To display the most relevant entries to you in priority,
vote for the stories you are interested in
()
and reject those that you are not interested in
()
Le projet de Renaud Hantson (Satan Jokers) sort son 5ème album ce 19 mars. Problème:
la pochette présentant une paire de fesse et le mot "anal" doit être censurée
pour être admise dans les grandes enseignes!
"La pochette de Furious Zoo ("A.O.R. - Furioso V") CENSUREE !!!
Nous venons d'apprendre que plusieurs magasins (et non des moindres) avaient refusé le
nouvel album de Furious Zoo lors du passage des ...
Comme depuis le début du Tournoi, le pack tricolore a démoli son homologue anglais
et pris une part prépondérante au succès du XV de France. A l’image de
Nicolas Mas, excellent au Stade de France, les avants français ont tout emporté sur
leur passage.
Une bombe placée sur une bicyclette a
explosé dimanche au passage d'un fourgon de police dans la ville de Quetta dans le sud-ouest
du Pakistan, faisant au moins deux morts et 12 blessés, selon la police.
· Liberal Democrat 'ready to be chancellor'
· Whitehall mandarins prepare for coalition
Vince Cable has held unprecedented and detailed talks with the top official at the Treasury about
the Liberal Democrats' economic policies – and declared himself willing to
serve as chancellor after the next election.
As Whitehall gears up for a possible hung parliament, Cable told the Observer that he
had been questioned by Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury's permanent secretary, about what the
Lib Dems' demands would be in a coalition with Labour or the Tories.
Cable was unaware of such meetings having taken place with Lib Dem shadow chancellors before
previous general elections. The talks were a sign that the Treasury was "taking seriously" the
prospect of his party playing a leading role in economic policy in what could be the first hung
parliament since 1974.
"He wanted to know what we attached priority to. He wanted to know what we felt strongly about,"
Cable said, adding that his ideas on tax and spending were well received. He didn't say to me:
'Yes, minister, but you can't do that'."
Cable, whose credibility has grown throughout the economic crisis, made clear that, if he was to
be offered the chancellorship in a hung parliament, he would jump at the chance. He did not want
to be "the most unpopular person in Britain" as public spending is slashed, he said, but added:
"I wouldn't be in this business if I wasn't willing to take the responsibility if it was to come
my way."
It comes as two more opinion polls point to a hung parliament. An ICM survey for the News of
the World puts the Tories six points ahead on 38%, and research by YouGov for the Sunday
Times suggested the party enjoyed a seven-point advantage.
David Cameron and his shadow cabinet have already held talks with senior Whitehall mandarins in
preparation for a likely handover of power. But talks with a third party take place only where
there is a serious prospect of it holding the balance of power.
Downing Street and the Treasury said Alistair Darling would present a "budget for growth" on
Wednesday, portraying Labour as the party to nurse the economy back to health, with investment in
jobs and industry, and warning that the Conservatives would jeopardise that with premature
spending cuts.
The chancellor has little room for manoeuvre in pre-election giveaways, but one idea being
seriously considered is to delay a 3p rise in petrol duty. Darling will announce a £1bn
green infrastructure fund to invest in low-carbon technology and extend job schemes to help
unemployed young people into work.
While the deficit is expected to be as much as £10bn below the £178bn forecast in his
December pre-budget report, the Treasury stresses the focus will be on the chancellor's
commitment to halve the deficit within four years. "It's a boring budget," said a No 10
source. "He may extend the odd payment here and there, but it is about stability and jobs."
In his weekly podcast, Gordon Brown states today that the recovery remains "fragile and in its
infancy". The prime minister says that Labour's commitment to cut the deficit is
"non-negotiable", but stresses that investing in jobs and programmes for industry is a way to
reduce it in the medium term.
"It means not taking away the extra support too soon, which risks setting back the recovery and
tipping us back into recession... If we allow unemployment to run riot, as happened in previous
recessions, that will cost us more and add to the deficit," he says.
Cable made clear he would have serious reservations about working with either Labour or the
Conservatives. "I'm worried about both," he said. "If either of them came back, Gordon, given his
history, will be in denial about difficult decisions, and the Tories are in danger of doing
foolish, precipitate things that could make the situation a lot worse."
Cable was noticeably more critical of the Conservatives' response to the financial crisis, saying
that they should score "nul points" for failing to grasp the seriousness of the situation. "They
haven't done anything to attract praise, because they completely and totally misunderstood the
problems."
By contrast, Labour had had a "purple passage" in the autumn of 2008, when Brown led
international efforts to recapitalise the banking sector after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The Conservatives sought to seize the initiative on reforming the bloated financial sector this
weekend, promising to implement a US-style tax on banks if they win the general election, instead
of waiting for an international consensus to emerge, as Labour has promised to do. Cameron
spelled out the measure in a speech about taking on the "vested interests" in society, comparing
the battle to constrain the banks today with Margaret Thatcher's attack on union powers in the
1980s.
Lord Myners, the City minister, said: "This ill-thought-out Tory briefing has all the hallmarks
of a plan made up on the hoof."
Lundi :
Après un passage d'une heure sur BFM Radio, déjeuner avec la délicieuse
Marjorie Paillon journaliste de BFM TV / France 5. Oui, oui, délicieuse et punchy. Elle
déménage la demoiselle, elle avance et elle veut faire avancer. J'aime beaucoup ces
femmes du web qui ne ressemblent ni à des putasses ni à des camionneuses. A suivre.
Mardi :
Évidemment à la soirée de Relancement de France Soir (j'ai zappé
celle du Bus). Évidemment. Des peoples dans tous les sens, des politiques de droite
partout et des journalistes de gauche (France Soir recrute...). Notamment Emmanuel Beretta du
Point qui tente d'arracher des mots d'Alexandre Pugatchev sans se présenter. Je l'ai
coincé. Je n'aime pas cette méthode de rapace. Elle ne grandit pas le métier
de journaliste.
Mercredi : Atroce nouvelle d'une amie alors enceinte m'annonçant la perte
de ses jumelles. J'ai eu un mal fou à enregistrer ma chronique sur France
Info.
