By Carmi Levy, Betanews

Ever since she brought me into the world, my mother has taught me many things, namely to not only learn from my own mistakes, but also from the mistakes of others.

Microsoft clearly never spoke to my mom, as evidenced by its decision to leave cut, copy, and paste capabilities out of the new Windows Phone 7 Series platform, at least in the early rounds. If they had paid Mom a visit, they would have been told -- after being offered some tea, of course -- to fix all the boo-boos of earlier smartphone operating systems before releasing their own updated version. She would have advised them to understand the rough spots encountered by competitive offerings, and do everything in their power to avoid them.

I think my mom's ticked with Microsoft

Okay, perhaps she wouldn't have worded it precisely that way, but I'm certain you get my point regardless. I'm sure I speak for my mother (and likely, a whole bunch of you, too) when I say I'm disappointed in what may either be Microsoft's "decision" to leave three of the most basic functions in the history of computing out of its just-announced OS, or as we seem to be learning now, it's having overlooked the whole subject in the planning phase.

This morning, blogger Long Zheng reports he was told by Microsoft that cut and paste is something the company hopes will find a place in Windows Phone 7 Series at some future point.

Now, the initial excuse the company provided was (and is, and quite likely always will be) insufficient and, if we're being brutally honest, more than a little arrogant: "Most users, including Office users, don't really need clipboard functionality." So what's the story now, after Long's report: "We asked users to give us some details, and they decided, most users do like clipboard functionality, just not right at first?"

While I realize OS vendors have to make countless decisions about which features should and should not make it into the final product, I bristle at Microsoft's tone -- a bit like US Congresspeople explaining why the public option for health care is a really, really, really good idea, but just not for the bill being discussed today. If Microsoft (or, for that matter, if anyone at all) can learn anything from Congress this year, it's that people don't like being told by The Powers On High what they are supposed to want or not want, and when.

It isn't Microsoft's place to tell users that they won't ever need to cut, copy, or paste anything for as long as they own their new devices. It's the kind of blow-off statement that sounds shockingly like Apple when it introduced the iPhone in 2007, similarly stripped of any ability to cut-and-paste. After a sea of complaints from users and reviewers who actually do know what they want, and don't need to be told, Apple wisely retro-baked that functionality back into the OS two years later. While the controversy didn't seem to dent Apple's market share, Microsoft hardly has the benefit of Apple's marketing prowess or brand equity.

Apple aficionados were willing to cut the company some slack, and ended up buying iPhones anyway. Microsoft aficionados are a lot harder to find, they won't line up around the block in the middle of the night, and they'll probably pick up an Android-powered device as an alternative. With Windows Mobile...oops, Classic devices retaining this feature, and Windows Phone 7 Series lacking it, the inconsistency is difficult to understand. However you slice it, there will be no slack for Windows Phone 7 Series, and it's more than a little shocking that Microsoft couldn't see this coming.

Teaching us all a lesson?

In fairness to Microsoft, its new mobile OS includes a data detection service that automatically recognizes common elements like addresses and phone numbers. Within this context, perhaps there's room to make the argument that cutting and pasting is yesterday's news. This technology, popularized with the first mass-market GUIs in the early '80s, and perpetuated in virtually every desktop and mobile OS ever since, could be one of those things that we hold on to like a security blanket. And like the ratty old blanket, perhaps there's a time when we need to let go. Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft is doing us all a favor by pushing it out the door.

But consumers are a fickle lot. And what's makes sense from a strategic or historical perspective isn't necessarily right from the point of view of the guy forking over the dough for your new wonder-product. Never mind that Microsoft may, in fact, be "right" in concluding that we no longer need cut, copy, and paste on our mobile devices. Customers, after all, are always right, even if their choices make them look like circus clowns who do their makeup in the dark. It's their mistake to make and their shame to live down. Even if the vendor believes otherwise, it's not the smartest business strategy to call them idiots and make fun of their smudged face paint.

Casting off a legacy

In fairness to Microsoft, I somewhat understand where the company is coming from. Previous versions of its mobile OS suffered from what I like to call Shrunken Windows Syndrome. Instead of being built from the ground up as truly mobile-enabled solutions, they seemed to be pared-down versions of Microsoft's flagship desktop OS products. Microsoft's philosophy seemed to be that if it worked on a PC, it would work on a smartphone or a PDA, too. I used a number of Windows CE and Mobile devices over the years, and I never got used to navigating a full-on Start menu, complete with cascading sub-menus, with a stylus or thumb keyboard. It was as if Microsoft never actually used its own mobile products out in the field, and never listened to users who complained bitterly that its design philosophy simply didn't work out there.

With Windows Phone 7 Series, Microsoft seems to have finally gotten the mobile message. It's built from the ground up as a modern, competitive, lean and efficient mobile OS. I suspect the cut-and-paste omission is the company's way of overcompensating for years of heavy Windows legacy on its mobile products, a hackneyed way to break with its past.

Memo to Redmond: There are other ways to accomplish this.

It's only temporary

If Long Zheng's reporting is accurate (and it often is), I'd wager that v7.1 will have copy and paste...that is, if Microsoft doesn't cave to the firestorm earlier and release it as an on-the-fly fix. Either way, the only way Microsoft will ever gain traction in the mobile OS market is by listening to both customers and prospective customers and integrating their suggestions -- well, the value-added ones, at least -- into successive generations of their product.

This is a gaffe Microsoft simply can't afford. Its mobile OS is in the fight of its life as Microsoft battles the Apple/Google/RIM juggernaut on one hand and its own declining mobile market share on the other. Beyond the numbers, there's the risk that the market has already given up on Microsoft succeeding as a mobile vendor. That psychological factor (something Palm knows all too well) is something Microsoft needs to fix by reinstating cut-and-paste support. Now wouldn't be soon enough.

Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

This post is supposed to make it clear why Kubuntu is what it is. Writing this down is necessary because people constantly get the wrong picture.

Entities

Let me start to explain the relationships of entities around Ubuntu.

First and foremost there is the Ubuntu project, it is this large monster that includes Ubuntu Desktop, Ubuntu Server, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu and some other stuff. One could think of the Ubuntu project as an umbrella spanning across most (semi-)official activities surrounding Ubuntu. Packaging KDE software would be such an activity, so even as Kubuntu developer you are contributor to Ubuntu at large.

This relation is even publicly visible.

At Kubuntu we have a special membership status for people who have proved themselves valuable contributors to Kubuntu. With such a membership you get an @kubuntu.org email address and some other cool things. It might not be all that apparent, but this membership reflects the relationship between Kubuntu and Ubuntu. Once someone becomes Kubuntu member they also become Ubuntu member (technically speaking are Kubuntu members a subset of Ubuntu members). This is because a Kubuntu contributor is in the end also a contributor to Ubuntu (the project, not the distribution necessarily).

Now we know that Ubuntu is one big entity that consists of other entities (like Kubuntu), but at the same time Ubuntu is also the name of the GNOME featuring desktop distribution produced by Ubuntu the project.

Up until now I was talking about Ubuntu as a project, and simply put, this project is community driven. Sure, Kubuntu and Ubuntu have people working on them full time, but there are hundreds or possibly thousands of others, spending their spare time on contributing to Ubuntu. And here the whole thing gets a bit tricky to understand.

Kubuntu is by 5/1 controlled by the community, Ubuntu (the desktop distribution) is not. You might wonder how I ended up with 5/1. Well, the Kubuntu Council (pretty much in all cases the highest authority within Kubuntu) consists of 6 members, of which 5 are not working for Canonical.

Canonical, yet another entity. Canonical is a company trying to make money with Ubuntu products. Canonical is also the company that makes Ubuntu, the project, possible. Of course we easily forget about this, but without Canonical there were no *buntu websites, no launchpad, in consequence of that there would be no build daemon, no daily CD builds of consistent manner… in general there probably would not even be the computational infrastructure to run all those things. So just the infrastructural expenses (including maintenance etc.) must be of a quite considerable amount. Now I was not completely honest with you. Canonical is not only trying to make money with Ubuntu products, in fact Canonical is driving development of most of these products (to a certain degree at the very least).

So the Ubuntu project is driven by the community AND Canonical. Some parts more by the community, and others more by Canonical. As it usually works, this means that the community can focus on the fun parts while Canonical fills the gaps of the other work that needs to be done in a distribution creating project. And this is a good thing for the better part. Most of these free contributors are doing it because it is fun or because they want to achieve a personal target (say, make a system that boots within 2 seconds), but usually not all work of the distribution creation process is fun. I suppose it goes without saying that less people would contribute if they had to spend a substantial amount of their time on rather complex and boring stuff. Yet someone needs to do it, why not someone who gets paid for it?

