Digital Parsimony

To remove a defaming page about us on the internet we ask Google to remove it from their search results, and then Yahoo, and then everywhere else. Matt Cutts, SEO expert at Google, discusses this in detail.

Instead, we should be talking to the creator of the page directly and having them remove or modify the content of the page all-together, it will remove the results from not only Google and Yahoo, but everywhere else you haven’t thought of.

We’re signing legislation like the Internet Safety Act that prevents people from accessing the internet anonymously. Supposedly this is going to stop sex offenders and help the police catch them. Instead, it’s going to do more harm than good, completely eradicating available and open WiFi in places like Starbucks and your favorite sports bar.

We also take them off Facebook and Myspace. Instead, we should be figuring out a way to stop them from making sexual advances towards kids all together. Facebook has removed 5,585 sex offenders from their site since May of last year. Great, the only reason we’re doing this is because it’s measurable and easy to enact. This quote made me really think about us concentrating on the things we fear, instead of real problems:

“Why are we so obsessed with the registered sex offender side of the puzzle when the troubled kids are right in front of us? Why are we so obsessed with the Internet side of the puzzle when so many more kids are abused in their own homes? I feel like this whole conversation has turned into a distraction. Money and time is being spent focusing on the things that people fear rather than the very real and known risks that kids face. This breaks my heart.”
[Boing Boing: Internet not full of pedos, the statistical edition]

Last week, I wrote about doctors making patients sign EULAs that disallow them to give feedback on the services they received on review sites like RateMDs.com. Another instance of not concentrating on the real problem, but simply being afraid of losing clients due to poor service. Why doesn’t Apple make people sign EULAs to not review their products? That’s because they try to make great products which customers will review positively. We need to figure out how to make these tools work for us, instead of trying to fight them.

This is why technology is still an inspiration to me. It enables people to do things that were previously impossible.

In this example, 60 Minutes showes what technology can do already: Read the rest of this article »

Found quite an interesting article on Wired today…and I always assumed that driving was going to be cheaper and safer than taking a plane.

Yesterday a plane crashed in the Congo and at least 30 people died. The week before that thousands of Americans watched their flights get canceled. Last month a Texas woman had to bare her breasts while passing through airport security. Every day brings another new story about why it sucks to fly. Cancellations, delays, price hikes, service cuts, pillow removal, fewer snacks, more fees — the list goes on and on.

We all love to bash the airlines, it’s easy and fun. But here’s something that usually doesn’t make the headlines: When you sit down and really do the math, flying has a lot going for it. Compared with driving, it’s safer, faster, cheaper and cleaner.

Here are some simple stats straight from the article:

Safety:
42,642 annual auto deaths, 1,500 aircraft deaths. Advantage: plane

Time:
25 hours to drive, 10 hours to fly. Advantage: plane

Price:
This includes fuel to drive there and back, plus an $89 night at the hotel and some snacks.
$354 to drive, $236 to fly. Advantage: plane

Emissions:
850 pounds of CO2 driving, 577 pounds flying. Advantage: plane

Yes, when you fly you have to put up with the sounds of babies being cut by razorblades, curry-smelling hairy men, vomit bags, “security” checks, delays, pretzels, and stewardesses with face lifts. Pretty crappy, but I’d rather save some money and not die.

The little things say a lot about a politician and his or her campaign. The one I want to address is specifically design and utilization of technology. Everything from good organization skills to breaking things down the right way should be an important aspect of selecting a candidate.

What am I getting at? The importance of technology and design. Brittney once talked to me about an entire book that was written to help navigate through all the programs that the Veterans Affairs (VA) offers. Someone actually had to write a book to sift through all the legal garbage and technical lingo our government uses to keep our people from their entitled rights.

When my friend Jeremy (a veteran that just came home) showed me a link a printout of a VA website and vented his frustrations about not being able to find any contact information, I was mildly amused at how tactfully these assholes could hide this stuff or at how chalked-full of morons our government really is. Barack Obama seems to be the only one looking at this as a current issue, and hopefully if he gets into office he carries these organization skills into government, making government programs like grants for students, taxes, forms, and (I cross my fingers) the VA easy enough to navigate for the average joe.

I finally got around to looking at the current candidates websites to see if there’s anything I like. So here’s worst-to-best as far as technology goes:

Worst: John McCain
This is by far the worst site of the three covered. The navigation bar is cumbersome at best, and the grammar on certain pages is so typical “politics” and “business” that none of it is understandable. I also see lame and stretched RSS buttons on his blog, with crappy content. Sorry man, your site likes like it was born when you were. Not only that, but no technology policy to be found.

Better: Hillary Clinton
Unlike John McCain, this lady’s site tends to make more sense. Alright, she at least has links to communities like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and even Twitter (to which she has no followers…). My worst gripe is her issues drop-down menu on the navigation bar, it’s nearly impossible to read any of it! So sorry, you too fail a designing a functional and well organized website.

Best: Barack Obama
From proper organization, and a clean layout, Barack wins my vote. Obama’s website uses Web 2.0 architecture and has wonderful statistical features. On the right pane, he has a results center that gives live statistics on his current amount of votes and delegates. Also, he has technology identified in his issues, in which he has a great deal of content of keeping the internet open and using technology to help solve our problems. Social bookmarks seem to also be the site’s forte, it links to Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter (where he has 14,000+ followers), Digg, and LinkedIn to name a few.

Yeah, I can tell all that from a website. Organize the government and its programs like Obama’s site and he will make enough difference to change the way our government programs work entirely. If you didn’t get it, I’m not ranting about me choosing a candidate based on how pretty his or her website is, but on the ability to organize and manage information through the use of technology and having a policy to improve technology and its function in government, which will hopefully carry on into the candidate’s term as president.