Why I hate the new Google Reader

If you're a fan of Google Reader you might have noticed the web has been talking about the changes that were coming.  Some people were upset that Reader was loosing the "social" functions.  I only followed a few people and will miss some of the links they sent.  Twitter is great for cool links so I won't miss it much.  (although the signs make me laugh)
Up until tonight, even though I was reading about the changes, I hadn't seen the changes.  But tonight as I subscribed to a new feed, I was forced into an "upgrade" - and I'm not happy.

Now I should say.  I spend a lot of time in Google Reader.  I have over a thousand feeds, sorted and filed and organized.  Many feeds I read everyday - some I mostly skip, unless I'm in the mood.  Some feeds post rarely (I have an MIA folder that can sometimes surprise me) and some feeds fill up if I don't read everyday.  All that to say I read a lot of feeds.... and that is where I have a problem.  The new design is terrible for READING.

Here's a screen capture of the "Before"

If you look at where the reading pane starts it is just below the Google menu bar... some space taken up for search and title bar, but nothing unreasonable.









Now look at the "After." see how much is wasted on the screen to give me things like a subscribe button and drop down menus?  Come on....  I've only spent about 3 mins with it and I hate it.  I know it looks like Google plus, but lets keep things functional.


I'm sure there is a script out there that will fix things (love you Firefox) and maybe even fullscreen mode will work.  There is Full Screen Mode, but I guess I just don't feel like toggling back and forth.
The whole thing seems kind of monochrome as well... although as I type chrome, I think Chrome and wonder if that is the point.  I know I'll get used to it, so not that big a deal.

In fact from the time I started typing about 4 hours has passed....  I still hate it, but admit that, much like a Facebook user, I'm just complaining and will go back to whatever they keep giving me.

(and wow a full screen shot gives you a lot of information about me)

Technology and Education

Q. Do you think it is our job as educationists to increase the capacity of the student to come to grips with this new experience of a new technology?

A. They are totally at grips with it and what we want to give them is some detachment.

--Marshall McLuhan, Education in an Electronic Age,

in The Best of Times/The Worst of Times:

Contemporary Issues in Canadian Education, 1970

 

(As posted by Benjamin Robertson over at Resident Alien)

Wake up and smell the iCoffee

Ending the article - Is Facebook Killing Our Souls?  Shane Hipps writes this...

Now it will be tempting to conclude after all this ranting that I am simply a Luddite, a technophobe bent on the dismantling of all digital technologies. This is not the case. Admittedly, I was hardly even-handed in my observations. However, to herald the virtues of our technology is mostly redundant, it would be like trying to argue the importance of breathing. It’s already here, and the value it adds is self-evident. This is why the technologies are so prevalent: we automatically know their benefits, otherwise we wouldn’t use them. My concern is that our culture seems only capable of seeing the benefit and utterly blind to the liabilities, the inevitable losses certain technologies bring. I have no interest in trying to end or stop such technological innovations; to do so is like trying to resist the wind or the tides. Instead, I want us to understand them with depth. Not with naïve embrace, or fearful rejection.
If we learn to wake up and understand, perhaps we will be able to use them rather than be used by them.

 Neil Postman wrote about the one eyed prophet that could only see one side of the invention.   This summary is how I feel every time I point out how the latest greatest anything might not be such a device of salvation to whatever.

But it still needs to be said.

So many things to read.

Malcolm Gladwell is becoming one of my favorite authors.   If you haven't read Tipping Point... or his other work, you need to check it out.

Just saw that Adam at The Second Electric has posted a few interview quotes from Gladwell in a Q&A piece at The New Yorker.

I really do think he has some awesome thoughts on things.

On the Internet’s transience:

The essential fact of the internet is that nothing is permanent. AOL was once the king of online—remember? I doubt that anything that is done electronically will facilitate social activism all that much—at least not unless you’ve put a real world structure in place first.

