rolls in" - I am sure George Lakoff from UCBerkeley would have lots to say about this. WTJ is a fairly conservative publication and the image that is drawn here is not exactly positive especialy with regards to technology use and dissemination as well as the modality of work that jouranlists engage in.... all of that, as a subtext... hmm... does that suggest ICT is more of a democratic gimmik? factcheck.com anyone?

The New York Times > Arts > Art & Design > How to Cross Borders, Social or Otherwise

The New York Times > Arts > Art & Design > How to Cross Borders, Social or Otherwise - this NYT article has an interesting review of art that questions legal and societal definitions of identity as they become more stringent in the post-9/11 US-dominated world. What does the concept of borders and border crossings mean? Why is crossing them illegal and where is the sense in the boundaries that run through the vast expanse of the alps or the lakes and rivers of the north. Why are we expected to travel with posessions and claim so much suspicion for getting rid of the pull of things and travelling light? What is identity as it is encased in the plastic of cards complete with a bad picture and cursory description of association with some entity or another. Why are some of these "identities" are easier to get and some are harder? Which are "fake" and which are "real". As the world hurtles towards the madness envisioned by Orwell, Bradbury and others, as we repeat those mistakes that we had never learned from, how long will it be until the art that questions fundamentals of law and the basis of homeland security is banned from view lest it give people ideas...

Boaters Rescued After Placing 911 Call Underwater

Three boaters in Michigan are alive after they placed a 911 call from a wireless handset while underwater. The Coast Guard, County Sheriff's dive team and the local Fire Department were able to rescue the men after receiving the call. The men were in a submerged cabin of a sailboat that flipped over. All three were treated for mild hypothermia. (Source: NBC News Detroit) "

The wireless tabloids are full of entertaining cell phone banter today - help! bubble bubble! underwater! bubble bubble!

But seriously, not so long ago, New York Times ran an op ed on how adding wireless access in national parks made rangers worry that everyone would call them about a twisted ankle or a bad bruise. That may be true, but I know many people who would have appreciated this ability as they had to crawl with broken/twisted ankles or knees out of the backcountry of various kinds. Yet the article made another interesting point - would cell phones provide a "safety blanket" both giving a false sense of security (I can be rescued anywhere, so I can do stupid things anywhere now!) while providing valuable leg up on the elements in life-threatening situations. I onwder, would they? Would they allow people who are scared of leaving the civilization safety perimeter, finally venture a little bit out into the wilderness? (this is relevant to the Amerca's but not to Europe really). Will that increase injuries and accidents, prompting a rushed attempt to protect people from themselved by the government through regulation? Will it really help save lives? not in hard core mountaineering maybe (although there have been examples of that in less remote locations), but something more mild, rock climbing for example, or hiking or even boating? This tether to civilization that we have, that we may perceive as an extension of ourselves, that we willingly carry around, how much of a trade off between safety, security, privacy, freedom will it be? Hearing a phone ring 200 feet off the ground on a piece of rock is a little bit disconcerting, even if somehow amusing. Will we still be able to find places where solutide and silence are punctuated only by thunder and cries of birds and not cell phone rings? Will we have to go deeper into the wilderness for that now?

Restaurant Introduces 'No Cell Phone' Area

"The Vineyard Restaurant in Florida has a new way to please both diners that need to chat on their wireless phones and those that do not want to be disturbed by the devices. The restaurant has created a 'No Cell Phone' area allowing customers to dine without their handsets. Others can dine in the wireless phone designated area and conduct business as usual from their wireless handsets." (Source: Associated Press)

Sir, madam, smoking or non-smoking? cell phone or not? The choices for selecting the right corner of the restaurant are increasing. As norms for technology use are slowly developing, some places are getting ahead by trying to please everyone. This woud have to be a rather large location. I wonder if they have a smokers area as well. Do they partition both then? Do they place the wireless people to the smokers? Is this a development of a new semi-stigma, like for smoking? curious!

The New Atlantis - Our Cell Phones, Ourselves - Christine Rosen

The New Atlantis - Our Cell Phones, Ourselves - Christine Rosen is an interesting article I found this morning. It's essentially a long ode to the cultural horrors of cell phones, the aweful effects it is having on our society. Some are good points, some are overhyped, some are plain wrong, but in general it's an interesting article. Interesting in no small part because it very clearly takes cell phones as a "brand new" technology and gives this techonlogy agency over the lives of its users, while sometimes giving the users the right to behave. When talking about a particular technology it is difficult not to slip into this odd pattern of techological determinism.

Christine Rosen doesn't like cellphones. Although new techonlogy excites her, she feels guilty and longs for the lots quiet of spaces. She rings alarms of disconnection and erosion of community life, echoing similar alarms rung for the Internet (along with the odes written to it simultaneously) less than a decade ago. It's the encantation of "we have changed for the worse", the anxiety of losing that "good world we had before"... I have heard many times that when my grandmother was my age...things were usually better. Were they? probably not, but in the short term we tend to remember bad things (see Baumeister et al. "Bad is stronger than good" paper), yet in long term we tend to see the past in rosy colors.

