[newspapers, new media & monetization]

Thanks to a link from @jayrosen_nyu I've seen this interesting article on how to obtain value from (or rather, monetize) online content. Zachary M. Seward notes that the meeting of industry execs held on Thursday was aptly titled "Models to Lawfully Monetize Content."

The report itself outlines five key changes (or "doctrines" according to Rick Edmonds).

• True Value. Establish that news content online has value by charging for it. Begin "massive experimentation with several of the most promising options."
• Fair Use. Maintain the value of professionally produced and edited content by "aggressively enforcing copyright, fair use and the right to profit from original work."
• Fair Share. Negotiate a higher price for content produced by the news industry that is aggregated and redistributed by others.
• Digital Deliverance. "Invest in technologies, platforms and systems that provide content-based e-commerce, data-sharing and other revenue generating solutions."
• Consumer Centric. Refocus on consumers and users. Shift revenue strategies from those focused on advertisers.

Why the interest in monetizing online content...to protect the print newspapers.

Paid content wall would protect print subscriptions

The report also suggests a paid content wall would help retain print subscribers, citing a recent USC Annenberg survey finding that 22 percent of online news readers said that they had dropped print subscriptions because they could most of the same content free online.

But is charging for online content the best way to generate revenue? Hard-hitting sales tactics doesn't seem synonymous with loyal readership. In James Warren's words: "collecting enhanced online newspaper user data across newspaper properties and mining that data to aggressively sell target content to specific audience segments across the network (e.g. golf enthusiasts)."

Newspapers need to get creative. Leverage some of the amazing web 2.0 tools to generate interest. Perhaps online versions might offer something for the long tail too which won't be present in the print versions (I know some newspapers are already doing this).



Note: The Huffington Post, having "reinvented the American newspaper," seems to do quite well (without a print version) though only 6% of it's news stories are original content.

[facebook listens to the public]

After suffering public outrage (including a Facebook group) when Facebook changed their terms of service, Facebook has reverted to the original rules:

So, the people do have a voice. Shame that didn't work when around 2 million people protested against the war in London.

[recession for academic quality]

Usually, when facing a financial crunch, businesses need to make cuts and borrow money to keep afloat. Arizona State University has come up with a rather different method; force staff to take up to 15 days unpaid from work:

"All 12,000 Arizona State University employees will be required to take 10 to 15 days off without pay before July to meet budget cuts required by the state Legislature, the university announced Wednesday.

The mandate includes top administrators, varsity coaches, faculty, office and maintenance workers, but the unpaid leave, or furloughs, will be staggered. ASU will remain open and classes will meet.

"I want to assure all of you that ASU is committed to continuing to deliver all our academic programs to our students, to not reducing academic quality and to maintaining our university student financial aid programs," Crow said.

Top University officials, including President Michael Crow, vice presidents and deans, will take 15 days without pay.

• Faculty and other academic professionals will take up to 12 days off, excluding any day they are expected to teach.

• Other employees, including clerical and maintenance workers, will be required to take 10 days unpaid leave.

Employees were encouraged to stagger their days off to soften the blow. Salary loss for these employees will be equivalent to 8 to 12 percent of the pay they would have received until June 30, the end of the fiscal year.

ASU expects to save $24 million from the furloughs. Lawmakers are still debating the size of budget cuts that ASU and other state universities will be expected to make."

Via Scott Rettberg's facebook post.

[google boggled]

From the BBC: "'Human error' hits Google search

Google's search service has been hit by technical problems, with users unable to access search results.

For a period on Saturday, all search results were flagged as potentially harmful, with users warned that the site "may harm your computer.

Users who clicked on their preferred search result were advised to pick another one.

Google attributed the fault to human error and said most users were affected for about 40 minutes.

"What happened? Very simply, human error," wrote Marissa Mayer, vice president, search products and user experience, on the Official Google Blog.

The internet search engine works with stopbadware.org to ascertain which sites install malicious software on people's computers and merit a warning.

Stopbadware.org investigates consumer complaints to decide which sites are dangerous.

The list of malevolent sites is regularly updated and handed to Google.

When Google updated the list on Saturday, it mistakenly flagged all sites as potentially dangerous.

"We will carefully investigate this incident and put more robust file checks in place to prevent it from happening again," Ms Mayer wrote."


After the BBC story google updated theirs (they noted that changes are marked in blue):

"If you did a Google search between 6:30 a.m. PST and 7:25 a.m. PST this morning, you likely saw that the message "This site may harm your computer" accompanied each and every search result. This was clearly an error, and we are very sorry for the inconvenience caused to our users.

What happened? Very simply, human error. Google flags search results with the message "This site may harm your computer" if the site is known to install malicious software in the background or otherwise surreptitiously. We do this to protect our users against visiting sites that could harm their computers. We maintain a list of such sites through both manual and automated methods. We work with a non-profit called StopBadware.org to come up with criteria for maintaining this list, and to provide simple processes for webmasters to remove their site from the list."

[literate cities]

Six key elements are analysed in this study to dechipher which city is the most literate (American cities only) in 2008. These include: newspaper circulation, number of bookstores, library resources, periodical publishing resources, educational attainment and Internet resources and are then compared to the population rate (but only in cities greater than 250,000).

Somewhat oddly, the study does NOT include "reading test scores or how often people read, but what kinds of literary resources are available and used."

"Cities that ranked higher for having more bookstores also have a higher proportion of people buying books online, the analysis found, and cities with newspapers that have high per-capita circulation rates also have more people reading newspapers online. Likewise, cities that ranked higher for having well-used libraries also have more booksellers."

The author of the study, Dr. John Miller, makes a very interesting observation:

"While it is too early in this study to draw conclusions, it is nevertheless striking that newspaper readership rates in the US’s global economic competitors are significantly higher than in the US. Since literacy is generally regarded as a barometer of a nation’s social, cultural, and economic health, perhaps these findings are cause for national concern."

According to the USA Today report, "Preliminary results of a related study examining international literacy paint a less optimistic outlook for the USA. It notes that in per-capita paid newspaper circulation, the USA ranks only 31st in the world, far behind other countries, including Aruba, Liechtenstein and Japan."

