Top 5 Tips on How to Secure your Computer

Let’s get one thing straight before we start- The internet can be a spooky place. There are viruses potentially around every corner and nothing to give you a heads up about them other than experience. So before we go any further on how to protect your computer from the nasty little buggers, let’s get right on that experience!

Tip One:
First off, common sense. Common sense may prove to be your greatest ally when battling the baddies of the internet and the viruses they may throw your way. If you find anything fishy or overall just… not “right” looking, it’s probably best to look away and avoid it at all cost. Remember: The first step to getting a virus relies heavily on you, the person in control. A virus won’t knock on the door to let you know it’s coming in, but it will surely wait on the front porch for you to open it before slipping in unnoticed.

Tip Two:
Now, that’s enough for cheesy metaphors. You want to know how to secure your computer! Chances are you know about anti-virus software. Anti-virus software is a must have when browsing the web, even when you’re searching trusted websites. Viruses and worms have no bounds and can infiltrate just about any corner of the internet, so keep this in mind. Most anti-virus software is cheap and reliable. You can find hard copies of it all over the internet, or if you’d rather get a look see in person before you buy, you can always check your local pharmacy – PC world or Wal-Mart. They always have anti-virus software.

Tip Three:
No shady sites! Shady sites are as follows: They won’t have standard URLs (this is the address of the website at the top of the web page) meaning that they often won’t have “.com” or “.net” after them. These are always good places to avoid unless you are absolutely sure that you can trust the website in question.

Tip Four:
Scammers! Scams are abundant throughout the web. If someone you don’t know contacts you via email or perhaps social networking site asking you for personal information or insisting that you know them, do a little research and NEVER give your personal information to anyone on the internet unless you are shopping and see the green “https” lettering before the URL address. The internet is full of hooligans who will do anything to get what they want.

Tip Five:
Pop ups. Ignore pop ups. Pop ups are classified as follows: They pop up! And then they inform you (usually) of some sweepstakes that you’ve one, one that you’ve never entered to begin with, or how you’re the lucky visitor- Ridiculous! Never click a pop up advertisements for any reason. Not all ads are bad, but chances are that you’re not going to come out unscathed when clicking one of the ones implying you’re a winner.

Now take these five tips to heart and get out there brave internet warrior! Set up your anti-virus software and practice these steps so that no one may harm you or your computer.

Tags: Computer Security, Software Security

Source : techtalkafrica[dot]com

Apple’s new iMacs are great, but can we get an iTV already?

Apple's new iMacs are mighty impressive, but we're still left wondering why the company doesn't just give us its next big thing: an iTV.

Running his hand along the slender 5-millimeter-thick edge, Apple’s Phil Schiller, senior vice president of worldwide marketing, debuted the company’s newest iMac. “It’s hard to believe there’s even a display in there,” Schiller said, highlighting how outlandishly thin it is.  

Though Schiller said the new iMac “epitomizes something Apple does so well, to create an innovative, breakthrough product,” the last time an iMac was a breakthrough product was when it was introduced in 1998. Yes, everything on display at the October 23 launch featured top-of-the-line specs and dazzling improvements, but nothing felt truly new. Where are the disruptive technologies of launches past? The one area that many of us have prayed Apple would dive into is the HDTV market. So where is the iTV?

There’s a market for computers large enough and thin enough to double as televisions, and Apple has all the key ingredients to build one. Creating an Apple-branded flat-screen HDTV that doubles as a powerful computer would surely make an impact on the television market. And though it’s a good start, Apple has only inched into the arena with its current Apple TV set-top box.

Computers are far more versatile than TVs. Not only can people watch televised content through a myriad of sources, including Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, HBO Go, and iTunes, but they can also enjoy full Internet browsing and productive capabilities native to a computer. That being said, today’s Smart TVs are already doing a pretty good job at blurring the lines between computer and TV. Most Smart TVs offer streaming from the above sources, and many of them offer Internet browsers with support for Flash; what they don’t offer is the kind of clean, simple user interface that Apple has leveraged through the years to turn customers into obsessives.  

As TV manufacturers struggle to integrate the increasing functionality of their products, Apple could easily leapfrog ahead of them. But don’t take our word for it. Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs’ authorized biographer, quotes the late Apple founder on the subject in Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography:

“‘I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,’ he told me. ‘It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud.’ No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. ‘It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it.’”

Although we know Apple can do it, the company has not yet made large displays with competitive pixel resolution. The new iMacs lack Retina Display, but come packing a 1920-by-1080-pixel resolution on the 21.5-inch model, and a 2560-by-1440-pixel resolution on the 27-inch model. Coupled with the laminated screen and 300-nit brightness, it is almost ready to wrangle with some of the HDTVs already on the market. No, it’s not Plasma or LCD/ LED technology, but it’s very good, and it leaves us with no doubt that Apple’s talented staff could (and perhaps do) already have a prototype capable of making current purveyors like Sony tremble.

Perhaps more important than the hardware, though, is the need for a content ecosystem robust enough to convince the average consumer to cut their cable cords. The Apple TV is a good start, since it marries iTunes, Netflix, Vimeo, and other streaming services, but Apple would have to up its ante to compete with traditional cable companies.

Jobs knew this, as evidenced by his efforts to reach out to content partners in a possible attempt to create a streaming media service. Reported back in March by Engadget, CBS CEO Leslie Moonves disclosed Jobs’ advances towards establishing a partnership. Moonves chose to decline the partnership due to concerns about the impact it would have on existing revenue streams.

One way of working around the challenges of quickly establishing a content system as comprehensive as those of cable companies is to shift the emphasis away from the convenience of browsing channels over to the convenience of having a mounted computer. As more television networks have recognized the importance of streaming content, more shows have become available online. In an ideal world, the TV industry would have the future of computers built into TVs, but we think the future of TV is actually on computers. Because of that, it makes sense that an iTV would do more to blur the lines between computers and TVs than any other product so far. It also makes sense for Apple to stop trying to fit the outmoded concept of network time slots into its usually forward-thinking vision, and champion streaming.

What Jobs claimed to have “cracked” remains out of his company’s reach for the time being. Apple’s recent launch introduced some attractive devices, but none of them shifted paradigms in the same way as the iPod, iPhone, or iPad have done in the past. And though the company isn’t quite there yet, it won’t have another watershed moment until it introduces something as legitimately game-changing as an iTV – or something equally novel.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Halo 4 review: The definition of playing it safe

The Halo brand returns under new management. But fear not, loyal enthusiast, the new caretakers, 343 Industries, know a thing or two about what makes Halo tick. The result is Halo 4, a game that is very much a Halo game, but stops short of being anything new.

Over the last week or so, friends who noticed I was online playing Halo 4 have barraged me with the same question: “How is it?” Considering many of these came via message or text, my answer needed to be concise, plus I didn’t want to risk the wrath of vengeful gods by potentially breaking any embargo rules, so I simply told them “It’s Halo.”

That might sound a tad dismissive, but the more I thought about it, the more apt that simple description began to fit Halo 4. The biggest fear among fans about Halo 4 has been focused on the changing of the guard. Bungie spent years bringing the series to life, then closed it out before moving on to greener (as in more lucrative) multi-platform development. In its place sprang 343 Industries, a developer created specifically to make Halo games. This new studio announced that it would expand the series, bring back Master Chief, and even launch a new trilogy for good measure. But could the franchise – a franchise that only ever existed as the property of one developer – continue to succeed under a new steward?