Jeudi : Le
matin en mode recruteur pour du luxe, déjeuner avec un vidéaste de talent,
l'après midi en mode juré pour Ambassadeur de Star, en début de
soirée chez André pour célébrer des blogueuses puis passage à
Art Paris parce que j'aime l'art contemporain. Voi-là.
Vendredi : Filage pour la soirée du 24 mars qui s'annonce chaude
(invitation
ici). Je serai le seul à défendre les blogueurs au fond : ni agence,
ni journaliste. Les autres ont des intérêts professionnels dans l'histoire.
Samedi : L'art de la sieste. Un art majeur qu'il faudrait apprendre dans les
écoles de nos élites. Ces instants où la somnolence se dispute aux images
éveillées. Contemplation.
Dimanche : "Tant de mains pour transformer ce monde, et si peu de regards pour
le contempler !" Julien Gracq. What else ?
Vu, telephonu, skypu (hors Les blogueuses de
André et leurs - déjà - très nombreuses clientes !):Pierre Abruzzini, Perséphone, Stéphane Zibi,
Violette, Christophe Rémy, Thomas Rivoire, Xavier Moisant, Petites Phrases, David Abiker,
Thomas Clément, Elysee Inside, Guy Birenbaum, Floriane Pelletier, Duel au soleil, Olivier
Godest, Charles Liebert & Vinvin.
En avril 2004, Bernard Edelman, philosophe et éminent juriste spécialiste de la
propriété intellectuelle publie Le Sacre de l'auteur aux éditions du Seuil.
Dans un article du Figaro du 22 avril 2004, un journaliste pointe du doigt le fait que Bernard
Edelman aurait puisé de nombreux passages dans une thèse de doctorat très
brillante soutenue en 1999 sur l'histoire du droit d'auteur et que certaines citations
procèdent des mêmes découpages. L'article fera couler beaucoup d'encre et
Bernard Edelman poursuivra son auteur pour diffamation. Cette affaire ne manque pas d'attirer
l'attention d'Hélène Maurel-Indart, professeur à la Faculté des Lettres
de l'Université François-Rabelais de Tours et spécialiste du plagiat.
President Barack Obama made an emotional final pitch to Democrats on Capitol Hill to pass
healthcare legislation, telling lawmakers that Sunday’s vote would be as historic and
significant as the creation of Social Security and passage of civil rights protections
Virtually every driver will, at some point, get that sinking feeling that comes when your car
doesn't start. Digging out a set of jumper cables to boost a battery is a rite of passage.
Jump-starting a car can be a slightly tricky process, though. The positive and negative terminals
of the booster and "boostee" need to be connected properly or the battery can be blown up. Which
is, you know, sub-optimal. Over the past decade, a number of devices have come out to help ease the
battery-jumping process, including portable booster batteries and even jumper cables that plug into
a 12V outlet inside the car. Those plug-in cables will never be connected with reverse polarity,
but they might not be able to carry enough current to actually crank your engine.
Enter the Michelin Smart Jumper Cable. Instead of the usual color-coded clamps for your battery's
positive and negative terminals, the cables are all Michelin blue. Halfway down the cable is a box
of electronic smarts. Just put one clamp on the positive terminal of the battery and the other on
any piece of bare metal and the electronics will detect whether you've made a complete circuit and
illuminate an LED on the central box. When the second battery is connected, the electronics
automatically determine the polarity and switch it as needed. A set of these smart jumper cables
runs about $30 to $40.
Rhys Ifans will be playing
Luna Lovegood's father Xenophilius in the upcoming Harry Potter
and the Deathly Hallows, and we asked him what it was like joining that world while
talking to him at SXSW for his latest film Mr. Nice. He had a rather unique analogy for
the honor of being cast in the series, which you can read below or listen to the audio at the
bottom of the post.
Cinematical: Speaking of Harry Potter, was that a weird world to step into?
Rhys Ifans: No, it wasn't. It was a rite of passage, in a way. There is no way in
English culture that I would be rewarded for my endeavors. I am a bad boy from beginning to end.
So, as an actor, being in Harry Potter, you get your stripes. As shallow as it
sounds...
That doesn't really sound shallow at all.
It is a beautiful ... I'm really touched. I was really touched to participate in a ... what is a
trilogy six times?
I don't even know if there is a word for it.
No. Whatever. I am just happy to have been a participant in the telling of that story. I am really
touched. Harry Potter is an amazing brand. I am, you know, really touched. It is like
getting a f**king medal. And I am a renegade. It is good. This is not an egotistical thing, but it
is like, I guess, Johnny Rotten gets to f**k Lady Di in the tunnel, before she dies.
Shigeru Miyamoto, de passage à Londres pour se voir remettre un prix récompensant
l'ensemble de sa carrière, a été interrogé sur le statut de Pikmin 3.
"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you
need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a
question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed
against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of
sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are
not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a
believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.
One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere
else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their
entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's
infallible voice of special revelation is found in the Sacred Scriptures. The burden of proof then
lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures.
If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If
God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura
is refuted.
This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to
produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the
table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on
sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr.
White held up his pen and said:
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of
its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the
statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your
purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look
through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar
System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not
do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out,
get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen,
just like yours!" and he's won the debate.
In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not
attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he
must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of
Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained
in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the
mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down
to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."
An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere
besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in
Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the
problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of
Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside
the Bible.
The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the
Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When
someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of
Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to
have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found
in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof
that a large lake is just over the mountain.The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman
Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of
revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon
which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly
determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's
book, Scripture Alone,
chapter five.
Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C.
Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement
itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that
there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical
selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have
always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set
of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and
believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated
word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.
Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the
canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an
infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though
infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a
widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in
providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old
Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was
born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.
First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of
almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding
that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite
not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament
passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to
Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how
from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of
God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?
Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an
accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely
quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source
defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that
"source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership
was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible
authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ
Jewish authority.
How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's
sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are
indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its
words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they
could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my
certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice
of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means
don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.
If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic
claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the
Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which
can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work."
L’équipe de techtoctv a profité de mon passage
à Paris pour m’inviter à l’un de leurs débats :
Quel est le moteur du web ? La technologie, l’humain ou le business ? Une
question à la con du genre « Qui vient en premier de la poule et de
l’Å“uf ? » Depuis Darwin, on connait la réponse :
« Ils viennent en même temps et ne peuvent être
séparés. » La situation étant claire, on a pu parler pour le plaisir.
