خطوط سفید، صفوف سیاه

،همین ها

،همین خودعلامه پندارها

،همین تحلیلگرها، کارشناس ها، درس خوانده  ها

 ،همین ها که بسیار هستند و همیشه در صحنه حاضر

:همین ها نماد مشکلات ایران امروز هستند.

.کسانی که خود را همیشه صاحب تئوری معرفی کرده اند و از دکترینی به دکترینی دیگر درحال مهاجرت و تولید تز هستند

،همین ها که نقد جن هست و وجود پاک ایشان بسم اله

،همین تفلون هایی که هیچ انتقادی به ساحت مطهرشان نمی چسبد

.در حباب نخبگانی(!) خویش چنان فرو رفته اند که با  درد و مصیبت  مردمان غریبه شده اند... 

.لبخند می زنند حال آن که در دل به آلام رنج دیدگان میخندند.

.به برکت وجود مستمرشان در طی بیش از چهار دهه، بی وقفه، وهن اخلاق را به تماشا نشسته ایم

Book Review: Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now

 Do you feel you have been shafted by high-tech social media companies? The book is written by computer scientist Jaron Lanier. He is one of the founding fathers of virtual reality and a Silicon Valley resident. So, these words and his viewpoint are more thought-provoking. 

In the preface, he uses the example of cats as a species with a behavioral pattern we should aspire to in our online lives. Cats behave independently in an untameable fashion, which makes training techniques futile. This is what we should consider when facing the chaos of the Internet, specifically social media.

First of all, this is not a self-help "Key to Maximum Productivity" type of book. While it is snappy, the book tackles a complex matter that requires multidimensional analysis. In terms of the flow, it is well-written and provides some inside knowledge from a reference figure who has lived in Silicon Valley. Actually, Lanier is himself among the founding fathers of the technology.

Briefly, ten arguments are mentioned in this book against the use of social media:

1- Being against your free will:

Through ads, social media platforms attack our privacy and ultimately undermine our free will. 

This argument is closely tied to the second argument, as the compromised personal information is used to modify users' behaviors. These two arguments are fundamental critiques. I found them valid and definitely concerning. However, despite all these hazards, could a dignified approach harness the capabilities of these platforms? The free public platforms have some inherent flaws that expose users to data piracy. The compromised or exploited data has been used for several ominous plots: from elections to marketing purposes. If this trend grows at this pace, the cybersecurity and political manipulation will definitely outweigh all positive social aspects of these platforms. 

2- Being a behavior-modifying tool: 

Herein, Lanier uses the acronym BUMMER for the first time. BUMMER stands for "Behaviors of Users Modified, and Made into an Empire for Rent”. As a constant customer, I found this point very valid. In most extreme stance, Lanier says: 

"the core of the BUMMER machine is not a technology, exactly, but a style of business plan that spews out perverse incentives and corrupts people."

3- Making you into an asshole (Unhealthy relationships): 

There are dangerous behavioral changes such as aggression, arrogance, a fetish for axaggeration which is a cover for inner insecurity. Top social media influencers have reportedly confessed that being too nice to others is a disadvantage in this fierce "competeitive fishbowl" business model. Also, the book describes some herd behaviors that switch from solitary/pack behaviors to group behaviors. The pack setting makes social media users predisposed to thinking and acting in a areactionary fashion; more focused on peers or enemies. Rather, an unaddicted educated mind may opt to act more proactively with more awareness of his/her surrounding environment. 

4- Truth sidelined: 

What if one day you find out that the bulk of the likes, reviews, reposts, and comments (and all other sorts of interactions) are fake interactions from fake followers? This is well well-documented that the platforms are fertile soil for such fugazi entities and ghost cyber ninjas, appearing in times of need (political campaigns, election seasons, hot debates, etc) and disappearing when they are not needed, just to reappear with a handy justification to fool the followers/audience. In my limited personal experience, I have stumbled upon a lot of these accounts, and my wishful thinking gradually tailed off, and I was consigned to the grim machinery behind the social media. Actually, we all came to believe that we share these online ecosystems with gazillions of android entities. The ecosystem is polluted, and the truth is subdued. 

5- Context-less:

Limited time, limited space, and a rush to interact jeopardize several interactions on social media. To make matters worse, interspersed ads add to the fuzziness and make the platforms susceptible to a miscarriage of the simple messages. And when they somehow manage to conduce a message, it is dissociated from its context. 

Here, I have a critique. True, this shortage of time and characters are not helpful. However, for the most part the problem lies in the users' approach and how they want to use the tool. The logic is there, but not satisfying. This argument is rather subjective and does not hold a strong sinew.

6- Being against empathy: 

Seeing other people's views in an abridged version compromises our perception and feeling of a matter or situation. These brief encounters devoid of context are just deluding us about participating in a communal discourse. Hence, we are left with some dubious pretexts as to why fellow citizens did what they did. 

7- Hinders happiness:

This argument is again subjective but stronger than #6. On social platforms, people are ranked based on their statistics revolving around popularity and size of their social circles. This triggers a ceaseless appeal to posession of social contacts no number of "friends/followers" can satisfyingly put an end to this craving. Also, a more serious side effect is that it reduces concepts such as friendship or human interaction to numbers and records. 

