2011年12月24日 星期六

AOL TV gets HuffPost makeover

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - AOL TV has been rebranded as HuffPost TV.

The retooled site, huffingtonpost.com/tv, launched Wednesday morning as part of editorial boss Arianna Huffington's ongoing makeover of AOL's editorial properties.

Following the model established at The Huffington Post, it will feature prominent bloggers such as Aaron Sorkin, Norman Lear, Bill Maher and Dr. Phil McGraw.

"It's going to be a sophisticated, bordering on obsessive take on the most buzzworthy shows," Michael Hogan, executive entertainment editor at Huffington Post Media Group, told TheWrap. "But I also think we're going to be looking for ways to connect what's happening on TV to the broader culture."

Hogan said that Jaimie Etkin, former associate culture editor for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, has been hired to serve as editor. AOL TV's five staffers will move to the new site.

Hogan said that HuffPost TV will retain the television listings and show pages from AOL TV -- but will have a different color. Moreover, its tone will better reflect the Huffington Post's.

"People really love to talk about TV, and they know that the Huffington Post is a place to have conversations online, so to me it's like the internet and TV were kind of made for each other," Hogan said.

"One of the primary objectives here is not just to kind of hear ourselves speak and pat ourselves on the back, but to really engage with an audience that we know is there," he said. "They're already there reading The Huffington Post and commenting on The Huffington Post, but also, we know there are all these communities around all these shows, so we want to provide the best possible venue for people to talk about the shows."

He said that people want to talk about the shows they've just watched -- and that HuffPost TV will give them a place to do that.

AOL acquired The Huffington Post for $315 million this past February. When it did, it installed Arianna Huffington as president and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group, which includes AOL properties.


View the original article here

Kenya army, Somali militia swap Twitter insults

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Kenyan soldiers and members of an extremist Islamist militant group have been fighting each other in Somalia since Kenya invaded two months ago. Now, their spokesmen are taking the battle onto Twitter, with taunts, accusations and insults being directly traded in a rare engagement on the Internet.

The propaganda war on the microblogging website shows the increasingly sophisticated use of media by both sides and underscores that there is often little reliable information about the conflict in Somalia that now directly or indirectly involves a half-dozen nations, analysts say.

"The tweets themselves will not be entirely accurate but it will allow analysts to triangulate that information and come up with a more accurate picture of what is really happening," said E.J. Hogendoorn of the International Crisis Group think tank.

On Monday, the Islamic insurgent group al-Shabab used its Twitter feed to accuse Kenya of having a history of committing "barbarous acts" toward ethnic Somalis, and cited a 1984 massacre where human rights groups say Kenyan troops killed around 3,000 ethnic Somali men in eastern Kenya.

Addressing more recent actions, al-Shabab's tweets that began last week claimed that Kenyan soldiers in Somalia "flee from confrontation & flinch in the face of death." The Twitter feed also described al-Shabab's own press release giving details about Burundian soldiers killed in an October battle between African Union peacekeeping troops and the insurgents. Al-Shabab claimed to have killed more than 150 AU troops at the time.

The AU only reported 10 casualties although Mogadishu-based security sources say the figure was closer to 70.

Al-Shabab's tweets, written in fluent English, mocked an earlier Twitter posting by Kenya's army spokesman, Maj. Emmanuel Chirchir, that threatened to bomb concentrations of donkeys that might be moving weapons for the insurgents.

"Your eccentric battle strategy has got animal rights groups quite concerned, Major," the al-Shabab posting said.

The Associated Press has determined that both Twitter accounts — HSMPress and MajorEChirchir — are legitimate. It's not clear who is writing the al-Shabab tweets. Several Americans, most of Somali descent, have in recent years joined the group that Washington has designated a terrorist organization.

Chirchir has responded with his own barrage of tweets.

"With Al Shabaab joining tweeter, lets take fight to their doorstep," he wrote. Chirchir accused al-Shabab of stoning an innocent girl to death and chopping off hands. He noted that many commanders have banned bras in their territory, and urged readers to retweet the message in support of Somali women.

Al-Shabab, which is fighting the weak U.N.-backed Somali government and controls much of southern Somalia, follows strict Shariah law and has carried out amputations and executions, including stoning to death a girl who Amnesty International said was a 13-year-old rape victim. It also enforces a strict dress code, flogging women whose robes it deems are not thick enough.

