Web 2.0 is alright for somethings....Voting is not one of them

Its soapbox time again. So you use the internet to go shopping, update your facebook status (I still hate that), go into a "second life" and be something or someone you always wanted to be, or just to check the latest UM basketball score and find out if the Men’s team has sunk to a all time new low and posted a lost to the Mount Royal Elementary recreation league basketball team (the way they are going right now the lady Terps should get all the basketball funding....and they deserve it GO LADY TERPS). But what about that faithful day once every four years when you stand in what could be an endless line of folks going to vote for their inspirational leader (or the lady who can see Russia from her back yard... http://www.dailystab.com/sarah-palin-rap-video-on-snl/). Wouldn't you rather be home or at work, login into a secure website and place your vote. No fuss no muss, right????

Well as much as we would like to believe that voting in our underwear will become a reality in the not to distant future the "A group of computer scientists and technology professionals has issued a statement warning that Internet voting is an idea whose time has not come. Organized by David Dill, Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org" pretty much is saying that the internet is nowhere near secure enough to be completely trusted with your precious right to vote. The article that I found on verifiedvotingfoundation.org (http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6612) goes on to elaborate that even though a pilot study of online voting occurred in the 2008 primaries and the general elections this past November, the experts state that "computer scientists has concluded that safe internet voting is a very hard technical problem, but politicians assume it’s easy,” said Dill. "In this statement, we’re saying ‘This is going to be a disaster unless we think it through first.”

"Malicious software could change, fabricate, or delete votes cast over the Internet, as well as deceive or disenfranchise voters, the technologists warn."

Well if this is so true then why do I trust the unsafe internet to pay bills, disclose personal information to private vendors, and etc? Dill goes on to state that “Voting is a different problem from online commerce” said Dill. “If I use a credit card over the internet, my name is on the order and I’ll get a statement at the end of the month with a list of charges. But a secret ballot over the internet can’t have the voter’s name on it, by definition. Verifying that votes are cast and counted as intended over the internet, without compromising ballot secrecy, is an extremely tricky technical problem that e-commerce doesn’t face.”

So I guess I shouldn't be so concerned about my credit profile after all.....Yeah right.

It’s Friday I gotta take my soap box to happy hour!!!!!

Web 2.0 Validator .....Is your favorite website really 2.0

Back on the soapbox again.... I went searching for different Web 2.0 facts or others experiences and I came across an interesting site. The Web 2.0 Validator http://web2.0validator.com. The site is rather unassuming when you first arrive. At the top of the page it give a disclaimer to "Have some fun, but please validate responsibly". I found that somewhat amusing, when first looking at the page. I thought that the page was a real true "evaluator of how web 2.0 sites are supposed to be judged. But after futher evaluation I come to realize that the user input criteria wasn't exactly scientific in nature.

The user is prompted to enter the url of their selected site. The website seems to go out and perform some type of evaluation on the site provided and returns a set of results. So I typed in www.google.com.....you know the most obscure website I know. Turns out according to the all knowing WebValidator claims that Google only meets 3 of the 65 listed criteria. Below is a list of criteria as of 1/28/2009:

* Is in public beta? No
* Denies the existance of Rocky V ? No
* Uses python? No
* Uses inline AJAX ? No
* Rocks out to the dance noise sound of Chinese Forehead ? No
* Mentions Tag Clouds? No
* Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"? No
* Is Shadows-aware ? No
* Apperars to use moo.fx ? No
* Mentions Neowin.net ? No
* Has a Blogline blogroll ? No
* Appears to be web 3.0 ? Yes!
* Mentions Less is More ? No
* Uses tags ? No
* Has favicon ? No
* Refers to mash-ups ? No
* Attempts to be XHTML Strict ? No
* Uses Google Maps API? No
* Mentions startup ? No
* Appears to be non-empty ? No
* Received a cease-and-desist from CMP Media or Tim O'Reilly ? No
* Refers to the Web 2.0 Validator's ruleset ? No
* Uses the word meme? No
* Appears to use AJAX ? No
* Mentions an "architecture of participation"? No
* Appears to have a Google Sitemap ? No
* Makes reference to Technorati ? No
* Appears to use RSS ? No
* Has that goofy 'My Blog is Worth' link ? No
* Refers to Flickr ? No
* Refers to VCs ? No
* Faviconized ? No
* JavaScript by Dreamweaver ? No
* Appears to use moo.fx ? No
* Links Slashdot and Digg ? No
* Mentions Ruby? No
* Mentions The Long Tail ? No
* Mentions Nitro ? No
* Appears to be built using Django ? No
* Mentions Ruby ? No
* Refers to podcasting ? No
* Appears to use MonoRail ? No
* Has prototype.js ? No
* Mentions Wisdom Of Crowds ? No
* Appears to use visual effects? No
* Creative Commons license ? No
* Mentions Neurogami and Web 2.0 ? No
* Links to validator? No
* Actually mentions Web 2.0 ? No
* Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web? No
* Refers to Rocketboom ? No
* Uses Semantic Markup? No
* Refers to web2.0validator ? No
* Use Catalyst ? No
* Refers to del.icio.us ? No
* Uses microformats ? No
* Validates as XHTML 1.1 ? No
* Does it use DWR Ajax Library? No
* References isometric.sixsided.org? No
* Appears to over-punctuate ? No
* References Firefox? No
* Mentions a blog ? Yes!
* Mentions Stickbob? No
* Uses the "blink" tag? Yes!
* Appears to have Adsense ? No

I believe some of the most telling signs that google is not Web 2.0 is that google does not have links Slashdot and Digg (we geeks all know slashdot is required!!!!), "Denies the existance of Rocky V", and it does not "Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web". All in my opinion are no no's if you are going to be a 2.0 site.

While these are not true criteria for Web 2.0 compliance. I did find another website that uses a more realistic and sensible criteria for Web 2.0. http://www.seomoz.org/web2.0 has 41 categories to judge websites by:

Award Categories

* Bookmarking
* Books
* Classifieds and Directories
* Collaborative Writing and Word Processing
* Content Aggregation and Management
* Digital Storage and Remote Access
* Education
* Employment and Jobs
* Events
* Food
* Fun Stuff
* Games and Entertainment
* Genealogy
* Guides and Reviews

* Health
* Hosted Wikis
* Mapping Applications
* Maps
* Mobile Technology
* Music
* News and Blog Guides
* Niche Social Networking
* Online Desktop / OS
* Organization
* Philanthropy
* Photos and Digital Images
* Professional Networking
* Questions and Advice

* Real Estate
* Retail
* Search
* Social Networking Mainstays
* Social News - Smaller and Niche Sites
* Social News - The Big Guys
* Sport
* Start Pages
* Travel
* Video
* Visual Arts
* Web Dev
* Widgets

From this set of criteria seomoz.org chooses the top 3 for each and provides reasons why these sites are deserving of these accolades.

Now I have to say that I don't completely agree with all the awards given, but I must admit that these categories are more realistic tham the Web2.0 Validator.

Taking my soapbox and going to de-ice it.

RSS feeds....Keeping us connected up to the minute

In keeping with the theme of Web 2.0 technologies and how they affect our lives. I am going to review a very important technology called RSS (Really Simple Syndication). Is it really that simple??? These "web feeds" keep our new portals and favorite sports websites up to date with information "as it happens". News journalist can keep us all inundated with a wealth of information in real time or as close to real time as you can absorb it. Stock information, news highlights, or your favorite sports teams transactions (D*** Broncos Fired Shanahan!!!! Sorry) but all of these news items can be updated easily through RSS.

The idea of RSS was first established by Netscape (what ever happened to those guys). The idea was innovative but never fulfilled its promise under Netscape. By the time 2003 rolled around, two companies came in to fill the lack of success of Netscape; Winer and UserLand Software both came up with a RSS 2.0 specification.

The primary goal of RSS as stated on the all knowing Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format)) is " to extend the basic XML schema established for more robust syndication of content. This inherently allows for more diverse, yet standardized, transactions without modifying the core RSS specification." In very simple terms, XML is a commonly known format and using the a simple "schema" (template) users can easily update information with out having to format their information for multiple sources.

So why should developers choose to use this XML variant???

Well www.webreference.com (http://www.webreference.com/authoring/languages/xml/rss/intro/) goes on to explain that "RSS solves myriad problems webmasters commonly face, such as increasing traffic, and gathering and distributing news. RSS can also be the basis for additional content distribution services."