Of course that is a much simplified picture, but the point I am trying to make is that there is a symbiosis of the activities within the Ubuntu project.

Power and responsibility

"With great power must also come great responsibility!" is it written in the first Spider-Man story. Very true words those are, in the context of Ubuntu too. Those who have the power to stir development, must also be responsible if the direction was wrong. And I would even go as far as saying that those that are responsible must deserve the power to stir development.

What does this mean for the Ubuntu project?

Canonical chose GNOME as their preferred desktop and Debian as their preferred distribution, so they made a new distribution based on those 2 existing software stacks. Canonical sells support contracts, in fact Canonical tries to only live off those and some associated activities within or around the Ubuntu universe. So to their customers and partners they are ultimately responsible for when something goes wrong in the product. So lets assume the product is Ubuntu, the distribution, and the wrongness is that GNOME is completely broken. The customer will not go complain to the community, even though they are to a certain degree contributing to the product. The customer will go complain to the one they got a contract with, which would then be Canonical. So Canonical is responsible and thus must at least have as much power to avoid situations where they would loose substantial amount of money due to problems in the product. What I am trying to say is not that Canonical does or must have absolute control over Ubuntu, the distribution or the project, but the amount of control that is necessary to secure their business and in consequence secure the future of Ubuntu as a whole.

The picture for Kubuntu is different. Kubuntu originated in a community effort to bring the KDE desktop on the Ubuntu base stack. Canonical decided to use GNOME for their desktop and some community members decided to create another version with KDE as the desktop. Canonical apparently thought of this as a good idea and incorporated Kubuntu into the Ubuntu project, thus providing infrastructure for package building and hosting and website hosting and CD building… But they only had little interest of exploiting the business potential that comes with a KDE featuring desktop based on Ubuntu, though there certainly was some potential and so they decided to take on a bit of responsibility. Namely employing one of Kubuntu’s founding fathers full time. The community however continued to be driving in just about any aspect, and so the community also had most power over the course of development, simply because they were responsible for the product and the development of the product.

Kubuntu is not Ubuntu

This statement might seem incredibly obvious, and yet once in a while someone does not exactly understand on how many levels this applies.
Sure, on a technical level Kubuntu is not Ubuntu because it uses KDE, then again it uses the Ubuntu base stack… But more important than that are some other applications of the above statement. Kubuntu is not a large project like the Ubuntu project, it is part of the Ubuntu project and thus must obey its rules and regulations to some degree. This for example means that we cannot just stick some random non-free software on our CDs. It also means that Kubuntu is not the brand Canonical chose, but Ubuntu is, that is why the project is called Ubuntu and the distribution is called Ubuntu and associated products are somehow related to Ubuntu, possibly even reusing the brand (e.g. Ubuntu One).
Another important difference is that most changes in Kubuntu do not come from Canonical. They either originate in KDE or within the Kubuntu development community (and of that also only 2 people work for Canonical … go figure). One of the most interesting examples of wrong assumptions in this category, affecting me, was that apparently the Mozilla Firefox installer, that is available in Kubuntu 9.10 and later, was created by Canonical. At least various reviews claimed so, well, indeed it was me who created it, and I am not employee of Canonical, nor does Canonical own the code.
In general one might say that stuff going on in Kubuntu mostly does not have anything to do with Canonical, and if it does, then it is still approved or tolerated by the community.

Taking up on my above statement that those that have power must be responsible and those responsible must have power I’d like to make the following clear: the Kubuntu community has the most power and the most responsibility. Holding Canonical responsible for issues in Kubuntu, of which there are many, as within any software project, is just wrong. Because even if there was wrong doing on their part, the community still did not do anything about it.

Implications

Aforementioned statement also implies some things. First and foremost is that Kubuntu doesn’t need to receive the same attention from Canonical as Ubuntu, the distribution, gets. There is no particular point to it either. Not from Kubuntu’s perspective and neither from Canonical’s.

From a business point of view, Canonical would have to invest enough resources to make Kubuntu a viable business opportunity, that then directly competes with their other system, Ubuntu, which is the main brand carrier though. So that would be a bit of a problem, since from a perception point of view, Kubuntu is a different brand than Ubuntu (even though it might be associated, one way or another). Of course this is not exactly good for either brand because they then end up sharing volume of public attention instead of specifically trying to direct it at one particular brand.
At the same time this would mean that Canonical becomes more responsible (and thus needs more power, see above). So ultimately this would make Kubuntu less of a community effort and more of a Canonical one (to about the same degree as it is now with Ubuntu one can suppose). This then would lead to Kubuntu becoming much more derived from upstream KDE, because obviously a company would want to distinguish their product by all means from its competitors, and that involves heavy branding, special features etc.

Conclusion

So since Canonical does currently not exploit all business potential coming from Kubuntu, the community will probably be responsible for quite some time to come.

This ultimately means that the community will apply the rules and judgment of which they think it is the best available. Since the community is mostly consisting of people contributing in their spare time human time resource is rather limited and thus one must choose the battles carefully. In consequence this means that some things simply cannot be done. Like say Ubuntu One integration, of course it would be nice to have, but currently there are much more important things to work on. Same goes for porting Software Center. Finally it also means that the community gets to decide how much branding gets committed, and currently the opinion is to stick with KDE’s. Not only is their artwork of incredibly high quality, but also are they the biggest contributors to the Kubuntu desktop, so they deserve most credit.

On that last note I would also like to note that Kubuntu’s target was to make the best KDE distribution, not the best Ubuntu flavor, thus deriving from KDE’s artwork and color scheme would not only be in conflict with the fact that Kubuntu’s color palette is almost identical, but also with what Kubuntu is trying to achieve.

In short: Kubuntu is not Ubuntu. Occasionally blogs and news stories and bug reports assume Canonical is responsible for things they are not. In general, me and the other Kubuntu developers are responsible for Kubuntu, please keep this in mind when moaning or praising us.

Thank you.

About a year ago a prosecutor in Pennsylvania wanted to bring child porn charges against some teenage girls who had taken some "nude and seminude" photos of themselves with cameraphones and sent them to others. The case was complicated in that after school officials turned over the evidence to the district attorney, the DA's office told the girls that they could avoid charges if they agreed to a special afterschool "education program." Some of the girls refused, and the prosecutor tried to charge them. This raised an outcry from many who felt it was ridiculous to charge kids with child pornography for taking photos of themselves. The judges in the case blocked the prosecutor from filing charges, but rather than take the hint, the prosecutor tried again with an appeal.

It looks like that was a dead end too. The appeals court unanimously ruled against the DA and criticized them for their efforts to bring charges against these girls. This case won't necessarily directly apply to other similar cases -- as much of the reasoning had to do with the requirement to take this class and write an essay about why what they did was "wrong," which was judged to be compelled speech, violating the First Amendment. Furthermore, the fact that the lawsuit was seen as retaliating for not obeying the order to take the class was also problematic. So, it's likely we'll still see other cases involving "sexting," where teenagers are accused of creating child porn of themselves.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

[In his latest column for GameSetWatch, UK writer and journalist Fraser McMillan discusses Valve's seminal first-person action title Half-Life 2, examining and revisiting the smart design decisions behind the classic game.]

I've just finished Half-Life 2 for the first time. It has taken me three attempts - once on Xbox 360 and twice on PC - to see Valve's defining game to its conclusion. That this relatively minor feat took so long is entirely my fault, ironically a product of the impatient wish to blast through as quickly as possible.

Two and a half years after I initially booted it up, the end credits rolled. The final, completed playthrough attempt lasted less than a week, and I'm glad I bit the bullet and experienced it this way.

Not that it was anything like a chore; by taking things at my own, or, more accurately, Valve's pace, I had time to absorb the world and explore its nooks and crannies, my eyeline expertly guided by the seemingly omnipotent hand of City 17's creators.

I finally understand why everyone has waxed lyrical about Gordon Freeman's second adventure for the last half-decade or more. Conducive to this is the fact that my tastes have matured, and my thoughts on games delved into deeper, more analytical territory. Articulating why I liked X and disliked Y is no longer particularly hard in most cases.

