Archive for the ‘evolution’ Category

Teens and Social Media: The use of social media gains a greater foothold in teen life as they embrace the conversational nature of interactive online media

12/19/2007 | MemoReport  | Amanda Lenhart Mary Madden Alexandra Rankin Macgill Aaron Smith

Content creation by teenagers continues to grow, with 64% of online teenagers ages 12 to 17 engaging in at least one type of content creation, up from 57% of online teens in 2004.

Girls continue to dominate most elements of content creation. Some 35% of all teen girls blog, compared with 20% of online boys, and 54% of wired girls post photos online compared with 40% of online boys. Boys, however, do dominate one area – posting of video content online. Online teen boys are nearly twice as likely as online girls (19% vs. 10%) to have posted a video online somewhere where someone else could see it.

The survey found that content creation is not just about sharing creative output; it is also about participating in conversations fueled by that content. Nearly half (47%) of online teens have posted photos where others can see them, and 89% of those teens who post photos say that people comment on the images at least “some of the time.”

However, many teen content creators do not simply plaster their creative endeavors on the Web for anyone to view; many teens limit access to content that they share.

There is a subset of teens who are super-communicators — teens who have a host of technology options for dealing with family and friends, including traditional landline phones, cell phones, texting, social network sites, instant messaging, and email. They represent about 28% of the entire teen population and they are more likely to be older girls.

View PDF of Report
View PDF of Questionnaire

Other Family, Friends & Community Resources

MemoMemo  | Parent and Teen Internet Use

MemoMemo  | Teens and Online Stranger Contact

MemoMemo  | Cyberbullying

MemoReport  | Teens, Privacy and Online Social Networks

MemoMemo  | Social Networking Websites and Teens

Related Topic Areas

Online Activities & Pursuits
Technology & Media Use

Read Full Post »

Learning more about Generation M

February 17th, 2008 · 9 Comments

Children born between 1982 and 1998 are now beginning to enter the workforce; while they’ve been called many things, I continue to use the term Generation M. [And that’s not because of any personal pride in coming up with the term; rather, the characteristics that define this generation seem to have a lot of “M” about them — mobile, multimedia, multitasking, multichannel and so on.

The Netxplorateur Forum invited me to speak to them about Generation M a few days ago; as part of my preparation, I trawled through my bookmarked items to see what had changed since mid-December, the last time I’d spoken about the subject (also in Paris, as it turned out, at Le Web 3). Which meant I had an excuse to re-read the excellent Pew Internet report on Teens and Social Media, published just before Christmas last year.

Read it if you get the chance, it’s worth it.

Four things stand out for me in the report:

Generation M is faced with a vast array of choices when it comes down to communications. They really use this vast array. [We never had this choice, so we should not judge them. Things are different, and we have to live with the differences.]
A segment of Generation M, termed super communicators, use the array more extensively than others. And they defy their critics by meeting their friends in person far more often than other teens. [Putting paid to the myth that these kids spend all their time online and have no “life”]
Those that belong to social network sites are the most active content creators, the most active contributors of social objects, the most active participants in the conversations around the social objects. [These are the people that marketers would do well to understand, because they are the new marketers, the viral recommenders who are adept at creating and using social objects.]
While all this is happening, the landline continues to be important. [This is probably a self-fulfilling prophecy, restricted to the developed world, and will prove completely false in India, China, Africa and maybe even Russia and South America. Nevertheless it is of interest to me, and not just because of where I work!]

The relevant charts from the report are given below for your convenience.



Tags: Four pillars

9 responses so far ↓

    Filter: All CommentsGood Comment(3+) Great Comments(4+) What is this?

  • Robin Blandford [ByteSurgery] » Digital Teens: Still Landlining It – Digital Media Engineer //Feb 17, 2008 at 11:20 am

    var sz_global_config_params = {cppluginurl:”http://confusedofcalcutta.com/wp-content/plugins/sezwho”,cpserverurl:”http://www.sezwho.com”, sitekey:”202360e5fa52eef9184059e502db61f8″,blogkey:”47340b837eab2″,blogid:”0″, plugin_version:”1.3″} ; […] – JP observes in the Pew Internet report on Teens and Social Media that across all teens, the landline is still […]
    var sz_comment_config_params = {use_cross_domain_posting:1,post_id:”1028″, comment_rating_submit_path:”/cpratingsubmit.php”,sortOrder:””,sz_auto_comment:0,sz_auto_option_bar:0,comment_number:9, sz_comment_data:[]};sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[0]= {comment_id:”284136″, comment_author:”Robin%20Blandford%20%5BByteSurgery%5D%20%26raquo%3B%20Digital%20Teens%3A%20Still%20Landlining%20It%20-%20Digital%20Media%20Engineer”, comment_author_url:”http://www.bytesurgery.com/blog/2008/02/17/digital-teens-still-landlining-it/”, comment_author_email:””,sz_score:”0″,comment_score:”0″};
  • Feb 17, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    In India landline is significant for a different reason: reliability. It is common to have conversation like: “hey I can’t hear you, you voice is breaking, I’ll call you from landline…’
    And the operators are pushing landline with deals by bundling landline with broadband, or mobile.

