From the website: "Bell Canada and other big telecom companies can now freely impose usage-based billing on independent Internet Service Providers (indie ISPs) and YOU.
This means we're looking at a future where ISPs will charge per byte, the way they do with smart phones. If we allow this to happen Canadians will have no choice but to pay more for less Internet. Big Telecom companies are obviously trying to gouge consumers, control the Internet market, and ensure that consumers continue to subscribe to their television services.
This will crush innovative services, Canada's digital competitiveness, and your wallet.
We need to stand up for the Internet." More from OpenMedia.ca
On the one hand, there's the idea that professors should be as famous as movie stars, athletes and business executives. That's what motivates this sentiment: "If scholars want the equivalent of being on the news-stand, she said, they just need to be open." But I think that fame - even academic fame - has very little to do with openness. Quite the opposite - the people trumped up as celebrities by the press are people you have to pay to access. Musicians, movie stars, athletes, CEOs - nobody gets to see them for free. And the relationship is symbiotic - the news media funnels an audience their way, and these same people, whether they're selling an album, a movie or a car, send some of their earnings back to the media. Open access artists break the cycle; they don't pay (or don't pay nearly as well) for publicity. So it should be clear that merely being open is not going to get you into the news stands.
You can be open, or you can be famous. Being famous means buying into the money machine that creates fame. But the money machine won't make you famous unless you're selling something, unless you can pay your way. Make no mistake about it. If you support openness, if you are, open, you are turning your back on fame.
I've mentioned a bunch of these in these pages, and will certainly follow the others, as these are all open source projects worthy of close attention in the educational technology community. Presentation by Christopher Pappas.
Inge de Waard posts George Siemens's presentation on the role of data analytics in learning and asks the question, "how do you cope with the privacy issues?" It's easy to say that people no longer care about privacy or that people should not be worried about the gathering of personal data. But as she notes, "privacy is more relevant to minorities and vulnerable groups, then any other groups in society." As David Lyon says, surveillance is about social sorting in order to treat groups differently. Outing a gay person can be fatal (and not just in Uganda). And, she notes, " if data is sold to the highest bidder, then the ethics of that highest bidder better be in sync with my interpretation of ethics." But when has that ever been the case?
What's really nice about Google's science fair, which it announces today, is that it is open to students aged 13 to 18 from around the world working on their own or in a team of two or three. What's interesting about it is how an event like this can drive curriculum toward a more open-ended experimentally based type of learning.
Brian Kelly reports that Scribd is enhancing access to his papers, this on the basis of comparative hit counts between Scribd and his own website. He admits, " I can't help but think that the usage statistics are flawed," as do I, and while there is not any direct evidence of this, there are some good explanations - hosting sites like Scribed are polled by search engines more frequently, spam services and bots are more likely to hit a hosting service, hits on pages with embeds may be reported as hits, even though the visit to the page is incidental. It is certainly not because Scribd provides a better reading experience - papers hosted on Scribd are almost unreadable, probably deliberately so as Scribd forces you to give them personal information if you want to download a copy.
This could be the beginning of the end for Twitter. I've commented on this before (see the diagram, above). This post shows how easy it is to create a Twitter account and have it automatically reply to Twitter posts of any description. At the very least, it greatly increases Twitter volume. At worse, it renders useless any search and fills your screen with 'replies' to your tweets. In the comments you can even find a Twitter reply bot written without a single line of code using Yahoo Pipes, Twitter Feed and Pastbin.
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe,
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own,
you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.