When I can't explain these, it's usually because I was baffled by just how terrible each element of the design was. On a handful of occasions, though, it's a sign that what I played was so confoundingly fantastic that my critical brain didn't even attempt to kick in. This is the position I'm in now. Deconstructing Half-Life 2 feels wrong in a way, like teasing a dog with some food only to scoff it yourself. It shouldn't really be done because it's against the nature of the beast and could cheapen the experiences of all involved. It's not even entertaining; just perversely, cruelly compelling.

Half-Life 2 is designed so as to not appear designed. That's ostensibly odd, but makes a surprising amount of sense. A lot of effort has been poured in to create the impression of effortlessness. Most of what we do, see or hear in Half-Life 2 feels distinctly of our own volition. If not in the act itself, the mere observation of incidental detail off the critical path is a component of the illusion of presence and agency, even though each individual's journey will, in the end, be effectively identical to other players'.

This facet of its design makes itself known from the instant the G-Man's face fades out to reveal an unexceptional train car. As well as evoking the timeless introduction to its predecessor, this scene serves to create the illusion of reality; of an ambient world that exists beyond just our interfacing with it.

Airborne robots which we'll later come to despise fly by the carriage, inspiring curiosity. A fairly normal looking landscape passes increasingly slowly as the vehicle comes to a halt. Our two co-passengers occupy themselves, one waiting eagerly for the doors to open as the other sits opposite, dejectedly staring into nothingness. We can talk to the latter or leave him be. As we're let off, the former sighs; "Well, end of the line."

With this sequence, Valve instantly and very tangibly contend that though this remains a Half-Life game, it's one of an evolved character. They turned the first-person-shooter on its head with that first title, Citizen Kane-ing the genre to an extreme degree, but the setting allowed the team to concentrate on a specific goal without concerning themselves much with the outside world.

Forced to emerge from the secluded comfort zone of Black Mesa, the sequel establishes itself as both successor and pioneer from the off, and continues in this mould for much of its duration. It should be noted at this point that it's not perfect but - Freeman's basking in the adulation of every NPC notwithstanding - Half-Life 2's universe is absolutely convincing.

Not through the kind of emergent systems that make Far Cry 2's war-torn state so wonderfully plausible, but in an entirely different and equally valid manner, one that single-handedly authored a rigorous and, ultimately, highly successful template for linear video games that is still being ignored to this day.

It's all in creating an illusion of substance and openness and propelling the player through it at whatever pace is required. A lot of elements of Half-Life 2 feel dynamic in nature despite being at least somewhat intended or even heavily scripted.

The odd set-piece is obnoxiously predictable, but in a franchise that lives and breathes on these cues it's astounding how sparse these are. Allow yourself to be engulfed in the sly deception and these fade into such insignificance it's laughable. Many modern releases remain patronisingly transparent without anything close to such a sustained barrage of both subtle and overwhelming instances.

It's equally incredible when you realise just how paper thin the mirage is. Hang around too long in one spot or put on the blinkers and dash through and it's all too easy to break, but even when compelled to do so it's tough not to be rapidly, subconsciously re-immersed. We're the hapless cobras rising from the basket as Valve expertly play their tune, transitioning from staccato to legato when appropriate.

The reminders that this is a fully realised world continuously flow towards us, and by alternately sticking to convention and craftily subverting our expectations of what video games are, Half-Life 2 capitalises on our gullibility to this effect. How clever I thought I was by navigating over to the beach hut using painstakingly arranged miscellany and my trusty old gravity gun. Empty, besides some assorted junk and a small item crate. The ammunition it contained was already maxed out in my inventory.

At first I was scandalized; how dare you, Valve, how dare you so gratuitously undermine my efforts? Then I realized that my impression of this place as a cohesive, unified land that simply exists had been augmented. My irritation morphed into unabated admiration. Why does there have to be an explicit reward for venturing into a hidden or ostensibly unreachable spot? My prize was much more interesting.

Merely paying attention also pays dividends both in terms of the strength of the universe and the narrative. Peering through the view-box in the door you'll see something that often leads to far more questions than answers, but which also fleshes out the core experience. Keeping your eyes peeled means you can witness things that have the capacity to alter your perception of the City and its inhabitants or prepare you for a challenge ahead.

It's unlikely that many players have seen all of these, but both static and active environmental incidentals can frighten, inform, bait or warn. Some allow us to begin filling in the gaps ourselves in imagined ways. We begin to construct an image of who lived in this cell by its contents, what prompted that piece of graffiti or what unspeakable things must have befallen that rotting corpse in the viaduct. It happens infrequently enough to make the player feel special, as if they're the only one to have observed such details. Again, these can prompt the same reaction as a totally unscripted emergent event, but within a much more solid framing than any games of that particular propensity are likely to achieve any time soon.

I've noticed that actual examples of the virtues I've cited are somewhat lacking from this article. Perhaps, though, this stems from the broader effect of believability that Half-Life 2 so decisively realises. It already presents the most attractive science fiction setting yet seen in our medium, but the manner in which it shapes our experiences in such gentle and minor ways is its crowning achievement.

My failure to cherry pick the most impressive of these idiosyncrasies is indicative only of its intransigent formula. Memories of my time with the game are not necessarily of these individual pieces, but of the great chunks of the puzzle they gelled into. Firm authorial control in games, Valve have proven, can also relax when properly timed. The most important lesson we can extrapolate from Half-Life 2 is that if you're going to force us down a linear path, you should do your utmost to make it feel as far away from this reality as possible. Maybe it's obvious advice, but it's one that far too few have taken onboard over the years.

The last machine in this quarter's System Builder Marathon, Paul's $750 Gaming PC certainly isn't least. A triple-core Athlon II X3 didn't necessarily overclock well, but a fourth-core unlock gives this system a huge efficiency advantage in our suite.



Personal computer - AthlonIi - overclock - Multi-core processor - Games

Microsoft certainly set off a firestorm of controversy yesterday with the revelation that Windows Phone 7 Series won't have copy and paste, since it doesn't necessarily line up with what the company has said in private before -- and the issue seems to have gotten even more clouded as people have started hacking around the emulator. So let's set the record straight on what we were told, since it wasn't ambiguous in any way: Microsoft says leaving clipboard operations out was a conscious design decision based on user research showing that people don't actually use copy and paste very often, and that instead 7 Series features a systemwide data detection service which recognizes things ike phone numbers and addresses so you can take action on them. Third-party apps can hook into this service, so that an email address can be routed to the email client of your choice, but there's no copy and paste functionality. We specifically asked about Office and OneNote, and we were told that Microsoft's research shows that people mostly want to view and comment on documents, not move things around. We also specifically asked if copy and paste was coming later and were told no, although we'd guess that it's at least being worked on for a future version. Don't take it from us, though -- listen to Microsoft's Todd Brix for yourself:

Microsoft on copy and paste in Windows Phone 7 Series: 'people don't do that' originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:56:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

Publication Date: 2010 Mar 12 PMID: 20226031Authors: Williams, A. - Thomson, E. M.Journal: BMC BioinformaticsABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Maximizing the utility of DNA microarray data requires optimization of data acquisition through selection of an appropriate scanner setting. To increase the amount of useable data, several approaches have been proposed that incorporate multiple scans at different sensitivities to reduce the quantification error and to minimize effects of saturation. However, no direct comparison of their efficacy has been made. In the present study we compared individual scans at low, medium and high sensitivity with three methods for combining data from multiple scans (either 2-scan or 3-scan cases) using an actual dataset comprising 40 technical replicates of a reference RNA standard. RESULTS: Of the individual scans, the low scan exhibited the lowest background signal, the highest signal-to-noise ratio, and equivalent reproducibility to the medium and high scans. Most multiple scan approaches increased the range of probe intensities compared to the individual scans, but did not increase the dynamic range (the proportion of useable data). Approaches displayed striking differences in the background signal and signal-to-noise ratio. However, increased probe intensity range and improved signal-to-noise ratios did not necessarily correlate with improved reproducibility. Importantly, for one multiple scan method that combined 3 scans, reproducibility was significantly improved relative to individual scans and all other multiple scan approaches. The same method using 2 scans yielded significantly lower reproducibility, attributable to a lack-of-fit of the statistical model. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that implementation of a suitable multiple scan approach can improve reproducibility, but that model validation is critical to ensure accurate estimates of probe intensity.post to: CiteULike

The Internet is huge but it's a hodgepodge of hundreds of thousands of smaller, private networks, connected through thousands of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and dozens of backbones operated by the large Telcos and service providers.