I do love his skeptical nature about technology (good luck finding him writing anything much online)  He just doesn't buy into the hype, yet has an excellent awareness of what is going on.   He's not some cranky old Luddite - he's young and aware that maybe we're being feed a big hard sell on technology.  (my words not even close to his)

On technology’s impotence:

This is what drives me crazy about the digerati. They refuse to accept the fact that there is a class of social problems for which there is no technological solution. Look. Technology is going to solve the energy problem. I’m convinced of it. Technology is going to give me a computer in ten years time that will fly me to the moon. Technology is going to build a car that goes 100 miles to the gallon. But technology does not and cannot change the underlying dynamics of “human” problems: it doesn’t make it easier to love or motivate or dream or convince.

I wish I could spell it out like that.... Isn't that the opposite of ever Apple commercial you've ever seen? (Actually most technology selling commercials)   I think somewhere in there is the baked in truth of what is going wrong with a lot of the big show church stuff...   You can't motivate change with technology... even when you try really hard.

On using Twitter to motivate social activism:

The issue isn’t informing people. It’s organizing people. Twitter is great at the first. But not so great at the second—and Dr. King and his counterparts needed organizations, not communications tools. Remember in the 1960’s you could reliably reach upwards of 95 percent of the black community in urban areas in the South through the church. And there you had their undivided attention for an hour! Who needs Twitter when you have sermons and regular prayer meetings?

I think the thing I notice most in that statement is the difference of information and organization.   I need to think more of ways that different media do this (or don't) 

Who's tracking you?

 Kevin Kelly has this article on The Technium: As Much Privacy As You Can Afford

What we call privacy -- the non-disclosure or transmission of information -- is ultimately a matter of economics. To remain hidden in a connected world will cost money. You can always disconnect, but while connected you will be transparent. Under this regime transparency is cheap and ubiquitous, while opacity expensive.
Apparently there is a service that will provide the current location of any cell phone for $95. You give Best411 the phone number you seek and $95 and then they will tell you where that cell phone is located is between 9am and 5pm CST.
How is this possible? Obviously the cell phone company knows because it has to track your cell in order to deliver calls. But how does Best411 know? They claim:

We are a state-licensed private investigative agency and, as such, have access to many data bases that the general public is not permitted to access.

That doesn't really explain the deal, or the legality, or the process. My immediate question is: Why does it cost so much? Why $95? Technologically this is a trivial query. It's real cost is about zero. I wonder who or what is setting the price?
Second question: If I were willing to pay $100 could I prevent Best411 from tracking me? How much would it cost to have my location "unlisted"?
I am really asking the larger question of how expensive will it become to be unlocateble in the location-aware mobile future?

 Makes you think who controls you data etc. and who has access to it when they want it.

Malcolm Gladwell on social media

Over Christmas I read Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point.  (I read it quickly while I was at my in-laws out west and didn't really make any notes, so I actually might get it out of the library again this weekend)  It is about how ideas spread and how people are influenced.

This past week as I was reading dead tree version of the Globe and Mail, I came across this Q&A article in which he answers some questions about the latest social media.  There were a few quotes I thought were interesting

"People aren't spreading ideas on Twitter, they're spreading observations."

I also like his thoughts on all the people that are ready to crown Twitter and Facebook social media champs.

"[The Internet] likes nothing more than to build someone up only to topple them.  Who has an AOL account these days? Not that long ago, AOL was the single most powerful player on the Internet.  Who has a MySpace account these days?  MySpace sold fro billions of dollars not that long ago.  I'm very reluctant to crown Facebook king of the future"

He also has some great thoughts on how social media can not build the same strength to organizations the way face to face contact can.... which I think I'll save for another post

Extensions of the WHOLE man.

Kevin Kelly has his thoughts on where tablets might end up going.  He states two things that will make them different than the average cell phone or computer/laptop, the second being:

The tablet window goes two ways. You watch; it watches you. Its eye can remain on all the time, watching you as much as you like. Brian Eno once famously said (in the pages of Wired) that the problem with computers was that there was not enough Africa in them. By this he meant that computers as we knew them could “see” only the wiggling ends of our fingers as we typed. But if they could see and employ the rest of our body, as if we were dancing or singing, we could express ourselves with greater finesse. This window tablet injects some Africa into computers. It overthrows the tyranny of the keyboard. Gestures are king. Swoosh your fingers to scroll, wave your arms as with a Wii, shake or tilt it. Celebrate its embodiment. The craftsmanship of this device will matter. We’ll spend hours holding it, caressing it, stroking its magic surface, watching it. The feel of its surface, the liquidity of its flickers, the presence or lack of its warmth, the quality of its build, the temperature of its glow will come to mean a great deal to all of us.