Voici la description du débat.
Alors que nous avons vécu 2 étapes majeures du web (web 1.0 et web 2.0) et que nous
tentons de définir la prochaine dans laquelle nous entrons progressivement en nous aidant de
concepts tels que le web temps réel, le web des données, le web sémantique ou
encore le web squared, il est temps de se demander ce qui fait courir le web : la
technologie, l’humain ou le business ? Sans chercher à opposer
catégoriquement ces trois mondes ce qui aboutirait à un débat stérile, il
peut être intéressant d’observer quel rôle jouent les valeurs
technologiques, les valeurs humaines et les valeurs business à chacune des grandes
étapes évolutives du web.
Pour m’échauffer, alors que j’étais dans le TGV pour Paris, j’avais
repris les questions posées en préparation du débat et avais fait comme si elles
m’étaient adressées par un interviewer.
– Qu’est-ce qui a donné lieu au passage du web 1.0 au web 2.0 et qui
donne lieu actuellement au passage du web 2.0 au web 3.0 ? Quelle est la part de la
technologie, celle de l’humain et celle du business ?
– Je ne suis même pas sûr de savoir ce qu’est le Web 1.0 et 2.0. Si,
des dénominations marketing, formulées par des entrepreneurs qui cherchent à lever
du fric. Je les méprise. Ils s’essoufflent alors ils introduisent le 3.0. Pendant ce
temps, Joël de Rosnay en est déjà au 5.0, au moins Joël ne cherche pas à
lever de l’argent.
Le temps réel, c’est la base même de l’informatique. Parler du temps
réel comme d’une innovation, c’est tordant. Sur le Web, il apparaît en 1999
avec les flux RSS, en même temps que l’idée de Web sémantique,
dénomination malheureuse qui fait que personne n’a rien compris à cette affaire,
tout simplement de l’open source appliqué aux données.
Depuis 1999, les développeurs et les utilisateurs ont peu à peu trouvé des usages
à ces innovations, surtout aux flux. C’est tout, pas de quoi en faire un fromage. Mais
pour en revenir au débat : on voit que, dans ce cas, la technologie est présente
bien avant les usages et bien avant le business.
Ce n’est pas nouveau. On invente la peinture à l’aquarelle et les peintres se
mettent à peindre en extérieur, des esquisses rapides.
Pour rester dans l’art, le processus inverse existe aussi. Les Å“uvres
interactives et les Å“uvres ouvertes ont existé avant les ordinateurs. Les
artistes ont exploré ces pistes avant même les réelles possibilités
techniques de les mettre en Å“uvre.
Où intervient le business ? Faut pas y aller trop tôt, ni trop tard. Faut faire
croire qu’on tient quelque chose de neuf alors que c’est déjà vieux. Il
faut bourrer le mou des banquiers pour qu’ils crachent un peu de l’argent
qu’ils nous ont volés ou qu’ils ont fabriqué comme les faux-monnayeurs
qu’ils sont.
Si les businessmen innovent, je veux bien les rencontrer. Déjà ils poursuivent un but
si peu innovant, faire fortune, que je vois mal pourquoi ils se compliqueraient la vie en
cherchant à innover.
Exemple Google. On innove en tant qu’étudiant. Puis on entre dans le business et on se
contente de vampiriser ceux qui innovent par ailleurs.
Est-ce que je fais du mauvais esprit ? Bon je vais essayer d’être constructif. Le
2.0 serait le Web participatif (ce Web où des couillons comme moi créent du contenu qui
sera monétisé par les businessmen... vous parlez d’une innovation :
l’esclavage).
Mais Amazon depuis 1996 demande à ses clients de commenter les livres et utilise leurs
interventions pour suggérer de nouvelles lectures. Le Web 2.0 est déjà là. Il
n’a fait que se développer.
Cette idée de participation 2.0 est d’ailleurs encodée dans le Web lui-même
auquel tout le monde peut participer, en créant ses pages et en créant des liens (les
BBS proposaient déjà ces fonctions). Le 2.0 aura était, à partir des
années 2000, une démocratisation de ce processus. La technique se développe en
même temps que les usages et que les perspectives de business. Ce n’est pas profond,
c’est trivial.
Et 3.0 alors ? Moi, j’appelle ça la dictature de quelques mégasites, la
centralisation du Web, son étouffement, la fin des rêves et des utopies... des
internautes victimes du mimétisme qui se ruent tous en même temps aux mêmes
endroits. Voilà ce que je vois dans le Web actuel. Rien de très excitant. Heureusement
qu’arrive l’encre électronique et que nous allons pouvoir nous lancer dans une
nouvelle aventure.
– Les concepts de web temps réel, de web des données, de web
sémantique et de web squared font ils référence à une approche humaine,
technologique ou business de l’évolution du web ? Comment pourrions-nous
définir ces concepts en une phrase pour qu’ils soient compris de tous ?
– Mince. J’ai déjà répondu. Temps réel :
c’est le moyen donné à tous, et même à des robots, d’alimenter
des flux et de les croiser. Twitter ne sert qu’à ça, Facebook aussi... et les
blogs aussi depuis longtemps.
Web sémantique : ouvrir les bases de données et nommer les champs
de manière à ce que nous puissions faire des jointures. J’en reste à la
définition de Tim Berners-Lee. Les autres, je ne les comprends pas. Je n’ai jamais
rien vu d’autre fonctionner.
Le Web2, c’est une arnaque marketing promue par des gourous qui veulent se
faire mousser. On est dans le business spéculatif avec rien de concret derrière. Mais
des mecs vont réussir à vendre leur expertise sur le sujet, je n’en doute pas. Il
y en a qui réussissent à vendre leur grosse quéquette sur Twitter.
– Comment pourrions-nous décrire l’évolution du web pour
qu’elle soit comprise de tous ?
– Encore une fois, j’ai déjà répondu. Le Web est né d’un
fantastique mouvement de décentralisation. Le 2.0 a marqué le début d’un
resserrement. Le 3.0 risque de signer son étouffement.