Moving data from one end of the Internet to the other can mean traveling across many different computers and different networks. Some of these computers and networks are old and inefficient while some are modern and very efficient.

They are all tied together into what we call the Internet, through a collection of standards. These standards determine how a packet of data can reach its destination, complete and undamaged.

Many large Internet companies own large chunks of the Internet through building their own data centers, networks, backbones, etc. This helps to keep their costs down.

Google is big...

Google is one of those companies that owns a large chunk of the Internet. It has more than 50 data centers around the world; it builds its own servers; it operates its own backbones that shuttle huge amounts of data across the world; it develops its own software for managing all of its data; it keeps banks of servers in the data centers of ISPs so that it can cache data closer to delivery; and more, much more.

How big is Google? asks Arbor Networks. It's a rhetorical question because Arbor knows, it sells network control and monitoring hardware used by the largest ISPs and corporations.

Arbor says that Google is very big:

I mean really big. If Google were an ISP, it would be the fastest growing and third largest global carrier. Only two other providers (both of whom carry significant volumes of Google transit) contribute more inter-domain traffic. But unlike most global carriers (i.e. the “tier1s”), Google’s backbone does not deliver traffic on behalf of millions of subscribers nor thousands of regional networks and large enterprises. Google’s infrastructure supports, well, only Google.

Based on data from 110 ISPs collected in the summer of 2009, Google was responsible for as much as 10% of all Internet traffic.

If a company wants to compete with Google on a large scale, the costs of shuttling data packets around, whether they be Twitter packets or video packets, starts becoming very important at these large scales.

Arbor says:

The competition between Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other large content players has long since moved beyond just who has the better videos or search. The competition for Internet dominance is now as much about infrastructure — raw data center computing power and about how efficiently (i.e. quickly and cheaply) you can deliver content to the consumer.

And that's why Google has focused on building the most efficient, lowest cost to operate, private Internet. This infrastructure is key to Google, and it's key to understanding Google.

The cost of aluminum...

Google will locate its massive data centers where electricity costs are low, such as where there is hydro-electric power. There's a shortcut to finding these locations, look for places where there are aluminum smelters -- these use huge amounts of electricity.

[Back in 2005 I was tipped off by a source that Google was looking at places for new data centers, related to aluminum smelters. But I was unable to write about it directly. I put the scoop in the form of a cryptic sentence and called it a "Crypto-Scoop."

GOOG is prophetic, rather than superstitious,
about its interest in places of power,
associated with the 13th building block of the Original Design.

(Aluminum is the 13th element in the periodic table - a fundamental building block of the Universe.) I have no idea if anyone worked it out :)]

Power and computing costs...

Google knew back then that electric power costs would be important in determining the cost of data centers. Today, it is high on the list of priorities for all data centers. That's also why it has been investing in power generating technologies, such as wind, sun, and geothermal.

It has a key goal of generating electric power from renewable energy sources at a cost less than coal-generated electric power. That would be an incredible achievement.

Always lower costs...

Google always focuses on finding the lowest costs even though it can easily afford to pay more. Google builds its own servers, made from off-the-shelf low cost components, with cheap hard drives. It has developed its own software that deals with component failure and moves work loads across huge numbers of servers. Managing failure is built into Google's data center operating systems.

It has bought up lots of "dark fiber," at a very low cost. This is optical fiber that hasn't yet been 'lit' but it is in the ground, in place, ready to be hooked up.

Because Google has so much fiber, it operates one of the largest backbones in the world. It also means that it can trade bandwidth with others.

Large Telcos and ISPs have peering arrangements with each other. This means that if they have the capacity, they will carry extra traffic for each other. These peering arrangements mean that Google's bandwidth bill for all that YouTube video is zero.

It's difficult to believe, but your bandwidth bill to watch a YouTube video is more than Google's. Because of bartering through peering agreements, its only cost is in maintaining its own networks and backbones.

Skipping the last mile...

Google still needs ISPs and Telcos for the last mile, to deliver its various services and products, to the end user/consumer. But it has been experimenting with going direct.

It has experimented with free municipal Wi-Fi, and more recently, it is setting up high speed bandwidth to communities with 500,000 people or less.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Google wants to become an ISP or a Telco. It is not a service organization and it doesn't want that headache, but it does want to spur ISPs and Telcos to develop high-speed data connections, so that it can deliver future products and services that require high speed data.

The Internet is becoming ever more Google's...

Googles growth means that it is building a much faster, and much more power efficient, and much greener Internet. And through peering agreements, it is carrying much more than just Google traffic, it is quickly, and quietly becoming an important carrier for all Internet traffic.

There are huge indirect benefits from Google's work that make the Internet a better service for every Internet user.

Essential facility...

What will this lead to? It's going to lead to regulatory scrutiny because Google will be increasingly seen as an 'essential facility' vital for the economies of regions, nations, and entire trading blocs.

Increased scrutiny by governments, and regulatory bodies, will make it more difficult for Google to execute on its business strategies. Combined with the increased scrutiny of Google's acquisitions by the Federal Trade Commission, Google's future ambitions will become ever more restricted.

Google sees the writing on the wall. It has boosted how much it spends on lobbying in Washington. [Antitrust Heat -- Google Spends Millions To Influence Washington - SVW]

A layer cake business...

Google might decide that its value lies in its incredibly efficient infrastructure, which is far more efficient and lower cost than the Internet as a whole.

Once you have the lowest cost infrastructure, you can layer and scale other business services on top. Such as payment systems, basic voice and data services, security systems, and commerce platforms (advertising).

Google might decide it doesn't need to own a Facebook, Twitter a Yahoo, or an Amazon -- when it can host all the data packets. It can carry and trace a data packet from source to destination and back again -- it can mine all that transactional data. That's extremely valuable.

It's a little known fact that Google keeps all of its data, all transactional data. It erases part of the identifiable meta data, but that can be reconstructed. [Google Keeps Your Data Forever - Unlocking The Future Transparency Of Your Past - SVW]

That transactional data is incredibly valuable, and even though we can't unlock it to its fullest value today, Google is working on it.

No umbrella...

By being able to build the most efficient, private Internet, Google makes it extremely difficult for any competitor to challenge it. There is no 'price umbrella' that competitors can use.

For example, there used to be lots of mainframe computer companies because IBM, the largest mainframe computer maker, used to charge very high prices. There was a substantial price umbrella set by IBM that sheltered competitors, and allowed them to sell IBM compatible mainframes and still make a good living.

You can see similar price umbrellas in other business sectors.

Google has made sure that by building the most efficient, lowest cost infrastructure, there is no price umbrella that could be exploited by competitors. It's more like a manhole cover, try to get under it, and you fall into a hole...

This strategy means that Google leaves money on the table, it could make more money over the short-term by creating a price umbrella. Instead, it has chosen a long term business strategy which doesn't give competitors any toehold, let alone an umbrella.

Its stock ownership is set up so that founder's stock has ten times the voting rights of public shares, this allows it to avoid shareholder pressure to pursue short-term business goals.

This all adds up to make Google into a truly formidable force, and one that continually amasses greater powers and influence. 'Do no evil' is the very least it can do.

At times it feels like the concept of cloud computing is as ephemeral as a towering cumulus cloud on a summer day. It passes by, changes shape and looks different to every person who views it. But like those clouds in the sky, there's a lot of complexity out there, especially as it concerns how data is managed in a multi-tenant environment.

The issue keeps coming up. First off, there are no existing standards for moving data in the cloud. Third party vendors like CloudSwitch are providing ways to "drag and drop," data from on-premise to a cloud environments. But there is just no standardized way to move information between cloud networks.

Sponsor

But there are some ways to manage the complexity. Informatica's David Linthicum wrote a blog post yesterday on the topic. We agree with Linthicum to some extent but his declarations don't entirely reflect the current reality.

Linthicum outlines some of the inherent issues that come with data integration in the cloud. The biggest issue comes down to the cloud computing providers. They do not provide syncing back to the customer's on-premise environment. Linthicum points out that Salesforce.com is the exception to the rule in this regard.

So, according to Linthicum, what should the customer consider?

• Backup: This is the first and foremost issue for Linthicum. You need to have an on-premise backup in case of cloud computing outages,cloud service providers going out of business or to prevent the headaches that can happen when the new owner of your cloud computing provider decides that it's really not interested in that business at all.
• Data Movement: It's the data integration that drives processes between systems that may be in the cloud or on-premise. How do you manage all this information that may be dispersed over geographically distant platforms? It's a different world than dealing with systems that exist in one data center.