[pulitzer prize clarifications]

The other day I blogged about changes to the Pulitzer prize terms; now included are online-only news organisations (rather than demanding that online-content only be accepted from organisations that also had a print version). Since then Simon Owens has drawn my attention to some developments . Simon was able to interview Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler for a PBS article and then speak with Salon, Slate and ProPublica to gauge their reaction to the news.

From the PBS article:

"I spoke to Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler to find out what kind of entrants the Pulitzer Board is looking for. He told me that a special committee had made recommendations for the changes earlier this year and in November the board adopted them.

"We're not about the business of looking around the country to identify specific organizations," Gissler said. "We leave it up to the entrants to meet our criteria."

In other words, the burden of proof lies on the news organization to provide ample evidence that it meets all the qualifications for the award. Each entrant must submit a detailed cover letter with each entry, and Gissler said that the organization would have to make the case that it adheres to strict journalistic standards and engages in original reporting.

Pressing further, I asked whether sites like Salon, Slate and the Huffington Post would qualify.

"I'm not sure if they all qualify," he replied. "I think you have to determine if they're primarily original news reporting. We're really trying to push the burden on the entrants and not try to sit here and speculate about an entry that may or may not be let in."

He did, however, confirm that a blog could hypothetically qualify. If one or two people call their website a text-based newspaper, would it be eligible?" he said. "Blogs tend to fall into three categories. There are news reporting blogs, there are commentary blogs, and there's a hybrid version of the two. If they're text-based and meet our criteria, then they probably could compete. But it would be up to them to satisfy the criteria."

[...]

"NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen showed similar skepticism in a series of posts on his Twitter account. In a message to me he asked if a blogger known for insightful opinion could win the award for commentary even though she doesn't engage in original reporting. When I responded that she probably wouldn't qualify, he replied, "Oh, I see. If it's commentary at a reporting based news organization, [you're] golden. [It's] the derivation that counts."


Read the entire article here where Simon develops the conversation and presents some interesting responses from other key people involved in journalism. You can also join the conversation by answering some of Simon's questions:

"What do you think about the new eligibility for Pulitzer Prizes in journalism? Are they open enough or should they include more entrants? How would you define who should be eligible for Pulitzers?"

[pulitzer prize now includes online writings]

Pulitzer Prizes Broadened to Include Online-Only Publications Primarily Devoted to Original News Reporting




Via Netwurker Mez on Facebook.

[blogosphere blamed in political fakery]

What's that? Sarah Palin doesn't know that Africa is a continent. Well, I certainly wouldn't be jumping to defend her. I probably wouldn't think that she was misquoted. I'd assume, well, that she was Republican and that is pretty much synonomous with...well, you know.

When Fox news made this assertion, it was (mostly) taken as fact. Now that the election dust has settled, it turns out that Martin Eisenstadt who fed this information to Fox doesn't exist, and the guys who created the now famous character were really only trying to pitch a new tv show.

But, the imporant thing that you'll discover if you read the NY Times, it's all the fault of the blogosphere.

"Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.
[...]
But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it."
[...]
Among the Americans who took that bait was Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. A few hours later Mr. Stein put up a post on the magazine’s political blog, with the title “Hoax Alert: Bizarre ‘McCain Adviser’ Too Good to Be True,” and explained how he had been fooled.

In July, after the McCain campaign compared Senator Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, the Eisenstadt blog said “the phone was burning off the hook” at McCain headquarters, with angry calls from Ms. Hilton’s grandfather and others. A Los Angeles Times political blog, among others, retold the story, citing Eisenstadt by name and linking to his blog.

Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.

Among those taken in by Monday’s confession about the Palin Africa report was The New Republic’s political blog. Later the magazine posted this atop the entry: “Oy — this would appear to be a hoax. Apologies.”

But the truth was out for all to see long before the big-name take-downs. For months sourcewatch.org has identified Martin Eisenstadt as a hoax. When Mr. Stein was the victim, he blogged that “there was enough info on the Web that I should have sussed this thing out."

[inanimate alice and edu in the news!]

"An interactive novel created by a writer and artist who work at De Montfort University has been nominated for a national education award, and is being showcased by the EU as well used by teachers in classrooms around the world.

'Inanimate Alice' (see www.inanimatealice.com ) tells the adventures of a girl who becomes a games artist and it has been nominated in the Interactive Productions category of the 2008 Learning On Screen awards given by BUFVC, the British Universities Film and Video Council.

Winners will be announced in York on 18 March. For more information on The Learning on Screen Awards which celebrate excellence in the use of moving image and related media in learning, teaching and research, go to: http://www.bufvc.ac.uk/learningonscreen/.

Author Kate Pullinger said: "Inanimate Alice has proven to be popular across a broad range of ages as well as with a broad range of viewers, including both book-lovers and gamers. Because the level of interactivity starts out low in episode one, increasing with each subsequent episode in order to reflect Alice's own growing abilities, we've found that we can take an audience unfamiliar with multimedia fiction with us. Educators like Inanimate Alice because of this; students from primary to post-graduate level find the work engaging."

Chris Joseph said: "It's fantastic that the BUFVC have recognised Inanimate Alice for its use within educational environments, and the nomination is confirmation of De Montfort University's growing status as a centre for cutting edge digital arts and education within the UK. It is particularly satisfying to be sharing the platform with the high budget productions from the BBC and CBBC."

Jess Laccetti said [woo hoo! that's me!]: "Students from primary to post-graduate level find Inanimate Alice engaging and it can help teachers successfully integrate new media literacies into the classroom. Because of its multimodality (images, sounds, text, interaction) students see storytelling in a new light and this can them develop and refine the multiple literacies (literary, cinematic, artistic, participatory etc.) required today for successful navigation of the online environment."

Download the education pack that goes with Inanimate Alice episodes 1-3 from here. Any comments, add them to the iteach blog or send me an e-mail.

A press release at MCV: Market for Home Computing and Video Games.

[cnn fires blogger]

"As far as CNN knew, I was a valued employee, albeit one with almost no say in the day-to-day editorial decisions on American Morning. This held true even as I began contributing columns to the Huffington Post, giving my writing more exposure than ever before.

Then, last Monday afternoon, I got a call from my boss, Ed Litvak.