Ce que je constate : c’est que seuls les entrepreneurs gagnent du fric sur le Web. Que
rien n’a changé pour les créateurs, que leur situation a même empiré.
On nous sert un Web consumériste alors qu’il peut être un environnement de
révolution culturelle pour fuir le consumérisme. Mais je ne suis pas pessimiste. La
bataille n’est pas terminée.
Tant que nous avons le pouvoir de créer des liens entre chacun de nous, des liens vivants,
nous avons entre les mains les armes de la révolution sociale. C’est le sujet de
L’alternative nomade.
Pourquoi je déteste les entrepreneurs ? Parce qu’au nom de l’innovation ils
ne savent qu’imiter leurs prédécesseurs, que reproduire leurs pantomimes et nous
imposer les mêmes codes.
– Quelles sont les valeurs humaines montantes sur le web ?
Pourquoi ?
– La question me paraît mal posée. Il faudrait se demander quelles valeurs
nous voudrions voir monter. Le partage, la liberté, l’entraide, la coopération,
le pair à pair... mais que se produit-il ? Dans certains coins du Web nous assistons
à ce phénomène, mais pas dans sa partie business, cette partie qui attire les
foules, où ces valeurs sont détournées.
Prenez Google. Que réverse-t-il aux créateurs de contenus qui lui permettent de
créer son index ? Rien sinon quelques subsides à la communauté open source.
Google devrait reverser 100 % de ses bénéfices, sinon c’est une
société esclavagiste qui devrait être fermée.
Nous avons les outils pour démultiplier l’intelligence collective. Mais nous devons
travailler notre individuation alors que les businessmen cherchent à nous enfermer dans
l’individualisme, c’est-à-dire nous faire les victimes de notre désir
mimétique. L’espoir d’un côté, une minorité de profiteurs de
l’autre, toujours les mêmes dans leur ADN même s’ils ne portent plus le
costume et la cravate.
Si nous voulons une société de l’abondance, une société où tout le
monde pourra lire un livre même s’il n’a pas les moyens de l’acheter, nous
devons combattre ceux qui veulent installer des robinets sur les tuyaux ou dérouter les flux
que nous créons pour le bonheur des autres.
– Nos outils collaboratifs sont-ils le signe que nous avons adoptés un
véritable esprit collaboratif ?
– Ils nous permettent d’espérer, ils sont des armes pour créer des liens,
pour construire une autre société. Pour le moment, encore, souvent, des armes
détournées au profit de l’ancien modèle top-down. Mais j’espère
qu’à force de les utiliser, nos cerveaux se reformaterons et que nous verrons le monde
autrement... nous n’accorderons plus de valeur à l’avoir mais
privilégierions l’être, passerons de la société des biens à la
société des liens.
– Pourquoi sommes-nous prêts sur les réseaux sociaux à exposer aux
yeux des autres nos pensées et nos états d’âme ?
– Pierre Fraser parle d’egocasting. Tant d’interprétations sont possibles.
Croire un instant ressembler aux people. C’est peut-être grisant. J’ai une
interprétation positive. Pour créer des liens avec les autres, il faut se donner à
eux. Si on s’enferme, on ne participe pas au réseau... qui lui-même conduit
à notre plus grande individuation. C’est un paradoxe. Plus nous nous lions, plus nous
avons une chance d’exister vraiment par nous-mêmes. En ce sens, la transparence
n’est pas dangereuse.
D’un autre côté, trop de transparence, empêche la construction d’une
voix propre. Dès que tu as une idée un peu originale, elle peut être détruite
avant d’avoir mûrie, être solide et autonome dans l’univers des mèmes.
Il faut donc jouer de l’ouverture et du secret. Le secret nous connaissons,
l’ouverture nous la découvrons, il ne faut pas en abuser. Nous devons découvrir
l’équilibre qui nous aidera à nous individuer sans nous dissoudre dans le magma
social (ce qu’est l’homo-consumériste).
– Les entreprises et les marques parviennent-elles à asseoir leurs
présences sur les réseaux sociaux ou sont-elles hors jeu ? Les valeurs du business
peuvent-elles s’y épanouir ?
– Facebook, Twitter, Google... sont des marques prospères dans les réseaux
sociaux. Pour être présent sur un réseau, il faut le posséder. Ces marques
sont hégémoniques. Un peu comme les partis politiques qui créent leur réseau.
C’est la même démarche. Tenir sous sa coulpe tous les utilisateurs. Tout cela
n’est que du business. La seule manière de soustraire les réseaux sociaux au
business, c’est de les décentraliser sur le modèle P2P.
– Le community manager peut-il parvenir à réconcilier les valeurs
technologiques, les valeurs humaines et les valeurs du business ?
– C’est quoi un community manager ? Un nouveau nom donné à une
nouvelle famille d’esclaves. Laissez les gens se gérer eux-mêmes. Arrêtez de
pensez que vous pouvez leur bien.
[Every week, IndieGames.com: The
Weblog co-editor Tim W. will be summing up some of the top free-to-download and commercial
indie games from the last seven days on his sister 'state of indie' weblog.]
This week on 'Best Of Indie Games', we take a look at some of the top independent PC
Flash/downloadable titles released over this last week.
The goodies in this edition include a 2D platformer with a clever copy and paste gimmick, a 2D
action game where you attack enemies by commiting suicide, a one-button effort about the
adventures of a fish with a human-like face, and an action RPG where the characters are depicted
as circular dots.
Here's the highlights from the last seven days:
Game Pick:
'Jump, Copy, Paste' (Arvi Teikari, freeware)
"Jump, Copy, Paste is a 2D platformer in which you overcome obstacles by copy and
pasting parts of a level to build new platforms or create a passage through a wall. Parts which
are greyed out cannot be affected by your copy and paste ability, so players need to work around
those areas as they collect all yellow pieces to unlock the exit door."
Game Pick:
'Siromaru' (Abaruzu, commercial indie - demo available)
"Shiromaru is a 2D action game in which you attack enemies by commiting suicide and
causing a chain of explosions. The longer the chain reaction, the more extra life items appear
for you to collect."