We agree to a point but there are lots of various options to these issues. First off, it's often a matter of what cloud computing platform you choose. The large service providers offer the safest bet. They are vested in the future of cloud computing and are developing ecosystems that consist of third-party partners. A number of these partners specialize in cloud-based application deployments.

And cloud-based security is making advances that make data loss as rare as if the data is on-premise.

Linthicum does offer some sound advice that may seem more like common sense but it is worth noting:

"First, consider the overall requirements of the business. Sounds obvious, but many who deploy cloud computing systems do not have a complete understanding of the overall business requirements.

Second, focus on the holistic architecture, on-premise and cloud-delivered, including how they will and should exchange data to support the core business.

Finally, select the right data integration technology for the job, and do so only after taking everything into account. You'll find that there are both on-premise and on-demand options, and in many instances you may have to mix and match solutions."

There are a lot of options out there. We do not necessarily agree that the hybrid approach is the best way to go. There is no one formula. Standardizing on the cloud has its advantages.

But, still, the over riding issue is really how data passes between systems. Without standards for managing data transfer, the issues Linthicum points out will never go away.

Discuss

Magazines have always prided themselves on their longevity as a medium and their pass-along circulation -- the additional readers each copy gains when it's passed from hand to hand.

Today, social media are providing opportunities for readers to share content and experience their favorite magazines as part of their social activity online. As a result, this is the dawn of a new era of pass-along.

Building a Community of Readers

So far, Facebook and Twitter have both been tested as ways to market print subscriptions and publicize magazines' online content.

Seventeen magazine tried offering a special subscription deal to its over 64,000 Twitter followers. If readers paid up front, they could get a $5 year-long subscription to the magazine through a link in a tweet.

"We had 170 paid subscriptions in 24 hours, which is a great number," said Julie Hochheiser, the senior web editor for the Hearst Teen Network, which includes Seventeen's online content. "We definitely thought that was a success."

Tweets and Facebook posts also help promote the magazines' websites, though Hochheiser said that posts should offer more value than just a link.

"With a content brand, your business is mostly driving traffic to your site, but Twitter users don't necessarily want to be driven to your site," she says. "They want what they're finding in those 140 characters to be useful."

Showcasing a Real-Time Voice

On the smaller end of the magazine spectrum, Lapham's Quarterly, a magazine focusing on history and culture, is also active with social media. Web editor Michelle Legro said Lapham's began using Twitter and Facebook simultaneously in October 2009, and that their efforts have grown steadily since then, mainly to showcase the ongoing research and discussions of the magazine staff.

"It's allowed us to give a real-time voice to the magazine," Legro said. "We're both a historical and a quarterly magazine, so social media let us give a voice to things we find out every single day."

Lapham's tweets, written by Legro, are noticeable for their frequent use of dates from the past and their placement of contemporary events within historical context. "I can see what people are talking about on Twitter, find a historical source in the archives and post that, then people share it around," she said.

The response to Lapham's social media efforts has been positive: Twitter and Facebook are now two of the site's main traffic sources.

"We've found that Twitter acts like a stock and Facebook like a bond," Legro said. On Twitter, "when people really like something, they join in bursts. With Facebook, people join slowly and steadily, but continue to join all the time."

Magazine Advertisers Join In

Magazines are just now beginning to find ways to make partnerships with advertisers work via social media. Katie Tamony, editor-in-chief of Sunset magazine, described the magazine's Facebook page as a "little laboratory" for new marketing ideas.

"We have 11,500 fans, so we can come to them not just with content, but also with some marketing ideas," Tamony said. This small group of generally younger readers and fans posts about 500 "interactions" weekly to Sunset's fan page, and offers real-time feedback to questions and offers presented by the staff.

Matt Milner, vice president of social media and community for Hearst Magazines Digital Media, described the careful balance required to integrate advertisers into a magazine's social media efforts.

"Advertisers or partners can pay to join the conversation, but it's equally as important to show that we realize that there has to be value added to these communities," Milner said. "We give clear guidance to our advertisers: 'It's great you're joining the conversation, but you're not here to sell your product -- you're here to build your brand within our community'."

For example, Seventeen has used both sponsored tweets and sponsored Facebook posts to involve advertisers in its social media content.

"Our audience didn't really see the difference. As long as the content is interesting to them, they'll click on it," said Hochheiser, who works with Seventeen. "We make sure it's something useful to them and not just a blatant ad, but it has the sponsor language right there."

Enhancing Print Editions

Magazines' social media efforts have also paid off for their print products.

"We pose questions to our readership to feed into future stories," said Tamony from Sunset. Past queries included readers' favorite ways to use spinach and their favorite road trips in the West. "We give a sampling of the Facebook responses we've gotten, and it's fun for readers to see their names end up in print."

In another example, Tamony said a recent Facebook question about favorite weeknight meals revealed how often readers used chicken in their everyday cooking, and how much they wanted new ideas for those meals. Her staff can use this feedback to craft relevant stories in future issues. "So even if we don't use their comments, we're still using their ideas in the magazine," she said.

The conversation with readers has benefited Hearst magazines as well. "Sometimes we just listen. What do they want from content? What do they want our web editors to be writing about?" said Milner. "We feel like there's a huge benefit to hearing that."

Magazines' use of social media also echoes and enhances the voice of the magazine itself. Legro is the social media "voice" of Lapham's, and she works to maintain a specific style in her tweets and posts.

"I try to be light and accessible, because often with history, it can be perceived as dry, but really it's extremely fun," Legro said. "My goal is to entertain. History can entertain in itself. It just takes an editor to find the right things."

For Sunset, using social media is like "having an event or a party going on all the time," said Tamony. "It feels that way because Sunset is all about enjoying life and pleasurable things, so you get this kind of happy buzz from it."

The lines distinguishing magazines' print and online content, their social media projects and their advertising will probably continue to blur.

"It might take 10 years until we figure out how to master this," said Milner. "Social media transcends departments -- it's beyond edit, beyond sales. It will inform more and more content decisions in a good way, but it's going to take a little while."

Susan Currie Sivek, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Mass Communication and Journalism Department at California State University, Fresno. Her research focuses on magazines and media communities. She also blogs at sivekmedia.com, and is the magazine correspondent for MediaShift.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

Random Thought! A special edition of random thoughts this week, people! It's random thoughts time! Get excited!

Link Thought! Quickie Reviews (Mar 10 2010) (The Unwritten makes a small comeback!). Is it Just Children? (or is it okay to kill everyone?). High Road/Low Road on Chris Jericho/Edge at WrestleMania (I really love this, but still have to argue against it... dammit). Wrestling 4Rs featuring my review of the first edition of TNA Impact in its new semi-live Monday night timespot (spoiler: I thought it was shit). Fuck Me? (people who comment on wrestling sites are much funnier than those who comment on comics sites). Wrestler of the Week (only two weeks left...). Art Discussion Month 2010 (it passes the halfway mark today... I'm mostly done! Also, check out Frank Teran's comment in my discussion of the Hellblazer issue he drew... it's all gossipy and fun!). The Splash Page Podcast Episode 8.1 (Tim swears, but I had to bleep it out to keep the podcast clean). The Splash Page Podcast Episode 8.2 (I swear, but I had to bleep it out to keep the podcast clean). An interview with Keith Champagne on WWE Heroes (yes, it's on this blog, but people miss things...).

Random Thought! I'm oddly comforted by the thought that, if I lived in Russia, comics would be reviewing me... (Taken from my Twitter feed on Sunday.)

Random Thought! I have no interest in that Young Allies book beyond how awesome the name Bastards of Evil is. That's not just a good bad guy team name, it's a Joe Casey-esque bad guy team name, and no one does supervillains who revel in their villainy as well as Casey these days, so nicely done, Mr. McKeever.

Random Thought! Because it gives me focus, the rest of the column will be my "I'ds of March" to follow-up on Brian's annual posting. Sure, that was yesterday, but I don't want to step on his toes, let him do his thing and I'll keep mine in this column. If I remember next year, the 15th will be on a Tuesday and mine will actually go up on the day. I did this previously, on my blog, two years ago. (Linking to that so I won't repeat myself...)

I'd... have ended Secret Invasion with Noh-Varr helping to turn the tide against the Skrulls and, then, turning on the heroes, because he intends to take over the planet himself and remake it in Hala's image. Not taking over then, Norman Osborn could still be in charge and Dark Reign happens mostly as planned, but Noh-Varr is set up as a threat, someone who isn't working for the same goals as anyone.

