At first glance, there is no visible difference between the 2012 and 2013 MacBook Air. They look the same, weigh the same and have the same screens, keyboard, trackpad and ports. But there are a lot of differences that you can’t see, but can experience. Both are slim and light. The 11-inch model weighs 2.38 pounds and the 13-inch model I’m testing weighs 2.96 pounds.
Battery life
The most important difference is battery life…
Even on the live-stream, you could hear the developers cheering as Tim Cook and his colleagues introduced new Macs, new versions of both OS X and iOS and a new music streaming service. While none of the announcements at Apple’s World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) are exactly “game changers” (a term Tim Cook used when talking about unspecified future products at the recent All Things D conference), taken together, the announcements show that Apple is continuing to innovate even though some of the new features in products announced today are incremental improvements.
In a blog post, Google CEO Larry Page and chief legal officer, David Drummond wrote that the company has “not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.”
CONTINUE READING at Forbes.com
This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
My kids, now in there 20s, grew up in the VCR era. Back then, we would record “Sesame Street,” “Raffi” and other shows that they would watch over and over again whenever we let them watch TV. Unlike previous generations of parents, we weren’t chained to a broadcast schedule. We also bought videos and I recall watching the movie, “Follow That Bird” with them so often that I still remember some of the lines.
We had to remember to record our kids’ shows, and the selection was limited. Now parents of young children merely have to login to one of many steaming services or websites for 24/7 access to an incredible array of children’s movies and TV shows.
And kids don’t even have to be home to watch. In addition to being able to stream content to a TV using a Roku, Apple TV, game console or other media player, parents can sit their kids in front of laptops, tablets and even smartphones to watch from virtually anywhere, as long as there’s an Internet connection. For content that’s been downloaded, you don’t even need an Internet connection.
Netflix, which charges $7.99 a month for unlimited streaming, has a kids channel that includes “The Rescuers,” “Curious George,” “My Little Pony,” “Sesame Street” and countless other titles.
As part of a deal announced last week, Amazon’s Prime Instant video service will begin streaming children’s content from Viacom’s cable channels, including Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., MTV and Comedy Central. Kids’ shows will include “Dora the Explorer,” “Blue’s Clues” and “SpongeBob SquarePants.”
The unlimited video service is included in Amazon’s $79 a year Prime service that also provides for free two-day shipping for most items purchased directly from Amazon. In addition, some of these shows will also be available in Amazon’s Amazon Kindle FreeTime Unlimited package that it offers to Kindle Fire users for $2.99 per month per child or $6.99 for a monthly family pass. Like Netflix, Amazon Prime can be streamed from personal computers, iPads and iPhones and Amazon Kindle Fire tablets. There is, so far, no Android app.
There are several ways to access PBS Kids content
There is also content available for free. PBS Kids‘ website offers a number of videos, including “Clifford The Big Red Dog,” “Curious George,” “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood,” “Cat in the Hat” and, of course, “Sesame Street.” Kids can also watch PBS Kids content from an iPad or iPhone using the free PBS Kids Video App that features access to more than 1,000 videos from PBS Kids shows. PBS Kids also has a Roku app that allows you to watch shows on a home TV. (Disclosure: I serve, without compensation, on a PBS Kids advisory board).
Nickelodeon’s website has clips from some of its shows, as well as some free full episodes of “Power Rangers Megaforce” and other shows. There are commercials and you can’t skip through them as you can with personal video recorders.
If you know what to search for, you can find plenty of children’s content on YouTube, including shows from a very long time ago. If you search for “YouTube playlist,” you can find instructions for setting up a playlist for the kids to watch.
While streaming is a good choice for many families, there are other options, including downloading videos from iTunes. The bad part is that you’re likely to have to pay for some of the same content that you can stream for free on other services or websites. But once it’s been downloaded, your kids can watch it even if they don’t have Internet access. Unlike some commercial sites, it’s advertising free.
You can find children’s programming in the iTunes store by clicking the down arrow next to TV shows and selecting Kids. There is also a Kids and Family section under the Movies pull-down menu.
Another option is to record kids’ programs on a digital video recorder (DVR). You have to plan in advance but it’s easy to record favorite shows so they’re always available to view. Dish Network’s newest “Hopper” DVR offers the ability to transfer shows from the DVR to an iPad to watch from anywhere, even when you don’t have Internet access.
As with any form of children’s media, it’s important for parents to remain in control, especially with young children. Today’s streaming and download services are just as inappropriate as “electronic baby sitters” as was TV for previous generations. Parents still need to think about what their kids are watching, how much time they’re watching and what else they should be doing — like playing outside, reading or doing homework.