Ed, seeming to channel Bill Lumburgh from Office Space, informed me of that which I was already very well aware: that my name was "attached to some, uh, 'opinionated' blog posts" circulating around the internet. I casually admitted as much and was then informed of something I didn't know: that I could be fired outright for this offense. 24 hours later, I was. During my final conversation with Ed Litvak and a representative from HR, they hammered home a single line in the CNN employee handbook which states that any writing done for a "non-CNN outlet" must be run through the network's standards and practices department. They asked if I had seen this decree. As a matter of fact I had, but only about a month previously, when I stumbled across a copy of that handbook on someone's desk and thumbed through it. I let them know exactly what I had thought when I read the rule, namely that it was staggeringly vague and couldn't possibly apply to something as innocuous as a blog. (I didn't realize until later that CNN had canned a 29-year-old intern for having the temerity to write about her work experiences -- her positive work experiences -- in a password-protected online journal a year earlier.) I told both my boss and HR representative that a network which prides itself on being so internet savvy -- or promotes itself as such, ad nauseam -- should probably specify blogging and online networking restrictions in its handbook. I said that they can't possibly expect CNN employees, en masse, to not engage in something as popular and timely as blogging if they don't make themselves perfectly clear."

[...]

"When I asked, just out of curiosity, who came across my blog and/or the columns in the Huffington Post, the woman from HR answered, "We have people within the company whose job is specifically to research this kind of thing in regard to employees."

Jesus, we have a Gestapo?

A few minutes later, I was off the phone and out of a job. No severance. No warning (which would've been a much smarter proposition for CNN as it would've put the ball effectively in my court and forced me to decide between my job or the blog). No nothing. Just, go away.

Right before I hung up, I asked for the "official grounds" for my dismissal, figuring the information might be important later. At first they repeated the line about not writing anything outside of CNN without permission, but HR then made a surprising comment: "It's also, you know, the nature of what you've been writing."

And right there I knew that CNN's concern wasn't so much that I had been writing as what I'd been writing."

[ha ha!]

Via Gawker.

[woo hoo: i'm *kinda* mentioned in the news...]

On Sunday Katie Haegele wrote an article for the Philladelphia Enquirer about Inanimate Alice and there's a wee bit on the education pack I've designed for the pilot project (which is now available to anyone as a free download).

"There's a question that sometimes comes up in conversations about interactive fiction: Is it literature, or a game?
I've wondered myself, as I've joined animated characters on their journeys and tried to fit their narratives into a preexisting slot in my mind. But recently, as I watched Inanimate Alice - an adventure story told through a series of 10 Flash-animated films - I began to think there might be a better way to look at it.

Alice's story begins when she is 8 years old and living in a remote part of China with her parents (and her imaginary friend Brad). The second and third episodes are set in a villa in Italy and an apartment in Moscow, and in each place Alice finds herself alone, thinking her way out of a scary situation or just keeping herself company. It's a sophisticated piece of storytelling that makes use of digital imagery and sound, haunting electronic music composed by cocreator Chris Joseph, and of course interactivity. The viewer is also a user, who participates by making the stories move forward and by solving puzzles as Alice introduces them. The third chapter gives users the option to only watch and read the story, or to "play" it.

As the story progresses Alice will grow up to be an artist who, in a nice bit of self-reference, designs characters for a computer game company. The series is still in creation by Kate Pullinger and Joseph, who both teach in the area of digital media arts at De Montfort University in Leicester, England. The fourth episode is due out this month.

[...]

Pullinger, who has published novels and collections of short fiction in addition to creating other digital pieces, said she and Joseph did not set out to make Alice a children's story. But the first several episodes take place during the character's childhood and adolescence, and the series' producer, Ian Harper of the Bradfield Co., saw the potential for Alice to be used as an educational tool.

He hired Jessica Laccetti, who did the story's Italian translation, to create supplemental educational materials, which are available on the site (http://www.inanimatealice.com/education/) as a free download. The idea is that pieces like Alice could both engage reluctant readers and acclimate students to "reading" within digital formats - as well as help teachers and parents get a feel for the kinds of technologies their kids are using.

"Teachers have responded incredibly well to Alice, but as with any new form, it's difficult to find and expand the audience - [though] this is changing already," Pullinger said.

If readers continue to enjoy these kinds of stories, the question may change from what they are, to where."

Read the whole article here.

[where's feminism now?]

Ok. So I suppose I should begin by acknowledging what a long way the U.S. has come. I mean, a woman and a non-white guy (omg) are in the running for president. However, watching the debate on CNN this morning just highlighted that we *still* need to be aware of gender bias. Perhaps Edwards and Obama didn't mean to divert the debate from important issues like abortion, immigration, education, health care, Iraq, same-sex marriages to personal attacks causing Clinton to respond (she must have practised after the Oct. 30th *debate*)

"I've just been personally attacked again. I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud at least we can hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook."

Though Clinton didn't want voters to see gender as the issue: "She added they were not attacking her because she was a woman but because she was ahead. It was a good line, even if sounded well-rehearsed, aimed at women."

Hrm...after that reponse the debate seemed to refocus on presidential issues and I was feeling optimistic. That wasn't to be long-lived as during question time an audience member, a young woman, decided to invoke her right to query the system. She looked straight at Clinton and asked whether pearls or diamonds were her favourite. What?! That seems such an odd question and I wonder whether it was a plant to remind the voting public that at the end of the day Clinton is *just* a woman and should be relegated to the private sphere where concerns over which accouterment to employ reign supreme (or at least parallel with getting dinner ready).

I didn't catch the remainder of the question session so not sure if the male candidates were asked whether they preferred boxers or briefs...

[google allows news comments]

So now we can comment on news articles appearing through google news:

note the disclaimer:

[if ET had the iphone he wouldn't have made it home]

Two weeks (or there about) after people were seen running to the nearest store only to stand in a queue for hours in order to pay over a week's rent (400 pounds for 4 gig) for a 'phone (albeit a super pretty one), they're seen running right back to return them.

As Cade Metz explains

"Let's be honest here: The iPhone's all-finger, no-stylus interface is a beautiful thing. With the exception of the on-screen keyboard - which isn't
quite up-to-snuff if your hands are any larger than a twelve-year-old's - this
is pretty close to the ultimate UI, an interface you can use without a second
thought. From the get-go. But $541.42 is too much to pay for an interface. UI
aside, the only real reason to buy an iPhone is peer pressure."