Game Pick:
'Tiny and Big' (Black Pants Studio, commercial indie - demo available)
"Tiny and Big tells the story of a thief who had stolen our hero's most valued
possession - a pair of underpants. The game basically is about him trying to chase after Mr. Big
who had escaped to the top of a tall mountain. Armed with a raygun and a grappling hook, you must
cut pillars and solid rock to build yourself platforms to stand or jump on."
Game Pick:
'Fish Face' (Beau Blyth, freeware)
"Fish Face is a one-button arcade game with three levels to play, each taking roughly
five to ten minutes to complete. Here you play as a fish that uses its buoyancy to move in and
out of the water, avoiding walls or enemies that will hurt our aquatic friend on impact."
Game Pick:
'Dragondot' (Nathan McCoy, browser)
"Dragondot is an action RPG in which you play as a dragon that can only claw at its
adversaries at first, but will gain new and improved abilities whenever it gains enough
experience to level up."
aucun rapport avec le libre mais bon, on a bien du cinéma et d'autres trucs, je me dis que
ça doit bien intéresser un(e) ou deux geek/moule.
Je profite de la diffusion du dernier épisode pour vous parler du visiteur du futur: une
web-série produite avec quelques bouts de ficelles et pas mal de talent. Je l'aime
particulièrement parce qu'elle est auto-produite et sort pas mal des nombreuses niaiseries
qu'on peut voir au cinéma (bon au passage Alice in Wonderland est très bien, mais bon
c'est un Tim Burton, alors forcément).
Un gars ordinaire glandouille dans un parc avec ses potes, quand un mec apparaît pour lui
dire de ne pas lancer sa canette dans la poubelle, que ceci pourrait avoir des conséquences
dramatiques !
Les premiers épisodes sont une successions de sketchs, le gars ordinaire ne peut plus rien
faire sans que l'autre ne vienne le perturber (pour ne pas écrire l'emmerder), par la suite
cela forme une histoire plus construite.
Vous trouverez pas mal d'autre vidéos vraiment sympas sur le site.
Voilà, encore une fois aucun rapport avec le libre (vous pouvez écrire vos 2
commentaires scriptés « mais ça n'a rien à voir avec le libre ! »
et « Les journaux sont destinés à des informations qui ne sont pas [...]
»), mais ça tourne un peu autour de la culture geek (SF), j'aime beaucoup tout ce qui
est auto-produit (d'aucun diront DIY) et j'ai tout simplement envie de faire connaître.
Plus qu'à espérer une seconde saison sous Creative Common :)
This week
we've got a book hot off the presses for your weekly dose of entrepreneurial reading as 37signals founders Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson are back
with their second book in four months. Released earlier this month, Rework, a no-nonsense rethinking of how to successfully
start and run a business, comes hot on the heels of their first book Getting Real: The smarter, faster, easier way to build a
successful web application, which published in November of 2009.
Sponsor
This time Fried and Hansson take a more general approach to business by examining the ways that
new companies are disrupting traditional business practices and making a big splash. They cover
their entrepreneurial bases by reminding us that "no time is no excuse" and that "a business
without a path to profit isn't a business, it's a hobby," but then also elaborate on less
traditional practices that have helped them succeed.
The main theme of the book is to trim the fat and do fewer things better; simplifying every
aspect of your business and doing a smaller number of things at a higher quality is far better
than trying to do too much and a mediocre level. There were times when customers of their
products wanted more features and they refused to comply because it would slow them down and
decrease efficiency. They decry time-stealing meetings, lengthy contracts, childish office
politics and bloated inventories because they weigh down companies from reaching their full
potential.
Rework is a great read for entrepreneurs because it is very focused and
doesn't waste any time with lengthy use cases. The book itself is an example of the principals it
teaches; the quality of a written work is not based on it's length, so why should company be
judged by how many features it offers? Fried and Hansson admit that the book, which comes in at a
dense but brief 288 pages, was originally drafted to be nearly twice as long, but why say in 600
pages what you can say under 300? Another reason the book is a great read is because of the
authors' open and honest tone.
"Ever seen those weapons prisoners make out of soap, or a spoon? They make do with what they've
got," one passage humorously points out. "Now we're not saying you should go out and shank
somebody, but get creative, and you'll amazed with what you can make with just a little."
Other useful and easily digestible analogies for their unique business ideas include comparing
your company to a hot dog stand. They advise that the best way to trim down an inflated company
is to find the "epicenter" by asking yourself, "If I took this away, would what I'm selling still
exist?" The best hot dog stand doesn't worry about the decorations on the stand, or the
condiments - it worries about the hot dogs.
There are dozens of other valuable pieces of advice in Rework that are sure to inspire
any entrepreneur or small business owner. But as LeVar Burton famously said at the end of each
episode of Reading Rainbow, you don't have to take my word for it. Seth Godin, who has
authored several books on business and entrepreneurship including The Dip
which we profiled earlier this year, had nothing but high praise for Rework.
"Jason and David have broken all the rules and won. Again and again they've demonstrated that the
regular way isn't necessarily the right way," says Godin. "They just don't say it, they do it.
And they do it better than just about anyone has any right to expect."
This book is an obvious buy not only because the of the expert advice dispensed by the successful
founders of 37signals, but also because the book is an easy, quick and inexpensive read.
Personally, in a few short hours I was able to breeze through the audio version, which can be
found online for less than $10. But if you prefer reading words on a page, the Kindle version is
also $10, or a hardback copy is just $3 more at some online retailers.
The key issue at the heart of Viacom's case against Google and YouTube, filed in March 2007,
concerns whether an Internet service that probably knows that files are traded or shown
illicitly or without license there, deserves the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act that protect ISPs from liability for their customers' actions. In a
summary judgment motion filed yesterday with US District Court in New York and unsealed this
morning, Viacom is bidding to have the judge wrap up the case -- an obvious signal that it
believes its case is already strong enough.
As US law stands now, a service such as Grokster or the original Napster (not the Best Buy
division that today uses that name) is liable when it intentionally establishes its service for
the express purpose of trading in illicit files. It's especially liable when it finds some way to
advertise itself for that purpose. An Internet Service Provider such as Comcast or Cox is not
liable when its service is used for accessing one of these sites, when it doesn't advertise or
offer these services explicitly, and when a customer can access them without direct intervention
from the ISP. And a video site such as Veoh
is not liable when any measure it might take to stop customers from sharing illicit files may
also conceivably infringe upon the free speech rights of other customers who may not be trading
such files.