Buffalo Bob and Howdy Doody (Creative Commons image)
Also, as my wife Patti reminded me, there was a time when families looked forward to watching certain shows, whether they were Christmas specials, the occasional showings of “Wizard of Oz” or the regular weekly or daily broadcast of the kids’ favorite shows. I still remember the opening line of one popular show, where Buffalo Bob asked “Hey kids, what time is it?” The response from the children in the studio audience was, “It’s Howdy Doody time.” Now that could be any time.
Source: Based on data from Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues (chart by Larry Magid)
Listen to Larry’s CBS News/CNET interview with eHarmony.com CEO Neil Clark Warren
A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 35% of couples married between 2005 and 2012 met online and that these couples were slightly more likely to stay together and “associated with slightly higher marital satisfaction among those respondents who remained married,” according to the report.
The study, which was led by John T. Cacioppo from the University of Chicago’s Department of Psychology, Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience was based a Harris Interactive survey completed by 19,131 married respondents. The study was commissioned by eHarmony but was vetted by independent statisticians who “oversaw and verified the statistical analyses based on a pre-specified plan for data analyses. Prior to the survey, an agreement with eHarmony was reached “to ensure that any results bearing on eHarmony.com would not affect the publication of the study. Having read the entire report (I have a doctorate in education with a survey research specialty), I can say that it looks very legitimate.
Longer and happier marriages
The survey also found that marriages that began online “were slightly less likely to result in a marital breakup (separation or divorce) and were associated with slightly higher marital satisfaction among those respondents who remained married.” Just under 6% (5.96%) of those who met their spouse online had divorced or separated compared to 7.67% of those who met offline.
eHarmony CEO “shocked” by percentage of online introductions resulting in marriage
eHarmony CEO Neil Clark Warren (Photo: eHarmony)
In an interview, eHarmony CEO and Founder, Neil Clark Warren, said that he commissioned the survey because he “wanted to see how eHarmony was doing and I also wanted to see generally how much people were using the Internet to explore the possibility of their getting married and getting matched to someone.” He said he and his colleagues were “shocked when we found 35% of all of those marriages involved people who had met on the Internet.” As per satisfaction rate (eHarmony scored highest), he claimed that “we do a better job of introducing people than people off the Internet.” He pointed out that “we make them go through five stages of communication before they even get the other person’s name. He also said that dating sites provide “a pool of possibilities to date and eventually marry that’s much much larger than you can assemble on your own.”
This post first appeared on Forbes.com
This post is an expanded version of an article that first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
By Larry Magid
Media companies, governments and courts have long debated where to draw the line on what speech should be permitted and what should be banned. The FCC, for example, has strict limits on what can be broadcast on radio and TV. Cable, print and online media outlets — which have no government censors — still have policies that limit what they publish, broadcast or post
There are even some legal limits on speech in the United States, where we have our cherished first amendment. Child pornography, for example, is not protected speech.
Social media companies must also grapple with what to permit and what to ban. One difference between social and traditional media is that social media companies’ content providers are their members — not professional journalists. Facebook doesn’t make editorial decisions the way a newspaper or broadcaster would. It publishes anything anyone posts as long as it doesn’t violate its “community standards” that ban users from posting pornography and limits displays of nudity. There are also restrictions on violence and threats, encouragement of self-harm, bullying, harassment and hate speech.
A close read of these community standards illustrates that they aren’t always cut and dry. “Facebook does not permit hate speech, but distinguishes between serious and humorous speech,” the standards say. They also say, “we understand that graphic imagery is a regular component of current events, but must balance the needs of a diverse community. Sharing any graphic content for sadistic pleasure is prohibited.”
Hard to get it right
With certain types of speech, companies like Facebook are dealing with competing rights. One could argue that even bigots have a right to spew their venom but one can also argue that women and others who feel threatened by speech that, in some cases, advocates hate and violence, have a right to few safe and secure from vitriol that could encourage some to harm them. It also gets complicated for global companies. Europe, for example, has laws against some types of hate speech that, in the U.S., is considered protected speech. In Turkey, as Jeffrey Rosen pointed out in the New Republic, it’s against the law to insert the country’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
Sometimes they have trouble getting it right.
A couple of week ago Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman and Laura Bates wrote an “Open Letter to Facebook,” on the Huffington Post, accusing the social network of allowing “groups, pages and images that explicitly condone or encourage rape or domestic violence.”
A campaign spearheaded by Chemaly and the group Women, Action & the Media (WAM) called upon Facebook users to pressure advertisers to pull their ads from the service until Facebook banned gender-based hate speech on its site. Nissan and a number of other advertisers pulled their ads, according to The Associated Press.
Although these and other images have likely already been removed from Facebook, WAM’s website has examples, including one that depicts a woman with the caption “Win her over with chloroform: The way real men get the girl” and another depicting a beaten woman and a fist-wielding man that says “women deserve equal rights. And lefts.