Why should users who host their own web portal use RSS feeds????

www.whatisrss.com states that "RSS solves a problem for people who regularly use the web. It allows you to easily stay informed by retrieving the latest content from the sites you are interested in. You save time by not needing to visit each site individually. You ensure your privacy, by not needing to join each site's email newsletter. The number of sites offering RSS feeds is growing rapidly and includes big names like Yahoo News."

Well I've had enough of this soapbox today. Hope you learned something. Ohh and for the SuperBowl GO CARDINALS!!!!!

Even the President is into Web 2.0

I got my soapbox again, but this time I'm not complaining. This time it’s positive. Sticking with the Web 2.0 theme, I going to throw a political curve ball. I you remember back to last year during the primary and general elections one of the topics to make a lot noise was how our new PRESIDENT conducted his fund raising efforts during his campaign. He and his staff were wise to take it to the people in way that at that time was not truly exploited to the levels the Obama campaign has. Barack wanted to appeal to the youth, technical savvy and true middle class of America. By allowing himself to be accessible view internet for communication and contributions, he made it easier for his supporters who couldn't attend $1000.00 a plate dinner fund raiser to give what they could by submitting through a website. He definitely revolutionized the political game, and took it to another level. During his campaign YouTube.com became as important as Meet the Press when keeping informed with candidates campaigning events. Now you don't have to listen to some reporter's opinions and only get to see some abbreviated video clip. The public was able to see complete interviews and debates several times and make an very informed decision for who was getting their vote.

After the inauguration the White House website got a refreshing update (www.whitehouse.gov). You can send the president well wishes or give him your opinion through a webpage (who knows if he will ever get it)

Now we find out that President Obama is a CrackBerry addict. He has decided to keep a blackberry device for personal use (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/barack-obama-blackberry-national-security). Making him the first president in history to have an electronic form of messaging ever!!! This guy keeps up this rate of being the first this and that the Guinness Book will have a whole section dedicated to him. Of course there are questions about national security, compromising sensitive information, but I get the feeling that everything that will be transmitted or received on that device will be closely monitored. In any event I am glad to see that we have leadership that is determined to be up to date and current with the world’s technology. Time to put the box away again.

D’bo

The Digital Divide.........Why are we so behind

Alright I've got another issue. So I'm dragging out the soapbox again in an attempt to talk this topic out. I came across this article a few days ago, talking about the worlds most connected countries. Business Week magazine published their rankings of the countries with the best broadband capabilities. We as Americans (with our arrogant selves) more than likely expect to be in the top three or at least the top 5 on the list. Well we came in an incredulous 15th ranking. Come on 15, we created the damn internet and we are ranked 15, what happened. Well the article made the statement that "The U.S. fell further in the rankings. Experts say that's at least in part because high-speed connections are a lot more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere. U.S. users pay more than 10 times the amount being paid by users in countries with the highest rates of broadband penetration." Why is it a technology that is so easy for other countries to provide for its citizens (AT A LOW COST) we can't make available for all its citizens. The say free markets and competition will drive down the cost the computers and broadband access. That is not happening here in the United States fast enough. For some reason Nordic countries have their act together, but here unless you are middle class and up or have access to a public library, you as a citizen will be with the capability to access the internet, develop experience needed to get the most basic of computer problem research and solving skills needed for most low paying entry level positions, or to keep in touch with relatives family and friends without a cell phone or stamp.

It all comes back to taking care of everyone, not just the privileged few who have the resources to subscribe to your overpriced internet service which has many features that the majority of its users don’t use, don’t need and don’t want. Some people say there is too much government, well when it comes to the digital divide and providing equal opportunity to all, I say there isn’t enough government. The city of brotherly love, Philadelphia has the right idea to provide free Wi-Fi service in to its citizens. The city currently has a pilot project that will provide Wi-Fi cloud coverage in limited neighborhoods at no cost. The experiment will be used to gauge the usefulness of Wi-Fi and the service to others it can provide. I think this is an excellent move in the right direction.

Make it accessible to all individuals. Offer lower cost products that low income families can afford, or hell…. just make it free to those who want it. We are bailing out all these screwed up companies, how about we give a helping hand to those who need it just to make the canyon of the digital divide smaller.

