As we watch the swearing in of the new president today, there’s going to be quite a bit of action taking place behind the scenes. One factor you might not be able to see is how technology will play a key role in the inauguration. From security, to the strain put on wireless connections, it will all be apparent.

The security that will be present at Obama’s inauguration looks to be staggering. There’ll be hundreds of people in charge of protecting the president, not to mention the armoured assault vehicle, and the toughened bomb containment chamber.

via: newscientist

The largest technological impact of the inauguration is the strain that wireless companies will face throughout the day. With nearly 2 million people poised to show up, it’s one of the largest events to take place in quite some time. With many of the people there with cell phones, wireless carriers have tried to reach out. They want people to limit calling, and sending of photos to a minimum. This is quite rare for carriers to reach out to customers to limit cell phone use.

Social Networking will also play a key role in today’s event. Facebook, and other networks are anticipating a huge spike in activity when the inauguration goes underway. Twitter is expecting double the regular usage as this Tuesday unfolds.

It’s quite an exciting day indeed, just from a technical outlook.

[via: WebProNews]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wikipedia has become the staple of accessing information on the internet. Go to Google, and type in a search term. I gurantee that more than half of the keywords you type in will have a wiki page on the front page results. Statistics show that Wikipedia receives about 10 billion page views a month.

For all of you Google Adsense users, I’m sure that you’re salivating. As you lick your chops, Wikipedia sits there not being able to monetize their success. Of course they’re a non-profit organization so it makes sense. What I don’t understand is why they continue to remain non-profit.

I believe that the term non-profit loses its meaning for a website when it gets as big as Wikipedia. They’re starting to really put it to users to make donations so that Wikipedia can keep going. What I wonder is why they do it that way?

Wikipedia set a mark of $6 million for donations, and are coming really close to making it. What I can’t fathom is why they feel the need to keep this structure? Wikipedia isn’t the Red Cross, or some non-profit going to third world countries to feed others. They’re a website for helping people access information. Why not throw a single ad up, and make all the profit you need from someone other than your users?

Unlike sites with lower traffic, Wikipedia could get away with one ad. Although users hate to see ads pop up all over a site, having one banner really can’t hurt. You keep your users from having to pay to keep Wikipedia going, and you’ve got all the profit you need to keep things going. You can make sure that all the profit is solely going to the advancement of the site.

While I don’t agree with their current structure, it is quite amazing that the site has continued to go on as long as it has based purely on donations.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Net Neutrality has been a hot word to use the past couple of years. With questionable tactics being raised by telecommunication companies to control internet access for users, it will only continue to grow. The latest Net Neutrality incident comes from the Northeast, with the telecom FairPoint Communications.

FairPoint is taking over internet distribution from Verizon, who is giving up 1.5 million landline accounts going into the new year. All of this is pretty standard fare, but the big question is the handling of email accounts through FairPoint’s service. All of the Verizon accounts will have to be switched over to FairPoint. This can either be a small, or big hassle depending on how much you rely on your email address for communication.

I can actually forgive FairPoint for having customers switch from their Verizon accounts, to theirs. It makes sense, considering it’s a huge telecom switch. Where I draw the line though, is that FairPoint is restricting access to third party email services (AOL, Yahoo, Google etc..). Users of these services will still be able to keep their addresses, but can only access their accounts through FairPoint’s email portal.

Needless to say this is a huge breach of privacy in terms of a provider-client relationship. Restricting access to a site because of a service that millions across the country use every day? I’m not sure what the thought process behind the decision was. If anything, having customers rely on other third party services helps keep the strain off their servers. The only real advantage to forcing users to use FairPoint’s portal would be if they have advertising on their pages.

This is quite upsetting, as it’s but one step (albeit a small one) towards telecoms garnering more control over content. First, it started with capping bandwidth for people utilizing a large about of data transfer. Now, FairPoint has taken it a step further restricting users from free services on the internet.

Where/When is it going to end?

[via: Rutland Herald]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The internet has effected so many facets of our lives that it’s impossible to think of where we’d be without it. Video games are a primary example of how the internet has made an impact on a particular industry. If you read game reviews, it’s almost considered a faux pas if a game doesn’t have some kind of online functionality.

As we move forward with integration of video games and the internet, what other changes can we look forward to?

In a recent Joystiq article, one aspect of gaming that is quickly becoming network integrated is the distribution of the games themselves

I think as we move forward to online distribution, it’s important that we look at every angle to make sure that what we’re doing is really helping the industry. Just like any kind of change, it’s important to realize that with the good, there’s always the bad.

For publishers, and developers the greatest advantage for online distribution is cost. It’s much cheaper to put your content online for downloading then to produce cases, instruction manuals for physical copies. I think that the idea of cheaper costs, effects the smaller developers and publishers much more so than the powerhouses. If you have created a game, and are thinking about trying to get it released then making it available online is a much less daunting venture.

Some things that I think publishers, and developers should look out for when looking to distribute online is how overpopulated the landscape could get. There’s already one platform that is a prime example of this trend; the iTunes App Store. There’s already over 3000+ games available for download on the App Store. Which makes it hard to have the worthwhile titles to be more known.

Depending on what kind of consumer you are, digital distribution is a godsend or a nightmare. If you’re a person who’s looking for the most convenient option, then downloads are the way to go. You don’t have to leave your house, deal with annoying salespeople etc… There’s also less physical clutter with purchasing games through downloads compared to physical copies. Accessibility, is another benefit for downloading content. The Steam service that Valve uses is a perfect example of greater accessibility through online distribution. With Steam, once you have installed a game then it is linked to your account rather than the actual game itself. That way, wherever you go, aslong as you have your Steam account you can install your game on any PC.

I think that the negatives for online distribution are a little more subtle than the positives. The greatest risk for looking towards online distribution over physical property is the economy. Publishing, and creating physical media provides jobs to millions of people around the world. People that rely on physical media distribution to help pay the bills. If content goes solely online, then what will happen to these people? If you’re looking for a more personal concern, then how about the idea that it’s fun to own physical property over a file. I think that consumers still like the idea of holding a product in their hands, compared to owning a file. It will take sometime to ween people off of that mindset as well.

As Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and WiiWare all become more viable resources for gaming, this trend will continue to grow. Sony has moved ahead the fastest, already offering downloads of full PS3 games on their network.

It’s very important that we continue to discuss the consequences of moving towards online distribution. There’s great advances to be made, but it’s important to realize what we’re completely effecting with the transition.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!