He ends his musings with this one-liner:

"More importantly, if you carry an iPhone, what happens to your self-worth? I can assure you: It plummets. Carry an iPhone, and you're just one of the lemmings."

As for technical issues, well, here are 28!


I think I'll stick to my Blackberry. So it doesn't have a 5mp camera but it has a fast web connection (Edge is soooo 2005...), security, loooong battery life, and loads of other businessey-type apps (the iphone doesn't let you edit Word of Excel files?!) that Apple doesn't seem to want to provide (yet).

Plus there's a major security flaw with iphone technology:

"Hackers could take control of an iPhone if its owner visits a doctored Web site or Internet hotspot, security researchers reported Monday.

The vulnerability of the vaunted device, Apple Inc.'s first cell phone, is only theoretical for now. There are no reports of criminals actually taking advantage of the security glitch to remotely access an iPhone. But if it were exploited, hijacked iPhones could be very useful to the same gangs that take over personal computers and use them to disseminate spam, said Charlie Miller, principal security analyst at Independent Security Evaluators, which discovered the flaw. "You could have a million iPhones dialing the company's main line and overwhelm it that way," Miller said."

For more ranting check out anti-ipod.

[the semantics of the web]

In an interview published yesterday in IT World, the creator of the web talks about how he envisions the future of the semantic web. Here is a sample of the interview, the full text is here.

Berners-Lee: (Laughs) No, I don't do that. I think about real technology. I didn't invent the term "Web 3.0." The Web is constantly developing. If you want to see what's happening that I am interested in now, there are several technologies laced together. In Web 2.0 there are some technologies like JavaScript and others that are all standards that came out of allowing people to do things. Most standards are coming out now that will have a good push towards the mobile Web initiative, which is the use of the Web on lots of different devices.
In the future we will have the Semantic Web that will allow a whole lot of other things. One of the powerful things about networking technology like the Internet or the Web or the Semantic Web, one of the characteristics of such a technology is that the things we've just done with it far surpass the imagination of the people who invented them. Take for example the inventors of TCP/IP, the original protocols for communication between computers over the Internet, created by Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn in 1974.
When I invented the Web, I thought of it as an infrastructure; I designed the Web as a foundation for many things. With Web 2.0, social networks and all kinds of things happen on top of it. When the Semantic Web arrives in the next few years, things will be using it in a way we cannot know yet. So, in a way, it's foolish to try to imagine what Web 4.0 will be like when we still don't know what will be done with 3.0.
For Web 3.0 to succeed, the people who are studying it at this moment will have ideas which will enable the new technology. They will design fantastic things just like people with Web 2.0 are designing fantastic things right now. People working with the Semantic Web will make much more powerful things. We can't imagine what they will do. But we have to build the Web to be an infrastructure. It shall never be used for particularized purposes but just to be a foundation for future developments.

[blogger sued]

I read about this story on Robin Hamman's blog.

From the Ottawa Citizen:

"The president of Steelback Brewery, based in Tiverton, Ont. has filed a $2 million lawsuit against an Ottawa-based blogger he claims repeatedly libelled him on his popular sports website.

Filed late last week in court in Newmarket, Ont., Frank D'Angelo alleges Neate Sager damaged his reputation and his image in comments posted on Sager's blog between August 2006 and January of this year.



In his statement of claim, D'Angelo argues that Sager's comments - which described D'Angelo as a "huckster" and a "two-bit shyster" - are derogatory in that they paint a picture of him as a "peddler," a "con man" and an "irritant."

The claim also says Sager called D'Angelo a "professional nuisance" and described his interest in acquiring the National Hockey League's Pittsburgh Penguins franchise as a "charade."

Sager, who also works as a copy editor at the Ottawa Sun, said he has yet to file a statement of defence and hopes to resolve the matter out of court.

"I am shocked this happened," said Sager, who several weeks ago revised some of the more contentious remarks on his blog, "Out of Left Field," at neatesager.blogspot.com.

"I'm still 100 per cent confident that reasonable people can find a reasonable solution to this and I just hope Mr. D'Angelo can sort of see that it's really kind of silly that it has come to this point."

The statement of claim argues the comments "severely damaged (D'Angelo's) credit, character and reputation" and that he was "brought into public scandal and contempt" as a result.

"The fact is that the conduct of the defendant in failing to remove the offending entries from his website, his failure to issue an apology and his public mockery of the notice letter has aggravated the damages suffered," the claim says.

"The defendant did not provide a balanced view and provided no opportunity to the plaintiff to respond to the aspersions made against him."

None of the allegations have yet been proven in court.

Contrary to the allegation that Sager provided D'Angelo no opportunity to respond, the website has a comment feature that allows readers to publicly share their own views and opinions, Sager said.

"Anyone can leave a comment there."

D'Angelo, an Ontario businessman who also owns a downtown Toronto restaurant as well as a brand of energy drink and a line of apple juice, says in the claim that he issued a notice letter to Sager back in February expressing his concern.

He argues Sager "promptly posted" the letter on his website and mocked its contents.

Sager "refused to remove the offending references" from his site and "revelled in the prospect of being pursued for damages for libel" for the "notoriety" and "attention" it brought him, the claim says.

D'Angelo did not return phone calls Monday."

[blogs are corrupting popular opinion]

So says Andrew Keen. Lastnight on newsnight Gavin Esler was supposed to "interview" Keen but seemed rather to put forth his own prepostorous views (though they were aligned with Keen's more of less).

To me, this discussion seemed just another attempt to subvert the positive potential of blogging or any other collaborative enterprise based on the internet. Esler's introduction highlights discrepancies in Wikipedia and he makes grave assertions that the *poor* public will be misinformed. In fact, he says rather smugly, it was the BBC that created the page on Alistair Darling replete with incorrect information; they cunningly replaced Darling's photo with an image of a badger (innuendo?). Oh goodness me. Esler says that's the problem with web 2.0 - "anyone" can edit and create thus everything online is unreliable (his logic, not mine). Really? He's assuming that "the masses" (as Keen calls us) aren't critically literate and the web just enables us folk to do too much. We know that educators are consistenly teaching students on the merits of certain sites and isn't that what we might call critical literacy? Does that mean everyone believes what they watch on television? I think it's safe to say we *understand* life isn't quite like tv...and guess what, neither is the 'net. It does seem that Esler thinks it should be; he asks viewers who think everything they read online (but wouldn't that apply to offline too?) is true whether they'd be interested in his flying machine (which doesn't fly...).

