betajames

The researchers noted that Twitter relationships don’t have to be reciprocal — there’s no need to follow someone back who is following you, while Facebook relationships are two-way “friendships.” (Though that’s changing with the capability to “like” something.) Only 22.1 percent of Twitter user pairs follow each other, the researchers said. Moreover, they noted that most follower-followed relationships on Twitter are more akin to traditional-media relationships between subscribers to information and distributors of that information, with subscribers consuming information but having little contact with distributors. A relatively small number of users are the primary sources of news, with others redistributing that news; most tweets are related to timely topics; and retweets typically come very quickly — 35 percent in the first 10 minutes.

They conflate the public sphere with the making of a public. That is, when I blog something, I am publishing it to the world for anyone and everyone to see: the more the better, is the assumption. But when I put something on Facebook my assumption had been that I was sharing it just with the public I created and control there. That public is private. Therein lies the confusion. Making that public public is what disturbs people. It robs them of their sense of control—and their actual control—of what they were sharing and with whom (no matter how many preferences we can set). On top of that, collecting our actions elsewhere on the net—our browsing and our likes—and making that public, too, through Facebook, disturbed people even more.

What I am now seriously considering doing is turning my regular FaceBook profile into a completely minimalistic stub, de-activating all Wall capabilities and removing all personal information beyond very basic data. My on-line sarcophagus, where only the “inner priesthood” can examine my mummified form.

Clearly Facebook has taught us some lessons. We want easier ways to share photos, links and short updates with friends, family, co-workers and even, sometimes, the world.

But that doesn’t mean the company has earned the right to own and define our identities.

It’s time for the best of the tech community to find a way to let people control what and how they’d like to share. Facebook’s basic functions can be turned into protocols, and a whole set of interoperating software and services can flourish.

editing has become an ever more important tool in filmmaking. The use of jump cuts (edits that disrupt the continuity of a sequence) and quick cuts (rapid edits that increase the pace of a sequence) have become ever more common and familiar as action films and television have increased creators' reliance on editing as a central cinematic aesthetic.

But generally, video games don't have cinematic editing. They can't, because continuity of action is essential to interactive media. In fact, that continuity is so important that most games (3D games, anyway) give the player direct control over the camera, allowing total manipulation of what is seen and from what vantage point.

Issues of worldview, philosophy and ethics are being addressed whether developers intend to or not. Narratives, characters, settings and even complex sets of rules that govern one's existence within a game world are inherently loaded with meaning and interpretation of that meaning. Acknowledging this truth in a way that is both responsible and thoughtful does not mean creating a game that is needlessly preachy or offensive. In fact, if thoughtfulness is in fact a part of the process, preachiness and offensiveness is generally avoided and the game is even more interesting as a result.

While recent treatments of religion in video games aren't perfect by any means, they do demonstrate the possibility of treating the subject with care and nuance.

So the idea of a liberal arts education aimed at developing critical thinking skills is often new to the students. That can make for a difficult transition. Plagiarism is often a problem at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, officials here said, because the students — accustomed to rote learning — see nothing wrong with spitting back someone else’s work and have never been held to rigorous academic standards.

If you care about your product, you should care just as much about how you describe it. In nearly all cases, a company makes its first impression on would-be customers or partners with words -- whether they're on a website, in sales materials, or in e-mails or letters. A snappy design might catch their attention, but it's the words that make the real connection. Your company's story, product descriptions, history, personality -- these are the things that go to battle for you every day. Your words are your frontline. Are they strong enough?

Unfortunately, years of language dilution by lawyers, marketers, executives, and HR departments have turned the powerful, descriptive sentence into an empty vessel optimized for buzzwords, jargon, and vapid expressions. Words are treated as filler -- "stuff" that takes up space on a page.

Good writing is always about clarity and insight, precision and accuracy. Therefore, this confusing name calls into question the very quality of the writing instruction that will be given in the new department. If the department cannot and will not name itself accurately, then what does that bode for the students to be educated there?

Nobody I know in Detroit is happy about such headlines. I mentioned Requiem for Detroit? to several different groups of people I work, organise and am friends with, and got universal disgust. But the thing is, most of the news stories about Detroit struggling aren't wrong. Things are bad in Detroit. Schools are being shut down left and right. Corrupt city officials have been charged with everything from stealing money from school lunches to bribery. And, of course, all the jobs are gone. So if all the facts are true, if Detroit really is struggling under the weight of such economic devastation, why on earth are Detroiters mad at the negative international attention?