The thing about 343 is that it isn’t just a new studio tasked with continuing Halo, it’s a studio created from Halo developers excited to carry on the torch. Although Bungie as an entity moved on, many of the staff stayed behind specifically for Halo, so the game is in the hands of some of the most dedicated developers that you could possibly imagine. They know what they are doing, and they know how to do it. So did they manage to stay true to franchise even while refocusing it? Well, for that I refer you to my previous answer. Halo 4 is very much a Halo game.

In fact, this is the most quintessentially Halo game ever. Each of the five previous Halo titles (not counting the RTS Halo: Wars or the remastered Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary) pushed the series a little further each time, trying new ideas and gently nudging the franchise forward. None of the games strayed too far from the core values and mechanics introduced in 2001, but they all added new elements. Halo 4 cherry picks those ideas and offers them with a new set of graphics and a few new bells and whistles, but it does not stray from the formula. In any way.

Halo 4 is quite possibly the “safest” big budget game ever made, barring annual games like Madden and FIFA. The game takes absolutely no chances at all. If it were a Hollywood movie, it would be a summer blockbuster, built to scratch using a well-honed formula, predictable to a fault, and yet still entertaining. For while Halo 4 takes little to no chances, it really doesn’t need to. The formula 343 is using is a proven hit, and Halo 4 follows it admirably, perhaps even to a fault.

And another thing…

Although the original story of Halo was concluded in a fairly decisive fashion, Halo 4 begins a new trilogy known as the “Reclaimer Saga” that starts nearly five years after the Human and Covenant War came to a conclusion. When we last saw our iconic, armor-clad hero he was a Master Chief-cicle, stuck in a cryogenic pod on a ruined UNSC ship, drifting above an artificial planet that you soon discover is named Requiem and was home to the Forerunners.

Despite her own problems with “rampancy,” a condition akin to schizophrenia that AI go through at the end of their life spans, Cortana has remained vigilant, watching over Master Chief (and even upgrading his armor). When a rogue Covenant detachment arrives, the Chief is awoken and the fight begins. Once on Requiem, an ancient threat awakens and you are faced with a new enemy army known as the Prometheans, artificial guardians designed to fight the Flood. The Prometheans are taking orders from someone even more powerful though, someone with a grudge against humanity.

The thing about the narrative of Halo is that the overarching plots of each game have always been great, but the details have been a bit meh. You have an interstellar war, a mysterious ancient weapon, an attack on Earth, a rebellion amongst the Covenant, and the tragic fall of a world. Those ideas are all solid, enough so that the series has spawned books, comics, and countless discussions of a possible Hollywood adaptation. But when you look closer, the details have always been handled a bit roughly. That problem continues in Halo 4, and is even exacerbated by having to introduce a new story within an established universe.

Halo 4 doesn’t continue the Halo lore, it creates a new one that fits within the structure of the old. But it is not an easy fit. The main antagonist’s motivations are a bit muddled. His intentions are clear enough, but much of the history the game draws on requires you to accept it. You have to actively want to believe this new menace, otherwise it just feels a bit hollow. The previous games were a fight for humanity’s survival, this game is a fight to kill a guy that just really dislikes us.

This isn’t helped by the lack of any real effort to try anything new either. The Halo franchise has spawned heaps of rich mythology, but Halo 4 mostly ignores it. The integration between this game and the Web series Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn adds a bit of depth thanks to the crossover character of Lasky, but the majority of NPCs are background at worst and stereotypes at best. There isn’t even a moment given to the remarkable homecoming of Master Chief. The humans he meets that know who he is just sort of nod to the suddenly resurrected savior of our species, then go about their business, oblivious and unimpressed that they just met what is essentially Jesus with a particle weapon (and a violent streak). After years of Halo games, the past is barely ever mentioned. There is hardly even a mention of why the Covenant, which humanity is at peace with, is siding with your new enemy.

This game is part one of three, so perhaps this was a deliberate choice to keep the greater context to a minimum. You’d think that they would expand the universe rather than be happy to just operate within it though. Thankfully, the gameplay makes up for that.

Once more with feeling

Putting aside the lackluster campaign story, the gameplay within it is boss. It is the best of all Halo worlds. Master Chief’s movements are generally smooth and responsive, and each of the weapons has a consistency to it. When you are at your best, you can walk into a clearing, wipe out an entire troop, and leave feeling like a complete badass. There should be an explosion for you to walk away from without looking after every major encounter, just because.

Halo 4 is a challenging game, and you can expect to die often. The Prometheans make tough enemies, but each battle has a flow, and learning the best way to make it through an area can feel like living out a John Woo movie – one of the old John Woo movies before Hollywood did things to him. To help you fight this new foe are a wide new variety of Promethean weapons… sort of.

The new weapons are all fun to try out, but with a few exceptions they are just new takes on existing weapons. Promethean shotgun? Check. Promethean sniper rifle? Check. Promethean plasma gun? Check. And so on. There are some differences to the weapons, but not many. They are fun to look at and the reloading animation is cool, but none of them make even the slightest difference in how you play and could be removed without you even noticing. Armor abilities like the jetpack and decoy are back as well, but the most useful of these is a flying sentry you can call upon. Get it and hold on to it, and your life will be much easier.

The gameplay is as smooth and slick as ever, and the weapons – new and old – operate as you would expect them to, giving you a good sense of what you need to do at all times. In other words, it’s Halo, and Halo at its finest.

A brave new world

The Halo games have always looked good for their time, and Halo 4 has some of the best graphics around, especially in the cinematics. There are a few moments that make you question if you are watching live action or CGI, but these are brief. They are certainly a long way from weird facial animations and blocky bodies with arms that bend strangely.

The levels looks great as well, but in typical Halo fashion much of your time will be spent fighting through what are essentially space warehouses, space canyons, and the like. After you see one corridor, you’ve seen them all. There are a few standout moments, but much of the game is somewhat unremarkable to look at.

The game does occasionally pull off some great “OMG” moments, but they are scarce. Halo has always been about letting you run around and tackle enemies how you like, so that sense of guided spectacle through set pieces — as with games like Call of Duty that thrives on them — is absent.

That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone though. The levels blur together, but replaying them is about the battles, not the scenery. Adding up to three more players to join you either online or locally just further emphasizes this. Again though, that’s a tradeoff that Halo decided to make a long time ago, and the result is a game built almost entirely around gameplay.

The thing is, Halo has always been built around multiplayer that somehow fooled itself into thinking that it was campaign-based. And really, the multiplayer is were Halo has always really thrived.

To infinity, but not much further beyond

New to the series is a multiplayer hub that exists within its own fictional corner of the Halo universe. The idea is that you are a Spartan aboard the UNSC Infinity, the largest ship ever built by humanity. The games you play are recreations, training you for the field and allowing you to customize your character as if your multiplayer avatar were part of the Halo world. While this is a decent enough conceit for the game, the thin, skin-deep integration will quickly make you forget it is even there.

The competitive game modes you have come to know return (under the name “War Games”), as does the Forge, which includes even more creation options than ever before. If level design is something that appeals to you, the Forge’s upgrades are appealing.

Your character can customize their look, loadout, and abilities by leveling up and earning credits, which allow you to buy things that are unlocked when you meet certain prerequisite levels. This style has gained momentum recently thanks to games like Black Ops. It doesn’t change the way you play, but it gives you more to strive for. Also new to the franchise is “Armor Mods,” which are basically perks that augment a stat or give you a particular boost in one way or another. There are eight to choose from (you select one per loadout), and they include things like a sensor upgrade, the ability to resupply off of fallen enemies, and faster reloading.

