Dear Web,
I’m sorry to report that I’m leaving you. I’ll be googling and taking away all you might know about me. And the things I can’t take with me… Well, I’ll mess those just to make sure you won’t share them with anyone else, ever.
I could say “it’s not you, it’s me” but I’d be lying. The fact is that IT IS YOU. I’m sick of having you go out and share our stuff with one billion people. Why couldn’t you just keep things quiet? “This is a local shop for local people” comes to mind.
I’m sorry but you’re just a wreck and I don’t want to hear from you until you get your shit together.
Your’s trully,
<Messed up signature>
Just went over the contents of my Bloglines “Identity” folder and I have to say that Microsoft’s move to acquire Credentica’s U-Prove technology and expertise got my full attention! 
U-What?
Brands is the inventor of private credentials technology which allows a user to prove something about their identity without disclosing more information than is absolutely necessary. For example, a voter can prove unequivocally that they have the right to vote in the state of California, without having to disclose their name or other personal information.
Description shamelessly taken from here.
Kim Cameron did a good job of following the ripples caused by the news:
Summing it up: a great technology just got a huge boost and might just find it’s way to our lifes a little bit earlier than I expected.
And in case you didn’t realize: these are really important news!! Just checkout this nifty video to “get it”.
Great interview with Mark Zuckerberg over at GigaOM (I like their coverage on events).
Here’s what the interview would have looked like if I was there:
Stacey: Let’s talk about monetization. You said yesterday that you envision the social advertising landscape evolving over the next 10…15…20 years. How will those ads evolve and when will we start seeing aspects of them on Facebook? And where does Beacon, which you said wasn’t an ad effort, fall into this?
Mark: Beacon was a part of the platform. It was part of this while effort to blur the boundaries between what’s inside Facebook and what’s outside Facebook. Beacon was our first cut at a protocol to do that.
When it comes to social ads we really want to line up what people are trying to do on Facebook and the utility it offers with monetization. If you look at what people are trying to do on the site, it’s communicating and connecting with each other and sharing information, so the business model should be around people sharing information and staying connected.
Davide: Fair enough.
Mark: In banner advertising, people who have developed a trust with the audience run a banner ad and the trust bleeds over to the ad so people pay attention to it.
Stacey: (making a skeptical face.)
Davide: (also making a skeptical face.) Mark… Is it ok if I call you Mark? Are you high on something? “people who have developed a trust with the audience”… wtf? So in Facebook’s eyes companies are “people” and the real people like me are just “audience”?
Mark: What? You look like something’s wrong? People go to a content site to see a specific kind of content and will trust those ads relate somehow to it. On Facebook, people aren’t coming to see content from Facebook; they’re coming to see what other people are sharing, so the most natural analog would be having the ads be information shared among the people. Because so much of our society has some commercial component it seems like there will be a way to both share information and line that up with what advertisers want.
Davide: (Ohhh… “it seems” does it?)
Mark: Some amount is happening as advertisers pay to accelerate that distribution of information. The amount they’d be willing to pay is proportional to how much it is accelerated.
Davide: That’s some fucked up shit man! 
I’d like to thank Mark and “Me” for making this interview possible. 
And off the record…
Davide: What is the Facebook “audience” saying about the constant attempts at lining up “what they are doing on the site” with “what advertisers want”?
Mark: Dude! The interview’s over!
Davide: Oh… sorry! I already know the answer to this one: they just want to be left alone “sharing information and staying connected”. But wait a second… that doesn’t seem like the kind of things “audiences” do.
Stacey: I think you have a point there. Facebook users aren’t a quiet bunch. Comparing them to an “audience” is looking at Facebook as a tool for “advertisers”, not one for people.
Mark: Humm… Good point!
Warning: geek post about version control systems. But still… if you work with a computer and manage multiple versions of your stuff (renaming files and folder with numbers or dates) you’ll learn something useful in this post!
Today I read about Bazaar in a Free Software Magazine article and decided to take a look. Now… I’m simply hooked! 
Ok, so what’s Bazaar after all? Bazaar is a Distributed Version Control System which… is NICE! I mean, really DAMN NICE! It simply works!
I’ve used CVS and Subversion while attending my CS degree but never have I or my close colleagues got to apply good version control practices. Branching? Tags? What are those?
Well, now I know it wasn’t all my fault! The tools didn’t help.
So… back to Bazaar! This tool is dead easy to work with and it’s online User Guide will get you going in no time!
The part I’m more excited about is that Bazaar supports lots of usage workflows! You can start off by managing your files locally, shift to peer-to-peer work and then to centralized development. You can mix these usage patterns at any point always using the same tool! So yeah… FANBOY!
Here’s a quickstart for those who are familiar with cvs/svn:
- Setting up a [shared] repository: bzr init-repo repository
- Create a project: bzr init project
- Add files and folders: bzr add
- Commit changes [locally]: bzr commit -m “commit message”
- Create a branch: bzr branch parent_branch new_branch
- Merge changes from parent branch: bzr merge
- Update parent branch with changes made on the current branch: bzr push parent_branch
Some [subjective] basics:
- Branch = Project
- Any branches contained within a repository’s folder hierarchy “share” that repository, otherwise: Branch=Project=Repository (important for disk usage)
- Working with local repositories is the same as working with remote ones! So in the commands I described above you can swap “branch|folder” references by remote locations and it will work as expected! Really! It will!
Almost forgot! The only thing you need to share a repository with others is a shared filesystem to put the files on (ftp/sftp/network share). Bye bye svnserve!
