Stupidest Idea Among Stupidest Ideas Of Our Time: Pay Up When Linking Or Else… You Will Get Sue?

world wide web

world wide web (Photo credit: alles-schlumpf)

I think newspaper is a dinosaur form of spreading news, because it’s not relevant to how our today world works.  Today world, we do not need to use newspaper to get our news, because we have our news in digital forms.  Nonetheless, the same organizations that once made it big in newspaper world are now also the ones that churn out the news in the digital world.  The digital world isn’t the same as the world that newspaper came from, because everyone can make news.  This is why newspaper organizations who are responsible for some really informative news find it hard to make the same amount of revenue as before.  There simply just too many fishes in the ocean now, and just about any fish can have the presentation of the big fish.  Competition is good for news consumers (readers) though!

With the advances of Google search, Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, Skype, and so much more, it’s hard to not notice that news, collectively, is now can be in many forms.  Just about any news form in this digital world of ours, as long there are big audiences for such a form, news can become viral and spread throughout the society easily.  We can also simply call this as the Web!  The Web is basically consisting of all sorts of things, and news, collectively, is only a small part of the web.  For an example, another small part of the web is shopping online.  So, when I saw BusinessInsider broke “Irish Newspapers Want To Pass A Law That Would Mean Anyone Who Links To Their Articles Would Have To Pay” story, I told myself that I do not want to read the article as the title is already clear as day.

In my opinion, it’s insane for the Irish Newspapers to even fantasize about charging for people linking to their news articles.  I should not even waste my little energy to dabble on this particular topic, because it’s so stupid, beyond idiocy, for someone to think that it’s OK to charge someone for linking to his or her story.  Like I said, news, collectively, is only a small part of the Web.  What about other parts of the web that attentively want to link to never ever ending streams of links?  Furthermore, linking is a tradition which the Web cannot do without.  So, if there will ever be a law in the world, not Ireland since Ireland is only a part of the world, that passes to allow some people to sue others for not paying when linking, the Web will be broken immediately, if not gradually.  No one wants to link to anything, and the Web will become a broken web.  The Web itself needs not to be called the Web anymore if no one is linking to anyone else’s stories for fearing of being sued.  What a boring place this will be if this ever happens to the Web!

Luckily, Ireland isn’t ruling the world, therefore let hope Ireland knows its place and not passing this very stupid idea into law.  I don’t see how this will work out well for Ireland, because Ireland cannot impose its laws onto other nations.  Other nations will continue to allow web links to be used as how web links should be used, that is to be linked by other web links.  Will someone in Ireland start to go to United Nations just to sue another person in another nation for linking to his or her story?

If one day, our digital world morphs into the way the Ireland newspapers have imagined and wanted, even Google will go out of business.  Google’s search business is all about linking to various parts of the Web so regular folks can use Google Search to search for whatever.  If Google has to start to pay for every link, besides the humongous money/revenue outflow problem, Google has to also worry about the humongous, cumbersome administrative tasks in regarding to who Google needs to pay to and how long Google needs to pay in order for Google Search to function properly.  And so on…  I do think you get the gist!  Without Google Search or Bing, do you think the Web is navigable?  Sure, it might be navigable, but not to the extent of how we would enjoy with Google Search, Bing, and other search engines out there.

If someone starts to pass laws that impose on some of us to pay for linking to someone’s stories, I would prefer not to participate in such a lame Web!  Economic parts of the world that rely on the Web to function might have a hard time of bringing home the bacon if a broken Web is the way to go. Here I waste my little energy to write this article to vent my frustration of hearing such a stupidest idea that is being proposed in Ireland, because it’s very dangerous and stupid idea, if let it grows an inch, it might endanger the survival of the Web.  I bet most people think the Web is not perfect, but it’s definitely awesome as it is.  Of course, it can be improved in more constructive ways, but Ireland newspapers way is not constructive at all.  I say, let link freely and more, and no one should be imposed upon by laws to be forced into paying for web linking.  No one stops anybody in demanding for paying up to have the ability to link to certain stories, but that’s business kind of thing and not some sort of laws that impose upon everyone, senselessly.