    In the charts, interesting to note that email is at the bottom and ’sharing own artistic work’ is in the top.
    sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[1]= {comment_id:”284416″, comment_author:”Balaji%20Sowmyanarayanan”, comment_author_url:”http://labsji.wordpress.com”, comment_author_email:”wdu%2BZ3%2F9kvwwQkDl8rQzCiDxlfsIEshfdL5Fy8T3L%2B2sZ45TyQo7YxC0DRonybsm1Jj%2BA%2BFPWL4GdqiGV38F%2Fac%2BTUw15Y6MjANDZgFjaGitzhVqIQUlYiZtkODiBx2h550b1nfsxpY5TZPhUM2I7TlS0bippwNtaIZTjnjMjII%3D”,sz_score:”6.1″,comment_score:”6.0″};

    Was this comment useful to you ?

  • Conviviendo con la Generation M » El Blog de Enrique Dans //Feb 17, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    […] entrada en Confused of Calcutta, “Learning more about Generation M“, describe a partir de un informe de Pew Internet los hábitos de la generación nacida entre […]
    sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[2]= {comment_id:”284554″, comment_author:”Conviviendo%20con%20la%20Generation%20M%20%26raquo%3B%20El%20Blog%20de%20Enrique%20Dans”, comment_author_url:”http://www.enriquedans.com/2008/02/conviviendo-con-la-generation-m.html”, comment_author_email:””,sz_score:”0″,comment_score:”0″};
  • sysrick.com » links for 2008-02-17 //Feb 17, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    […] Learning more about Generation M […]
    sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[3]= {comment_id:”284626″, comment_author:”sysrick.com%20%26raquo%3B%20links%20for%202008-02-17″, comment_author_url:”http://sysrick.com/?p=669″, comment_author_email:””,sz_score:”0″,comment_score:”0″};
  • Feb 18, 2008 at 10:38 am

    I think I was born before my time!
    sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[4]= {comment_id:”285081″, comment_author:”Badger%20Gravling”, comment_author_url:”http://www.thewayoftheweb.blogspot.com”, comment_author_email:”Xc3ROsLu5StwORQdFRcfivt1gwmIry0e9Um7uf92SP55bsXEuSNMwqhUMVQdYtjkORo96vbusZhTVrpLLpVYIdil3U4lB5JXCRrJa0cTX3NooW%2BL%2FWQFgvOzMENJMvlAoB27lRy%2By%2BP32kZR9KFGYCyPkeDRBKnUm83YIbRCJiI%3D”,sz_score:”7.6″,comment_score:”6.4″};

    Was this comment useful to you ?

  • David David (Check me out!)

    Feb 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Are you claiming you invented the term Generation M?
    I seem to remember this being used around in the mid nineties and possibly before in a number of published university articles and its been used ever since to describe multitasking, mobile, media and any other term beginning with M.

    I’d like to see a breakdown on differences between the sexes on the charts above
    sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[5]= {comment_id:”285188″, comment_author:”David”, comment_author_url:””, comment_author_email:”ly3Ou2cpehwsVHkpWdEhfLMhvQY9lXSegbFnqzzB0I7iw6Fle8R2c3n7v1mW1tnXEtH3KHT4taNi7gL2adfkVhebT%2FWYIw9FoxMTgzcFQ05YY57%2BYdMTvXXo5NSJuLWrfLhlb6mwuyjwQ4flks3OvAJAKgVPX2ZqSESmW1b%2BW5c%3D”,sz_score:”5.0″,comment_score:”5.0″};

    Was this comment useful to you ?

  • Feb 18, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    I think the first time I saw the term being used in public was in a Kaiser Family Foundation study sometime in 2005. I started using the term in public after that, in preference to any other terms.

    it is this preference I was alluding to.