I'd... have brought Steve Rogers back in Captain America as a regular arc with Butch Guice as the artist, kicking off his run on the book. Not necessarily as smart a sales/business move, but I think it would have worked artistically better.

I'd... have not marketed Joe Casey's tenure on Superman/Batman as a follow-up to "Our Worlds at War" and would have also let people know that was writing the book when the first issue came out in October and made it clear what was going on.

I'd... hire Jim Starlin to take over one of the Marvel cosmic books. With Thanos coming back, all we need is Starlin. It would lighten the load for Abnett and Lanning a bit and also give the line a little bit more diversity in writing. I've enjoyed the unified vision, but, come on, DnA and Starlin writing those characters? That would be amazing.

I'd... have hired J.M. DeMatteis to write Spider-Man: The Clone Saga. Or, at least, a back-up strip to give the series a little more flavour and breathing room. I'd have also included some extra material like one-page interviews on the story throughout the series. Small things to make it a better experience.

I'd... have not made Wednesday Comics exclusively 12-part serialised stories. Do some one-offs and short serials, mix things up a bit, play with the newspaper format.

I'd... have released the "Final Crisis Aftermath" book in a different manner, maybe not all at the same time nor with such similar titles. They all sort of blended together that way when they might have done better by making their differences more obvious and trying to target each book's specific audience more directly.

I'd... release Paul Jenkins's Hellblazer run in trades. Plus, I do a trade or two of the remaining uncollected issues from that series. The one- and two-parters that popped up over the years.

I'd... have hired almost any other artist than Philip Tan for the second Batman & Robin arc. That arc sticks out like a sore thumb and DC could have found someone much better suited to Morrison's writing -- and someone whose work doesn't look ten times worse in the middle of Frank Quitely- and Cameron Stewart-drawn arcs.

I'd... have hounded Chip Zdarsky to contribute to Strange Tales... because he's great.

I'd... hire Paul Cornell and Leonard Kirk to do a second Dark X-Men mini-series later in 2010 to explore what happens to the characters without Norman Osborn in charge. That could be very interesting and act as a nice sequel to the recently-concluded mini.

I'd... have hired a writer with sensibilities much more in common with Grant Morrison than Keith Giffen to write The Authority: The Lost Year. A cool idea for a book that went wrong by hiring the wrong writer to do it. That needed someone much more in tune with the way Morrison writes.

I'd... have chosen more Spider-Woman over the motion comics animated thing.

I'd... have made those Dark Reign: The List issues actually... you know... mean something...? Like, made them count for something lasting and important within the "Dark Reign" story rather than just coming out and... not really doing much of anything.

I'd... hound and pester Craig Ferguson until he agrees to write an Aquaman comic, dammit!

Random Thought! That was fun.

***

Random Comments! Your comments. My replies. Rather obvious. Trying something new by replying to portions of comments directly. If it's confusing or people don't like it, let me know.

Bill Reed said: People actually watched Corner Gas? Really? Did they enjoy it? Does one have to be Canadian to enjoy it? Some station or another here in God's United States aired it for a bit there, and I stumbled upon it one day... it's like some kind of terrifying black hole of quality.

Corner Gas is a decent, middle-of-the-road sitcom. It only produces a couple of chuckles in an episode, but gets the odd big laugh. Or, it did when it was on. I don't think it's a uniquely Canadian thing, but who knows with you Americans?

I'm tired of this shtick already. Deadpool isn't that overexposed. I proved it with maths. Still, he does have a surprising amount of solo titles, more than I think the market will be able to support. In a year's time, he'll probably be back to one, unless the movie comes out.

Just because other characters appear in more books, doesn't mean Deadpool isn't overexposed. Something like that is relative to the character and how much exposure is too much. Spider-Man and Batman appear in more books? Fine, but we're also used to them appearing in a lot of books. There's a longtime demand for them to appear in numerous books. As of yet, there's an apparent shortterm demand for Deadpool that could easily turn against the character like happened to Punisher and Ghost Rider. Your math, while interesting, doesn't tell the whole story.

CW said: The whole 'Deadpool overexposure' thing is really weird for me. Not because I hate the character, or I'm offended by the character being rammed down my throat, but I guess I'm from the time when Joe Kelly and Ed McGuness couldn't buy readers for his solo series. I grew up with Deadpool as a third-rate Wolverine knock-off (violent guy with an attitude) fighting second-rate characters (Black Tom?) from a second rate X-book (Leifeld-era X-Force, you suck!). That Joe Kelly was able to take the character and make something truely moving and halarious is nothing short of miraculous. The book was constantly fighting cancelation, and although it never really recovered after McGuness left the book, it was still one of the best books Marvel was publishing at the time.

Everything being published today featuring the character is a pale shadow of what was done in that first series. I don't believe that later work of any creator or of any character can diminish the original work, but what's being published as Deadpool comics these days makes me almost say he's been ruined. As it is, I see those books as being the one shining gem in a big pile of turd. And it makes me realize just how funny and vindictive the fates must be to make *now* be when Deadpool is at his most popular among the hoi poi. It's almost like something... Deadpool would come up with.

Agreed. Having read Deadpool books for reviewing purposes at CBR, I can vouch for the lack of funny. They're cute. There's maybe one funny moment per issue. Then again, humour is relative, so maybe lots of people are finding the current books very funny. I did enjoy Deadpool's recent guest-spot in Amazing Spider-Man by Joe Kelly and Eric Canete. That was great.

Mecha-Shiva said: Frisky Dingo, man... what a great show. I ran into Adam Reed at my mechanic's (I had no idea what he looked like, but he started talking to someone at the counter and I'm wondering why this guy sounds like Xander Crews then he said his name and it made sense) but lacked the balls to say hello or anything. I don't understand why Frisky Dingo (or the all-too-brief Xtacles spinoff) never got the same kind of attention as the Venture Bros. Not to take anything away from the Venture Bros., which is great, but... other than the crappy animation, I see nothing not to like about Frisky Dingo. Ka-kow.

I can understand why: The Venture Bros. do self-contained episodes. Frisky Dingo opted for episodes that told one big story, much like a comics storyarc written for the trade. That doesn't make it less good, it just makes it harder for people to get into it. That, and The Venture Bros. is better. Sorry.

Mario said: People who don't like Deadpool or constantly whine about his overexposure are simply in denial of their desire to read a comic that will have no "serious" long term effect. Deadpool comics are all about enjoyment (in the best and worse ways possible).

No, I'm all for those books. I've read recent Deadpool books and they're just not good. Not funny or entertaining.

Jason Arron's Wolvering doesn't suck.

No, Jason Aaron's Wolverine book doesn't suck. That's what made me realise that I just don't care for the character. I'd read an issue here and there and enjoy what I've read, and, yet, I felt no desire to read another issue.

FunkyGreenJerusalem said: That's because it's by an Australian director Gregor Jordan, who makes the most empty and souless films of all time. He won a big short film competition in Australia with a clever short... although apparently it's VERY similar to another short, or scene from an old film. He then made a crime film which wouldn't have gone anywhere, except it had Bryan Brown swearing a lot, and was the breakthrough (in Australia, which led to US work) of Heath Ledger. That got him signed up to a five picture film, and it's been a slow and steady output of dribble ever since. (I know his career because I keep thinking every film will be his last, and am just shocked at watching his mediocrity continue to live). Having seen The Informers the other week, don't stress Chad, just about every character in it will die of AIDS soon after the credits. (Although I think we're supposed to ignore that by combining the stories, and making them all happen at once, nearly every character had, presumably, unprotected sex with someone who had slept with another character, all leading back to the girl who dies of AIDS at the end... AIDS of course being added in, as it's not in the novel, to give the film some kind of ending).

I haven't read the collection in a while, but, yeah, I don't remember AIDS being in any of the stories. Hell, the girl doesn't even die necessarily in the book. Thanks for the background info. From what I read, the director really fucked with the script and cut it down considerably.

I loved when that book hinted that Xavier was in their heads and manipulating the X-Men the whole time. That never went anywhere.

That was very frustrating. Xavier was perfectly happy to alter Magneto's memories and mind, but wouldn't act on a larger scale to solve the problems with mutants and humanity -- or, at least, influence the minds of the right people to move things along. Again, small-scale, status quo-feeding bullshit.