Sources:

About these ads

Let Run VPN Server On Windows 8 To Allow You Securely Transmit Data At Any Public Place Which Relies On A Public Internet Connection

Using VPN (Virtual Private Network), one can securely transmit data back and forth in a public place which relies on a public Internet connection.  Wait, what is a public Internet connection?  It’s just an Internet connection in which just about anyone who has a computer can tap into and use.  A good example would be at a Starbucks.  Transmitting data in a public location is a very dangerous thing to do (i.e., only if you’re connecting to the public Internet connection), because you never know someone might do something nefarious nearby.  He or she might sniff the network traffics, and this means anything you transmit through a public Internet connection can be intercepted by such a person.  With VPN, it will be a lot harder for such an evildoer to actually get hold of your data in a public place.

Why using VPN can safeguard your data better when you’re connecting to a public Internet connection?  VPN will create a safe connection between your computer and a VPN server, and whatever gets transmitted through a VPN connection will be encrypted.  Nonetheless, VPN isn’t an end to end encrypted connection.  What this means is that when your data leaves VPN server so it can go to a server which hosts the web service on the Internet, the data will become unencrypted.  How come?  The Internet isn’t opening up an encrypted channel with your VPN server!  To put this in another way, it’s only the computer which you use to connect to a VPN server can actually open up an encrypted channel with the VPN server.  This is why you need a VPN client.  Nowadays, you don’t have to install VPN client much, because most operating systems (i.e., Linux, Mac OS X, Windows) come with a VPN client by default.  You might have to install a VPN client if you’re connecting to a non-standard, third party VPN server/service.

You can imagine the VPN encrypted channel as in a VPN tunnel or just a tunnel where cars travel through.  When a car got out of a tunnel, the daylight will hit the car in every direction.  Got the gist?

VPN is definitely a good thing to have when you are using the Internet in a public location.  Even though VPN isn’t an end to end encrypted connection, it’s still going to prevent the hackers in a public location from hacking you.  Of course, he or she can try, but it won’t be easy!  Let say, the hacker cannot magically insert himself or herself between the VPN server and the web service (which locates somewhere on the Internet and you want to connect to).  If the hacker wants to hack you in a public spot when you’re using VPN, he or she must hack your VPN connection first, and then everything else would be secondary.

To be even more secure, you can totally transmit all data within HTTPS protocol (a secure/encrypted hypertext transfer protocol), and this way the hacker is going to work even harder.  This means, a hacker must first hack your VPN connection, and then your HTTPS connection afterward.  VPN connection itself is already a difficult thing to tamper with.

Right after the break, you can check out a video I made on how to allow Windows 8 to host a VPN server/service.  Running a VPN server/service on Windows 8 allows you to go just about anywhere and connect back home for a VPN connection.  Of course, if your home network isn’t secure and already being infected with hackers’ exploits, then your VPN connection might as well be rendered insecure.  So, make sure your home network is actually well guarded.  A well guarded home network will definitely ensure your home devices such as a Windows 8 computer — which runs VPN server — won’t be tampered with.  I think a well guarded network equates to deploying all security elements within a network, and this means something as a strong firewall, strong antivirus software, strong network security policies, and the list would go on.

Iran Internet Might Inspire Even More Of The Same

The IMP Log: The Very First Message Sent on th...

The IMP Log: The Very First Message Sent on the Internet (Photo credit: FastLizard4)

If it’s true that Iran is separating its Internet from the rest of the world, then it also might be true that we might see something like this to be a common thing in various parts of the world in the near future.  According to the Guardian “The internet in pieces” piece, Iran is creating a giant Intranet.  Nonetheless, I prefer to call Iran’s giant Intranet as Iran Internet since the whole Iran country would be able to use this particular Intranet for everything.  They would use it for banking, e-commerce, news, entertainment, streaming, and you name it.  The list goes on.  Nonetheless, none of the activities that can be done within Iran Internet will be able to share communication with the world Internet (i.e., the Internet which everyone across the globe is using).

