I would be up for sweding
- LOST at Gänsehäufl and
- Reservoir Dogs at some old market hall in Simmering.
Unfortunately I don’t call a VHS-camera my own, but that should be easy to overcome…
Archive for the 'Random Box' Category
Page 2 of 33
My favorite video podcast, Cool Hunting, got a little confused lately and pushed this amazing breakdance clip down to my iTunes instead of the announced Mika Rottenberg video. I’m glad they did.
Who would have thought that Tchaikovsky and b-boys/girls go so well together!
I can probably list more than a hundred studies, reports or articles dealing with the negative impact of cars on modern city structures. But none of them illustrates the benefit of car-free cities so well as the image below does:
City of Münster showing the amount of space occupied if the same group of people would go by car, bus or bike.
Which street would you prefer for living: the one packed with cars or the one where kids could play on?
I never owned a car and don’t plan to do so. My mobility is based on bike, public transport and car sharing and I can’t complain about a low standard of living. [via Helge]
I don’t understand why so many people complain about the recently introduced video feature on Flickr.
90sec won’t turn Flickr into another YouTube – Flickr already haz cat photos btw – but 90sec allow users to create interesting versions of their static images.
I’m looking forward seeing more long photos on Flickr!
Some news do make me wonder if the proverb
There is no such thing as bad publicity
still remains true.
… and got a date with Anna Kournikova …
… right after my meeting with Matt Damon.
Just another Google April Fools’ Day project. In our company we definetely need to talk about resources on April Fools’ Day projects. This seems fun!
I wonder if it was 70, 20 or 10 percent project…
How does it work?
Gmail utilizes an e-flux capacitor to resolve issues of causality (see Grandfather Paradox).
How come I only get ten?
Our researchers have concluded that allowing each person more than ten pre-dated emails per year would cause people to lose faith in the accuracy of time, thus rendering the feature useless.
Their findings:
N = Total emails sent
P = Probability that user believes the time stamp
φ = The Golden Ratio
L = Average life expectancy
[via GWB - Happy Aprils' fools day!]
Last night we attended a great talk given by Amy Walters (political analyst for CNN) about the upcoming US elections and the ongoing democratic primaries. Because of recent private changes I got somehow involved into US politics. Even though I’m just an observer from outside, it’s interesting to watch the political process and how the political landscape of the US seems to change (oh, there it is, the “c” buzzword!) right now.
Anyways, I found especially one quote of Amy Walters interesting. The discussion was about how many people one politician attracts to come and fill up civic centers compared to the other. It’s often seen as indicator for popularity. But, as polls show, it’s not. At least the number of people going to civic centers doesn’t reflect the polls in any sense. It’s a matter of the target group: civic centers are filled up by the “rally people”. People who have time and money to go there.
It made me think about the hype around Web 2.0, the next big thing to generate millions page views and create so much more awareness about your product.
Most Web 2.0 services still only attract the “rally people”: people who have time to spend online and participate in whatsoever web service or people who are somehow professionally involved (mostly techies and PR guys). Or people who spend their saturday afternoons to write blog posts about themselves instead of doing their weekly grocery shopping.
I think all the countless Web 2.0 services, all the effort, still focuses on a very limited group of society.
Although it’s fascinating to see politicians heavily using Web 2.0, their real business, collecting votes, lies outside the web. That’s what polls teach us. The next president isn’t going to be elected by YouTube views, Facebook friends or Blog subscribers, but by real people with real issues they are concerned about.
Adobe’s Photoshop Express is a great online photo editor, no doubt about that, but it’s not free (as in free beer). In exchange for using Photoshop Express, Adobe wants your photos.
If you read the General Terms, you’ll find under point 8. Use of Your Content. letter a. the following paragraph [via SPON]:
Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
As I understand it, Adobe, for instance, reserves the rights to sublicense your photos in Adobe Stock Photos to third parties. Without sharing the revenue with you of course. After all, Adobe already offered you its service Adobe Photoshop Express for “free”.
To me, that’s a show stopper for using Adobe Photoshop Express. Luckily there are other excellent online photo editors around who don’t claim such farreaching rights on your content like Adobe does: picnik, pixer.us or flauntR to name only a few of them.