Google, the current owner of YouTube, has been arguing the Veoh case in its own defense. But
Viacom's argument -- which courts have been wrestling with for over two-and-a-half years and
which we now know today -- is that YouTube is a different, special case. It's more like Grokster,
it argues, in that it was founded on the principle of gathering an audience around illicit files.
"Defendants are liable under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., because
they operated YouTube with the unlawful objective of profiting from (to use their phrase)
'truckloads' of infringing videos that flooded the site," reads the opening passage of YouTube's
founders single-mindedly focused on geometrically increasing the number of YouTube users to
maximize its commercial value. They recognized they could achieve that goal only if they cast a
blind eye to and did not block the huge number of unauthorized copyrighted works posted on the
site. The founders' deliberate decision to build a business based on piracy enabled them to sell
their start-up business to Google after 16 months for $1.8 billion. The Supreme Court in Grokster
found no legal or societal justification for such intentional copyright infringement."
In a talking points document released today (PDF available
here), Viacom cites various e-mails from various YouTube and Google executives, including
YouTube founders Chad Hurley (CEO) and Steve Chen (CTO). Assuming these excerpts were not taken
out of context, which is possible, they indicate that YouTube's founders were clearly building up
a high-audience business with illicit files at their core, with the intention of selling out to
somebody as soon as possible.
One excerpt has Chen suggesting that YouTube, apparently during its startup phase,
"...concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through
whatever tactics, however evil." Another suggestion, by an unnamed YouTube exec in response to an
non-excerpted suggestion -- apparently asking, where should be get all this content -- reads,
"Steal it! . . . We have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. How much traffic will
we get from personal videos?"
And one excerpt attributed to Chen suggests that the whole legal process of handling DMCA
takedown notices is so long and dragged on, that by the time YouTube should ever comply with one,
it would be too late anyway: "But we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don't see
what will happen. What? Someone from CNN sees it? He happens to be someone with power? He happens
to want to take it down right away. He get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease
& desist letter. We take the video down."
Viacom's argument that Google knows what kind of trafficking goes on via YouTube is substantiated
by evidence in the form of e-mails, evidently sent prior to its acquisition of YouTube, from
executives objecting to elements of what they perceived to be its business model. One message
from Google's then-VP of Content Partnerships David Eun (now with AOL) to CEO Eric Schmidt
cautioned, "I think we should beat YouTube . . . but not at all costs. [They are] a video
Grokster." And in another excerpt, an unnamed Google executive asks, "Is changing policy [to]
profit from illegal downloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?"
Evidence cited in Viacom's motion for summary judgment tells the story of how Google Video failed
to be competitive against YouTube, even though its engineers persisted with efforts to filter out
illicit content. One memo cited says Google Video may have been throwing out 90% of its uploads,
for containing suspected copyrighted material or for being generally indecent.
"But Google's good intentions and compliance with the law were not paying off," Viacom argues.
"YouTube was way ahead of Google Video in the race to build up a user base. Google executives
understood that YouTube's success was largely due to what they euphemistically labeled its
'liberal copyright policy' of freely allowing infringing material. Losing the user race to
YouTube because of the latter's copyright infringement, Google Video executives engaged in a
'heated debate' in 2006 'about whether we should relax enforcement of our copyright policies in
an effort to stimulate traffic growth.' A top senior executive, Peter Chane, Google Video's
Business Product Manager, argued point blank that Google Video should 'beat YouTube' by 'calling
quits on our copyright compliance standards.' Chane specifically advocated switching Google Video
to YouTube's 'reactive DMCA only' policy because 'YouTube gets content when it's hot
([Saturday Night Live's] Lazy Sunday, Stephen Colbert, Lakers wins at the buzzer)' and
it '[takes us too long to acquire content directly from the [legitimate] rights holder.'"
It is that statement which Viacom appears to present as a smoking gun: a suggestion from a Google
Video executive that it should acquire its competitor solely because its allegedly illegitimate
business model is more successful than its own, legally compliant one.
In Google's memorandum in support of summary judgment in its favor, filed after Viacom, its
attorneys do not take the tack or rebutting Viacom's scorching citations -- which, if
substantiated, could theoretically become the basis for future criminal complaints.
Instead, Google reiterates the argument that it's a service provider which, like Veoh, is
entitled to safe harbor since it looks the other way, and does not actively seek infringing
uploads.
Citing the Veoh finding, Google's attorneys argue, "What matters is that Veoh 'established a
system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format
that is readily accessible to its users...Inasmuch as this is a means of facilitating user access
to material on its Web site,' Veoh did not lose the safe harbor 'through the automated creation
of these files.' YouTube is indistinguishable from Veoh in these respects."
YouTube, Google argues, did not have direct knowledge of the circumstances whereby the specific
content Viacom claimed was infringed upon (much of it from Paramount) was shared with YouTube
users. Since Viacom's arguments must, at some point, focus themselves upon the specific
infringing of the content in question, the DMCA protects YouTube on that count as well, Google
continues. But all that may be moot, Google points on, by virtue of the fact that under current
US law, the alleged infringers must have directly profited from their actions. YouTube gains
revenue through advertising.
Writes Google, "A service provider loses safe harbor eligibility only if the plaintiff can show
both that the service provider had the right and ability to control the alleged
infringements and received a financial benefit directly attributable to those
infringements...As with knowledge, the DMCA's control inquiry is specific, not general. The
analysis focuses on the service provider's legal and practical control over the particular
infringing activity at issue. The statute's text makes that clear: The question is whether
the service provider has the right and ability to control "the infringing activity"
alleged by the plaintiff and to which a financial benefit is directly attributable."
A number of declarations in support of both motions were filed today. One supporting Google was
particularly interesting, because it goes to specifically that last paragraph: It's from the
owner of a marketing firm who promoted the works of recording artists who appear on MTV, a Viacom
property. He claimed that some of the very works Viacom claimed were infringed upon through
unauthorized uploading to YouTube, actually were authorized by none other than MTV
itself, as part of the promotion of the artists under his contract.