Chemaly, who said in an interview that some of the worst images and videos weren’t posted, referred to some these posts as ”human rights violations being used as entertainment.”
Facebook responds
Last Tuesday, Facebook responded by pledging to update the guidelines its support staff use to decide whether to pull down reported cases of hate speech. In a blog post, Facebook’s Vice President of Global Public Policy, Marne Levine acknowledged, “In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.”
Facebook’s community standards clearly prohibit attacking people based on their “race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.” But the service has allowed for some images that have either attempted to be humorous or are purportedly posted as a commentary on what most would consider distasteful speech or images.
Defining hate speech
In other words, there is some question as to how to define hate speech. For example, it might be considered hate speech to say “All women are sluts,” but it might be acceptable to say, “sluts are good.” Calling an individual woman a slut would probably be considered bullying but if that person were a celebrity, it might be permitted. One can get away with expressing hatred for Judaism, but not for hating Jews. Sometimes the distinctions are ever more subtle. It’s hard enough for legal scholars, ethicists and judges to get this right, let alone support staff dealing with an enormous number of potentially offensive images and posts.
On stage at the Wall Street Journals’ All Things Digital conference last week, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said the company “already took down everything that people were protesting about.”
Sandberg referred to “a real tension between creating a safe and protected community and free expression” and claimed that Facebook is “the most protective site to make sure there’s not violence against women.”
Sandberg didn’t pledge to take down all instances of what she called “crude humor,” but she said Facebook is no longer allowing it to be posted anonymously. “Put your name on your sexism,” she said. (Here’s my live blog of her talk)
Last week’s agreement between Facebook and the coalition of groups that protested its content policy is only a start. As Chemaly put it, “the devil is in the details.” But when it comes to speech, there will never be universal agreement as to what is and isn’t acceptable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes has a hard time agreeing speech issues. It’s a tough job for Facebook, but as proprietors of a service with a global membership nearly four times the population of the U.S, it’s a responsibility they have to face.
More:
New York Times editorial “Hate Speech on Facebook”
The Delete Squad: Google, Twitter, Facebook and the new global battle over the future of free speech (Jefferey Rosen in the New Republic)
The global free speech experiment for participants of all ages (Anne Collier, NetFamilyNews)
Why Facebook and Google Should Err on the Side of Free Speech (LarryMagid, Forbes)
Disclosure: Larry Magid is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a nonprofit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from Facebook and other companies.
There are a lot of good reasons to have strong and secure passwords. Not only does it protect you, but it protects the rest of us as well. Enabling intruders to break into your accounts puts undo stress on networks that affect everyone.
It doesn’t have to be difficult to have strong passwords that are easy for you to remember but hard to others (or machines) to guess. Here are some basic tips:
20 year old safety guide completely re-written
by Larry Magid
I’m excited to announce the 20th anniversary edition of Child Safety on the Information Highway. I know, the title is really dated but the content is all new. When I wrote the booklet, people really did use the term “information highway.”
Written in 1993, the booklet was published in early 1994 by National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). The organization distributed millions of copies and it soon became the basis for much of Internet safety advice during the 1990s. The FBI and other agencies and organizations around the world excerpted the document and it was reposted on countless websites including my own site, SafeKids.com. Over the years I’ve revised the booklet a bit until NCMEC retired it in 2005. But until now it was woefully out of date.
When reviewing traffic statistics for SafeKids.com I realized that it’s still one of the site’s most popular pages so, since people are still clicking on it, I decided it was time for a re-write.
The guide had good advice for the early to mid-90′s, but the Net has changed dramatically since the booklet was first written. Advice such as “keep the computer in a family room rather than the child’s bedroom” seems almost quaint in the age of mobile devices (though it’s still a good idea to recharge your devices away from the bedroom at night). The guide also suggested that kids should avoid posting pictures or disclosing the name of their school but — in today’s social media world — that advice, too, is a bit unrealistic.
The other thing that’s changed is that we now have 20 years more experience and a lot of great research from organizations like the Crimes Against Children Research Center, the Pew Internet & American Life Project, the Center for Innovative Public Health Research Center and the Cyberbullying Research Center. With this research, we now have a much better understanding of risks as well as how young people use the Internet and how most young people are more savvy than many adults give them credit for. Thanks to the research advisory board of the Internet Safety Technical Force, for example, we now know that “The psychosocial makeup of and family dynamics surrounding particular minors are better predictors of risk than the use of specific media or technologies.” The Crimes Against Children Research Center taught us that “publicity about online ‘predators’ who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is largely inaccurate,” and there has been a great deal of research to show that cyberbullying — while a serious problem — is far from an epidemic. And recent studies have shown that the panic over “sexting” is way overblown.