One difference is the specialization option that opens up when you reach level 50. As with many other games, reaching the level cap opens up the possibility of starting over, but with a twist. When you hit this point, you can choose from eight options — two at launch, six to be introduced over the months via DLC. The two currently available are “Wetwork” and “Pioneer.” The Wetwork specialization gives you a new look as well as a unique stealth armor mod, while the Pioneer gives you a new armor (which is aesthetic only), and a different mod. You can then play through ten levels to unlock the next specialization, then the next and so on. It is a minor addition, but a good one.

All of the modes, from Team Slayer to Oddball to King of the Hill are there, as are player-created levels via the Forge. Theater playback returns as well, and the 10 maps currently available — more are scheduled via DLC – are all well-crafted and designed to balance most styles. There will of course be favorites, but they all move well.

In every way, this is the traditional Halo multiplayer, with only a few minor tweaks. 343 takes very few chances here. It would have been nice to see the developer stretch to put its own stamp on the title, but the “if it ain’t broke” mentality ensures that it won’t be bad.

There is one notable omission though that is somewhat surprising – the Firefight mode is gone. Although survival modes have become standard to the point of exhaustion, removing it is bizarre since the game is so determined not to rock the Halo boat. Perhaps it will return via an upcoming DLC. It was never a huge pull anyway, and if you want co-op play, you have an even better option now in the amazing Spartan Ops

Two campaigns for the price of one

While I have spent a good amount of time going over the similarities between Halo 4 and previous Halo games, there is one new feature that stands out and cannot fault to impress. The Spartan Op missions are introduced as a set of five missions, each with a bit of their own story line. These missions can be played alone or with three others, and you can select the level of difficulty to match your desire. Each mission can take anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes based on how you approach it, and the experience you earn counts towards all forms of multiplayer. Here’s the hook: Five new missions will be introduced per week at no cost. For 10 weeks straight.

With the campaign clocking in around seven hours, that means when the Spartan Ops is complete, you basically have a second campaign to play that is longer than the first, and it evens adds a bit to the storyline for good measure.

It is easy to look at the rest of the game through cynical eyes and see a formulaic approach to recreating a successful franchise, but these free, weekly DLC drops make you think that 343 isn’t trying to recreate Halo just for profit, they are doing it because they are massive fans. These Spartan Ops are a love letter to those, like them, that can’t get enough of Halo. 

Conclusion

Halo 4 is the very definition of a safe game. It takes no chances, offers very little new, but it does what Halo does best. 343 knows the series, and knows what makes it work. The story is uninspired and weak, but the gameplay makes up for it.

Fans of the multiplayer will likely enjoy the fine tuning as opposed to a complete overhaul, and those new to the series will have to overcome that incredibly steep learning curve if they want to compete, but now is the time to see why Halo is so beloved online.

Despite my issues with the lack of innovation, the core of what makes Halo Halo are intact, and the Spartan Ops make the game a huge value on top of that. If you are a fan of the series, or are looking for a first-person shooter to make you feel like a god among men, then look no further than Halo 4. Just don’t expect anything more.

Score: 8.5 out of 10

(This game was reviewed on the Xbox 360 via a copy provided by the publisher)

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

How to bypass video region restrictions in under a minute

Accessing your favorite movies or TV shows on the Web isn't always easy due to a pesky thing called region restrictions. Here is a beginner's guide to using a proxy to skip over the technical wall and start enjoying content from around the world.

I’m not going to lie to you: My girlfriend and I are big, sappy, aristocrat-loving “Downton Abbey” fans. So when season three debuted in September, we could hardly wait to start watching. Problem is, the show is currently only available to viewers in the U.K., and won’t make its way stateside until January 6, 2013. Impatient, we frantically began searching for a way around this useless (to us) hurdle — but we weren’t willing to start downloading things illegally.

Such is the dilemma of many Web users who try to access U.S.-made content from their respective international homes. Hulu, ABC, NBC, and even “The Daily Show” are blocked in many countries not called the United States. This is also true of music services like Spotify, and a wide range of other sites and services across the Web. Similarly, those of us in the U.S. cannot use BBC iPlayer, or, in the case of “Downton Abbey” fans, iTV Player.

Now, there are quite a few solutions to the problem of region restrictions. Unfortunately, the most user-friendly options, like a Virtual Private Network (VPN), usually cost money (not a lot, but some), or are complicated to use if the most technical thing you’ve ever done with your PC is install Firefox. There are also options like Tor, the anonymization software that masks your identity. And this is a fine option, but does involve downloading and getting to know additional software.

Fortunately for those of us who are not technical wizards, there is a quick and easy way to bypass region blocks in less than a minute, for free. I’m talking about using a proxy, and it’s surprisingly simple to use. (If you already know all about proxies and how to use them, feel free to move along — this one isn’t for you.)

Proxy basics

Before we get into the how-to bit, some background: Each time you go online, your computer is assigned an IP address. Your IP address, which is transmitted to every website you visit through your browser, tells these sites what your physical location is. This is why region blocks work — they simply forbid any computer with an IP address outside a particular geographic region from accessing content. By using a proxy, you actually change the IP address that your browser transmits to the Web.

The simplest way to use a proxy is to visit the mildly-NSFW-named VPN provider Hide My Ass (HMA), which allows you to simply past a URL into its Web Proxy tool and start browsing under a different IP address. Under the “advanced settings” tab, you can choose which country you want to appear to be browsing from. Website Proxify offers a similar service, as well. Easy though it may be, however, this solution will not work with certain websites. And, because so many other people are trying to use the same proxy address as you, load times slow to a slug-like pace.

Another solution is to establish your own proxy through your Web browser. You can either do this through the browser itself, or by downloading a plugin, like Proxy Switchy for Chrome, or FoxyProxy for Firefox.

To use any of these options, you’re going to need to find a proxy IP address and port. HMA generously offers a constantly updated list of these, which you can find here. You’ll want to pick a proxy that is from the country as the content you want to access. (So for “Downton Abbey,” I would choose a U.K.-based proxy.) Also check to make sure the “speed” and “connection” categories are good — if they’re not, you will experience a maddening series of interruptions.

How to use FoxyProxy

After going through a headache of glitches, we found the very best option is to use Firefox, and install the FoxyProxy add-on. Once you’ve done that, head over to the HMA proxy list page. Select your country of choice. Under the “Protocol” options, de-select “socks4/5.” (Just for simplicity’s sake.) Then hit “Update Results.”

At this point, you will also want to open FoxyProxy by hitting the icon that appears to the right of the URL box. Click “Add New Proxy.” Next, head back over to the HMA page and find a proxy that looks good (the bars next to the country name should both be green). Once you’ve selected one, copy the IP address, and paste it into the “Host or IP Address” field in the FoxyProxy window. Go back to HMA, and copy the “port” number that appears next to the IP address you’ve chosen. Paste the port number in the “Port” field in the FoxyProxy window. Then click “Ok.” (Don’t worry, you’re almost done.)

A notice will then pop up saying “you didn’t enter and enable any whitelisted (included) URL patters.” For our purposes, you can just ignore that — click “OK.” At the top of the FoxyProxy window, click on the drop-down menu next to “Select Mode,” then select the option that includes the IP address you just entered. Click close — and you’re done! Start streaming.

If you want to turn off the proxy, just click the FoxyProxy button, and change the mode to “Completely disable FoxyProxy.”