This is interesting to my Marshall McLuhan (somewhat) obsessed mind.  McLuhan always referred to technology as extensions of man (or woman) and here Kelly is pointing out that technology is going to feel better to us as it extends more and more of us.   McLuhan saw our actual nervous system being eventually completely extended by our technology.  Conventional computers have done a good job with sight and sounds... and maybe our thought...but now touch screens will start to take our whole body as extensions.  Causing us to move, to dance.   I think McLuhan would also see it as interesting that the newer innovation of touch screens and gestures overthrows the need to know the phonetic alphabet even more.  The keyboard isn't gone completely, but I think this is a move closer to not needing to know written language.  Which moves us farther from the visual to the oral community.  

It's also interesting to see how Kelly describes the romance between the individual and the technology.  The relationship is tangible to the user.   Kind of scary in a way.  You thought that people were already zealots about their Macs.... now their iPad is going to be their lover and best friend.   That might be more scary, I'd hate to see Apple fanboys more obsessed with something.

I think McLuhan would have loved this stuff.  I do too.... and I've only been thinking about it for a little while

That'll never work....even if it has

One of my favourite sites to read it TechDirt.... digging into the muck of copyright, patents and new business models etc.   
This is from a post of about whether you can use free content as a business model

It's really stunning to see people who obviously should know better continually insisting that content can't possibly be free to consumers. We've been seeing a lot of it in the news business lately, as newspaper execs who have built up an ad business for many years seem oblivious to the fact that consumers have almost never paid directly for news. And now that same sort of ridiculous thinking is showing up in the video market. Christopher Schneider points us to an article written by Dan Rayburn, who apparently is an analyst at Frost & Sullivan, but who appears to be wholly unfamiliar with network TV in claiming that video content can't possibly be free:

Frankly, I don't see where this idea of "free" comes from. Video content costs money to produce, to distribute and to consume. Yet even with those costs, many seem hell-bent on the idea that business models can somehow survive based on the consumption of free video content supported solely by an ad model. But in reality, that simply can't happen.

It comes from basic economics, Dan, combined with knowledge of how network TV has worked for many decades. In some businesses consumers pay for stuff. In others, third parties do it. In network TV, advertisers have always paid the freight. You would think that a big-time analyst would be familiar with that. But, of course, it looks like Dan doesn't get the economics right either:

If people are not willing to pay a content owner for their content, then it's not worth anything. That's the bottom line.

Dan, how much did you pay for the air you breathe? Ok. How much is it worth? Your "bottom line" is flat-out wrong. Value and price are two different things. Value plays into the demand curve, but price is set by the intersection of supply and demand. If something is priced at zero, it doesn't mean it's valued at zero.

 I'd also like to point out that good radio stations can make money providing content for free as well. 

Um sorry about that

Over the weekend Ars Technica put up an article about why ad blocking software is killing good sights.  There basic premise is that it is my fault that they don't get money when I block advertising and that it stealing content.  At first I felt a little bad.  But you know what I hate adds....and sometimes they are annoying  (I toggled my adblocker off, looked at the site and turned it back on again)

Then Techdirt had a great article "Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking is Not Killing Any Sites"
Essentially saying that if your Ads are driving people away you need to look at ads as the problem not the person leaving.  In fact there was this great quote:

Mike Markson recently wrote up a blog post for entrepreneurs, talking about how every entrepreneur needs to learn the lesson that, whatever doesn't go right is your fault. It's a tough lesson for people (especially entrepreneurs) to learn. If you can't raise money, don't blame the investors. You were the one who failed to convince them. If you can't make sales, don't blame the sales people. You either hired the wrong sales people or didn't put together a compelling enough pitch or didn't have a good enough product. It's your responsibility as an entrepreneur to fix things.

Which I think is a good reminder to everyone that likes to pass the buck, but really we should find a solution over someone to blame.

Ok, so what did I do?   I've turned off the ad blocking in my Google Reader.  So if your RSS reader has ads I will see them.... because in all honesty I want to support great sites like Ars Technica and TechDirt.    And when the ads get annoying I will just stop reading that RSS feed.  

