Blurts

I applaud those who offer resources they create via creative commons and have little respect for those who somehow feel they have a right to use unshared resources created by others.

The ignorance or self-indulgence, it is hard to tell which, of some in regard to products that take both time and skill to create is beyond what I can understand. The Creative Commons option was very appealing to me. It seemed so reasonable to those who felt the need or justification to rely on the work of others to seek work that was willingly offered up. The search engines allowing such resources to be located seemed like such useful tools. Now, what I hoped would be a reasonable solution I could promote also ends up being suspect. It appears that some are taking copyrighted material, tagging these resources as available via creative commons, and circulating these resources to users who assume they are doing the right thing via the search tools (see post from The Register).

I cannot agree with those who claim bits want to be free, this is the new world order, or whatever. Just take a position that this is wrong. Encouraging theft cannot be regarded as an economic benefit no matter how easy the target.

I learned this evening that Barnes and Noble now offers eBook reader software (cross platform and iPod/iPhone) and a strong commitment to a complete collection of ebooks. The reader allows highlighting and note-taking (I did not find these embellishments in my previous experience with the Kindle reader for the Touch). Books are $10 and some free books are available for experimentation (or reading). I assume textbooks are coming – I can see reading/highlighting on a netbook/lapbook and reading for pleasure on a Touch. (images appear below)

This update will likely confuse those who access what I offer from Twitter. I posted this a few days ago, but in a state of confusion deleted it.  It is worth trying again.

ISTE records many of their NECC sessions makes the video available through ISTEVision.

My recommendation would be the Macolm Gladwell keynote (sessions and keynotes), but that is just me.

This from the Journal of the American College of Nutrition (not a journal I have read before) – study evaluating consumption of coffee and non-caloric colas in comparison to water.

Advising people to disregard caffeinated beverages as part of the daily fluid intake is not substantiated by the results of this study.

Ha – coffee is OK.

I was alerted to this study by a post on LifeHacker.

You might get the idea that I am anti Microsoft. I would rather think of myself as pro “other company”. However, when I see something I like, I should say so no matter the source.

I like Bing the search site. I have fallen into using Google by default and I have decided this is not a good thing. If nothing else, I think it is important to encourage innovation and you certainly do not do that if you fail to give those who offer new offerings a chance.

Microsoft has attempted to differentiate Bing from Google Search by describing Bing as a decision engine. I interpret this to mean that locating information is not the same as locating answers (I want credit for this just in case it is original). 

Microsoft proposes that Bing is the answer to the way we actually search. Perhaps this is a recognition that we typically take a simplistic approach even though sophistication could be imposed with a little more effort. We rely on the popularity of sites to reflect the usefulness of information to an undescribed goal. 

Bing suggests extension options as search terms are entered. Bing offers categories related to the findings produced (or that can be applied to the search) and these categories can be applied to focus the results. 

There are probably formal efforts to compare search power, but in the end the decision is based (or perhaps should be based) on whether the tool serves the user. I propose Bing is worth a look.

Pogue review

From time to time, I comment on online music services. Such comments have included Pandora, Last.fm (cost issue), and others (search music on my other blog). The issues involved are interesting and in some very general ways are relevant to education (e.g., copyright, free content).

Evidently, some of the issues associated with music sites (not file sharing, but sites that are basicaly Internet radio) have been resolved. Evidently, the fees these sites are charged for offering listeners access have been brought more in line with the number of actual listeners (my interpretations). There do now appear to be some concessions from the providers. Slashdot reports that Pandora will now require users who listen to more than 40 hours in a month to pay 99 cents for continued access within that month. 40 HOURS! This hardly seems a hardship.

BTW – I pay $3 for my last.fm account. I am not even exactly sure why. I like the stats. I guess i don’t have to look at ads – not a big deal when the focus is listening to the music.

This topic is interesting because of the “monetization” issue that all Internet users must accept in all areas. The changes within this industry may offer a preview.