The downsides

Now, cheating the system never works out flawlessly. The first thing you MUST consider are your local laws. In the U.S., it is legal to use proxies. In other countries, it might not be — so check to make sure you’re in the clear before doing any of this. And, at the very least, you will likely be violating the terms of service of the websites you visit. In short: Whether or not this is legal doesn’t necessarily make it right.

Even if using a proxy is legal, and you don’t mind the ethical gray areas, you’re probably going to have to change the specific proxy you use on a regular basis. Free proxies, like those available through HMA, often get shut down, or are just too slow for streaming puposes. That said, you can get access to high-quality proxies through FoxyProxy, but it’ll cost you a few bucks a month for a subscription — totally worth it, if you plan to leap over region restrictions on a regular basis.

Image via Pell Studio/Shutterstock

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Do you remember Facebook political ads? If not, you’re not alone

The penetration rate of political advertising on Facebook isn't the kind of thing that is likely to impact the results of any electorial race, according to a new study that claims that voters just don't remember the ads that they've seen.

If you’re someone who finds the constant barrage of political advertising on social media in the weeks running up to this year’s US Presidential Election to be more than a little distracting – if not entirely offputting – then there’s some good news for the future: You’re likely to see a lot less of it… Or, at least, a lot less of the kind that you’ve become all too familiar with.

The reason for that is that a new study entitled Can Facebook Advertisements Increase Political Candidates’ Name Recognition and Favorability? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment - conducted by University of California Department of Political Science graduate student David Broockman and Columbia University Professor of Political Science, Donald Green – has revealed that… Well, Facebook ads don’t actually seem to make any real impression on those that see them.

As the study reveals, although previous studies have demonstrated that other forms of media and advertising have detectable effects on undecided voters’ choices and behavior when it came to choosing a candidate – or even simply forming early opinions about a candidate – that wasn’t the case when it came to Facebook ads. “We found that voters randomly assigned to view a candidate’s online ads a number of times did not have significantly differing opinions of him and indeed did not recall seeing his ads at all,” the study reports.

“Speaking for myself I thought the results were surprising,” Broockman explained to the Talking Points Memo website. “Like most Americans I use Facebook every day and think it’s a great product. However, on reflection, I can’t remember any Facebook ads I’ve seen in the last week — and it appears most Americans are the same.”

Unsurprisingly, those who work in digital marketing aren’t exactly in agreement with the study’s results, pointing to flaws in the methodology. “This was just one one state legislative race [used in the study],” complained Rebolution Messaging’s Keegan Goudiss, adding, “You would think that they would at least compare several races at whatever level — legislative or above.”

It’s not all bad news for advertisers, though; as Broockman admits, the experiment’s results aren’t 100% bulletproof. “The experiment estimates the effect at zero, but it cannot say that it is exactly zero,” Broockman admitted. “It is possible that a very small number of people remembered the ads. But just like one undecided voter changing their mind from one day to the next wouldn’t itself register in a national poll, effects of the ads of such small sizes wouldn’t be able to be picked up in our study. We can be confident enough — that is, using the language of polls, the margin of error is small enough — to rule out the kind of effects that could have a meaningful impact on candidates’ campaigns.”

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Apple rumored to be dipping into its savings to acquire Color Labs

After Color Labs was rumored to be closing its doors, the photo-sharing app startup refuted the allegation by saying it was doing no such thing. Now, a new rumor suggests it's be acquired by none other than Apple.

One minute Color Labs, creator of the photo-sharing social app Color, is closing down, then the next it’s not, and now there’s a rumor it’s about to be purchased by Apple. No matter which one is true, it has certainly put then app-the-world-forgot back in the news.

Today’s rumor comes from TheNextWeb.com, where “trusted sources” say Apple is about to hand over a figure in the high tens of millions for company, and perhaps more importantly, its patent portfolio. The patents up for grabs include those related to GPS, battery saving, group content sharing and HD video recording.

Forbes.com points out that Color has a trademark on its name, and an acquisition would also nab the desirable color.com URL. It also says that Google offered to purchase Color before it launched, and suggests that Apple wants to keep the patents out of Google’s hands.

The report says that Color founder Bill Nguyen has thrashed out a deal with Apple thanks in part to an existing relationship with Eddy Cue, Apple’s VP of Internet Software and Services. Apple also purchased Lala, an online music startup and another Nguyen project, back in 2009. It’s said the Color deal is complete, and only needs a few signatures before it’s final.

If the acquisition rumor is true, it clarifies Color’s statement that “Color is not shutting down,” which under the acquisition scenario, it’s not.

An acquisition would also net Apple some more talent, of which there should be plenty inside the company. Just before Color launched, a report in The Wall Street Journal from March 2011 told the story of how Sequoia Capital got involved with the project. They apparently told Nguyen — after a 45-minute demonstration — that the concept was “transformative” and “not since Google have we seen this.”

Throwing $25 million at the company was supposed to accelerate five years of development into one, which would be achieved by hiring the “best-of-the-best engineers who will rapidly iterate and advance this terrific product.”

Apple rarely talks about its acquisitions, but Color may spill the beans, should there be any truth to this new rumor.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Why are we all so terrified of Google?

Google’s data-hoarding reputation may be well deserved, but is helping users connect the dots really such a bad thing?

Our story begins in a bar in Amsterdam in the summer of 2001. I was slightly inebriated and a heated conversation with friends turned into a debate on privacy and porn-surfing habits. I can remember being amazed when one of my friends claimed he didn’t surf porn on the Internet because Google might be recording his every perverted move.

He’s not a celebrity. I can’t imagine why anyone would be interested in a list of his porn preferences. Is Google going to use it to blackmail him? Maybe threaten to send his wife a list? Does anyone in the wider world care about his predilection for busty MILFs? (I don’t want to impugn his anonymous honor, so I should point out that’s my predilection, not his.)

More than a decade later, the Web is awash with scaremongering stories about how Google is turning us all into products it sells to advertisers. Our enjoyment of all these ostensibly free Google services, from Gmail to Google Maps to YouTube, must be tempered by the idea that Google is pimping us out behind our backs. What is it that people are so afraid of? What does everyone imagine that Google is going to do with our information?

What does Google record?

At the time I thought it was highly unlikely that Google would keep that kind of information. Turns out I was wrong about the likelihood of Google recording everything. The ability to compile detailed information on browsing habits has been central to its development as an advertising company.

Google compiles information about you from any of its services that you use. That can include Web search history, emails and contacts from Gmail, chat history, Google+ likes and posts, documents accessed in Google Docs, YouTube activity, Blogger and Picasa photos, posts, and comments, information on purchases through Google Wallet and Checkout, Google Voice data on numbers and call duration – the list goes on and on.

The search engine giant can keep that information indefinitely. You can find details on what Google does with your data on the Google website. That’s the big question, isn’t it? Google also started the Data Liberation Front so you can find out how to access and move your data in Google products.

What does Google actually do with your information?

There are basically two things Google does with your data:

1) It aggregates large quantities of anonymized data to improve its own and partner’s services

2) It uses your information to serve targeted advertising to you

Aggregated data allows companies to measure trends, analyze what people want, how they behave, and theoretically improve services or tailor them for specific demographics. Concerns generally focus on stereotyping, but companies always use stereotypes to classify consumers, at least with aggregate data from Google they are getting a more reliable picture.

Targeted advertising is about analyzing what you search for and talk about in emails and elsewhere and then trying to serve ads that cover those topics. If you talk about football incessantly then expect to see football-related ads popping up more often. If you consider that you’ll be served with advertising whatever you do, surely targeted advertising is better? At least it might be something you’re actually interested in.