Kenyan human rights activist Hassan Omar Hassan says the flurry of tweets obscures the paucity of information about actual operations by the Kenyan military since it entered Somalia in October. Kenyan leaders have not said how long the intervention might last or what the ultimate goals are.

"To make an honest judgment about the war, Kenyans need more accuracy in war reporting," said Hassan. "We don't know the full story ... the government has been able to circumvent accountability."

The military originally portrayed the incursion as a short mission sparked by the kidnappings of foreigners in Kenya, near the Somali border. But Kenya has been pushing for the establishment of a buffer state along its border with war-ravaged Somalia for many years.

Last week, Kenya's parliament approved a plan to eventually place the Kenyan troops under the command of African Union forces in the Somali capital, indicating that Kenyan forces could remain in Somalia for a long time. The plan has not yet been approved by the U.N. or donors funding the AU force.

Analysts say if al-Shabab tweets timely, accurate information about events it may force more disclosures from Kenyan and African Union military authorities. But al-Shabab has already allegedly exaggerated the numbers of wounded civilians and its military victories.

On Saturday, al-Shabab tweeted that Kenyan jets had bombed a Red Cross feeding center in the town of Bardhere, with scores of women and children injured.

A day later, the Red Cross confirmed their center was hit, but said there were no casualties because it was empty at the time.

___

Follow Katharine Houreld at http://twitter.com/khoureld


View the original article here

iPhone 4S leads online smartphone buzz

We've already seen?fish wielding tools and?ravens socializing, and now we're seeing another hint to the inevitable world domination by animals. This?bearded dragon has mastered the video game?Ant Crusher on its owner's cellphone. Sure, the game seems perfectly tailored to the … Continue reading →


View the original article here

Expedia shareholders to gain from spinoff: report

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's disgraced Olympus Corp ironed out its crooked accounts on Wednesday after a 13-year fraud, with a $1.1 billion dent in its balance sheet triggering speculation it will need to merge, sell assets or raise capital to repair its finances. The 92-year-old maker of cameras and medical equipment filed?…


View the original article here

"First of all, ew" - 'Shit Girls Say' becomes a hit: viral video spotlight

We've already seen?fish wielding tools and?ravens socializing, and now we're seeing another hint to the inevitable world domination by animals. This?bearded dragon has mastered the video game?Ant Crusher on its owner's cellphone. Sure, the game seems perfectly tailored to the … Continue reading →


View the original article here

Report: Most people still don't trust online info

NEW YORK (AP) — Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed the rise of social networks and mobile technology that's put the Internet at an arm's reach, day and night — yet a new study has found that people are even more distrustful of the information they find online.

Three-quarters of Internet users find the Web an important source of information, but most people still don't deem the content they see online reliable, according to a report out this week from the University of Southern California's Center for the Digital Future

Such are the deep chasms among Americans' attitudes about the Internet.

In 2010, 15 percent of Internet users said they find only a small portion of online information reliable. That's greater than the 7 percent who were likewise skeptical of the vast majority of information they come across on the Internet.

The mistrust is especially true for social networks. That said, people don't look to social networks for reliability. Rather, they visit the sites to socialize and share photos, updates and videos.

Trust grows when it comes to established media outlets and government websites. In 2010, 79 percent of Internet users said they found content posted on government websites reliable, about the same as in 2003, the first year the center looked at that question.

Jeff Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future, said Americans tend to be more trusting of government and big media.

"Other countries are better at distinguishing good information from (the) unreliable," he said. In repressive regimes where media is closely tied to the government, citizens grow adept at filtering truth from propaganda.

When it comes to privacy online, Americans are actually more concerned about businesses than the government, the report found. Nearly half of U.S. Internet users said they are worried about companies watching what they do online, compared with 38 percent who said the same for the government.

Looking ahead to the next decade, Cole expects tablet computers and other touch-screen devices to largely replace personal computers and with them, the clunky computer mouse.

The center has surveyed more than 2,000 U.S. households each year since 1999. The latest report is a look back at the past decade of Americans' Internet use. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.