After his scene-setting intro. Esler turns to Keen and says (now how's this for journalistic objectivity?): "Andrew, I mean, a lot of things on the web are pretty stupid or irritating..." Keen later responds: "If we are all amateurs, there are no experts." And there you go - a nice summary of the ensuing talk. I wonder what sites Esler navigates to lead him to that odd assumption. Charles Leadbeater was there too but sadly wasn't able to get a word in with Keen and Esler raving about the woes of web 2.0. Leadbeater did constantly remind Esler and Keen that the public is knowledgable. The key is to make people participants and that of course would help them develop critical literacy.

I did video it and was planning on uploading it to youtube but probably can't do that for copyright reasons (seeing as I didn't make everything in the video...). At least the bbc have put a link up to the video on their site, here. This is the blurb that goes with the video:

"In the era of what author Andrew Keen calls online amateurism, can we trust everything we read on the internet?"

Interestingly, the bbc's blog post about Keen includes segments of Keen's latest book (oh no, is that distributing unreliable information?!), but more interestingly there are 120 comments. All those people participating but does that mean more unreliable information is being created (as both Keen and Esler claim)? Maybe Esler et al should read Nancy Patterson's helpful guide on how to evaluate web resources. To me, though, it seems so odd in this day and age - after postmodernism, modernism, poststrucuralism, feminism, postcolonialism, and a myriad other "events" - that people like Keen and Esler still seem to believe in a single Truth. Whether in print or online or on tv or on radio - who's *truth* is it really?

If you're interested in what Leadbeater has to say, there's a presentation of his here.

[google is growing again...]

Reported in The Sydney Morning Herald:

"Google is rolling out a technology designed to overcome the major drawback faced by all web-based applications: the fact that they don't work without an internet connection.

Google Gears is an open source technology for creating offline web applications that is being launched today at Google's annual Developer Day gatherings around the world.

"With Google Gears, we're tackling the key limitation of the browser in order to make it a stronger platform for deploying all types of applications and enabling a better user experience," Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in a statement.

The Google Gears technology is designed to be used for web applications such as email and word or image processing.

While it can be used with non-Google applications, it's clear that the web search and advertising giant will be the major beneficiary of what is expected to be an enthusiastic take up."

Read more here.

[google is good for business]

from slashdot:

"News.com ran an article earlier in the week talking about the somewhat strained relationship between newspapers and Google. Google's stance is firm: 'We don't pay to index news content.' Just the same, newspapers with an online presence are starting to reconsider their relationship with Google, the value of linking, and the realities of internet economics. Talk of paying for content, as well as ongoing court cases, has observers considering both sides of the issue:
"While some in newspaper circles point to the Belgium court ruling and the content deals with AP and AFP as a sign Google may be willing to pay for content, Google fans and bloggers interpreted the news quite differently. To them, it was obvious that the Belgium group had agreed to settle--even after winning its court case--because they discovered that they needed Google's traffic more than the fees that could be generated from news snippets. Observers note that with newspapers receiving about 25 percent of their traffic from search engines, losing Google's traffic had to sting."

"Google's position about paying newspapers to index headlines has never wavered. "We don't pay to index news content."

[the reading revolution]

On Tuesday the 3rd of July I'll be speaking along with Cally Poplak, Director of Egmont Press, Paul Duffield, Manga Artist, Sue Horner, Head of Standards and Assessment Policy, QCA, and Joshua Beasley (he will offer the views of a "young person"). We'll be discussing what reading means today, in the 21st century. Of course I'm going to talk about reading online and the need for critical literacy as well as multi-modal sensibilities.

I don't know about the others, but since I'm on the panel I know it won't be a repeat of the recent very one-sided Digitise or Die session held the South Bank Center in London.

[boo! it's google]

WHO'S AFRAID OF GOOGLE?
Firms in Silicon Valley and beyond fear search giant's plans for growth

For a company that pledged to not be evil, Google makes a lot of enemies.

From Madison Avenue to Hollywood, some of industry's most powerful entities are marshaling their forces to combat a company that has risen to the top of the business world in less than a decade.

Fear is the motivating factor. And with every passing quarter, there is more to be worried about if you count Google as a competitor.

Since going public in 2004, the Internet giant's market value has grown to dwarf Disney and McDonald's combined. Earlier this year, it became the most visited Web property in the world and was named the world's most valuable brand. And its runaway success in search and advertising has big corporations like AT&T and Microsoft crying monopoly without a trace of irony.

In perhaps the greatest testament to Google's power, media reports surfaced late last week that its archrival Yahoo was considering teaming up with Microsoft in an effort to compete.

"Essentially, the new Microsoft is Google," said Jeff Clavier, a prominent Silicon Valley investor in startups.

In an interview with reporters Thursday, Larry Page, Google's co-founder, addressed the perception, saying, "I think, as we get bigger and more successful -- and things have gone very well for us -- it's natural for people to think this." But he denied that Google is anything to fear, adding that his firm has learned from previous examples of companies behaving badly.

Since its founding nine years ago by Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Google has grown into one of world's the most formidable companies. Few others compare in terms of profits, profile and ambitions.

But, as a result of its success, Google has attracted some powerful detractors. Silicon Valley executives fret that Google's success will decimate startups and drive up salaries. Madison Avenue is concerned about the company selling all kinds of advertising, including offline pitches in newspapers and on radio and television. Privacy advocates fret over the vast amounts of information Google collects about its users. And Hollywood is upset about widespread piracy on Google's video service, YouTube. Some entertainment companies are even bringing legal action.

Google says it is innocent on all counts. In fact, the company claims to be a boon to the aggrieved by helping their businesses prosper. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have Wall Street on your side. The company's stock remains lofty, closing Thursday at an astonishing $461 per share.

In Silicon Valley, though, some people aren't as bullish on Google.

King of the valley

In the valley's cutthroat culture, Google is the equivalent of king. And as in many monarchies, the subjects are both submissive and restive.