So what are you waiting for? Try it out!
Estava eu muito contente a escrever um comentário à notícia que apareceu no jornal Público, quando me cortaram as pernas, ou melhor, o limite de caracteres. Liberdade de expressão no seu melhor. 
Segue-se o meu comentário original na íntegra:
Concordo com a utilização da Internet como forma de agilizar a máquina do espaço. No entanto, não concordo que “wikis, blogs e sites sociais” sejam a panaceia para melhorar o governo.
Neste momento todos os cidadãos podem ter o seu púlpito: basta criar um blogue e eis que as nossas ideias podem chegar a milhões de pessoas (bom… para isso acontecer as pessoas têm de visitar o blogue). Isto altera um pouco as regras do jogo: para me tornar popular não preciso de ter o meu nome no jornal da minha zona, nem tão pouco concorrer à Junta ou Câmara, posso atalhar e, depois de inspirado por uma sessão da Assembleia da República, começar a versar sobre políticas como se soubesse do que estava a falar. Com alguma sorte (link baiting) eis que vou subindo no índice da Internet (a versão online de uma hierarquia política) e quando dou por mim o meu blogue surge em primeiro lugar quando os cidadãos fazem pesquisas por novas leis ou informações acerca de dirigentes políticos.
A Internet permite que a comunicação entre pessoas se processe de uma forma nunca antes possível na história da humanidade. No entanto, as tecnologias que temos actualmente são ainda embrionárias e apresentam graves falhas no que diz respeito ao controlo da privacidade, dos dados e da visibilidade das nossas ideias.
Estamos a lidar com um meio cujas consequências são tanto positivas como negativas (mas onde os aspectos positivos são aclamados).
Pegando no exemplo relativo às eleições norte-americanas podemos dizer que ficou a ganhar quem melhor tirou partido da tecnologia e não necessariamente a pessoa melhor qualificada. O potencial viral das comunicações na Internet abre a porta tanto para a divulgação de produtos como de presidentes. Assim, torna-se vital dar um passo atrás e começar a repensar conceitos como “direito de antena”, popularidade, boato e por último “partidos políticos”.
Não é uma questão de aplicar ferramentas “web 2.0″ à governação, mas sim de desenvolver ferramentas que, respeitando os direitos das pessoas, permitam uma comunicação mais eficiente e transparente entre os cidadãos e os seus representantes.
Um recurso interessante para verem o lado negativo da Internet é o livro “The Future of Reputation” (leitura gratuita online).
Se quiserem comentar façam-no aqui. Isto de ter de ir visitar outro site para ler comentários só porque o público.pt não tem “Feeds para os comentários” não é para mim.
Bye Bye Meebo?
The Windows Live Messenger IM Control enables web sites to show the presence of Windows Live Messenger users, and let site visitors engage in instant messaging conversations with the Messenger users. A Web site can invite its users to share their Messenger presence and exchange messages with visitors to the site. When a site hosts the Windows Live Messenger IM Control, site visitors can instant message Messenger users directly from the browser without installing the Windows Live Messenger desktop client on their computers. This provides an ideal mechanism for Web sites to enable site visitors to send messages to Windows Live Messenger users who agree to share their presence on the Web. For example, a social networking site can invite its users to share their Messenger presence on user profile pages, or the author of a blog could use it to invite readers to discuss a particular topic.
My take is that Microsoft has just unleashed hell (see bold comments below)! This is taken from the visitor’s sign-in window:
Automatically sign in
Each time you visit <sitename> you will be automatically signed in to Messenger. You can allow your Messenger contacts to see that you are visiting <sitename> and send messages to you.
Choosing this option also allows <sitename> to:
- Learn your Windows Live ID (ok, I can live with this one)
- Set your status, display name, and personal message on Messenger (WTF?)
- See the status and e-mail addresses of your Messenger contacts (see their e-mail addresses? ohoho! Affiliate Heaven!)
- Add and remove your Messenger contacts (<brand X> wants to be your friend!)
- Send and receive messages to your Messenger contacts (any messages? Is “Fuck you” eligible?)
Microsoft has authorized <sitename> to connect to the .NET Messenger Service provided that it follows certain rules, such as not asking for your password. <link to <sitename>’s privacy policy.
This is going to totally mess up people’s IM usage and create LOADS of noise in MSN’s Network.
Anyway… Docs for developers here. More details as I delve into this.
I’m now reading an increadible book called “The Future of Reputation” which happens to be available online for free (the real deal! No need to share your mother’s maiden name).
Just got through chapters 1 to 4 and I must say that the book is really awesome! So far it got me thinking about Privacy VS Free Speech and also about Norm enforcing (through shame) on the Internet. And on this last subject here is some of the referred material:
“Norms” and “Shame” are new additions to my concept map. The Internet as a new support for norm enforcement kind of turns a good mechanism into a recipe for personal disaster. There’s no way for you to change your digital identity (to avoid further prosecution), or even a way to ensure that someone doesn’t damage your reputation by pretending to be you online.
Lots of problems need fixing:
- Persistent online information (accessible out of context in future interactions);
- The easy creation of discardable identities;
- Lack of liability in online communications;
- Mob behaviour enhanced by anonymity (taking “free speech” to damaging levels);
- Instant global reach for messages that “were” directed only to friends (turning gossip into something quite different);
- Lack of judgement in assessing the quality of information sources by readers;
All for now. Probably more later today.