So you're praising Ellis for writing a nice outline of a story, and then publishing it as a story? From memory, the book has a scene where the main characters - all of whom have nothing original or distinguishing about them - are standing in a warehouse. The police are intercut with the heroes talking, surrounding a warehouse, and they kick down the door... but they have the wrong warehouse. That's Chuck Austen level of writing.

No, Ellis wrote a conclusion to his story, but part of it was introducing ideas that could be more fully explored in the future. And that scene happened, but it, you know, made sense in context and wasn't bad. But, I'm not going to change your mind.

Willie Everstop said: Random Thought! What the hell is up with comic characters leaving the word what out of the phrase "What the hell" lately? Is it a creator quirk or just some weird way to avoid censorship? It always seems out of place to me.

I say 'the hell?' or 'the fuck?' Just a variation on the phrase that some people use.

TimCallahan said: Hey, I was an English major and I read ALL the assigned books. (Problem was: I usually didn't read them until the day before the final, and Chaucer isn't really all that great when you read him like that. He may not be great for other reasons -- the jury is still out on that.)

I did that with Moby-Dick since it was the one book in my American lit class in undergrad that we had to discuss in an essay on the final exam. By the halfway mark, I was skipping the chapters on whales, sticking to the narrative. Good times.

Rome said: BTW, did you like the new Iron Man 2 trailer? Any thoughts on the Suitcase Armor?

Looks decent. No real thoughts or judgements since the first movie was good enough to earn the sequel a viewing. So, I'm trying not to care too much, preferring to leave my thoughts until I see the finished product with everything in its proper context.

Jack Norris said: As soon as the words "hero's journey" pop up in an argument, I automatically feel less obligated to read on in a respectful manner. It's become the fans & critics (oh, and let's not forget some creators as well) version of "because, uh... because Jesus, God and the Bible, that's why!" in the way that it's just an empty appeal to authority.

Agreed. But, the endpoint of Peter's progression into adulthood is leaving Spider-Man behind and learning about real responsibility. Just the way it is.

Mike Loughlin said: My problem with JMS' better comics (Midnight Nation, Rising Stars, Supreme Power) is that he spent an awful lot of time on set-up, and very little on delivery. I read all 18 issues of Supreme Power, but got the impression that the story JMS wanted to tell would have taken at least 50 more. Rising Stars started out great (although the art was sub-par), but ended limply. Midnight Nation is a self-contained story, at least, but they seemed to spend most of the issues lurching toward a rather predictable conclusion (I liked it, despite its flaws). I think JMS is good at world-building, but falters when it comes to structuring.

Yeah, that's why Babylon 5 was so great: he had the room to set up plots and characters and world build without it cutting short the eventual payoffs. Comics are limited by page-count and the speed at which they come out and JMS seems to need more room to work. He hasn't adapted to the medium as much as he should have by this point.

That's it. Thanks for reading. Later.

by John Lees (check out John's column, Comic Book Club, at ProjectFanboy here)

Okay, so who reads Scalped? For those of you unfamiliar with the series, Scalped is a sprawling crime drama by writer Jason Aaron and (for the most part) artist R.M. Guera, published by DC Comics’ celebrated Vertigo imprint. Set on the Prairie Rose Indian Reservation in South Dakota, it tells the story of Dashiell Bad Horse, a prodigal son returning to his childhood home and falling under the sway of community leader turned gangster Chief Red Crow. The comic has been widely met with critical acclaim, not least from here at Comic Book Resources. As well as regularly reviewing the book, CBR has prominently featured Scalped right here on the Comics Should Be Good blog. The comic is a constant fixture on What I Bought by Greg Burgas, who offers plenty of insightful commentary on the developing narrative. Brian Cronin, meanwhile, devoted an entire week of 2009’s Year of Cool Comic Book Moments to Scalped. CBR ranked the series at #5 in its Best of 2009 list. Looking beyond this site, Jerome Maida of the Philadelphia Daily News not only ranked Scalped as the best comic of 2009, but as one of the greatest comics of all time.

But the response to the book has not been universally positive. Some detractors have accused the comic of
perpetuating negative Native American stereotypes, even going so far as to condemn those who praise Scalped as part of the problem. As readers of Scalped, are we guilty of promoting racism? Well first, I would suggest arguing on these lines takes us up a blind alley where we don’t look too closely into the facts and simply accept that Scalped and its author are racist, knowingly or otherwise. So I am going to take things back a notch, and ask: is Scalped really racist?

To answer this question, we need to take a closer look at Scalped, and see how the comic itself holds up against such accusations. The most common complaint is the idea that the comic portrays all Native Americans as criminals and lowlifes. While yes, there are violent characters in Scalped and many laws are broken, this is a crime story, and is therefore by its very definition going to focus on criminals. But it should also be noted that thoroughly decent, law-abiding Native characters such as Granny Poor Bear and Franklin Falls Down challenge the notion that the book presents all Indians as scum, while the very worst figures in the book, those most devoid of redeeming qualities – such as psychotic killer Diesel or the amoral, vindictive FBI agent Nitz – are white.

One line of criticism I have encountered demanded more balance, that for every Native American engaging in crime or wallowing in drunken despair we should see another doing good for the local community or enjoying a happy and contented life on The Rez. This to me seemed like an odd request, not only because it would be utterly incongruent with the somber tone established in this particular comic, but because it clashes with the very dynamics of the genre as a whole. Should a comedy have balance by having half its content be harrowing drama? Should a horror have balance with extended sequences devoid of any suspense or peril? Why should the crime genre not be too much about crime? Perhaps, as I shall touch on later, it is more to do with the color of the characters committing the crimes.

I think part of the problem could be that much of this criticism is based on the first few issues of Scalped, or on the first graphic novel collecting the series: Indian Country. In these early chapters, the focus seems to be less on character than action, and while I wouldn’t necessarily say the characters are presented as racial stereotypes, one could see them as noir archetypes: the outsider, the gangster, the wise old drunk, the femme fatale. While there were some glimpses of the depth that was to come – take, for example, the series of near-misses and miscommunications that prevent Gina Bad Horse from getting in touch with her son in issue #4, which in the next issue are given tragic significance - in its beginning, the series felt more like a conventional crime thriller, well told. I’d argue that it was with the collection of issues contained in the second graphic novel, Casino Boogie, that Jason Aaron really began to stretch his wings and the book’s unique voice was truly established. From this point on, the intricate experimentation with time and chronological structure made Scalped less about constant action than dwelling on a single moment, reflecting on it from different perspectives and examining its causes and consequences. Characterization came to the forefront, and those archetypes began to get a lot more complicated, turning into nuanced, multi-faceted individuals. As a result, critiques based solely on the first handful of issues don’t just seem outdated, but rather it’s like they miss the point of Scalped entirely, almost as if they were talking about a different comic.

As an example of this, one character that has been a target of particular scorn is Lincoln Red Crow. Based on his first appearance in the first issue, it might be easy to dismiss him as a one-note caricature, just a typical gangster heavy. In his first appearance, he has just finished scalping some unknown victim, so it is perhaps understandable to assume the character is to become a stereotypical Indian villain. But as the series develops, Red Crow evolves into a fascinating, tragic figure. Red Crow’s soul has been steadily eroded by the moral compromises and Faustian pacts he has made to open his casino. Driven by a desire to bring prosperity to the struggling Oglala Lakota tribe, this casino for him represents these lifelong dreams becoming a reality.

After decades of fighting to secure his people’s future, he has succeeded, but at the cost of becoming the very thing he hates the most. “You done spent too long playin’ the part a’ the poor, old pissed-off ‘skin who wouldn’t be caught dead workin’ for the man,” sneers one associate, “Cause now you are the man, and you don’t know what the hell to do with yourself.”

But still, some would continue to disregard this complexity, concluding that the book’s readers will only view him as a “savage Indian” or a “greedy Indian”. Not only is this an inaccurate appraisal of Red Crow’s story – classic themes like “the loss of idealism” and “power corrupts” are universal, not exclusively Indian - but it severely underestimates the intelligence and morality of the comic’s readers, assuming they must all be as racist as its author is imagined to be. What is the more likely scenario? That deep down, all readers of Scalped secretly hate Indians, and they were attracted to a comic with Native criminals through an insatiable desire to validate their own bigotry? Or that readers of Scalped just happen to like strong storytelling and compelling characters?