    I should have come up with a better construction, I see how you thought I came up with the term. What I meant was my preference for the term in comparison to others. Like preferring The Because Effect to “abundance economics”.
    sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[6]= {comment_id:”285337″, comment_author:”JP”, comment_author_url:”http://www.confusedofcalcutta.com”, comment_author_email:”u86lz6D4JV2TQFOlmWg7UIVfnyPOsljx6HOHBQZUBMKoSmzLm2WgekZFE56gz4MRaALEtz1ac%2BfbXI3KIc1UDvExuNu5WZPvsFpg%2BG2R8llAjbGbf6kWRN5Lmpw8YZK4M4gLf0LGkSHdxrB9eX4OUv0cClOwO5p1%2FA9gdO2z724%3D”,sz_score:”6.0″,comment_score:”6.0″};

    Was this comment useful to you ?

  • Feb 19, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Hi JP,
    I guess one of the next fight is for this generation, having simplified uses of these services. And probably the aim for electronics devices is the converge effect, to avoid having several devices in our pockets ; there’s some studies about this.
    Generation M today is so much “Multi-devices” too…
    sz_comment_config_params.sz_comment_data[7]= {comment_id:”285836″, comment_author:”Laurent%20Blondeau%20%28Evidences%29″, comment_author_url:”http://evidencesx.wordpress.com”, comment_author_email:”VEf5EJ8JsyJ%2BFoJvvk013yoGAahEizcPLpu6d3dAoJF6coFYFfOSUVIk0xExlFJta97QoLpDfvgWeDIarl8e8wTcgUbO3iG%2FUcFL1dUSKV%2FnPMq23x93XLA9YaJNCeer4HKxpANc5w4x4fKIBM0P0TZ9vo2Iw%2BaEtTwmhQtPx5U%3D”,sz_score:”5.0″,comment_score:”5.0″};

    Was this comment useful to you ?

  • Feb 19, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Hello Everybody!!

    I agree, the Generation M, …unfortunately there advantages and profits, but..also there are… many things bad..
    ‘m makinf Events of Networking, called “6 Degrees”…and a lot of people don’t use IT, Messenger, Social Networks, Skype…is incredible, but now each child use Internet, and have e-mail,… WELCOME GENERATION “M”!!!

Read Full Post »

January 24, 2008

Artificial Stupidity: The Next Big Thing

There has been a lot of hype about artificial intelligence over the years. And recently it seems there has been a resurgence in interest in this topic in the media. But artificial intelligence scares me. And frankly, I don’t need it. My human intelligence is quite good, thank you very much. And as far as trusting computers to make intelligent decisions on my behalf, I’m skeptical to say the least. I don’t need or want artificial intelligence.No, what I really need is artificial stupidity.

I need software that will automate all the stupid things I presently have to waste far too much of my valuable time on. I need something to do all the stupid tasks — like organizing email, filing documents, organizing folders, remembering things, coordinating schedules, finding things that are of interest, filtering out things that are not of interest, responding to routine messages, re-organizing things, linking things, tracking things, researching prices and deals, and the many other rote information tasks I deal with every day.

The human brain is the result of millions of years of evolution. It’s already the most intelligent thing on this planet. Why are we wasting so much of our brainpower on tasks that don’t require intelligence? The next revolution in software and the Web is not going to be artificial intelligence, it’s going to be creating artificial stupidity: systems that can do a really good job at the stupid stuff, so we have more time to use our intelligence for higher level thinking.

The next wave of software and the Web will be about making software and the Web smarter. But when we say “smarter” we don’t mean smart like a human is smart, we mean “smarter at doing the stupid things that humans aren’t good at.” In fact humans are really bad at doing relatively simple, “stupid” things — tasks that don’t require much intelligence at all.

For example, organizing. We are terrible organizers. We are lazy, messy, inconsistent, and we make all kinds of errors by accident. We are terrible at tagging and linking as well, it turns out. We are terrible at coordinating or tracking multiple things at once because we are easily overloaded and we can really only do one thing well at a time. These kinds of tasks are just not what our brains are good at. That’s what computers are for – or should be for at least.

Humans are really good at higher level cognition: complex thinking, decisionmaking, learning, teaching, inventing, expressing, exploring, planning, reasoning, sensemaking, and problem solving — but we are just terrible at managing email, or making sense of the Web. Let’s play to our strengths and use computers to compensate for our weaknesses.

I think it’s time we stop talking about artificial intelligence — which nobody really needs, and fewer will ever trust. Instead we should be working on artificial stupidity. Sometimes the less lofty goals are the ones that turn out to be most useful in the end.

Read Full Post »

From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web”



(Some post are written in English and Spanish language) 


From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web” 


If you read the next posts on this blog: 

Semantic Web

The Semantic Web

What is the Semantic Web, Actually?