Thinking about security

A number of people in Stratford have had money stolen from their accounts as part of a large debit card scam. Even some people I know from the House of Blessing.

It has me thinking about passwords and such. As much as I am pretty geeky and like to think I am smarter than the average computer user, I have to admit that I use some pretty common passwords for just about everything. (not exactly the same, I'm a little smarter than that) So as of today I am going to change my system up. One of my favorite sites is LifeHacker.com - they have many articles on various software that can help create and keep passwords, this particular one seemed make sense to me:

You don't need to remember 100 passwords if you have 1 rule set for generating them. One way to generate unique passwords is to choose a base password and then apply a rule that mashes in some form of the service name with it. For example, you may use your base password with the first two consonants and the first two vowels of the service name. Say your base password is "asdf." (See how easy those keys are to type?). Then your password for Yahoo would be ASDFYHAO, and your password for eBay would be ASDFBYEA.

I'm also going to try out KeePass to help me remember the new passwords. I'll post a review of that once I have played around with it.

I don't want to cause a Twitter

I've been thinking some more about Twitter and how it will effect the church. (You might want to read my last post) I did some reading of the reviews that are out there for Anthony Coppedge's book The Reason Your Church Must Twitter and I saw this quote by Jim Watson

"The beauty is that you can reach your people on their computer and/or on their cell phones, via SMS text messaging, which is a huge thing. Phone calls are tedious, email is often not read and fairly labor intensive for a church and in the end, ultimately, communication is key."

Communication is key, but I think that Twitter will eventually become like the things mentioned above, just another form of invasive annoying communication.  Ultimately people respond to communication because they have an connection to it.  (I already ignore text & Facebook messages from some people)   The quote is actually quite telling of how quickly we forget how cutting edge the mentioned technologies once were.

I'm know at one point email was the saviour of communication....because the telephone was quite tedious
I bet the telephone was once going to save the church.... because visiting people took a lot of time.
Throw in how websites, signs outside our churches,  radio broadcasts, pod-casting  etc. were all going to save the world around us.

A new medium will not change the way most basic reason that people ignore your message....they don't like you or you're not important to them. 

Being the McLuhan geek that I am I thought I would look at Twitter through MM's four laws of media:
ENHANCES:  - the ability to communicate information, to convey quick information.
OBSOLESCE:  - email, phone, talking to people, deeper connections
RETRIEVES: yelling across the street, passing notes in class....
REVERSE: reverses into constant barrage of short messages, devoid of personal connection

I'm going to contiune thinking about some of these.... feel free to let me know where I am wrong in comments.

Technology saving the church (again)

Facebook and Twitter are going to save your church. No for real - it says so on the Internet.

Maybe it is just the type of blogs that I read. Maybe it is just the things that catch my attention. But, it sure seems that there are a lot of people out there that love to embrace each new medium that comes along.

I'm not even going to get into my usual mcluhanesque comments on media both being positive and negative* but there seems to be a rush lately to be the first person to literally write the book on the latest social network and how it will be the saviour of your church.

First there was Chris Forbes and "Facebook for Pastors" that would teach pastors how to "build relationships and connect with people using the most popular social network on the Internet."
Now recently we have Anthony Coppedge and "The Reason Your Church Must Twitter" who takes an even stronger stance with "a helpful, easy and practical guide to reaching the right people with the right message." I don't want to pick on these two authors. In fact they are both really smart men, that I respect a lot of what they have to say. I haven't taken the time to see if a few years ago someone wrote how MSN Messenger would save the church. I bet the Internet was going to save the church at one point, along with the computer, the automobile, and the printed page. All those things have had huge impact on both the church and our very core of culture, but the impact was not wholly positive. I could come up with lots of things about the comptuer, cars and print itself that have negativly effected the body of Christ.

Already I feel it. Somebody is muttering "ludite" and dismissing me as a technophobe. But stop and think about it, nothing has wholesale postive effects. Yes Twitter is great, people can track what other people are saying, eating, etc.... but what about depth? What takes people to a deep level of realtionship? I can as easily ignore the "This is the worst day in my life" tweat as I can engage that person. Being that I am disembodied here at my computer the person dosen't even know that I have ingored their call for help/attention/assistance. Maybe even worse I will make the mistake of dismissing them with a "don't worry tomorrow will be better"

I think us lovers of tech have to be (more) careful to not sell the latest and greatest technology as a fix for all that ails the church. We have see more than the benifits and see all the effects.