With services like Google Now, the company is looking to tie all the information it is learning about you together in order to serve you useful information before you need it. How is that a bad thing?

The company is not behaving altruistically, but it is also not inherently evil simply because it compiles information on you. Google uses the information to improve its services so it can make more money.

The obvious answer for anyone concerned about Google compiling information on them is simply not to use Google services. Good luck finding alternative services that don’t do the same, though.

Why worry about Google specifically?

I have to assume that the panic and vitriol surrounding Google’s data collection is merely because it is the biggest search company around and so many people use its services. Obviously Facebook, Microsoft and many, many other companies are also doing their best to compile detailed data on your online activities.

You also have to consider your ISPs and the government. Whether Google is compiling data on you or not, you can be sure that the ISPs are and governments can easily compel them to hand that data over, although they rarely refuse requests anyway.

The real concern

According to comScore, Google accounted for 66.5 percent of all searches and that amounted to 11.4 billion searches – in April 2012 alone. All that information has to be stored physically somewhere. Huge data centers are storing vast quantities of data, often inefficiently, according to the New York Times. We are struggling to store data as fast as we produce it.

The carbon footprint of your digital life could be substantial, especially as cloud services really begin to take off. At least Google is aiming for efficient data centers. Still, the amount of electricity being consumed to power these data centers is rising steadily. That NY Times article also includes the claim that “data centers used about 76 billion kilowatt-hours in 2010, or roughly two percent of all electricity used in the country that year, based on an analysis by Jonathan G. Koomey, a research fellow at Stanford University.”

When you consider how much of that data is junk, the whole thing just seems stupid. Royal Pingdom’s annual Internet stat roundup for 2011 revealed that 71 percent of all email worldwide was spam, that 48 hours of YouTube video was uploaded every minute, and that there are well over 100 billion photos on Facebook.

The privacy principle

I understand that privacy is a point of principle for some people. It’s not about what they are doing, which is usually inane and of no interest to anyone; it is about a perceived lack of respect. Our society is packed with double standards on this issue, though. Privacy laws are different from country to country. Are you concerned that the police can take a DNA sample from you, along with fingerprints and photographs, even if you are just arrested on suspicion of a “serious offense?”

Here in Scotland the police can take a DNA swab from you if “a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that you are committing, or have committed an offense”. I’m wary of that old argument that if you have nothing to hide you won’t mind giving up your privacy, but Google’s data compilation doesn’t scare me. It doesn’t get much more private than DNA does it? We’re already giving up our privacy in far more worrying ways than online activity.

Google and the rest of the data mining, online advert gang are merely adhering to a long established trade-off, namely that we accept advertising in return for free services. I don’t think it’s a bad deal, and if you’re really concerned about privacy you need to look beyond Google.

[Image credit - Network server room: .shock/Shutterstock]

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

‘Wild Blood’ for iOS and Android game review

If there’s one thing Gameloft’s good at, it’s consistently bringing console quality games to the small screen. Some of these are perhaps too close to some of the console titles out there, close enough to be labelled as clones, but for those who want to experience some of the audio visual glory that they are used to seeing on the big screen in the palm of their hands, these games have rarely disappointed.

The newest title to fit this description is Wild Blood. The first Gameloft game to feature the exceptional Unreal Engine, Wild Blood promises gory hack and slash action with stunning visuals that the engine is known for. Let’s see how well it manages to do that.

Title	Wild Blood
Developer	Gameloft
Platform	iOS	Android
Release Date	September 6, 2012	N/A
Content rating	12+	N/A
Size	771MB	N/A
Cost	$6.99	N/A

Note: The Android version of the game is not out yet but is expected some time later this month.

The Premise

Our hero in this game is Sir Lancelot, who is having an affair with King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. When the king finds out about this, he goes berserk and sets out to destroy Lancelot, and everything in his path. He employs the services of the evil sorceress Morgana, who opens the Hellgate and sets all sorts of not very nice creatures upon the land. Oh, and she also captures the Queen Guinevere and holds her hostage. Now Lancelot has to stop the carnage going about him, kill Morgana, free Guinevere and make it home in time to catch Medieval Britain’s Got Talent. Okay, so I made up the last part.

The story is not much and just an excuse to shove that massive sword through all sorts of evil hell spawn. And Sir Lancelot is perhaps the most boring lead character in the history of gaming. He even looks like he’s slightly bored. You don’t really care if he saves the day or gets used as a mop by one of the ogres in the game. If you have played Horn that we reviewed last week, you’d know that even that young blacksmith’s assistant was more involving a character than this fancy knight. Heck, even Pac-Man was a more involving character.

Gameplay

Wild Blood is an action-adventure game with a third-person camera view. You use the left side of the screen as a joystick to move the character around and the right side to control the camera. The right side also has buttons for all the weapons and attacks that you will be using.

To attack enemies, you get a host of weapons, from swords to axes and a bow and arrow. You can upgrade these weapons using gold coins you collect by killing enemies, opening chests and breaking pots and barrels spread around. You will also often come across civilians who are held captive. Breaking their cage releases them and in return they give you some more gold.

Other uses for the gold is purchasing potions for restoring health and mana. You can also purchase additional powers that you can use a limited number of times depending upon your mana. These powers are usually devastating attacks that can take down enemies in one blow. You can upgrade these powers to cause even more damage.

You can also use the gold (a significant amount of it, mind you) to instantly revive yourself after you die, or you can choose to use the restart the game at the last checkpoint, which could be close by or somewhere far away. At times you have no choice but to keep replaying a significant section of the game because the damn checkpoint is just so far back and you don’t have enough gold to instantly revive yourself. This is where you might be tempted to use the game’s in-app purchase option to purchase additional gold by spending real money.

Most of the game has you running around and battling enemies. The enemies come in great variety, 20 of them in fact, and it includes some bosses. The boss battles are all well spaced out and every time you think things are getting too easy the game throws one at you. The other enemies are also quite varied in their attacks and range from mildly annoying to extreme pain in the nether regions.

Other things you do in the game involve opening chests, as mentioned before, except there is another type of chests that has you solving puzzles. The puzzles involve moving blocks around and in return you get a lot more gold than from the usual chests. The puzzles reminds strongly of the game Unblock Me, except here they are easier. These serve as a nice diversion from the usual action but they are also the only type of puzzles you’ll be solving. And they are completely optional.

While the general hack and slash action is enjoyable, there are two things that make the game fairly frustrating. First of all the joystick controls suck. This is extremely apparent when you’re trying to run, or use a special attack that involves directing yourself towards the enemies. The number of times you miss your enemies and run straight past them is not funny. Also, you can’t turn, so if you miss the enemy, you end up raging alone in some corner wasting your mana while the enemies are half a mile away from you.

Another area where the control situation crops up is when you are controlling a ballista in the game’s many moments. It would be easier to give someone instructions over the phone to control a real ballista instead of controlling one of these in the game. Even the tiniest motions moves the thing around as if it’s some pea shooter and you need to be extremely accurate to kill, which means even before you can line up your shot you are killed by the enemy, who all happen to have their own projectile attack and don’t have to deal with terrible controls at their end.