The Metaweb: Beyond Weblogs. From the Metaweb to the Semantic Web: A Roadmap

Semantics to the people! ontoworld

What’s next for the Internet

Web 3.0: Update

How the Wikipedia 3.0: The End of Google? article reached 2 million people in 4 days!

Google vs Web 3.0

Google dont like Web 3.0 [sic] Why am I not surprised?

Designing a better Web 3.0 search engine

From semantic Web (3.0) to the WebOS (4.0)

Search By Meaning

A Web That Thinks Like You


The long-promised “semantic” web is starting to take shape

Start-Up Aims for Database to Automate Web Searching

Metaweb: a semantic wiki startup


The Semantic Web, Collective Intelligence and Hyperdata.

Informal logic 

Logical argument

Consistency proof 

Consistency proof and completeness: Gödel’s incompleteness theorems

Computability theory (computer science): The halting problem

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems: Relationship with computability

Non-formal or Inconsistency Logic: LACAN’s LOGIC. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems,

You will realize the internal relationship between them linked from Logic to Ontology.  

I am writing from now on an article about the existence of the semantic web.  

I will prove that it does not exist at all, and that it is impossible to build from machines like computers.  

It does not depend on the software and hardware you use to build it: You cannot do that at all! 

You will notice the internal relations among them, and the connecting thread is the title of this post: “Logic to ontology.”   

I will prove that there is no such construction, which can not be done from the machines, and that does not depend on the hardware or software used.  

More precisely, the limits of the semantic web are not set by the use of machines themselves and biological systems could be used to reach this goal, but as the logic that is being used to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time, since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the metaphor, and that is what Gödel’s theorems remark, the final tautology of each construction or metonymic language (mathematical), which leads to inconsistencies. 

This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that makes inconsistent use of time, inherent of human unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and that is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired with the absence.  

The problem is we are trying to build an intelligent system to replace our way of thinking, at least in the information search, but the special nature of human mind is the use of time which lets human beings reach a conclusion, therefore does not exist in the human mind the halting problem or stop of calculation.  

So all efforts faced toward semantic web are doomed to failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech, because only a mathematical construction, which will always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of the time that is what leads to the conclusion or “stop”.  

As a demonstration of that, if you suppose it is possible to construct the semantic web, as a language with capabilities similar to human language, which has the use of time, should we face it as a theorem, we can prove it to be false with a counter example, and it is given in the particular case of the Turing machine and “the halting problem”.  

Then as the necessary and sufficient condition for the theorem is not fulfilled, we still have the necessary condition that if a language uses time, it lacks formal logic, the logic used is inconsistent and therefore has no stop problem.

This is a necessary condition for the semantic web, but it is not enough and therefore no machine, whether it is a Turing Machine, a computer or a device as random as a black body related to physics field, can deal with any language other than mathematics language hence it is implied that this language is forced to meet the halting problem, a result of Gödel theorem.   

De la lógica a la ontología: El límite de la “web semántica”  

Si lee los siguientes artículos de este blog: 


Wikipedia 3.0: El fin de Google (traducción Spanish)


Lógica Consistente y completitud: Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel (Spanish)

Consistencia lógica (Spanish)

Teoría de la computabilidad. Ciencia de la computación.

Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel y teoría de la computación: Problema de la parada 

Lógica inconsistente e incompletitud: LOGICAS LACANIANAS y Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel (Spanish)  

Jacques Lacan (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)

Usted puede darse cuenta de las relaciones internas entre ellos, y el hilo conductor es el título de este mismo post: “de la lógica a la ontología”.  

Probaré que no existe en absoluto tal construcción, que no se puede hacer desde las máquinas, y que no depende ni del hardware ni del software utilizado.   

Matizando la cuestión, el límite de la web semántica está dado no por las máquinas y/o sistemas biológicos que se pudieran usar, sino porque la lógica con que se intenta construir carece del uso del tiempo, ya que la lógica formal es puramente metonímica y carece de la metáfora, y eso es lo que marcan los teoremas de Gödel, la tautología final de toda construcción y /o lenguaje metonímico (matemático), que lleva a contradicciones.  

Esta lógica consistente es opuesta a la lógica inconsistente que hace uso del tiempo, propia del insconciente humano, pero el uso del tiempo está construido en base a la falta, no en torno a lo positivo sino en base a negaciones y ausencias, y eso es imposible de reflejar en una máquina porque la percepción de la falta necesita de la conciencia de sí mismo que se adquiere con la ausencia.   