Red Crow is a mass of contradictions, with Aaron encouraging the reader to alternatively view him as a tragic hero, a monster, an optimist, a tyrant, a loving father, an abusive father, a mentor, a traitor, courageous, cowardly, spiritual, violent, a man on a downward spiral of despair. But these racially-charged arguments against the book can only see Red Crow as an Indian, with all these other aspects of his character becoming secondary, simply ways of commenting on him as an Indian. In this line of thought, it seems a white criminal can be a fully-fledged character in his own right, but an Indian criminal must be seen as a representation of all Indians. Who then, out of Aaron and his detractors, is more racially progressive?

Here is a scene featuring Red Crow from the conclusion of a 2009 storyline...

It has been said that the reader generates just as much meaning from a text as a writer does, and as such no matter how fair and nuanced writers become in their depictions of Natives, the possibility of someone (over)reading a subversive racist subtext into everything will always remain. I believe Scalped to be the victim of what I call the stereotype that wasn’t there. By this, I mean that it is easy to assert that a creator is racist, but it is more difficult for said creator to conclusively prove that they’re not, meaning a piece of fiction can be burdened with a vague stigma of racism even without any substantial evidence to actually confirm what, with Scalped, too often amounts to overreaching assertions built on skewed interpretations.

Sadly, this mindset only hinders the representation of Natives (and other minorities) in fiction. It can be a vicious cycle, with writers reluctant to tackle minority-based stories for fear of being perceived as racist and so contributing to the underrepresentation of these minorities in fiction. And when a minority character does see the light of day, are they to be portrayed in a manner more “sensitive” (some would say patronizing) than their white counterparts, so as not to offend anyone? What a regressive view of minority characters, where their loftiest aspiration should be to not be offensive! Some critiques go so far as to suggest we should only allow white characters to be featured in crime stories, to be sure no one can equate any minority to criminality. I would say this is a dangerous precedent to be setting in the name of “equality”. It seems like backwards logic to me, that because there aren’t enough minority-focused stories out there, we should further limit them by branding certain genres out-of-bounds for anything but white characters. Isn’t it a better solution to stop viewing characters as “white criminals” or “Indian criminals”, to look past their color for more substantial ways of defining them?

With Scalped, Jason Aaron demonstrates that a Native American character can be just as flawed and damaged as a white character. Far from being racist, I would suggest that is a necessary step towards that sought-after equality.

One could argue that Scalped is too violent, too foul-mouthed, too unrelentingly bleak and depressing. These are all complaints based on what is right there on the page, ready to be received by its audience in one way or another. Accusing the book of racism, however, is dependent on leaps of logic and speculation on both the writer’s intention and the response of other readers that are insulting to both writer and reader alike. For those yet to read the book, my recommendation would be to check out Scalped for yourself – there are currently five graphic novel collections available – and make up your own mind about it. But please, judge it on its merits as a crime story or a character drama rather than on its stereotypes or lack thereof, because Scalped is so much more than just an “Indian comic”.

This book came out two months ago, but I waited until I had some other stuff to review so I could do a few days of "reviews a day." I don't mind waiting a while with standalone long-form novels, though, because it's not like the Next Big Event will be spoiled if you don't read this right away! And there's some minor nudity below. You can handle it!

Naomi Nowak's latest book, Graylight, is published by NBM and costs a mere $12.95. I'm extremely torn about this book. I don't love it, but I do think it's a work that can be enjoyable. Allow me to explain!

On the recommendable side, Nowak's art is astonishing (uh-oh, I just gave away what's not recommendable about it). A quoted review on the back calls it "Pre-Raphaelite," which isn't a bad description (it's actually the coloring of the book that's called that, but it does apply to the design of the book as well, or at least what I know of the Pre-Raphaelites seems to apply) - Nowak's art is lush, almost Edenic, with a bold color palette that I hesitate to call "girlie," but I'm sorry - that's the word I thought of. Nowak uses lots of deep greens and blues and purples, and she puts her characters deep into nature, so that flowers and butterflies threaten to overwhelm the pages. She designs the book so that each page (or double-page spread) is a complete drawing, eschewing panels quite often to build a page in which the separate drawings bleed into each other, highlighting the riotousness of nature even more. She does use panels, but lays them out on the page so that they crash into each other at jagged angles, overlap each other, and generally look "sloppy" - it's not sloppy, because Nowak is going for a deliberate effect, but it's not a "traditional" design or even a frenetic design like we often see in "edgy" comics. It's much more of a melding of the panels, as Nowak uses the panels like she does the larger splashes - as ways to create a holistically pleasing scene. Nowak's attention to detail is tremendous, even though it doesn't, surprisingly, extend too much to her characters. With a few exceptions on a few pages, the characters remain inexpressive, which is rather odd. Occasionally we can see that Nowak can do more with faces, so the fact that she doesn't is a bit perplexing. Nowak is Swedish, and this book apparently takes place during a northern summer, meaning the daylight lasts most of the day - we get a sense of dreaminess from the endless light, which is a nice trick. Because we get a sense that these people just aren't getting enough sleep, we get a feel that they are somehow dreaming while they're awake, and it heightens the sense of strangeness that is pervasive in the book. Nowak's art is a true treat.

However ... the writing doesn't keep up. Nowak is going for a very impressionistic kind of comic here, which is fine, but she does have a story to tell, and she doesn't do a great job. She's telling the story of a young lady named Sasha and the unusual love triangle in which she finds herself. But Nowak, in trying to avoid overexplaining, gives us hardly any narrative whatsoever. What we get is a lot of dreamy scenes where people say things that often have no connection with what anyone else is saying. It's a tough go. It begins on the first few pages. We see a woman holding a baby, and then we see the father leaving. She then tells the baby that she'll never let a woman "capable of this devastation" come into the baby's life, and that he'll "never end up" like his father. The father then committed suicide. It's obvious that the father cheated on the mother and she threw him out, which is not a bad way to start the story, but we can already see that Nowak is going more for a mood than anything else. This becomes problematic as we move along.

In the present, we meet a girl named Sasha, who's a thief. In the woods one day, she meets a man she's seen hanging around town named Erik, who is off to interview a reclusive author for his newspaper. He invites Sasha to come along as his "photographer," but the author - the same woman we saw in the beginning - doesn't like this, and Sasha has to leave ... but not before she steals a book from a shelf in the house. The woman's son, Edmund - the same baby we saw in the beginning - then tries to track down the book, with less-than-desirable results. Sasha is romantically involved with Erik, but Edmund desires her as well. His mother, Aurora, who promised to protect him from women like Sasha, takes some extreme measures. And that's all I really want to say of the general plot, because I don't want to spoil it.

Nowak makes us work too much, however. Sasha doesn't seem to be that evil, despite her thievery. She doesn't really "act" upon Edmund too much, and Edmund doesn't seem to fall too far under her spell, such as it is. Sasha's relationship with Erik comes completely out of nowhere - on one page, they seem to have no connection whatsoever, and the next, they're naked together, and a few pages later, they're arguing about whether Sasha should tell her friends she's in a relationship. This makes the "love triangle" that forms with Edmund even more enervating, because not only do Sasha and Edmund not have much of a relationship, neither do Sasha and Erik. So when Aurora decides to take action, we not only don't completely understand her motivation (as much as we can figure it out; and Edmund is still a grown man, so maybe she should let go a bit), but we don't understand why this random girl has raised her ire. There's a vague explanation, but it doesn't help too much. This weakens the climax of the book.

Nowak, as I wrote, is counting on us to do a lot of the lifting. That's fine - more comic writers should do that. She leaves it up to us to make connections, and for the most part we can, but where the writing really fails is with the characterization. If we're going to infer major plot points, we need to have a clearer grasp of the characters. If Nowak wants Aurora to be seen not as an overbearing mother or a martyr for her child's happiness but some of both, she needs to do a better job with Aurora herself. If she wants us to care about Sasha and her odd kleptomania, Sasha needs to be more compelling. The love triangle falls apart because all three characters are ciphers, and therefore we don't feel anything for any of them. It gets back to the Nordic setting - if Nowak is matching the aloofness of the characters with the dreamlike and slightly surreal surroundings, well I guess she succeeded, but it doesn't necessarily make the book worth reading.

As I always feel when I read a comic by someone who is clearly talented and is also working outside the superhero mainstream, I hate that I don't like this more. If you're interested in Nowak's art, I would recommend it highly. If you're looking for that art to work in conjunction with a solid story, you'll probably be disappointed. Nowak has done two other graphic novels, and I'm actually interested in getting at least one to see how her writing is in those. That's how cool her art is. But on the whole, Graylight falls a bit short. It's too bad.