If Google's interpretation of the law is affirmed, and if this gentleman's claims are proven,
then this whole case could become history faster than a judge can even say "summary
judgment."
With a possibile vote to finalize passage of health care reform approaching, Fox News has thrown
everything but the kitchen sink to rally opposition, with guest host Laura Ingraham proclaiming,
"Let's kill the bill." For example, Fox News personalities have portrayed the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office as unreliable, falsely claimed that a 2006 earthquake did not occur
and attacked an 11-year-old and his family that support reform.
Fox News sets up oppo shop for the weekend
Ingraham on hosting for Fox News: "Let's kill the bill!" Fox News contributor
Laura Ingraham posted the following message on her Twitter account: "I'll be hosting the O'Reilly
Factor on Friday, 8pm eastern. Let's kill the bill!"
From Ingraham's March 19 post
on her Twitter account:
Beck encourages viewers to hold candlelight vigil against health care reform.
Glenn Beck asserted: "It is time that you
have a candlelight vigil. You peacefully assemble in front of your Congressman's local doors. You
go to his office locally, not to Washington. You gather your friends and you stand there, you
sleep there. You make sure the press covers a peaceful assembly of people saying, 'We will
remember your name 'til the end of time, sir.'" [Fox News' Glenn Beck,3/15/10]
The Fox Nation highlights "call to arms" in opposition to health care reform. On
March 18, The Fox Nation published a
headline, "Alert: Jon Voight's Call to Arms - Come to D.C. Sat. to Oppose Obamacare."
Fox & Friends channels GOP on "facts that people need to know" about health
care reform.Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy announced: "So the
Republicans have put out some facts that people need to know about this." Fox News then displayed
images under the heading, "GOP: What you need to know. Facts on the Dem health bill." Doocy
continued: "For instance, they say, what they're not talking about is the fact that there's going
to be a new Medicare tax on capital gains." [Fox News' Fox & Friends,3/19/10]
Cavuto promotes weekend coverage tilted toward conservatives.Your
World host Neal Cavuto has promoted
his upcoming "Health Care Showdown: What's really up Doc?" coverage, which will air on Saturday,
March 20. Cavuto will host conservative radio host Mark Levin, Rep. Jason Altimire (D-PA), Dom
Imus, and Mike Huckabee. Cavuto also promoted Friday's Your World guests, including Rep.
Elijah Cummings (D-MD), conservative radio host and columnist Jeri Thompson, Rep. Paul Ryan
(R-WI), and Republican candidate for California governor Carly Fiorina.
Fox hosts Gene Simmons to bash health care and promote his insurance company.
During Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly hosted K.I.S.S. front man Gene Simmons to discuss
health care. During his appearance, Simmons called health care reform "horrific" and promoted his
life insurance company.
Fox News' weeklong assault: Distortions and falsehoods abound
Fox falsely attributes doctor survey to New England Journal of
Medicine. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Brian Kilmeade, Sean Hannity and Marc Siegel
all pushed the falseclaim that a New England Journal of
Medicine (NEJM) survey found that 46 percent of primary care
physicians would consider leaving their profession if health care reform legislation passes. In
fact, NEJM says they didn't publish or conduct the 3-month-old email "survey," which was
actually conducted by The Medicus Firm and published in an employment newsletter.
Fox News erases 2006 Hawaii earthquake to attack Obama. Responding to President
Obama's statement during a Fox News interview that Hawaii "went through an earthquake" and could
benefit from a health care reform provision that would help Louisiana cope with Medicaid
shortfalls resulting from Hurricane Katrina, Doocy asked, "What Hawaiian earthquake?" In fact, as
Fox News itself reported at the time, President Bush declared a "major disaster" after Hawaii was
hit by a magnitude 6.7 earthquake in October 2006. [Fox News' Fox & Friends,3/18/10]
Beck attacks family of 11-year-old who spoke about his mother's death at health
care event. Following 11-year-old Marcelas Owens' appearance at a health care
reform event to speak about his mother, who reportedly died after losing her health insurance,
Beck asked, "Where was grandma" when Marcelas' mother was sick and attacked her work with the
organization Washington Community Action Network, saying the group was "all about economic,
racial, gender, and social justice for all," which he called, "pesky phrases." [Fox News'
Glenn Beck,3/15/10]
Fox calls CBO score untrustworthy. After the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the health care reform reconciliation package would reduce the deficit by $130
billion over 10 years, Fox News -- led by Beck, Hannity, Doocy, Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer and
The Fox Nation -- attempted to
portray the nonpartisan CBO as untrustworthy and unreliable. By contrast, after the CBO gave
a "favorable" score to the GOP health care plan, Fox praised the office as "nonpartisan" and
advanced false GOP claims about the CBO's findings.
Fox News suggests Dems were bought off to support health care reform. Dick
Morris suggested that Obama "illegal[ly]"
nominated Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) brother Scott "to a judgeship with an implicit quid pro
quo." Rep. Matheson's office and the White House have called the smear "ridiculous" and
"absurd," former Bush-appointed judge Michael McConnell definitely debunked the smear and conservatives
have stated that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job." Likewise, following Rep.
Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) appearance on Fox & Friends to discuss his decision to
support the bill, Fox News displayed a
graphic stating: "What was Kucinich promised? Congressman changed vote from no to yes."
Fox anchors falsely attack House rule as
undemocratic. Fox News anchors, during their self-described daytime
"news hours," repeatedly forwarded
the false suggestion that by using a legislative procedure known as the "self-executing rule" to
finalize health care reform in the House, Democrats would be passing health care reform "without
actually voting for it." In fact, passing legislation by using the procedure would require a
majority vote. Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich criticized the rule as "incredible" and
"passing bills without voting on them," despite the fact that the Republican Party
"set new records" for its use of the self-executing rule in the years following Gingrich's
ascension as Speaker.
Grasping at straws: Fox News regurgitates tired health care
falsehoods
Fox repeatedly inaccurately reported on abortion
funding.Doocy, Hemmer, Kilmeade, Bill O'Reilly, Carl Cameron, Dana Perino and Greta Van Sustren pushed the
debunked claim that the Senate health
care reform bill contains language that would allow federal funding for abortion beyond what is
currently allowed under federal law. In fact, the Senate bill -- which will be considered by the
House -- prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services
restricted by current federal law.