The whole idea for Iran to have its very own Internet is to have better control of the flow of the information.  Furthermore, it’s much harder for hackers outside Iran to deploy payloads (i.e., hack exploits/attacks) against Iran’s electronic infrastructure, because I surmise Iran Internet would not have any real physical connection between itself and the world Internet (i.e., the Internet in which everyone across the globe is using).  I also surmise that to retain some communication between Iran Internet and the world Internet, Iran might deploy not one Iran Internet but two or more.  How come?  I surmise Iran might deploy a second Iran Internet which isn’t so isolated from the world Internet to allow Iran’s authorized entities perform electronic transactions with the world.  Then there is a question, how would Iran retain and transfer the information from the exposed Iran Internet to the isolated Iran Internet?  I guess, Iran must have a way to copy information from one network to another without having two networks connect to each other physically.

Why did I say that Iran Internet might become a common thing in the future?  It’s obvious that various parts of the world are totally aware of the dangers of being hacked.  Unlike a regular citizen of a country, a country itself has lot of state secrets to protect, therefore it’s unacceptable for state secrets to be leaked through electronic hacks.  If Iran Internet is a success in term of protecting Iran from state hacks, we might see various countries create state Intranet which separates from citizen Internet.  Nonetheless, some countries might go just as far as how Iran is doing with its own Internet by creating state Internet which encompasses citizen Internet, to isolate many citizens from the world Internet.

The only thing I can think of for any country to build citizen Internet is to control the inflow and outflow of the information that get in and out of a country.  This way, a country can monitor, censor, and regulate the flow of information between a country and the world.  In a way, some countries might have been doing this, already!  Nonetheless, these countries’ approaches to the Internet aren’t extreme as Iran Internet.  These countries employ sophisticated firewall to filter out things that need to be censored, effectively preventing regular citizens to have access to the world and domestic information alike.  Nonetheless, any avid computer user in these countries can totally use a technology known as proxy to bypass any computer network censorship.  When a country adopts Iran Internet strategy, proxy technology might become useless in regarding to allowing computer users to bypass network censorship.  How come?  Isolated Internet (or Iran Internet kind of network) is physically disconnected from the world Internet (i.e., the Internet which everyone is using across the globe).

I think it’s a shame that in our near future, the information age might see the Internet breaks into pieces that segregate from each other.  It’s a possibility since many countries want to protect state secrets and have better control of the information flow that gets in and out of a country.  A polarized Internet of tomorrow will not be the Internet of today, and I fear we might not be able to call such polarized Internet as the Internet.  What’s the point of naming a polarized Internet as the Internet when the main function of the Internet, which is allowing the free flow of information, isn’t possible?  Perhaps, the real Internet of tomorrow only occurs on intermittent basis and under heavy monitoring!

The citizens who live in the countries that employ isolated Internet will not be so informed about the world as much as the people who live in the countries that impose no Internet censorship of whatsoever.  I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing to be more informed about the world, but I think it’s definitely more exciting for someone like me to know more about the world through the lens of the free Internet (i.e., no censorship).  What do you think?

Source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-us-cyber-espionage-intranet

Apple TV & Airplay In Action

Check out Apple TV and Airplay in action.  The video right after the break makes me want to actually get a real camcorder or something similar.  The video was shot with iPhone 4 and it was somewhat shaky.  Unprofessional, I hear ya!  Yep, no good light setup too.  I guess, the Internet is a lot more tolerant for unprofessional videos like mine.  Thanks to that!  Anyhow, enjoy the video right after the break!!!

Can Comcast Ditching 250 GB Data Cap Be A Sign For A Future Of Which The Old Media Becomes The Radio Of Today?

Picture of a Comcast service vehicle taken in ...

Picture of a Comcast service vehicle taken in an open area from a public street in Macomb, Illinois 61455 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

PCMAG reported that Comcast will ditch the 250GB data cap for their customers soon, because Comcast is exploring the option of increasing the data cap beyond 250GB.  When questioned, Comcast refused to say that people needed more bandwidth, instead they said nowadays it simply makes sense to have their customers with bigger data cap since online videos are becoming evermore popular.  In my opinion, I think sooner or later, the ISP industry will get evermore competitive and people will use more data than the data cap allows.  The people who need more bandwidth will just have to leave the ISPs that do not provide bigger data cap.

Google might speed up the adoption of which to abandon the data cap altogether.  Obviously, I’m looking at how Google is providing 100 times faster than today Internet connection speed for Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, MO.  Perhaps, once Google thinks that they will reap even more profits by providing ultra fast fiber broadband beyond Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, MO., then the competition will definitely push more ISPs to rethink about data cap logic.

