Latest Tweets:
Google Chrome Moves Into Third, Past Safari
Ever since the release of Google’s Chrome browser on 2nd September 2008 in beta form, the Internet has watched as its popularity has grown and grown. This weeks statistics from web analytics company StatCounter now indicate that Chrome has taken third place from Safari in the US browser league. Obtaining a 8.97% share of the US browser market. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer still dominates the US Internet browser market with 52%, followed by Firefox at 28.5%. Globally has been ahead of Safari with 9.4% market share compared to Safari’s 4%. The findings are based on data from 3.6 billion page views (874 million from the US) for the week 21 – 27 June 2010, that has been collected by the StatCounter network from over three million websites. Google Chrome is the best browser ever invented. Don’t believe me? Download it here and give it a shot. The lack of a bulky, invasive UI (what is actually called chrome) puts the focus on the page your viewing. The URL bar lets you type in either a search or a web address from the same bar. The only reason it has such a small share of the market is because people don’t know about it. So spread the word. Google Chrome is the best, and it’s here to stay. Could not agree more. My only qualm is that Netflix hasn’t yet configured its instant watch program (I think it’s actually Microsoft Silverlight) to work with browsers other than Firefox and Safari. Otherwise, it’s awesome. I’d recommend the Fastest Chrome extension.
The writer who couldn’t read.
(More at NPR.)
May I just say…
…there’s something about Tumblr that encourages people to create accounts with the most ludicrous names. Every fourth person has a tumblr about “musings,” “tidbits,” “dreams.” They’re “collections”of “cute things,” “beautiful things,” “things I find interesting…”
Somehow, half of my tumblr feed has turned into either (1) kittens, (2) sexy, half-naked people or (3) blurry hipsters.
Obviously, I follow too many college students, and need to dilute them with a few new feeds. These people have a knee-jerk reaction (similar to the one that causes them to Like something on Facebook) and reblog it.
I, of course, do exactly the same thing. Conflectual.org is more like a discerning browser history than a blog. If I think it’s cool, I throw it up. Hopefully, people will see it and like me more. (Wait, you mean, looking at all the cool things I can find on the web, people may confuse themselves and accidentally assign the positive feelings they have about those cool things… to me?! i.e., I can be as cool as the stuff I find??)
That’s the beauty of tumblr. It’s the 6th-grade-self-portrait-collage-assignment delayed by a decade. It’s much better than Facebook or Twitter for creating a particular online personality. And God knows we’d all love to be 6th graders again. (I would be one big BAMF if I could redo 6th grade knowing what I do now.)
Traditional mainstream media beginning to use Tumblr?
Why yes, yes they are apparently. (Good thing, or a bad thing?)
From readwriteweb:
For those unfamiliar with the service, Tumblr is a blogging platform that lets users curate images, videos, quotes, and other forms of media onto minimalistic personalized “tumblelogs.” Much like Twitter, there is a one-way follow function that lets users view a stream of entries from others of their choice. The quick ability to comment, favorite and “reblog” others posts makes the service incredibly social.
As noted in a Business Insider article Friday, several outlets of traditional print media (newspapers and magazines) are suddenly popping up all over Tumblr with their own pages.Newsweek seems to making great use of the platform by posting mainly photos, and quotes - two of the most shared forms of media on Tumblr. The New Yorker also recently joined the service, sharing mainly videos and photos, including high-resolution images of their popular artistic covers.
….
If anything, these new additions to the Tumblr ecosystem provide a human face through which the various outlets can communicate more freely with their readers. Newsweek has been discussing rumors about its impending purchase on the Tumblr, and many of the sites seem perfectly content with posting material would think would be found objectionable on the main homepage or in print.
So is Tumblr the next big thing for traditional media outlets? From the looks of it, the large media outlets seem pleased with the service and the kinds of interactions it allows for. It would not be surprising to see Tumblr become the third common place aside Facebook and Twitter for media organizations and corporate brands to further reach their audiences.
Again, good thing, or bad thing? I’m guessing it will feel like an invasion, if they have the balls to do it.
[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]
Analysis of the ruling on the Google v Viacom case (which Viacom is now going to appeal, I guess?).
Arianna Huffington: “The Web business model is really a flat plate supported on the back of an unpaid intern.”
Nwk: “What is the unpaid intern standing on?”
Arianna: “You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s unpaid interns all the way down.”
Who gets to hold all the ad revenue?
Note from Ron: I don’t think the average reader grasps how many web sites really do operate under this idea. It just shows you that the world is full of people that will work for nothing to be part of something.
"Jonah Hex is 72 minutes long. Just thought you’d want to know that you’ll be paying almost 14 cents a minute for Wild Wild West 2: Megan Fox In a Bustier."
thegreg (via savingpaper)
The Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power
Jamelle Bouie discusses why otherwise-smart liberals believe that the president of the United States “is a member of the Green Lantern corps, and that the only thing keeping his agenda from passage is force of will”: For what it’s worth, I think a few things are at play in this warped liberal view of the president (and really, it’s not just liberals, most Americans see the president as some sort of Dune-esque God Emperor): first, there’s simply no popular recognition that the president is a weak constitutional actor. Campaigns are long on presidential promises and short on the recognition that the president is really limited in what he or she can do. And once in office, the president is the most visible person in government, which leads people to assign the most agency to him, even when it’s unwarranted. Moreover, movies and television habitually present the president as the one person who controls everything in government. In most movies, when the president barks orders, they instantly become law. It’s no wonder that most people have an outsized view of presidential authority; most of their exposure comes from 24 and large, ornate presidential addresses. I’d also add that the optics of President Bush may have changed liberals’ perception of what the president can do. At every turn, we either heard that President Bush was doing “X” thing, or claiming “X” power, and without the context of a unified Republican Congress or a pliant executive branch, it was easy to believe that Bush was accomplishing these things through sheer force of will, when he simply wasn’t. And after Bush, what many liberals really wanted a “liberal Bush,” not realizing that Bush wasn’t nearly as successful as he was portrayed, and that the president isn’t nearly as powerful as they think.