Still, parents are rightfully concerned about the well-being of their children as they use connected computers, phones, tablets, game consoles and even Wi-Fi enabled media players like the iPod Touch. And while the net may not be as dangerous as some people thought back in 1993, there are still things we need to think about to help kids protect not just their safety but their privacy and their peace of mind.
The new guide has links to tips and advice from ConnectSafely.org, the non-profit organization that I co-direct along with Anne Collier.
Like the first edition, the guide covers issues parents worry about including:
And the guidelines for parents section includes such points as:
The new edition is a bit long (4,000 words) but so was the original (here’s the 1998 edition). And now I no longer have to apologize for it being out-of-date.
Twitter is creating a new way to make money for itself and media partners with a service called Twitter Amplify. On its blog, Twitter said that the company “has further amplified the social TV conversation with real-time, dual-screen sponsorships and in-Tweet video clips from broadcasters.”
Here is an example of an NBA tweet that features an instant reply preceeded by a short commercial.
Twitter has also announced partnerships “to extend the instant two-screen viewing experience” with other broadcast partners including BBC America, FOX, Fuse and The Weather Channel. Other “multi-screen” partners include A&E, Bloomberg TV, Clear Channel Media, Conde Nast, Discovery, MLB and Time, Inc., according to Twitter.
Advertisers now have access to a special dashboard that lets them see when an ad appeared on TV in specific markets. With that information, the company can send out promoted tweet to reinforce the messaging in the ad. “Through this, the advertiser is able to measure how socially responsive people are to the TV campaigns and vice versa,” said TechCrunch in its report on the service.
Users, says Twitter, “can look forward to seeing more great, relevant content from these partners!”
This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
By Larry Magid
The camera in your phone can be used as a scanner (image: Apple, Inc.)
Like most people, I carry a digital camera with me everywhere I go. But of course, it’s not a stand-alone camera; it’s built into my smartphone. Even most not-so-smart “feature phones” now have built in cameras.
The obvious use for such cameras is to take pictures of friends or nearby attractions, but there are lots of other things I do with mine that fit more into the “productivity” category.
For example, if I’m on a business trip and incur a reimbursable or tax deductible expense, I immediately take a picture of the receipt and then email it to myself with a subject like “cab receipt.” Then, when I get home, all my receipts are on my computer, ready for processing. It sure beats having to carry around all those slips of paper and it reminds me to add it to my expense report.
When I park my car or check luggage, I take a picture of the claim check. I’ve even been known to email it to my wife — not as a romantic remembrance of the trip but in case I lose both the ticket and my cellphone. And, since I’m inclined to forget where I park, I’ll take a picture of the street signs at a nearby intersection or the sign in the lot that designates the section I’ve parked in.
I also use the camera to take pictures of my boarding pass when I get on a plane. If the airline fails to credit me for the flight in its frequent flier program, I have the evidence I need. If I see a poster about an event that I might want to attend, I snap a picture of it so the details are right at hand.
Lots of people use their phones to take pictures of their meals at restaurants. I only do that if it’s amazing looking, but I have been known to take a picture of the menu or the label on the wine bottle if it’s one that I might like to buy for home use. I sometimes use the RedLaser app to scan the bar code to find out how much the wine costs at retail.
When I was in Moscow last year I took a subway from my hotel to Red Square. As I looked up to make a mental note of the station name, I noticed it was in Cyrillic. Not only did I have no idea how to pronounce the name, I knew that I wouldn’t be able to decipher it when it was time to return. So, I took a picture of the sign with my phone and, when it was time to return, showed it to a station agent who pointed me in the right direction.
If you have young children, they are probably producing all sorts of artwork at home and at school. All of their drawings are, of course, precious but at some point the quantity becomes overwhelming. You have limited wall (or refrigerator door) space to display them and it’s even a bit of a task to file them away for later reference. That’s where you cellphone camera comes in. Snap a picture and you cannot only save them forever, but email them to friends or post them on Facebook for all to see. I often get a chuckle when my niece Jane shares her 12-year-old daughter’s creative cartoons and drawing on Facebook.
The cameras in many modern smartphones now have high enough resolution to create pictures that look good in print as well as on screens, and there are apps that can turn collections of smartphone images into picture books.
Artkive, which runs on iPhone and Android, bills itself as “the clutter-free way to save your children’s artwork. ”
The app, which is free, enables you to enter the names and ages or grades of each child. Each time you take a picture of a child’s artwork, you have the option to share it with people Facebook or send it to people via email. Artkive automatically stores the picture on its cloud-based servers and it can email you a copy so you can download it and store it on a PC or Mac. Users can also order bound picture books of your child’s creations. The books cost at $25 for 20 pages plus $1 for each additional page.
Artkive founder Jedd Gold said that parents are also using the app to archive writing samples, report cards and other milestones from their children’s lives.
So, that little camera in your phone is more than a camera. It’s scanner and a tool to help remember those little things we tend to forget.