Sure, Google has deeper intention for offering ultra fast fiber broadband.  I think Google wants to make sure they have the experience in providing ISP service, because Google never knows that they might need to roll out their very own ISP service to just about anyone who relies on Google services.  Perhaps, Google fears that one day ISPs will be able to dictate what people can watch and download over the Internet.  If such a day will happen, Google’s ultra fast fiber broadband will be able to aid Google in providing Google whatever services over the web to just about anybody as usual.  Google will always be the master of its own Internet services!

Google is so depending on the Internet for its prosperity, therefore no matter is too small to be overlooked when it comes to how Google does business over the Internet — ultra fast fiber broadband service/experiment is definitely a defensive and possibly an offensive strategy.  I don’t think Google ultra fast fiber broadband has data cap, but I’m not sure.  Nonetheless, I think Google wants to promote a future where data can roam just about anywhere without being restrained by the data cap limitation.  It makes sense, because Google core business relies on unrestrained Internet.  One good example would be YouTube.  Sure, Adwords is what making Google the most money, but YouTube, in the near future, might be the most important medium of which to allow Google to increase its core business might (i.e., Internet advertising — Adwords and Adsense).  Of course, nobody would know for sure that YouTube will play out as we think Google has hoped, but at the rate of everyone is slowly ditching the traditional TV for online media — it’s only a matter of time when online media will rule the world and the traditional media (i.e., TV) has to become something like the radio of today.  So, in order for Google to prosper in the upcoming media order, Google has to make sure that YouTube will become evermore popular and people will want to stream YouTube videos evermore.

Google’s YouTube might be so powerful as to how it will attract advertising dollars like nobody has ever seen something like it before.  How come?  Imagine regular TVs will tune into YouTube channels and not the traditional TV channels.  Such a future is probably where YouTube wants to be!  I think such a future for YouTube is very very possible!  Google is creating and promoting original TV type of contents for YouTube, therefore this sort of actions from Google confirms the importance of YouTube in regarding to Google’s media/advertising business.

Google is probably not the only one who thinks about how important it is for folks to be able to use the Internet without data cap, because there are so many other companies out there whose sole business relies entirely on the Internet.  Especially Netflix, because Netflix relies on the ISPs not to tighten the data cap as Netflix customers need to be able to stream Netflix movies.  Eventually, the old media will see that it’s futile to hold back the wave of the new media, therefore I think data cap strategy is too narrow.  Even the ISPs will be able to profit hugely when data cap limitation will no longer be around.  How come?  Like I had mentioned earlier, people will just have to leave the ISPs that are not providing them enough bandwidth.  Some of you might argue that people might not be able to leave their old ISP, because there won’t be a second ISP within the same broadband coverage area.  Well, I think such thinking will be outdated.  How come?  We can just take a look at Google ultra fast fiber broadband experimentation and know that the future for ISP industry will be a lot more competitive.  I sure hope the future will allow people to have a lot more choice of choosing an ISP, and I think we are heading for such a future anyway.  This is why data cap is just too narrow of a strategy — a strategy which will make ISP industry looks petty and the rest look eager to push ahead for a brighter better broadband/Internet future.

Afterthought:  I don’t think to do away with data cap is to encourage piracy.  People who want to pirate are the people who will never pay for the things that they want to pirate in the first place, therefore forcing onto them with data cap plans is like asking them to be more prudent with what they want to pirate.  Furthermore, people who have great technological knowledge might hack into various networks so they can use such networks’ resources (e.g., bandwidth, storage space) for their piracy activities anyway.  This is why data cap is senseless for a future that relies evermore on a busier Internet/broadband highways.

Sources:

Advertising On The Internet Might Not Be A Good Thing?

Internet technology has made it very easy for people to advertise their businesses, but I have to wonder is it a good idea to do so?  Of course, we all know the Internet is never going to sleep, because too many machines are willing to take the places of the ones that will go to sleep — tick tock, tick tock, tick tock, but the data keep on churning through the Internet pipes.  Since the Internet is always up and wide awake, it has always been the general understanding that it’s a good idea to advertise to the folks who are behind the machines that keep the Internet wide awake since its inception.  The idea is golden, but can the machines and the algorithms that are behind the things that make advertising on the Internet possible be smart enough to discern fake clicks and malware ads and phishing ads — so everyone can be safe and not sorry for using the Internet as the medium of advertising?