The other more atrocious problem is the camera. First of all, it seems all enemies have decided before they spawn that they are not going to be anywhere inside the view that you see on the screen. Each one appears perhaps as far away as possible, so you have to run to them to kill them. What’s worse is that moving the camera around is extremely slow. You have to keep swiping on the screen like an idiot to make the camera turn 180 degress and by then the enemy has probably moved. Half the time in the game is spent adjusting the camera and pointing it in the right direction so you can see what you’re supposed to kill. At this point you seriously start wondering if the Queen is worth rescuing and start contemplating on letting Morgana keep her as her pet.

One last issue for me that others may not have is the feeling of having done all this before. It’s not just about the fact that the game takes heavy inspiration from the God of War series in practically everything it does but more with the genre itself. The third-person action adventure genre is probably older than the real King Arthur and doing the same things again and again has become terribly boring. Bringing games that have started to feel stale on the consoles to mobile doesn’t make them any more interesting. You can marvel at the visuals for a while, but it doesn’t take long to realize you did the same basic things ten years ago.

What I’m saying is that mobile doesn’t need more recycled titles from old genres. Games like Super Hexagon that we saw last week work because they do something new and even though the game probably had 1/100th the budget of Wild Blood it will hold your attention for longer and will you have you coming back more often. We need more games like that. Not just the same old FPS, racing or action-adventure games.
+
There is a multiplayer mode as well, but it’s not really about skill but rather who has the most fanciest weapons and armor around. If your weapons aren’t upgraded you won’t last ten seconds, even though most arenas have 4-5 players right now. Also, being against smarter and more powerful human enemies only further exposes the game’s inherent flaws.

Graphics and Sound

Having an Unreal Engine in a mobile game is a surefire recipe to have great visuals. We have already seen what this engine can do on game such as the Infinity Blade series and even on Wild Blood it does a great job. The game looks stunning throughout, especially on the new iPad with the Retina display. Gameloft has also made good use of the engine’s prowess by creating amazing level and enemy designs. In short, it all looks great.

The game is only available on iOS right now and an Android version is coming some time this month. There is going to be an optimized version for devices running the Tegra 3 chipset but it remains to be seen if there would be a version for other devices as well and if so how will their visuals differ. I doubt the gameplay would be any different so what all is said above should apply to the Android version as well.

Sound-wise there is not much to say. The soundtrack is passable (it sounds ridiculously similar to The Dark Knight Rises soundtrack in the menu where you have to solve the puzzles to open chests) and the weapon and enemy sounds are the usual affair. The dialogues are cheesier than a cheese burst pizza and the voice acting is lame. The character mouths do move this time around but they don’t move with what they’re saying. Lancelot could be swearing at you for all you know.

Conclusion

It might seem as if I have been harder on this game than usual but that’s just because I expect big budget games from big developers selling for big bucks to be more than just console game rehashes. It’s time mobile game developers stopped looking at what the folks on the consoles are doing and started doing something new designed specifically with the touchscreen in mind.

Wild Blood is a fine game if you don’t mind having the same sort of gaming experience that you have on the consoles. Of course, the camera and the controls still suck, but they would probably be fixed and then the game would have few real flaws. And besides, it makes for a great showcase for your hardware, particularly if you have the new iPad as the Unreal Engine gives it a nice workout. But if like me you’re bored of this genre and were looking for something new, give this one a pass.

Rating: 3/5
Pros: Great visuals, wide variety of weapons and enemies
Cons: Botched up controls and camera, cheesy dialogues, lacks originality

Source : blog[dot]gsmarena[dot]com

Earthquake First Responders: Cockroaches

                                                                                                                 (Image Credit: iBionicS)

Move over search-and-rescue dogs. First-responding cockroaches might be the next big thing in disaster response.

Researchers at North Carolina State University in Raleigh hope the unsightly pests can be put to good use, saving lives in disasters like earthquakes, fires and chemical attacks.

“Our research is basically to turn insects into beasts of burden as we did with larger animals: horses and camels,” Alper Bozkurt, an assistant professor at N.C. State’s Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, told ABC News.

The bugs carry “backpacks” equipped with sensors that could potentially carry microphones to transmit audio or low-grade video cameras for video from their environment.

They are steered around in tight crevices and rubble – say from an earthquake – using their antennas that interpret low-grade electrical pulses as an obstacle the bug needs to avoid.

A video released at the iEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society conference in San Diego last month shows the cockroaches successfully being steered along a curved line drawn by researchers.

“We are interested in finding people after the earthquakes, under the building,” Bozkurt said. “The first sensor one can envision could be tiny microphones to listen to the help calls.”

The advantage of using the tiny creatures lies in both their size – they are smaller than humans and dogs – and their strength.

Bozkurt’s research uses the Madagascar hissing cockroach, one of the largest species of cockroach, small enough to slip into small cracks between rocks, but large enough to carry their potentially lifesaving loads. It can grow up to 3 inches long.

“Insects are self powered,” he said. “It’s like riding a horse, as long as you feed the insect it will keep going.”

The radio that sends a signal back to rescuers waiting outside will be powered by tiny batteries.

Researchers are continuing to perfect the technology, looking for more ways to make tiny circuits even smaller, exert more precise control over the insect and move them around in a 3-D environment.

But Bozkurt expects that their work could make a huge difference after disasters in densely populated urban areas.

“It’s a huge mess and somewhere in the middle your kid is crying, asking for help and you want to help them as soon as possible,” Bozkurt said. “So the only help would come from huge machines which dig through the rubble and it’s not very efficient.

“So we’re trying to make this process more efficient.”

Source : abcnews[dot]go[dot]com

Loose lips sink ships: Why has Tim Cook’s Apple sprung a leak?

The success of this year's iPhone 5 rumor mill proves one thing: Tim Cook no longer has control of Apple's secrets. Why is that?

Welp, the iPhone 5 is here. And, as feared, not a thing about the device was a surprise. Not the screen size. Not the processor. Not the design. Not the name. Not the release date. Not even the freakin’ headphones. We saw all of these details before, in the months leading up to today’s big announcement. In other words, everything about the iPhone 5 leaked, snatching away Apple’s long-held ability to control the message about its own products — a skillful secrecy that has defined the company for the past decade and helped make it such an astounding success.

None of this is to say that the iPhone 5 is a disappointment, nor lacking in any way. If you like the Apple ecosystem, then the iPhone 5 is great, probably the best phone on the market. Nor do I mean that Apple needs to blow our minds with every product — that’s just not how technological innovation works. Yes, the iPhone was groundbreaking in 2007. And the iPad set fire to the tablet form factor, which wallowed in obscurity and uselessness for a decade before receiving an incendiary dose of the Apple magic.

No — what I’m talking about here is the value of secrecy, and what it means to no longer have the ability or will to keep a secret.

At the D10 Conference in May, Apple CEO Tim Cook famously stated that Apple would “double down on secrecy on products.” But if this year’s iPhone rumor season is anything more than a fluke, it would appear that Cook has either decided to scrap that plan altogether, or fundamentally failed the mission.

It is entirely possible that, with the late Steve Jobs no longer in control, Cook decided to lift the iron curtain that has long surrounded Apple for strategic purposes. Some have suggested that, because the new iPhone now has an entirely different dock connector, Apple decided to leak the information in the press as a thinly veiled heads up to third-party accessory makers whose business would be monumentally impacted by the change. But why not simply share this information directly, and demand the same level of secrecy as Apple has historically required? Hasn’t Tim Cook ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement?

The more viable conclusion is that Apple has lost its ability to keep a secret. Why is that?

One theory is that Tim Cook is simply not as feared by Apple’s suppliers as Jobs was. Jobs is infamous for his brutal inflexibility, with employees and business partners alike. Cook, by contrast, is reportedly not nearly as frightening a leader. His wrath not as wrathful. His iron fist a bit rubbery.