Rich Skrenta, chief executive of Topix, a local news and community forums Web site in Palo Alto, described Google as being so ahead of everyone else that there is no real No. 2. Startup executives cower at mounting a challenge, he said.

"It's past fear -- it's the stages of grief, it's resignation -- and now everyone's depressed," Skrenta said.

Trying to build another Google-like search engine, he said, is futile. The only hope is to build a company outside of Google's crosshairs, in a niche category that has no clear winner yet.

"Grow a spine, people!" Skrenta implored Silicon Valley on his blog recently, hoping to rally the troops. "Get a stick and try to knock G's crown off."

Even the big guys are squirming, epitomized by last week's revelation that Yahoo and Microsoft had recently talked about merging or partnering to close the gap with mutual rival Google. Discussions about an acquisition are no longer active, according to the reports, although the door is still open for the companies to cooperate in some way.

Of course, those challengers, whatever their size, will have to hire the best and brightest to succeed. That can be costly, however, given Google's deep pockets and penchant for bidding wars.

James Currier, a former venture capitalist and serial entrepreneur who sold the social networking site Tickle to job site Monster.com, said that a company on whose board he serves recently lost a prospective employee to Google. The worker, whom he described as a genius, turned down an offer of $120,000, plus stock options, in favor of a $375,000 salary from Google.

"Google is sucking the oxygen out of the system," said Currier, who has a new startup in San Francisco, Ooga Labs.

But then he voiced the mixed feelings that many executives have about Google: "You can't blame them, though. If I were them, I'd be doing the same thing."

Indeed, Google has a complex relationship with Silicon Valley. Many, such as Currier, admire the company even as they tick off a few grievances.

Rather than operating independently, Google's business is intertwined with thousands of others. Many Web sites depend on the ads Google farms out to them for revenue.

Without the money, many startups would be unable to exist. To a point, Google gets credit for fueling the current Internet boom.

"It's a wonderful thing for consumers," Currier said.

View from Madison Avenue

But Google leadership in online advertising also spooks advertisers. No executive wants to be too dependent on a single company to funnel them customers.

Google will take in 32.1 percent of all U.S. online ad revenues in 2007, according to eMarketer. In search advertising, the company's share will be a more daunting 75.6 percent.

Increasingly, Google is trying to bolster its ad business by expanding to other kinds of marketing, such as online banners, as well as to newspapers, radio and television.

Take Google's agreement last month to pay $3.1 billion for DoubleClick, a company that helps advertisers place their banners across the Web. The acquisition would add significantly to Google's brawn by making it a power player in a new line of business.

Several companies, public advocacy groups and, on Tuesday, the New York State Consumer Protection Board urged the Federal Trade Commission to take a careful look at the merger for fear that it would create an Internet colossus. None other than Microsoft and AT&T, which have had their own antitrust issues, asked that regulators take a close look.

Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, responded to complaints at a recent conference, saying "Give me a break" and calling Google's share of the $1 trillion global advertising industry minuscule.

"This is an emergent business with lots of different choices," Schmidt said. "End users have choices, advertisers have choices."

Google's plan to take on all kinds of advertising has Madison Avenue worried. Agencies see Google as potential competition in helping clients create and place advertising.

The only solace is that, so far, Google's offline initiatives have had limited success. But the efforts are nascent, and the company is putting a lot of ammunition behind them.

"It's like the telephone company owning the wires and the towers," Daniel Stein, chief executive of EVB, an ad agency in San Francisco, said of Google's advertising muscle. "But I don't think Google is going to flex that power."

A new villain in Hollywood

Copyright is another area that has generated major headaches for Google. To listen to Hollywood talk, the company has as much respect for the law as Jack the Ripper, given the profusion of pirated video clips on YouTube.

Hoping to crack down on illegally posted video, Viacom sued Google last month for $1 billion for alleged copyright infringement. Google denies any responsibility for the clips, which are posted by users, and said that it takes them down when asked.

"Old media companies are wrestling with YouTube," said Andrew Heyward, former president of CBS News. "The exposure can be very important.

"On the other hand, this is copyrighted content that is expensive to create. Someone has to pay for news; it's not free."

In the meantime, NBC Universal and News Corp. gave Google a big poke in the eye last month by agreeing to create a YouTube rival. The project, to premiere by summer, will make legal, full-length clips available on Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft and MySpace.

Video isn't the only copyright battle Google is trying to fend off. A separate attack by the publishing industry is aimed at Google's copying of millions of library books to make the contents searchable online.

Google building Big Brother?

Fear of Google also extends to its amassing of vast amounts of information about user behavior. Privacy advocates have called the repository of search query histories and e-mail the ultimate Big Brother that law enforcement and civil litigators could use to glean juicy personal information.

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group in San Francisco, gave the example of a Google user who has HIV but has not told anyone. Anyone who poked around in the user's search record could be tipped off about the secret if the user searched frequently for information about AIDS.

"People can get sensitive about that kind of information being known. But if Google didn't keep that information, people wouldn't be able to get to it," Opsahl said.

In response to the complaints, Google vowed recently that it would make it harder to link users to what they search for online. Under the plan, the company would shroud the information it collects about users in anonymity after keeping it for 18 to 24 months. Opsahl said the idea doesn't go far enough.

Google is by far the most popular search engine among consumers, with 53.7 percent of the U.S. search market in March, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. Yahoo was a distant second at 21.8 percent.

That dominance puts Google in a key position to control information. Links that appear at the first results page become, in effect, a definitive source, whatever the topic.

For businesses, placement in the search engine can mean life or death because customers inevitably spend their money with those that are high on the list. Companies that fall into disfavor on Google amid the frequent changes to its search algorithm are often incensed, and some have gone so far as to sue, albeit unsuccessfully.

Nowhere is Google's control of information more controversial than in China, where it built a search engine that censors results deemed dangerous by the Chinese government.

Human rights groups and members of Congress have attacked Google over the matter, comparing the company to a Nazi collaborator. Google responded that it censors reluctantly under the theory that providing some information to China's residents is better than none at all.

