klaymor

How could mashups serve international governance? Would mashups serve to make government more effective?

klaymor — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:34:36 +0000

A web mashup is a web application that takes information from one or more sources and presents it in a new way or with a unique layout. The key driving power of the Internet is information, and a mashup is an application that takes that information and shows it to you in a unique way. Is it safe to say that the lines between the governance and the Web are blurry. Well the answer is complex in understanding, but it is first blurred at the content or information levels with the early mashups, and now at the service and process levels as well. We could find that we soon live in a world where it’s difficult to determine where governance stops and the Web begins. Now that’s scary and exciting at the same time…

So, how can it serve for international governance?
Given that mashups are made up of services, and may indeed become services themselves, the organization must now manage these services across the entire lifecycle, from inception through analysis, design, construction, testing, deployment and production execution. Thus, at each stage, certain rules or policies must be carried out. This means selecting, building, and maintaining a registry, repository, policy enforcement, and governance rules engine that is mashup-aware. Moreover, mashups, albeit quick and dirty in some instances, may need lifecycle management as well

Latter, would mashups serve to make governance more effective
My answer to this is very neutral partly because security for mashups is critical, considering that you’re looking to leverage interfaces, content, and services you did not create nor do on your own. As such, you could find that your innocent-looking interface that you mashup with government data is actually sending your r data to some remote server, and thus compromising vulnerability. Care must be taken to implement a well thought out and systemic security policy and technology layer that will protect the value of a mashup platform…

Links to some cool MASHUPS
Hitch Hickers Guide to Planet Earth
Flotzam
WeatherBonk

What does global civil society look like? Where are the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ forces located, and how do they achieve their ends?

klaymor — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:11:45 +0000

Globalization describes an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and trade. However, the term globalization conjures up a panoply of bleak images to many: multinational corporations wielding more power than governments; dirt cheap labor replacing well-paying jobs; and unregulated international capital flows spawning economic bubbles that burst with dire consequences.

On the other hand, a global civil society are institutions and groups that are not part of the global governance, more precisely the growth of Non Governmental Organizations NGO’s. An increase in the number of global NGO’s arose at the end of the Cold War for the purpose of a more integrated international relation. Amongst them,these NGO’s emerged as the most dominant actor because they have provided a network of knowledge that crosses physical boundaries and space (Warkentin & Mingst, 2000).

Well, to answer where these good and bad forces located conjures up a perplex argument because we cannot simply say that laws are created equally across all nations. Even though the world per se is sort of governed by the United Nations with the declaration of human rights. Nonetheless and for example, who is to say that one government is bad from the other because they won’t allow women and children to vote during elections. The laws that are initially created are very critical because cultures, society issues, and also religions may be included because politics are deeply rooted in history. So, in the end global civil society is far to complex to even grasp because each case is different from the next…

MapBuilder
Fatality of victims at traffic light intersections across five (5) casese in Toronto, Ontario as of 2010.

What are the main arguments in the two readings for this week? What version of historical change do you believe in and why?

klaymor — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:12:36 +0000

Translate a phrase from English to another language and then back again.

English to Dutch
University of Toronto is not for everyone (English) – De universiteit van Toronto is niet voor iedereen (Dutch)

Dutch to English
De universiteit van Toronto is niet voor iedereen (Dutch) – The university of Toronto is not for everyone

READINGS
The main argument in the Castells reading simply invokes a provocative view of a changed society poised on a very high potential for strong innovation because in the end–all of us now function on a vast complex of social networks. Castells brings to the table a fresh insight into our changed society in ways that could possibly alter the rules of engagement in our innovation generation. He further describes examples of these macro level networks impacting our lives in ways that have directly reshaped society as we’ve known it and these changes brought on by current technology that has spawned a diffusion of innovative side effects on the social structure itself.

On another note, the second reading– “Of aids Cyborgs and other Indiscretions”–Allison Fraiberg uses the discourses of AIDS to read large oppositions and tendencies at work in our culture. As such, AIDS is one more battlefield between right thinking and wrong thinking. Here wrong thinking is promoted by a reactionary, self-serving, moralizing majority that prescribes a cure for AIDS in “traditional” values to the exclusion of others an that denies the extent to which all our bloods and responsibilities commingle in the vast, luscious, and newly-dangerous circuitry of sexuality

In the end, I prefer the the second take on historical change because it encompasses more on what is happening in today’s world. Globalization plays a big role in the way the world moves through information logistics. We rely on our social networks for constant expansion and knowledge seeking to fix the worlds toughest problems such as HIV/AIDS, POVERTY, TERRORISM, WHITE COLLAR CRIMES and etc. Strong innovations and technological advancements has given rise to new NGO’s (non-governmental organization) that has reshaped developed and developing societies worldwide…

What are the main arguments in the two readings for this week? Which one do you prefer?

klaymor — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:28:03 +0000

CNN : IN CASE YOU MISSED IT!
A fast-paced look at top news events and most dramatic video from the day.

http://rss.cnn.com/services/podcasting/incaseyoumissed/rss.xml

HISTORICAL CHANGE PART 1
NOTE: late post, just trying to catch up!
The Radical approach is deeply more concerned with only one aspect of change. The negative view of Neo-Marxist implies that change has fostered the worst possible things in our world–such as oppression, exploitation and capitalism. The internet for one continues to be an open space for many users thus facilitating an open market for free monopolistic control that would be expected to occur under this approach.