Always more to say...but that is good for now

* technically McLuhan has four laws (or directions) but most people really are only ready to focus on the positive and negative effects.

A new Shane Hipps Book

I am really excited to see that Shane Hipps has a new book coming out.

Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Your Faith

Best I can see it is soon to be released (not available on Chapters or Amazon yet) and it seems that it will be in the same style as his previous book.

Without making a large gushing sound Shane Hipps really changed the way I look at this world... at least how I view technology, which tends to be a big part of my world. In many ways he is the one that turned me on to the likes of Marshal McLuhan, Neil Postman and others. So even if some of this material is rearranged from the first book, I will buy it as soon as it is shipping.

(and for the record this changes my mood from the last post)

Analog to digital

I can't tell you how many conversations I have had about digital TV and the end of analog.




Props to BWB for the link

If I had a hammer.....

Hey iPhone owners! - yeah you!

Here's how I feel

you can go now.

iCommunity

Brad Abare of Church Marketing Sucks has an article talking about the "Illusion of Community."
I think it is great thoughts from a website that by nature promotes the use of tools (technology) in communication.

If ever there was a buzzword for the past several years that the church--myself included--has been in love with, it would be the word "community." And rightly so because community is so desperately lacking these days. People are lonely and isolated. Today, 1 out of every 4 households in the U.S. has just one person living there. In 1950, it was 1 out of every 10. So while we may be more connected than any other generation, we're more detached than ever before.

Sure, Facebook an the like have the illusion of Community - their not all bad either, but it is great to see balanced coverage of the effects on our communities, one that is not "EVIL" and one that is not adopt everything because it is there.

Thoughts on the Meeting House

The Gig had a farewell for us two weeks ago, because we were supposed to be living and working in Stratford by now. As we had said all our goodbyes we felt a little strange going there on Sunday morning and also thought it would be a great chance to check out another church community in Kitchener. So we decided to check out The Meeting House. I thought maybe I would post on my thoughts about my first time being a part of their Sunday morning gathering. First I have to say is was good to see so many familiar faces - looking over the staff list there are a lot of friends from the past (even an old roommate) - I think that they are all striving to do good work so I hope my criticism is not taken as an attack on what they are doing, more this is my analysis of how I think they are heading in the wrong direction.

First, the things that thought were good. The elements were all very good - worship music and presentation. It's all very coordinated and smooth. Bruxy Cavey was on his usual game as an excellent laid back teacher. I can see why people come out, the product is very good.

So what is my problem? well if you read my last post or have been following my thoughts on technology and the church you would know that I'm trying to look at the bigger issues than just what happen on the Sunday morning. One of the problems with the video venue is what it is saying (this is a medium is the message type thing) about who can speak to the church. Bruxy is an amazing speaker - no contest. But the meeting house just keeps adding sites. When you look at everything else, the meeting house is just about the same as many other churches, except they all watch the big screen to see a common message. So if you extrapolate the vision or goal - eventually you would have a Meeting house in every city or town. Or maybe the end expansion would (or should) be that every church is a video extension of Bruxy's teaching. I'm not saying the Bruxy shouldn't teach a lot of poeple, but what does it say when we enforce a message that only one voice is good enough to teach? Is there no person in all of the Golden Horeshoe or Western Ontario (and coming to Ottawa) that is a good enough speaker to teach the public? I think people would deny this as a statement, but you have to see this is what the "medium" is sending as a message.

What if Bruxy isn't the best teacher - what if say Rob Bell is a better speaker? The Meeting House had defined its existence on transmitting the best teacher they can find. Maybe they would have better results if someone else what the teacher and we could double the churches because someone like Rob Bell would draw more people (sort of sound like celebrity doesn't it?) do the people that come out care about who as long as it is deemed good? The motion is towards all sites digesting whatever come on the screen as truth. Whatever the Great OZ says is truth. There is the potential for the thing to get so big that only those at the top really have any control over what is said or preached. Right now, I assume there are good checks and balances in place, but how big does it get to be out of control? What if no one thinks it is out of control?