Not quite an 'evil empire'

Despite Google's power, few say the company strikes as much fear in them as Microsoft did during the 1990s, when its near-monopoly on computer operating systems earned it the nickname "evil empire." Google's spotty track record with new products -- few outside of search have much of a following -- and intense competition with other Internet companies keeps it a step below.

"With Google, there is still choice," said Chris Le Tocq, an analyst for Guernsey Research, "so I'm not sure if the 'evil empire' epithet can be equally applied."

But he cautioned that the warning sign will come when Google becomes so dominant that customers cannot do without it. How well will Google deal with its customers' problems then?

In any case, Ellen Siminoff, chief executive of Efficient Frontier, a Mountain View search engine advertising company, said that power shifts quickly in the technology industry, judging from recent history.

"There was a time when Netscape could do no wrong and a time when AOL could do no wrong, and then Yahoo could do no wrong," she said. "Now Google can do no wrong, but that can change."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wary of Internet giant
Google's long tentacles have many running scared:

Silicon Valley: Concerned that Google's outsize ambition is squashing startups and raising salaries in the tech industry.

Madison Avenue: Fears that Google is taking over the advertising business and making established ad agencies irrelevant.

Hollywood: Takes umbrage at widespread piracy on Google's YouTube video service, claiming it violates copyright law.

Privacy advocates: Worry that Google's collection of personal information will create a massive database that can be mined by government.

Source: Chronicle research



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google by the numbers
In less than a decade, Google has become a corporate colossus. Here are some examples of its muscle:

12,238

Number of employees.

$10.6 billion

Revenue in 2006.

$3.1 billion

Profit in 2006.

53.7 percent

Share of the U.S. search market.

528 million

Global unique users in March.

$143.5 billion

Market capitalization.

$461.47

Share price.

Source: Google, Chronicle research

E-mail Verne Kopytoff at vkopytoff@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

[Google searches web's dark side]

One in 10 web pages scrutinised by search giant Google contained malicious code that could infect a user's PC.

Researchers from the firm surveyed billions of sites, subjecting 4.5 million pages to "in-depth analysis".

About 450,000 were capable of launching so-called "drive-by downloads", sites that install malicious code, such as spyware, without a user's knowledge.

A further 700,000 pages were thought to contain code that could compromise a user's computer, the team report.

To address the problem, the researchers say the company has "started an effort to identify all web pages on the internet that could be malicious".

Phantom sites

Drive-by downloads are an increasingly common way to infect a computer or steal sensitive information.

They usually consist of malicious programs that automatically install when a potential victim visits a booby-trapped website.

"To entice users to install malware, adversaries employ social engineering," wrote Google researcher Niels Provos and his colleagues in a paper titled The Ghost In The Browser.

Finding all the web-based infection vectors is a significant challenge and requires almost complete knowledge of the web.
Google researchers
Avoiding attacks

"The user is presented with links that promise access to 'interesting' pages with explicit pornographic content, copyrighted software or media. A common example are sites that display thumbnails to adult videos."

The vast majority exploit vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser to install themselves.

Some downloads, such as those that alter bookmarks, install unwanted toolbars or change the start page of a browser, are an annoyance. But increasingly, criminals are using drive-bys to install keyloggers that steal login and password information.

Other pieces of malicious code hijack a computer turning it into a "bot", a remotely controlled PC.

Drive-by downloads represent a shift away from traditional methods of infecting a computer, such as spam and email attachments.

Attack plan

As well as characterising the scale of the problem on the net, the Google study analysed the main methods by which criminals inject malicious code on to innocent web pages.


It found that the code was often contained in those parts of the website not designed or controlled by the website owner, such as banner adverts and widgets.

Widgets are small programs that may, for example, display a calendar on a webpage or a web traffic counter. These are often downloaded from third-party sites.

The rise of web 2.0 and user-generated content gave criminals other channels, or vectors, of attack, it found.

For example, postings in blogs and forums that contain links to images or other content could unwittingly infect a user.

The study also found that gangs were able to hijack web servers, effectively taking over and infecting all of the web pages hosted on the computer.

In a test, the researchers' computer was infected with 50 different pieces of malware by visiting a web page hosted on a hijacked server.

The firm is now in the process of mapping the malware threat.

Google, part of the StopBadware coalition, already warns users if they are about to visit a potentially harmful website, displaying a message that reads "this site may harm your computer" next to the search results.

"Marking pages with a label allows users to avoid exposure to such sites and results in fewer users being infected," the researchers wrote.

However, the task will not be easy, they say.

"Finding all the web-based infection vectors is a significant challenge and requires almost complete knowledge of the web as a whole," they wrote.



Story from BBC NEWS

[plastic blood]

Scientists have developed an artificial plastic blood which could act as a substitute in emergencies.

Researchers at Sheffield University said their creation could be a huge advantage in war zones.

They say that the artificial blood is light to carry, does not need to be kept cool and can be kept for longer.

The new blood is made up of plastic molecules that have an iron atom at their core, like haemoglobin, that can carry oxygen through the body.

The scientists said the artificial blood could be cheap to produce and they were looking for extra funding to develop a final prototype that would be suitable for biological testing.



'Very excited'

Dr Lance Twyman, of the university's Department of Chemistry, said: "We are very excited about the potential for this product and about the fact that this could save lives.

"Many people die from superficial wounds when they are trapped in an accident or are injured on the battlefield and can't get blood before they get to hospital.

"This product can be stored a lot more easily than blood, meaning large quantities could be carried easily by ambulances and the armed forces."

A sample of the artificial blood prototype will be on display at the Science Museum in London from 22 May as part of an exhibition about the history of plastics.


Story from BBC NEWS

[spare cycles?]