Requires reading to help re-asses this point of view - Claude Fischer "On Telephone" and "To Dwell Amon Friends"

No, the world isn't falling apart or imploading, communities are not eroding and personal relationships are not shallower, conversations still happen, and they are just as rare in comparison with chit chat as were a decade ago or a century ago. Technology doesn't change people, people adapt techonlogy to their needs, and only then do changes begin - the secondary effects, the unexpected compromises... those take years to develop, to be adapted... a new techology adoption process is a growing process complete with a development of new social norms... Besides, there is always the "off" button, and, if you really want to "disconnect" leave the damn thing at home.

Basics: Who's There? How Parents Can Be IM Watchdogs

The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Basics: Who's There? How Parents Can Be IM Watchdogs

An article on parental paranoia-child-control is in NYT today, suggesting that parents must monitor activities of their children online as well as offline. While this topic is not new, some work in the UK by Sonia Livingstone and her colleagues suggests that parents and children have very different perceptions of what the other knows and what the other does online. Children are also far more relaxed about the "dangers" of the Internet, showing a significant amount of understanding that some things should not be done, others one has to pay attention to.

HomeNet's own work has shown that teens rarely comunicate with strangers. It is curious that strangers are the brunt of concern of the article, which cites only that as an articulated reason for parental control, leaving others to imagination (although implying there are many). Teens from the HomeNet interviews were very clear that meeting strangers online was not something they did for the most part. It was a rare occurance and, really, they preferred chatting with their friends anyway. Certainly these claims are subject to questioning - were the teens actually honest with experimenters? considering, however, that "meeting new people online" is still a fairly low-frequency activity in the US population in general as well as among Internet users, it seems plausible. In fact, the teens from the interviews spent most of their time chatting to their friends with whom they have just parted at school. This kind of "always on" connectedness seems in quality similar to the SMS-trends of EU and Asia and fits well with theories about demands of relationship development in this age group.

While parental controls may make parents feel better they may also build resentment from the children while trying to fix something that isn't entirely broken. Filter systems have been shown to be inept and blocking far more legitimate sites than the illegitimate ones (see the court cases for library-filter use from several years ago in the US). In Livingstone's data, children are not only aware of this, but find it both amusing and frustrating as well as largely useless. Just imagine if you live somewhere like Essex or Sussex in the UK... all the websites regarding these locations or web searchers with these names would be blocked.

Yet Parental Paranoia - the demand that one must always be watching their childs every move in order to be a good parent - has been perpetuated in this country over the last decade or so. Children with over-scheduled activity calendars almost have to rely on IM and/or SMS to build relationships that they don't hvae time to build as they are involved in a myriad of activities, always controlled and observed by the watchful parent. As such, parental-gard software sells itself on the wave of such paranoia-demands and NYT writes promotionl articles for this software, AOL and MSN. Go brand-advertising in the name of our children.

The New York Times > New York Region > Area Codes, Now Divorced From Their Areas

The New York Times > New York Region > Area Codes, Now Divorced From Their Areas

Blogger, blogger why did you eat my blog-post last night? This article inspired quite a bit of thinking about phones, places, changes from places to people, identity... I disagree with a statement that is made half way through the article that numbers don't mean as much anymore. On the contrary, they do, but that meaning has been transfigurated into something different. Where numbers used to denote class status to people within immediate physical proximity but meant simply place of current residence to people outside such location, numbers now mean - origin, allegiance, source, attachment. Changing numbers is as much a symbolic statement as it is practical even when the symbolic aspect of it is not articulated by the users. The question of "where are you from" can now sometimes be answered by obtainining their cell phone number. This can also be an indication of just how much the person in question identifies with their current location (is their area code local?).

Yet not all of this can be symbolic for the reasons of infrastructure resistance. In some places cellular phones still do not work, in others, it is necessary to obtain a landline for a number of reasons. Yet in most urban areas the symbolic nature of the cell phone persists. Numbers still mean something... they mean people now, not places but individual allegiance to places. Same? Different? time will show.

The New York Times > Job Market > Before Applying, Check Out the Blogs

The New York Times > Job Market > Before Applying, Check Out the Blogs
The article in the New York times talks about blogging as this brand new cool way of applying for jobs and being contacted for jobs. While I do not argue with the validity of the statement that this happens and the anecdotal evidence presented, what bothers me, is the theme of "this is soo new and good and wonderful!"

This phenomenon is not new (how good and wonderful it is, time will show, I doubt it will last long in its pure form once the branding begins, but I've just read "no logo" so its clear why this paranoia seems logical to me). This phenomenon, in fact, is simply another in a list of more and more elaborate iterations that started with personal web-pages, expanded with the coming of search engines, became more popular with job-search sites, was perfected by Craig's list (where at some point, several SF companies hired exclusively from Craig's list claiming they could advertise to exactly the right kind of people there and the response they got was far more personal. Similar claims were from the employees seeking jobs on the site).

Blogs are a different approach to the same problem of job-seeking, fine, maybe it is, but not SO different from previous online iterations of this process. In a way that it IS different is that the employee allows the company know a lot more about them than the company previously could. I am not sure that such levels of disclosure are actually a good thing. Granted, in "hip" and "cool" companies that are still growing this may be an advantage. However, words are a tricky medium especially in a case where they persist despite their authors once they are made public.

Lovely statement about 2 million people blogging by the way... It eerly reminds me of the hayday of muds where 2 million people were mudding and the level of engagement was dramatically changing everyone's lives too. 2 million people is less than 2 percent of the 250 million on this country... just a bit'o'perspective.