I'm not saying that the Meeting House has no checks and balances. I'm not saying that the teaching is wrong, all I'm saying is that they seem to think that growth by more sites is unlimitedly good (we cheered a new satellite location) But is this the type of growth that is good for the church? That we all tune in for directions? I think this is what the Protestant reformation was all about. Rome told people what their religion was about and they did not have a voice. I think the Meeting House model moves the average person in community farther away from having a voice or being a part of conversation.

I believe more and more in raising up new leaders, can you do this in a model where only the very best is heard? Is there room for learning and training - especially if you expand the method to it's extreme?

I hope that the Meeting House is making a difference in the community. I hope lives are change and Jesus is the centre. I also hope it doesn't ever go where I think it could.

Mostly a plug for Shane Hipps

I have been doing a lot of research on the effects of technology on culture (both church and everyday regular life) I happened across an article in Slate about video venues and mega churches and was happily surprised to find that Shane Hipps was quoted:

Using video goes against a critical tenet of Protestant faith: the priesthood of all believers. Instead of a real experience, it offers a mediated one that inherently puts the pastor in a position of greater power over the masses. "It's actually undermining their theology,"

in his book Shane has written about the effects of video - not necessarily the separate venue site, but certainly it pertains. The above statement is pretty strong, but I think it needs to be. While I have been expanding my thoughts on media through other authors (Postman, McLuhan etc.) I strongly recommend Shane Hipps as a place to start to become aware of the influence of media on our culture. (I think I have to steal my book back from Rob)

I want to write more on the things that I am learning and thinking, but they will have to wait - check out the article in the meantime.

More stuff on "stuff"

Jonathan Brink writes

The coolest thing I heard today was while reading, “The Tangible Kingdom.“

“We have to remember that the ancient faith communities that set a course to change the world did so without church programs, without paid staff, without websites, and without brochures, blogs or buildings. They were lean! The point of going without all the stuff is simple but profound. When you don’t have all the “stuff,” you’re left with a lot of time to stpend[sic] with people.”

I liked that quote, I think that is very in tune with how I feel lately, but the statement does seem to indicate that everything we do is bad. Frank Viola (and others) would certainly agree that we need to return to a first century way of doing things... but then we admit that we don't mind having some technology to work with. I don't think we want to return to the days before the printing press, which the ancient faiths did not have their own personal bibles for study. I doubt the author above was including bible studying as "stuff" that get in the way.

I agree our "stuff" does get in the way at times - but it is more than a soundbite to agree on what "stuff" is good and what is bad.

With the right marketing anyone can be smart.

I sometimes marvel at how companies can spin things to make their products seem better than everything else - when usually most of their competitors product works equally well. Yes, I'm aware that is the most basic priciple of marketing, but sometimes the end result is just goofy.

I the world of sound system there are a lot of great speaker, amp and processing companies - not matter what you read, there is no one company that will sound good no matter what. Each system requires a talented designer to choose the right componets.

So that being said here is a quote that I read.

"I've been in a couple of hundred rooms, and, to me, this is the best-sounding system in the best-sounding room I've ever been in. In so many other rooms, the first thing I would notice as a sound engineer is the system. But here, the first thing I hear when I walk in is the band jamming, the vocalist singing, or a pastor whispering into a mic. Ever musician is communicating directly to me and every word is crystal clear"

- Chris Gille, Audio Department Head
Willow Creek Community Church

First - I'll let you in on a trade secret...every Audio guy that walks into any room will analyze the system. My wife still cringes when I'm critiquing the audio system during a wedding or at any event we are visiting.... so Mr. Chris Gille is no different. What is different is the craziness that the system at Willow Creek is beyond analysis, that in that room, with that system - you just hear the sound.

That is like saying my car runs so smoothly that when I get in I just zoom down the road forgetting I am in a car - while everyone else in the world is aware they are in a car.

OR My forest is so great - I don't even notice it has trees.

Sure he doesn't notice the system ANY MORE. But this is an add using Willow Creek to sell line arrays to churches that would be better off using traditional speakers (my own oppinion).... but if the Mecca of Willow says do it, the clones will follow (ok, that is a different rant)

The reality is every company markets like this to some extent...this one jumped out at me.