El problema está en que pretendemos construir un sistema inteligente que sustituya nuestro pensamiento, al menos en las búsquedas de información, pero la particularidad de nuestro pensamiento humano es el uso del tiempo el que permite concluir, por eso no existe en la mente humana el problema de la parada o detención del cálculo, o lo que es lo mismo ausencia del momento de concluir.  

Así que todos los esfuerzos encaminados a la web semántica están destinados al fracaso a priori si lo que se pretende es prolongar nuestro pensamiento humano en las máquinas, ellas carecen de discurso metafórico, pues sólo son una construcción matemática, que siempre será tautológica y metonímica, ya que además carece del uso del tiempo que es lo que lleva al corte, la conclusión o la “parada”.  

Como demostración vale la del contraejemplo, o sea que si suponemos que es posible construir la web semántica, como un lenguaje con capacidades similares al lenguaje humano, que tiene el uso del tiempo, entonces si ese es un teorema general, con un solo contraejemplo se viene abajo, y el contraejemplo está dado en el caso particular de la máquina de Turing y el “problema de la parada”.  

Luego no se cumple la condición necesaria y suficiente del teorema, nos queda la condición necesaria que es que si un lenguaje tiene el uso del tiempo, carece de lógica formal, usa la lógica inconsistente y por lo tanto no tiene el problema de la parada”, esa es condición necesaria para la web semántica, pero no suficiente y por ello ninguna máquina, sea de Turing, computador o dispositivo aleatorio como un cuerpo negro en física, puede alcanzar el uso de un lenguaje que no sea el matemático con la paradoja de la parada, consecuencia del teorema de Gödel.

Jacques Lacan (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)

Read Full Post »

  • My Dashboard
  • New Post
  • Evolving Trends

    July 20, 2006

    Google dont like Web 3.0 [sic]

    (this post was last updated at 9:50am EST, July 24, ‘06)

    Why am I not surprised?

    Google exec challenges Berners-Lee

    The idea is that the Semantic Web will allow people to run AI-enabled P2P Search Engines that will collectively be more powerful than Google can ever be, which will relegate Google to just another source of information, especially as Wikipedia [not Google] is positioned to lead the creation of domain-specific ontologies, which are the foundation for machine-reasoning [about information] in the Semantic Web.

    Additionally, we could see content producers (including bloggers) creating informal ontologies on top of the information they produce using a standard language like RDF. This would have the same effect as far as P2P AI Search Engines and Google’s anticipated slide into the commodity layer (unless of course they develop something like GWorld)

    In summary, any attempt to arrive at widely adopted Semantic Web standards would significantly lower the value of Google’s investment in the current non-semantic Web by commoditizing “findability” and allowing for intelligent info agents to be built that could collaborate with each other to find answers more effectively than the current version of Google, using “search by meaning” as opposed to “search by keyword”, as well as more cost-efficiently than any future AI-enabled version of Google, using disruptive P2P AI technology.

    For more information, see the articles below.


    1. Wikipedia 3.0: The End of Google?
    2. Wikipedia 3.0: El fin de Google (traducción)
    3. All About Web 3.0
    4. Web 3.0: Basic Concepts
    5. P2P 3.0: The People’s Google
    6. Intelligence (Not Content) is King in Web 3.0
    7. Web 3.0 Blog Application
    8. Towards Intelligent Findability
    9. Why Net Neutrality is Good for Web 3.0
    10. Semantic MediaWiki
    11. Get Your DBin

    Somewhat Related

    1. Unwisdom of Crowds
    2. Reality as a Service (RaaS): The Case for GWorld
    3. Google 2.71828: Analysis of Google’s Web 2.0 Strategy
    4. Is Google a Monopoly?
    5. Self-Aware e-Society


    1. In the Hearts of the Wildmen

    Posted by Marc Fawzi

    Enjoyed this analysis? You may share it with others on:

    digg.png newsvine.png nowpublic.jpg reddit.png blinkbits.png co.mments.gif stumbleupon.png webride.gif del.icio.us


    Semantic Web, Web strandards, Trends, OWL, innovation, Startup, Evolution, Google, GData, inference, inference engine, AI, ontology, Semanticweb, Web 2.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Web 3.0, Google Base, artificial intelligence, AI, Wikipedia, Wikipedia 3.0, collective consciousness, Ontoworld, Wikipedia AI, Info Agent, Semantic MediaWiki, DBin, P2P 3.0, P2P AI, AI Matrix, P2P Semantic Web inference Engine, semantic blog, intelligent findability, RDF

    Read Full Post »

    Older Posts »