However, on the other spectrum the Cosmopolitan emphasizes, form my point of view, more on one aspect on the technological changes and advancements that is occurring–which is only the positive views. In regards to this view, the the advent of the internet has been a great tool to facilitate democracy and commerce around the globe but its not without negative impacts. he digital divide has proven against the Cosmopolitan’s belief of a ‘Global Village’ being created. Instead this Western view has aggravated other parts of the world and fostered hatred…

Where do I stand in these views on historical change? Well, my preference is in the Post version because it seems to the most relevant in terms of my own personal experiences form past and present. I have grown up in a world that is filled with accessible information that I will continue to experience through out my life time. As the world continues to develop and grow, it catch up with the new social order that is solely based on technology that is self reliant on network systems.

What determines the structure of a folksonomy and why? The code, the content or the social process? What does your answer to this question suggest about how we should understand globalization?

klaymor — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:25:53 +0000

BY DEFINITION
In contrast to a taxonomy, which can be roughly translated as “classification management”, a folksonomy is a classification scheme that uses a crowd rather than experts to parse content. The idea of a folksonomy is closely related to tagging, which has enjoyed great vogue in online circles since 2005 at least.

The word folksonomy is a combination of folks, meaning “people”, and -onomy, meaning “management”. Literally, this can be taken to mean “management by people” and has nothing to do with classification – which comes from the prefix tax- – but the meaning is usually easy to intuit from context. It is also a relatively new word, so it usually comes with a definition when mentioned in text

FOLKSONOMY THEN
The value in this external tagging is derived from people using their own vocabulary and adding explicit meaning, which may come from inferred understanding of the information/object as well as. The people are not so much categorizing as providing a means to connect items and to provide their meaning in their own understanding.

SOCIAL PROCESS
There are other tagging efforts that are done for socially connecting others and others where people are tagging their own information for others. This allows the person to retrieve information/objects connected with that event as well as others getting access to that information/object

GLOBALIZATION
The idea of folksonomies make it easier for us to understand globalization through the advent of social net working sites like FACEBOOK, TWITTER and MYSPACE. Facebook, for example, allows us to upload pictures of ourselves and of friends and family. Facebook also allows users to tag each person in a picture. This is helpful because if my friend uploads pictures of us from a party on facebook and tags me on every picture that I took part in, I can simply look at my tagged photos and check out only my pictures from the party instead of having to go through the whole party album to search for my pictures…

Are wikis an effective means of communication? Why or why not? Why does it matter?

klaymor — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:54:55 +0000

Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly. Wiki is unusual among group communication mechanisms in that it allows the organization of contributions to be edited in addition to the content itself. Like many simple concepts, “open editing” has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users.

However, are wiki’s an effective means of communication? NO! would be my answer because if we take a popular WIKI site, like Wikipedia as a example. The controversy that has surrounded Wikipedia has been greatly profound. The site has literally thrived on the concept of anonymity of its users and contributors. Nearly anyone can add whatever they like to any page. Many people do not see a problem with this as long as they can get their information from somewhere. However, this is definitely a problem. How accurate is a site that allows anyone to add any type of information? Not very.

Also, Wikipedia is not forcing contributors to say who they are, they just feel as though contributors should be ready to prove their expertise at any given time. If they are allowed to be anonymous, they shouldn’t flash around fake credentials. So if you’re are thinking about adding anything to Wikipedia, you better have the credentials to back it up, or at least be ready to add accurate sources to an article’s bibliography. Keep your eyes and ears open for any new site polices regarding this issue.

(klā)~[mawr, mohr]=klaymor[Cleimore]

klaymor — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:47:32 +0000

My name is Cleimore. I’ve never blog about a University Course before. Should be interesting!

To sum me up:
I work like I don’t need the money,
I dance like no one is watching,
And love like I’ve never been hurt
-M.Twain

Digital Divide

klaymor — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:29:48 +0000

DIGITAL DIVIDE refers to those people having access to digital and information technology and those who have little access or no access at all. People living in rural areas don’t have access while people living in the urban areas have access. Since technology has become a greater enabler, the computer, internet, all of these things allow us to communicate, share ideas, thoughts, expressions and collaboration and so this has increased the divide for people that don’t have access to this technology. Since we are living in a metropolitan area, we shouldn’t be worry about the digital divide. We have the best technology and its improving everyday. Every household has at least one computer and connection to the internet. We use all kinds of technology in our everyday lives, TV`s, computers, telephones. When technology keeps on improving, we access the newest technology available to us. Every time technology improves, people in developing countries fall behind and again they don`t get access to those new technology and so it creates an even bigger gap. Some rural areas don`t need in fact, such a new technology since it won`t help them much. For example, giving a farmer a blackberry won`t help him reduce his work load on the farm or anything, so different communities require different services from the technology sector. Also, some rural areas don`t have the knowledge to apply this technology to their everyday lifestyles. My parents have lived in Toronto for a very long time and still have no idea how to operate a computer. They grew up in a farm with no computer and no internet. Although they have lived in Toronto for a very long time, they still don`t know how to use the new technology available to them because they never seen it when they were growing up, and for my parents, having access or no access won`t change their lifestyle. A phone that dials is good for them, they don`t need a phone with a camera or mp3. I think that the best way this gap can disappear is through educating people living in rural areas about technology. Nonetheless, every person should be equally educated with the same access to technology.

I quote this term from Forest Gump because Mr.Gump said it best, “technology is like a box of chocolate. You will never know which one you get…”