Of course, it may simply be that Apple has grown too large for secrecy to remain a viable option. As of 2011, Apple listed (pdf) more than 150 companies in its supply chain. Perhaps this year it reached a breaking point: the list simply grew too long to stay in one solid piece. And out of the cracks flowed the company’s secrets.

Maybe. But I find it difficult to dismiss Cook’s role in it. For whatever reason, Apple’s relationship with its suppliers has drastically changed during his tenure. Leaks of iPhone 5 components were constant and nearly systematic. Nearly every week, for months on end, new tidbits about the device made their way onto the Web. Not just blurry shots of nearly unrecognizable prototypes as we occasionally saw during Jobs’ reign, but full videos of people showing off what we now know to be authentic iPhone 5 components.

Have Foxconn leaders sensed Apple’s new, less-dangerous demeanor, and allowed the many iPhone components to make their to leak into the public for their own purposes? Or perhaps it was LG Display, or Japan Display, where the iPhone 5 screens are made, which saw the weakness and let down its guard?

It’s impossible for me to say where exactly the leaks came from, or whether there was a single source or many. What I can say, however, is that if this is Tim Cook doubling down on Apple’s secrecy, then he just lost that hand.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Apple has enough money so it announces nothing in a cool parody video, and one more thing

What if at yesterday’s event Apple announced nothing? Literally. Check out this hilarious College Humor parody video of that exact thing happening.

College Humor’s Christopher McDonald takes the stage as Apple’s CEO and shocks the audience with his statement that the guys over at Cupertino need a well deserved break, so they announce… nothing. Here’s the video in question.

This is so well made that if you show it to someone who is not so up to speed with Apple’s latest endeavors they might actually believe it. In any case, if you have 2 hours to spare, you can watch the real deal as well.

Hopefully you found it as amusing as we did.

Source : blog[dot]gsmarena[dot]com

Top 7 Video Submission Websites For Backlinks

If there is one thing that every SEO provider understands, it’s that backlinks are an extremely important part of every internet marketing campaign. After all, without backlinks Google has no idea how relevant your content is and won’t be able to show it when your audience is searching for it! To help Google push your content up in the search engine rankings, here are the top seven best video submission websites for obtaining backlinks.

1) YouTube
YouTube — aside from being owned by Google — is the absolute best place to submit your video for backlinks. YouTube has a staggering PR of nine, and while that does not automatically transfer to your video, it goes to show how much love Google gives this website. While not explicitly stated, it can be inferred through search engine results that YouTube videos rank extremely well, and it’s unlikely that this will be changing any time soon.

2) MySpace
Myspace, with a PR of eight, is also an excellent source for free backlinks from your video. While it may not be the social giant that it used to be, it is still an excellent place to submit your video for easy backlinks.

3) Vimeo
Vimeo is a social network based solely around the uploading and sharing of videos — what does the mean? It means not only do you get a backlink from this immensely popular site for free, there’s a good chance (if your video is interesting) that people will comment and share it on other video websites! More backlinks means higher search engine rankings, so Vimeo is one video submission website definitely worth getting a backlink from.

4) Yahoo Video
Yahoo Video is like YouTube’s younger brother: not as popular, but still extremely relevant. Many SEO providers forget about Yahoo in favor of Google, but the search engine still gets an immense amount of traffic every day. Combine that with the fact that Yahoo Video has a solid PR of eight, and you are one backlink closer to getting that subscriber, sale, or just plain reader!

5) Daily Motion
Daily Motion is very similar to Vimeo in that it is yet another community-based video sharing site with a high PR of seven. Videos are easily organized by category, and you can find a video on just about anything here.

6) Photobucket
Here’s a name I bet you haven’t heard in a while! Also one that you probably weren’t expecting to make the cut, but Photobucket is yet another great website to obtain a free, high-quality backlinks. While the website is primarily used to share photos, it has recently begun integrating videos into its infrastructure. With a PR of seven, this is another video submission site I highly recommend.

7) Metacafe
Last on my list of the top seven video submission sites is good old Metacafe. Similar to both Daily Motion and Vimeo, this community is all about promoting interesting videos. Don’t worry though if your video isn’t interesting enough to share, Metacafe’s PR of seven will give you yet another strong backlink to add to your host of others.

This concludes my list of the top seven websites you should submit your video to if you’re looking for high-quality backlinks. Remember that quality is always better than quantity, so instead of blasting your video to 100 different video submission websites, stick with the best and watch you rankings rise!

Tags: Video Submission, Video Websites

Source : techtalkafrica[dot]com

Sony engineer takes apart Xperia Tablet S on video, puts it back together again

Teardowns of various tech is a popular thing on the Internet and Sony has decided to try their hands at it. The victim is the new Sony Xperia Tablet S. There’s a timelapse video, which shows Sony engineer Takuya Inaba take apart the Tablet S and then put it back together again, but the accompanying blog post is more interesting.

Things in the video zoom by all too quickly, but the blog post has photos and details of the various components that make up Sony’s latest Android tablet.

Now head over to Sony’s blog post that shows the step by step disassembly of the Xperia Tablet S and gives details on the internals of the Android slate.

Source : blog[dot]gsmarena[dot]com

That’s not the real me: How vanity sabotages Facebook advertising

When the elaborate self-portrait known as a Facebook profile seldom resembles the real thing, can advertisers really reach the right people?

I’m not the real me on Facebook.

“Facebook Louie” records music, cofounded a record label, and is friends with notable musicians, producers, and visual artists. “Facebook Louie” is kind of cool, and, when he heard from at all, confines his views to the least controversial of topics.

The person writing this column is not “Facebook Louie,” it’s the Louie that has invested at least 150 hours into Diablo 3 (as nerdy as that might be), and adores The Real World/Road Rules Challenge (as embarrassing as that is). This “Authentic Louie” is less cool, but more real.

None of us are our authentic, honest selves on Facebook. We censor things which are embarrassing and which disagree with the personas we have constructed there. Social science agrees with me (well, two theories do, at least). That could be bad news for Facebook.

You vs. you

The sheer amount of information we pour into social networks like Facebook might make them seem like ideal advertising platforms, but they’re actually at an odd disadvantage in some ways: Facebook’s public nature makes us behave more like characters and less like our authentic selves. In that regard, Facebook has less accurate information about us than competitors like Google. That means that Facebook ads are often less relevant to us, and, therefore, less valuable to advertisers – a serious problem for a company that rakes in all of its revenue from targeted advertising.

All the world’s a stage

A theatrical metaphor developed by Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman is useful for understanding our behavior on Facebook. First put forth in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman offered the following description of his dramaturgical theory of communication in his later work, Frame Analysis.

I am suggesting that often what talkers undertake to do is not to provide information to a recipient, but to present dramas to an audience. Indeed, it seems that we spend most of our time not engaged in giving information, but in giving shows.

According to Goffman’s theory, when communicating we adopt a role suitable to our environment and capable of achieving our goals. We are actors on a stage. Shakespeare, as ever, proves prescient.

This model describes my activities on Facebook with uncanny accuracy. My goal on Facebook is to cultivate new and strengthen existing social connections. Many of those connections are within Portland’s music scene (a word particularly apt to the metaphor), so I portray myself in a way that fits that scene and my goals within it. This means leaving some things — Diablo 3, for example — out of that portrayal.