Why so connected!!!!

Well here I am again trying this soapbox thing again.

Today I want to talk about these mobile devices that seem to be taking over everyone's life. Adults with busy careers are addicted to their "Crackberries". I heard on the news about some 12 year old girl in San Fran and how her parents received some 400 page telephone bill. Turns out the kid is sending 500+ messages a day.....WTF. The kid has a cell phone....CALL SOMEBODY. The buttons will wear out before she grows out of her clothes. I see people "multitasking" everywhere. I'm sorry but I don't think trying to drive while talking on speaker phone and trying to text and drink coffee at the same time is multitasking.

If that not bad enough now this Web 2.0 stuff is only making it worse. Now the idjits can drive and update their facebook status at the same time. I mean really, do I have to know that at this very moment you are making a left hand turn going into the mall to get some more of that nasty a$$ coffee that everyone is addicted to.


What make these hand held marvels of technology so addicting. And is there any level off or limit people will reach with their usage. Well I searched my favorite business article site "BNET" and I came across a couple of archived articles. "BlackBerry devices grow in popularity" by Dickinson, Casey J states that these devices are "helping busy professionals take work wherever they go. The calculator-sized wireless device allow users to make phone calls, send and receive e-mail, and run a host of computer applications. The BlackBerry has a "QWERTY" keyboard and LCD display for surfing the Internet. Users can load software onto the BlackBerry via a computer connection to their desktop PC." Hell we already knew that to be the case but once again what is it about being so connected that we find so fascinating?????

So I did another search on "BlackBerry" addiction and came up with a whole host of articles. One very short article I found on dailymail.com a UK website (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401646/Blackberry-addiction-similar-drugs.html) stated that
"Blackberry email devices can be so addictive that owners may need to be weaned off them with treatment similar to that given to drug users, experts warned today." Now I can admit to being addicted the PS2 and 3 Madden Football....playing football from 11pm till 6 pm the next day. But to be so addicted to a mobile device that you have to take technology methadone is scary. "One key sign of a user being addicted is if they focus on their Blackberry ignoring those around them." That seems to be everyone who has one of these damn things connected to his head. Oh well who knows maybe they are really multitasking..... YEAH RIGHT!!!!!


Well this is Debo again.....I am taking my soapbox to the bar and getting some tequila!!!!!

Web2.0 What is this stuff

So I was searching through the graduate business course catalog for the spring semester looking for what would be the next 3 classes I would torture myself with (Yes I am tired of school.......It seems like it will never end.) I have to fulfill my elective requirements, so I looked for what MIS courses were being offered. There were only two; Special Topic in Information Technology,Web 2.0 and Global Information Systems. I've decided to enroll in both.

I chose to take the Web 2.0 class because it's one of the current buzz words that's floating around technology departments in most companies and research firms. So I figured since I am a technology profession pursuing a management degree maybe I should try to learn something about this Web 2.0 stuff. So I went to the current bible of information, that's right Wikipedia to begin getting some background info on web 2.0. It turns out Mr. Open Source himself Tim O'Reilly is the guy who coined the term. He was quoted in 2006 stating that "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform." Damn that guy is smart. According to Mr. O'Reilly "Web 2.0 as the way that business embraces the strengths of the web and uses it as a platform." To me that means businesses find more collaborative and effective ways to utilize the web to make business functions easier and more appealing to consumers and vendors.

After reading the Wikipedia gospel I have an understanding what the difference between Level 0 applications, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 applications are, why AJAX is such a hot topic in the Information Technology arena, how XML and RSS technologies have contributed to the information overload of the youth of the world.

It seems like every time a new catch phrase comes out that every fledgling startup or established front running company tends to try to push something they are developing and somehow attach it to the new rising star. I swear its like clockwork; business execs in their high priced suits are sitting around in boardroom "brainstorming" about technologies which they have no idea what the capabilities are, and how they can pump it up and make some profit off of it, instead of performing some research and figuring out how this unproven technology could help improve their business model or infrastructure.

For now I am going to keep an open mind about this new revolutionary movement and the technology, and opportunities that will come with it. And maybe just maybe this MBA will pay off.


This is Debo and I am taking my soapbox and going home.