View the original article here

2011年12月23日 星期五

Chris Dodd's Defense of SOPA Makes Him Sound Like a Despot

It's pretty problematic how former Senator Chris Dodd is vehemently?defending the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) with the same argument that despots have been using to justify censorship for years. Now the head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and one of SOPA's most outspoken proponents, Dodd's logic sort of folds back onto itself. "Hollywood is pro-Internet. We stand with those who strongly oppose foreign governments that would unilaterally block websites and thus deny the free flow of information and speech," Dodd said on Tuesday at the Center for American Progress. "So I want to make it clear right at the outset that our fight against content theft is not a fight against technology. It is a fight against criminals."

Related: Bring on the Anxiety Parade for the SOPA Alternative

We've heard this line before. Indeed, targeting "criminals" serves as a handy, sweeping justification for any ruling power to whittle away at civil rights in the name of the law. In learning more about the history of web censorship, we stumbled across some startlingly of the similar instances in which what are the anti-Internet regimes -- here's a list -- explained how they're actually fighting crime, rather than freedom when the block people from visiting websites.

Related: The Web Collectively Protests Congress's Censorship Law

The Great Firewall of China is probably the most famous government Internet censorship efforts. The government can apparently add new keywords to block certain kinds of sites or even specific kinds of content whenever it wants. Take earlier this year when China shunned the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and blocked news sites from reporting on Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned Chinese dissident who won this year's prize for standing up for freedom of speech. Why'd they do that? "Liu Xiaobo is a criminal," the Chinese Foreign Ministry explained.?

Related: Hollywood Dominates the Debate at Internet Censorship Hearing

But SOPA is about enforcing copyright law, Dodd might contend. Even the tech companies that oppose SOPA admit that they're open to finding better ways to protect intellectual property, though Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain recently told The Atlantic Wire that the government hasn't done any real data-driven research to prove that it would even be effective. The problem with the law, critics say, is less the intended purpose than it is the possible execution. Indeed, Chinese government has taken this position too and should the U.S. government join, it could open up even more censorship around the world.?"In China 'copyright' is one of many excuses to crack down on political movements," Chinese blogger Isaac Mao told CNN recently. "If a new law like SOPA is introduced in the U.S., the Chinese government and official media will use it to support their version of 'anti-piracy.'"

Related: Tech Companies Not Taking a Stand on Censorship Are Being Blacklisted

The Indian government is less consistent than China in how it censors the web, but the reasoning is often the same. Just this week, India's acting telecommunications minister Kapil Sibal spoke out about blocking content on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter in order "to remove disparaging, inflammatory or defamatory content before it goes online." (Read: keep citizens from criticizing the Indian government.) How do they justify that? The digital rights advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation explain:

The world’s largest democracy has been known to censor online content from time to time, typically under the guise of national security or obscenity. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team is tasked with issuing blocking orders, while Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows police commissioners to identify and order the blocking of material that contains a threat or nuisance to society.

Again, it's not specifically about censoring the internet. It's about punishing criminals.

Related: The Titans of Silicon Valley Rally Around the SOPA Alternative

Syria's been particularly duplicitous about misinformation lately, but blocking the internet in the name of the law has been going on there for years. In 2008, The Economist reported on the censorship problem in Syria by focusing on how the government interpreted laws quite broadly, not only to censor the Internet but actually convict bloggers of crimes:

For "defaming and insulting the administrative bodies of the state", the president of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression, Mazen Darwish, was recently sentenced to a salutary ten days in jail. His real crime was to report on riots in an industrial town near Damascus, Syria’s capital. Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based lobby, said his case brought the number of journalists and "cyber dissidents" imprisoned in Syria to seven. …

For several years Syria has been an enemy of the internet. The security services keep opposition figures and even ordinary bloggers under surveillance. The main internet service-provider bans 100-plus websites. Most sites carping at President Bashar Assad’s government are silenced, as are many Kurdish and Islamist sites. A yellow screen flashes up with the words "Access Denied".

So Syria is extra bad because they not only block the sites, they throw bloggers in jail. Because they're criminals, the government contends.


View the original article here

Making Money from Google Adsense and Clickbank

Made $3,500 to $25,000 Monthly With Google & Clickbank Using a
Simple Technique

Kindle Fire, Full Color 7" Multi-touch Display