Hemmer perpetuates debunked health care myth: "Could
people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?" Hemmer revived the debunked myth that not buying health
insurance "could lead to prison" and asked: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health
insurance?" In fact, the penalty for
failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time, and willful failure to pay taxes of any
sort can result in civil or criminal penalties.
Perino misleads on Medicare tax impact on small
businesses. Guest hosting on Fox & Friends, Perino
trumpeted the myth that a Medicare
investment tax on those making more than $200,000 would affect most small business owners. In
fact, fewer than 1.3 percent of small business owners would be affected by the tax.
Une idée étrange, qui s’insinue au fur et à mesure de la
matinée en y réfléchissant ...
/! Attention, article écrit sous l’influence d’une forte paranoïa. /!
/! Attention tout de même, il pourrait y avoir un peu de vrai ... /!
Et pourquoi donc, après avoir vu les dernières actualités concernant
l’ACTA, on n’aurait pas le droit à un petit chipset bonus sur nos PC , en
prenant par exemple l’Empire du Milieu comme modèle avec l’idée du
 »Green Dam«Â ,
«Â Les Chinois l’ont fait » dirait Jacques Myard.
«Â Green Dam«Â , si ce nom ne vous dit rien,
c’est dommage, c’est une idée géniale (qui date de 2009) du
gouvernement Chinois afin de lutter contre les sites pornographiques (officiellement) et surtout
censurer encore plus durement (et finement) les sites de l’opposition etc etc ... Certains
constructeurs ce sont pressés de l’implémenter dans leurs machines à
destination de la chine, chose que personnellement je retiendrais (Acer, si tu m’entends ... Lenovo et Sony de
même)
On retiendras aussi que suite au tollé international (et aux nombreux problèmes), le gouvernement
chinois est rapidement revenu en arrière, même si l’installation
de cette saloperie est obligatoire pour les écoles et les lieux publics (comme les
cybercafés).
Et Palladium (renommé NGSCB en 2003) ?
Une idée qui tiendrait du mythe urbain si le «Â Green
Dam » Chinois ne s’en rapprochait pas dangereusement, si le
«Â USA Patriot
Act » Américain n’existait pas, ou si le logiciel espion de la
Loppsi Française n’était que fable (ou le logiciel de sécurisation de
la Hadopi), ce qui n’est hélas pas le cas. Et si on trouvait pas une présentation de Microsoft (ah
merde, c’est pas un mythe en fait ...)
A votre avis, quand est-ce que les Majors (du divertissement) vont annoncer que
«Â pour lutter contre le piratages, nous avons trouvés une nouvelle
technique«Â , qui évidemment ne violera pas les libertés,
fondamentales ou non. «Â Il faudra juste installer un programme sur son
ordinateur«Â . Ah mince .. c’est déjà le cas avec la
Hadopi. Ce qui ne serais
pas un problème majeur, si ce logiciel n’était pas un logiciel
espion ...
A votre avis, quand est ce que l’USTR
(politique commerciale internationale des États-unis) va décider que les
logiciels libres, ce fléau, doivent être éradiqués par tout les
moyens possibles ? Même si on écrase quelques libertés fondamentales sur le
passage, ainsi qu’un moteur quasi-intouchable de l’informatique mondial
?
A votre avis, il y a quoi dans le «Â programme »
que le gouvernement français voulait installer (à distance) avec la Loppsi ?
Avec God of War III vient la fin dÂ’une époque. En effet, après
un passage plus que remarqué sur PS2 et un petit détour sur PSP, le Spartiate le plus
enragé de lÂ’histoire vient finir sa route sur la dernière
née de chez Sony. Car oui, ce nouvel épisode marque la fin de la saga initiée
en 2005 par le studio de Santa Monica. Un adieu donc, mais un adieu en grande pompe, à la
mesure de ce bon vieux Kratos.
Indie game developer Jason Rohrer (of Passage fame) recently took Brandon Boyer on a tour of his
latest project, Sleep is Death. It's a two-player storytelling sandpit with the approachable look
and feel of an old-school computer game, and it'll be out in just three weeks. Read Caught
Sleeping, a Boing Boing special feature:...
Le plan local d'urbanisme (PLU) d'Aléria (Haute-Corse), prévoyant le passage d'une
zone naturelle en zone à urbaniser, a été retiré par la
municipalité sous la pression d'associations de défense de l'environnement, a-t-on
appris le 19 mars 2010 auprès de la mairie.
La vente aux enchères du nom de domaine le plus cher du monde, selon les
spécialistes, a été interrompue pour cause de passage de l'ancien
propriétaire de l'URL, Escom, sous la protection de la loi sur les faillites.
La vente aux enchères du nom de domaine le plus cher du monde, selon les
spécialistes, a été interrompue pour cause de passage de l'ancien
propriétaire de l'URL, Escom, sous la protection de la loi sur les faillites.
A website that sorts everyday the most relevant information to you.
Vote for the news and Matoumba will learn your tastes and the information that you like the most.
It is all FREE!
Find here the history of the stories you found interesting.
Show this to people who share the same interests as you,
and if they use Matoumba, their own votes will fine recommandations to you.
Une bombe placée sur une bicyclette a
explosé dimanche au passage d'un fourgon de police dans la ville de Quetta dans le sud-ouest
du Pakistan, faisant au moins deux morts et 12 blessés, selon la police.
[Every week, 
This week
we've got a book hot off the presses for your weekly dose of entrepreneurial reading as 
Rework is a great read for entrepreneurs because it is very focused and
doesn't waste any time with lengthy use cases. The book itself is an example of the principals it
teaches; the quality of a written work is not based on it's length, so why should company be
judged by how many features it offers? Fried and Hansson admit that the book, which comes in at a
dense but brief 288 pages, was originally drafted to be nearly twice as long, but why say in 600
pages what you can say under 300? Another reason the book is a great read is because of the
authors' open and honest tone.
Billet original de 
Recommandations
;){kind=link}
)
and reject those that you are not interested in
(
)