Because of Facebook’s interpersonal nature, the version of self I reveal there will never be as complete as my portrayal when using Google search. It is unlikely that my Google search habits will become publicly known, so I don’t give censorship a second thought. Google knows about my love-hate relationship with Diablo 3. Facebook does not, because this trait does not fit the role I portray there.

Absent self-censorship, the information I reveal indirectly via Google search paints a more complete picture of me than what I disclose directly via Facebook. This is one reason that Google Adwords can be a better product than Facebook’s ads. Google knows more about me, and can therefore offer better targeting data to its advertisers.

Sex, drugs, and reality TV

Role-based censorship is just one of the ways that we limit the depictions of ourselves on Facebook. We may censor ourselves just as much or more when it comes to topics we find private or embarrassing.

Drawing on research dating back to the mid-1950′s, Robert J. Fisher writes of this bias in the introduction to Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.

Unfortunately, the basic human tendency to present oneself in the best possible light can significantly distort the information gained from self-reports. … The result is data that are systematically biased toward respondents’ perceptions of what is “correct” or socially acceptable.

Questions about sexual behavior or illicit drug use often return skewed results, as research subjects will seek to avoid disparaging or incriminating responses.

Because Facebook is a public medium based largely on self reporting through status updates and other posts, it’s susceptible to the same bias. Therefore, it will see fewer posts relating to subjects traditionally biased against, like sex and drugs. Because we all want to be cool, there will be more posts about subjects not traditionally biased against.

For example, I am a recent devotee of The Real World/Road Rules Challenge. I’m ashamed to admit it, but Johnny Bananas’ epic season 16 performance hooked me. The Challenge might actually be my favorite show. However, you will see no mention of it on my Facebook profile. Why? Well, what would people think, if they knew? Suddenly I’m “reality TV guy.” Who wants to be “reality TV guy?”

There are sites out there that know my secret. Google, because my general research about the show, and Amazon, from whom I can purchase full seasons of the show. Once again, Facebook’s competitors have more information about me due to my tendency to reveal more information indirectly than directly. Google and Amazon can target ads based on those details. Facebook cannot.

Facebook’s problem

Of course, Facebook has problems beyond these, not least of which the astronomical expectations for the service at the time of its IPO. Facebook’s ads must improve if it is to meet those expectations. There are two ways that it can do so. The first is to roll out new products from which it can yield new sources of targeting data. The service’s rumored “Want” button may be the most significant step in this direction.

The second way Facebook can improve its targeting data is much more difficult, and challenges the two communications theories outlined above. Facebook needs us to share more honestly — even when we find that sharing out-of-sync with who we pretend to be, or when that sharing reveals embarrassing things.

However, it remains to be seen if the information we give Facebook voluntarily will ever equal the value of the information we give its competitors involuntarily. Facebook certainly has the ambition to change our behavior. The future of the company may depend on whether it is successful.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Luigi’s Mansion and Castlevania for Nintendo 3DS delayed into 2013

Nintendo's fall release schedule for 3DS is packed, but two high profile titles have slipped to 2013.

 

Delays aren’t a bad thing. Sometimes a game just needs more time in the oven. Even if the people making it decided, you know, this is finished, we have literally placed all that and a bag of chips into the ROM, sometimes waiting a little bit longer to get it out is the best idea. Then a good game can be polished to the point of greatness, or it can be released at a time when there will be fewer high profile games jockeying for people’s attention and dollars.

The Nintendo 3DS has been no stranger to delays over the past year. Kid Icarus: Uprising was supposed to be ready for launch and it ended up releasing nearly a year later this past March. Luigi’s Mansion: Dark Moon was also supposed to be ready for the Nintendo 3DS quite a long time ago, but after a couple of delays, Nintendo announced at E3 2012 that it would be out in time for Christmas. None too soon based on my time with it in June.

Luigi’s Mansion won’t be out in time for Christmas though. Nintendo released an expansive release calendar detailing the 3DS and DS line up through the end of the year and Luigi’s Mansion did not make the cut.

In this case, Nintendo is wisely giving Luigi room to breathe. Between now and Christmas, Nintendo alone has New Super Mario Bros. 2, Professor Layton and the Miracle Mask, and Paper Mario: Sticker Star just to name a few and that’s on top of a few third-party games that Nintendo is aggressively marketing itself like Epic Mickey: Power of Illusion.

Next Level Games has been working on Luigi’s Mansion for around two years now and the game is nice and polished in demos. It’s not a game that’s going to really steal people’s hearts and minds away from even a Paper Mario game. Best let it breathe on its own.

Konami’s Castelvania: Lords of Shadow—Mirror of Fate, formerly scheduled for October, will join Luigi’s Mansion in 2013. That game however could use the extra development time. When I played it at E3 2012, Mercurysteam’s first handheld Castlevania was a mess. It looked like a bowl of chunky soup and played like a stiff old man. It lacked the vivacious color of past portable Castlevanias but even its dour atmosphere lacked the polish and sheen of the original Lords of Shadow. A few more months will do the game nicely.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Team Fortress meets The Matrix in ‘The Matrix Remaked’

If there was one thing missing from The Matrix, it was Valve Software's colorful cast of characters.

If you’re reading this site we feel safe in assuming that you have fond memories of the Wachowski siblings’ 1999 cyberpunk-meets-kung-fu epic The Matrix. Sure, its sequels couldn’t live up to the intensely high bar of quality set by that first movie, but they’re not at all relevant to this story, so for the next few minutes you all have permission to forget they exist.

Getting back to things we’re assuming about you, we also see it as quite likely that you are a fan of the games created by Valve Software. Whether you prefer the co-operative survival horror of the Left 4 Dead series or the wacky, colorful multiplayer shooter action of Team Fortress, the developer offers something for everyone, and in the relatively short time it has been producing games Valve’s various characters have become iconic figures in the world of gaming.

Now, thanks to the efforts of an amateur filmmaker using the YouTube handle “LiveCurious95,” these two disparate yet delicious flavors have come together in one surprisingly excellent vignette, dubbed “The Matrix Remaked.”

Using Valve’s free Source Filmmaker software, which allows users to create films using any assets from games built on Valve’s Source game engine (read: every game the company has released since Half-Life 2), Mr. or Mrs. LiveCurious95 has recreated the famous scene from The Matrix in which Neo and Trinity attempt to rescue Morpheus from a group of Agents who have been interrogating him in a high-rise office building. In case you’re unfamiliar with this moment in cinematic history, here’s the original version starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, and enough CGI to suspend any disbelievers dozens of feet above the ground.

The really neat bit though is that instead of just rebuilding the scene using models of the actors from the film, The Matrix Remaked is populated entirely by Valve’s famous characters. Morpheus is portrayed by Team Fortress 2′s cyclopian Demoman, the Agents are all Medics and Neo and Trinity are played by Left 4 Dead 2′s Nick and Rochelle, respectively. Though the clip is backed by audio samples directly from The Matrix, all of the animation has been created in Source Filmmaker and while it’s not entirely uncommon to see a popular film being recreated within a video game engine, it’s not often that we see an attempt as successful as this one.

We’ve embedded the entire clip below for your convenience, and we urge you all to watch it. Even those of you who’ve never seen The Matrix before. Watch the original version linked above, then hit play on the video below and marvel at how utterly spot on this fan-made movie is when directly compared to its source material. We’d like to offer equal propers both to Valve for giving its devoted fans such a powerful piece of movie making software, and to LiveCurious95 for giving us a chance to revisit one of the best movies of the 90s.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com