Here are the scary examples of why advertising on the Internet can be dangerous!  This one is specifically targeting the small business owners who advertise their businesses on the Internet.  Imagining someone hates a company or the owner of such company so bad, therefore he or she decides to use proxies of machines that have been programmed to generate fake clicks to bankrupt the company or the owner of such company — meanwhile he or she might also make some advertising commissions in the process as the Internet advertising company might not know those clicks are fake and so the payment of advertising commissions will be posted.  The second scenario is specifically targeting everyone who uses computer.  Imagining bad guys will submit innocent looking ads to the Internet advertising companies, but after a certain time the ads might point to either dangerous websites or the same websites but now are with dangerous contents; even worse such web destinations the ads point to might contain malware and computer viruses and phishing scams.

There might be more insidious scenarios that bad guys can exploit through the Internet advertising machines (i.e., advertising companies) that I might not have on the top of my mind, therefore such scenarios will not be mentioned here.  Nonetheless, the two examples I’d mentioned of (dangerous scenarios that are involved with the Internet advertising machines) are good enough to raise suspicion about the naiveties of advertising on the Internet.  The two examples also show that all parties might be suffering when bad guys are scheming.  This means the advertising agencies might see their reputations ruin if they can’t stop the bad guys from spreading malware and computer viruses and trojans and phishing scams through their ads.  This means the normal Internet users might get infect with computer viruses and trojans and malware and being scammed with phishing schemes.  This means the regular business owners might find their companies spend stupendous amount of money and yet not many real clicks are being generated, leading to much costly advertising budgets and losing focus of their core businesses.

I’m sure some best Internet advertising companies on the web might have ways to combat problems that I allured to in this article/post, but the effectiveness of weeding out all relative problems might be doubtful.  This is why I think offline advertising strategies might still be better than online advertising (i.e., advertising on the Internet) in some circumstances.  I guess it’s all depending on your advertising budget to start out with, and if you can afford fake clicks and other unaccounted Internet problems that are the baggages for advertising on the Internet, then I guess you might not lose the focus of generating attractions for your business.  Otherwise, I guess you might want to start with offline advertising first before venturing onto online advertising.  Of course, there are offline advertising machines (i.e., magazines, newspapers, local newspapers) that might be charging unreasonable fees, therefore you should not succumb right away to such leeches.  You can always spend good amount of time (i.e., if you have time to spare) to investigate and find the right offline advertising mediums/firms that can give you the right kind of advertising deals.

In the end, when come to advertising online and offline for small businesses, you might have to experiment or plan out carefully so you will be able to know the right advertising recipe for your small business.  Sometimes, Internet avid users but are the small business owners themselves might know how to use social networks to generate enough buzzes and attractions, therefore they move their businesses to great profits without spending much time and money on advertising.  In my opinion, word of mouth advertising sometimes can still be the best thing that has ever existed in regarding to how generating buzzes and profits for a business.  This is why some people think social networks might provide somewhat a similar medium to word of mouth advertising.  I think they might be right, but why the might be?

I think social networks tend to promote unreliable friending (i.e., friends who know each other only online but not in real life), and so my train of thoughts is that this sort of online only bonding might not generate enough force/will to convince people to see things in certain ways (i.e., how the Internet ads want the Internet users to feel).  Of course, I neglect to mention the positive effect of social networks, because I think it’s quite obvious.  Social networks allow many more real friends to expedite their daily contacts through online chat and text and discussion when they are not having time to meet up personally (i.e., face to face), and this might just generate the kind of force/will to move ideas, products, and businesses.

In conclusion, I guess it might be wise to end this article/post with just one line.  To advertise or not to advertise on the Internet, that’s the question!

(Yes, I know, twisting Shakespeare’s famous quote from Hamlet for the conclusion of the post above might not be a creative thing to do, but tis only quote I can think up to make my post even more flashy, so cheer!)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 783 other followers