41–50 of 111 posts
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_...
Seeing Americans companies take sides in the politics of foreign countries in such enthusiastic, carefree ways leaves me feeling very uneasy.
take a look at the names of authors of the blog post: Posted by Ujjwal Singh, CoFounder of SayNow and AbdelKarim Mardini, Product Manager, Middle East & North Africa
This raises a thought for me with regards to my own Twitter usage. I find this a great idea and would like to follow it, but the high level of tweets this produces will saturate my stream and block out the other people I'm also interested in (I follow ~30 people and keep the people I follow limited to those I am truly interested in) so I wonder, could Twitter eventually have some sort of "Watch" feature? Display woul…
If you're on the move a lot, you can sync your columns across computers / phones, but that does involve trusting them with some of your account details.
Hopefully the result of the revolution gets them a better government, unlike pretty much every other revolution in history (America is a special case).
So what you're saying is "pretty much every" current government is the worst it's ever been? Come on.
On the other hand sometimes revolutions do produce better governments. I think Indonesia kicking out the Soehartos and installing a fairly reasonable democracy is a good recent example.
I'm not sure the American Revolution counts as a revolution at all -- it was more of an independence movement, and I think these tend to have a better record than true revolutions.
Thousands of years seemed to go by where uprisings didn't need social networking. The Babylonians didn't need Twitter when they rose up against the Assyrian Empire. The Inaros' didn't need Facebook when they confronted the Persians in Egypt (although they did have the help of the Greeks). Julius Caesar didn't tweet 'hey watch out Pompey' when he marched on Roma. Did the Sicilian Vespers need Twitter to alter the bala…
No, and I don't need pants. But when it's -30 out and I have to shovel snow, they're sure a nice luxury.
This Egyptian situation puts new perspective on Malcolm Gladwell's popular article, "The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted". I'm not sure how it applies (if at all) - but it's interesting that the revolution comes from the fact that people really can't tweet (or use the internet, more importantly). Would love to hear 2nd thoughts from people here RE: that article. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_f…
The ability to communicate thoughts, events, instantaneously, as they happen, and from the people actively involved in those events around the world, is unprecedented in human history.
The revolution has been tweeted. It does not depend solely on twitter and the like, but these are not tools to be underestimated.
Just compare the quality of the content you're getting by following people actively engaged in the revolution on twitter, with what you see on CNN. This is revolutionary.
This Egyptian situation puts new perspective on Malcolm Gladwell's popular article, "The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted". I'm not sure how it applies (if at all) - but it's interesting that the revolution comes from the fact that people really can't tweet (or use the internet, more importantly). Would love to hear 2nd thoughts from people here RE: that article. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_f…
I think people are overestimating the importance of the internet here. The fact that the internet has been turned off seems to be pretty low on the list of greivances. The skyrocketing price of food would (for instance) seem to be a much more important driving factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not the OP, but I can see his point. Foreigners (not just Americans) taking sides in political disputes which they don't really understand might wind up helping the wrong side. Even if we just define "the wrong side" as "not the side they would have supported if they'd known more about the situation". Alternatively, even if they pick "the right side", they might wind up inadvertently helping the wrong side, since…
I agree in principle, but in this case there's one side attempting to cut off all uncontrolled communication in and out of the country. It seems like an easy choice to side against their position on communication.
Very cool. I assumed it would be filled up with Spam right away, but it's not - they must be doing some kind of filtering to make sure only Egyptian callers can leave a message. Most of the messages are not in english (duh) but here are a couple english messages. I'm surprised google isn't doing speech recognition and translating these for us too. http://www.saynow.com/playMsg.html?ak=TkxFNENGTHVQQzdTdVE4N0... http:/…
"I'm surprised google isn't doing speech recognition and translating these for us too." It's because speech recognition does not exist for Egyptian Arabic. There are some research programs, but no actual completed products. This may be surprising to some, but speech recognition is only available in a small number of languages. Mainly European languages plus Chinese. There is nothing preventing speech recognition in o…
Seeing Americans companies take sides in the politics of foreign countries in such enthusiastic, carefree ways leaves me feeling very uneasy.
Just a guess, you supported Paypal, Visa, Amazon, etc. in the WikiLeaks case. Amiright?
Amiright?