The Awesome Power of Spare Cycles

In physics, the greatest (theoretical) latent power in the universe is dark energy, waiting only for us to find a way to tap it (and to prove it actually exists; in the meantime it powers fictional superheroes). In people, the equivalent is "spare cycles"--the human potential that isn't tapped by our jobs, which for most of us is a lot of it. People wonder how Wikipedia magically arose from nothing, and how 50 million bloggers suddenly appeared, almost all of them writing for free. Who knew there was so much untapped energy all around us, just waiting for a catalyst to become productive? But of course there was. People are bored, and they'd rather not be. The guy playing Solitaire on his laptop at the airport? Spare cycles. Multiply it times a million.
I am at this moment, somewhat randomly, in the Salisbury (MD) regional airport. It is tiny airport like thousands of others across the country. But, like all the others, it has to meet standard TSA security standards. There is a flight (which I am on) at 2:30 pm. It is the only flight out of this airport for the past hour. There will not be another flight out of this airport for another hour. Yet we need our full TSA apparatus. That includes the local police, who are represented by a sheriff.
I'm watching him right now. He's in his room, labeled "Sheriff". Young guy. He's watching a movie on a portable DVD player. That's fine--he won't be needed for another half hour. But of course "needed" isn't quite the right word. "Required" is closer to it. He will be required by policy to stand by, gun in holster, while I take my laptop out of my nerd backpack. He may, fingers crossed, go his entire career without a terrorist going through that security checkpoint. He may indeed never unholster that gun in the line of duty.
That sheriff is watching a movie because he has spare cycles. Spare cycles are the most powerful fuel on the planet. It's what Web 2.0 is made up of. User generated content? Spare cycles. Open source? Spare cycles. MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Second Life? Spare cycles. They're the Soylent Green of the web.
In the next issue of Wired we've got a great story about a woman who cyberstalked the lead singer of Linkin Park. She correctly guessed the password to his cellphone account. The rest was easy. She was a technician at a secure military facility, the Sandia National Labs. When eventually confronted, she explained that her job only took her half an hour a day. The rest was spare cycles. She used them to stalk the lead singer of Linkin Park.
Web 2.0 is such a phenomena because we're underused elsewhere. Bored at work, bored at home. We've got spare cycles and they're finally finding an outlet. Tap that and you've tapped an energy source that rivals anything in human history. Solitaire Players of the World Unite!

Posted at The Long Tail

[american universities and Truth]

Stanley Kurtz writes:

Last week I attended the premiere of Indoctrinate U, Evan Coyne Maloney’s documentary about campus political correctness. It’s a fun and powerful piece of work that deserves a wide audience. The film features plenty of encounters between Maloney and college officials who, after being embarrassed by Maloney’s questions, invariably summon police to have him evicted. These confrontations are entertaining, but the real force of this film flows from Maloney’s recounting of a series of incidents of campus political correctness. I had never heard of any of these cases. Yet each of them is remarkable.

from Evan Coyne Maloney's (the producer of Indoctrinate U) site.

[ontario goes solar]

Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter

The Ontario government has given approval for a California company to construct a massive solar "farm" near Sarnia that will blanket an area larger than all three Toronto islands with hundreds of thousands of sun-soaking panels.

It will be the largest solar power station in North America and among the most expansive in the world to use photovoltaic cells that produce electricity when exposed to sunlight. Once complete, the 40-megawatt Sarnia project will be able to supply enough emission-free electricity to power between 10,000 and 15,000 homes on sunny days.

"This is certainly the most exciting thing I've ever worked on," said Peter Carrie of OptiSolar Farms Canada Inc., a subsidiary of Hayward, Calif.-based OptiSolar Inc. "We want to take solar mainstream."

The Ontario Power Authority has agreed to purchase the electricity under a 20-year contract that will see the clean power go into the provincial grid. An official announcement is expected today from the energy ministry.


Stanton said solar panel systems, once relegated to the rooftops of homes, farms and commercial buildings, are growing in size as technology costs fall and government incentives increase. "There's also an increasing recognition of the public benefits associated with solar energy production," he said.

"Solar power is carbon-free, it's pollution-free, it doesn't need water, doesn't make noise. Solar also produces power during peak business hours, so it displaces natural gas," he said.

But compared to coal, nuclear power, even wind, solar's squeaky-clean image comes at a high price. OptiSolar is selling the electricity to the province under its new standard offer program, which pays a premium for electricity that comes from small-scale renewable projects. In the case of wind, it's 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar fetches 42 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly four times as much.

Deborah Doncaster, executive director of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, said the premium may seem high but is justified given the environmental benefits. She said it's often forgotten that solar-generated electricity tends to offset natural gas during peak periods when air conditioners are blasting and electricity rates are at their highest.

"Forty-two cents compared against 6.4 cents for nuclear is comparing apples to oranges," she said, adding that the publicly touted costs of nuclear power and fossil fuels never reflect environmental costs, health impacts, and industry subsidies.

"I think the issue around 42 cents has to be looked at in the proper context of hidden costs," Doncaster said.

And while large on a solar scale, the Sarnia project is a lightweight compared to nuclear or coal plants. Peak electricity consumption in Ontario yesterday was 18,055 megawatts. OptiSolar's farm could at most supply .2 per cent of that power.

Carrie said OptiSolar chose Ontario over its home base of California, because of the 42-cent offer, which isn't available anywhere else in North America. Only European countries have taken such an approach, explaining why world solar leader Germany installed seven times more solar panels than the United States in 2006.

OptiSolar hopes the premium offered through the Ontario program will give it a return on its investment over the life of its 20-year contract with the province, said Carrie.

The company hopes to break ground in 2008 after getting the necessary municipal zoning approvals and building permits. It has already purchased the real estate it needs, mostly low-value farm and industrial land, and has full backing of the local community.

Carrie said the Sarnia area was chosen because it has the right mix of land and good access to the electrical distribution network. It's also in the most southerly region of Ontario, meaning it offers the best "sun hours."

Solar tends to be a low-maintenance technology, but several local contractors will be hired to help install and connect thousands of solar panels.

"There will also be ongoing contracts for property maintenance, grounds maintenance, security and equipment cleaning," said Carrie, a Canadian and former employee of the energy ministry. He most recently ran his own solar installation business in California.

If all goes according to schedule, the Sarnia solar farm will be fully functional in 2010 and will continue supplying clean electricity to the grid for the next 30 to 50 years.

Not much is known about OptiSolar, though many of its private investors are Canadian. It was co-founded by Randy Goldstein and Phil Rettger, who previously founded the Calgary-based oil sands technology and project developer Opti Canada Inc.

The company says it has developed a way of mass-producing solar cells in a way that dramatically lowers the cost of the technology, making it competitive with conventional forms of electricity generation.

Carrie said the goal in Ontario is to showcase OptiSolar's technology and demonstrate its performance, while at the same time generating revenues from electricity production.