8- Undermining economic dignity:

Reliance on the "Gig economy" does not provide stability. A minority of entrepreneurs become extremely wealthy in the mould of the 19th century's "Gilded Age". However, overall risk has been radiated out to ordinary people (customers).  

9- Negative and even nefarious when it comes to politics:

Up to a certain point, social media had a positive impact (for example, online activism against abject poverty). However, after the financial power of the social media companies skyrocketed, it began to negatively impact political decision-making. There are plenty of examples in recent history: the Myanmar Rohingya crisis deterioration which coincided with Facebook's arrival and inundation by waves of unadulterated misinformation. Another example: India and fake posts (on Facebook's WhatsApp) on child abductions, destabilized parts of India (unfounded rumors).

A more recent example is post-Assad Syria, where cyber activities on platforms in the middle of an information void. 

Thedore, the UN reports social media as a massively deadly weapon sue to "shitposts"

10- Corrosive effect on spirituality: 

For BUMMER citizens, virality is equivalent to truth. To trust these platforms, you should give your cognitive power over to that system. You need to trust the wisdom of BUMMER and its algorithms. As mentioned in argument #4, the social media platforms have not defined "seeking truth" as their goal.  

Alzheimer's Association

It's always satisfying to pursue worthy ideas and join a right cause.
Lethean Cottage is glad to share some useful information  with the readers in order to improve the public understanding about the disease.
if you're willing to join the cause :

Facebook.com/actionalz

twitter.com/alzassociation
and here :you can find some useful information about the disease
and you can add some useful items to your website:use texts,videos,banners,etc so we can make sure as many people as possible have access to the basic information.

Regards

Pedram 

Lesson For Those Facing Serious Illnesses

by : Danielle Leach, MPA

“A true friend walks in when everyone else walks out.”
I read that on a magnet on my friend’s refrigerator recently and the simple power of that saying brought me to tears. I have learned that lesson of true friends since my son’s diagnosis of cancer in 2007.
Anyone who has faced a serious illness as a patient or a caregiver knows that you quickly learn who your friends are. They are the ones who are there, who listen instead of trying to fix things, who are present for you in any way you need them. Some people you love will disappoint and not rise to the occasion, and some people you never expected will be your biggest supporters.
It is hard not to resent people who are there in the crisis, and then leave once the immediate crisis is over. There are people who are not there for the long haul, for the good and the bad that a disease may bring. The initial drama draws everyone in, but sends them running afterward.
I have learned, especially when you are living a nightmare, that it takes a special person to stay with you throughout the crisis. A person who keeps checking in and knows the journey is not necessarily over once you are in remission, or when your loved one has passed away. When my son Mason had brain cancer, our family found our true friends. We were surprised by many who walked out, but also by how many true friends walked into our lives because of Mason’s illness. We have learned even after Mason’s death, even three years later, we continue to go through this process of discovering our true friends.
Some people are not capable of handling personal difficulties. We, as patients and caregivers, need to understand not everyone has the capacity or tools to handle a crisis of another. This knowledge does not make it any easier for us as we wade through process of dealing with disease. As a director at Inspire, a company that creates and manages online patient support communities, I see regularly the comments of patients and caregivers who talk about friendships won and lost since diagnosis. Some are surprised and profoundly saddened by the lack of support from those expected to help the most. However, many happily note those friends, family, and even strangers who surprise them with support in a time of great need.
I recall reading about a Florida woman, whose teenage son was undergoing chemo, wrote that her friends avoided her upon learning about her son’s cancer diagnosis. “It’s almost like they were afraid they could catch it,” she said.
Another, a bladder cancer survivor from New Jersey, observed, “A lot of people walk out. . . a good 50% of my ‘pre-cancer’ friends I have never heard from again.” He went on to say, “In my case, I am lucky. I have all strong ones, having cut weak relations a long time ago. I keep only the cream of the crop.”
Sometimes finding others who are dealing with the same issues can be the most helpful strategy. You can often talk online more frankly and honestly with them than with some loved ones or friends. Dealing with an illness can be a lonely and scary process. Participating in support communities often help alleviate some of that loneliness. I have seen repeatedly how these connections are a powerful tool and establish strong personal friendships among members.
If you’re a patient or caregiver, look for the people who are true friends and hold those people close. Craft a strong support network–both in person and online. If you have a chance to do so, be the kind of true friend people are often searching for in their lives when they need it the most.

Danielle Leach is Director of Partnerships at Inspire and is founder of the Mason Leach Superstar Fund, in memory of her son, Mason, who died of pediatric medulloblastoma in 2007.

Facebook reverses on sharing user addresses, phone numbers

On Tuesday, Facebook reversed a change announced on Friday to a permissions dialog box that users see when downloading third-party Facebook apps--a change that potentially makes users' addresses and phone numbers available to app developers.

The tweak was made known to developers of third-party apps Friday night, by way of a post on the Facebook Developer Blog. Basically, when a person starts downloading a third-party Facebook app, a Request for Permission dialog box appears that asks for access to basic information including the downloader's name, profile picture, gender, user ID, list of friends, and more. What's new as of Friday is an additional section that asks for access to the downloader's current address and mobile phone number.

At 2:25 a.m. Tuesday morning, a blog was posted on Facebook's Developer Blog which said:

"Over the weekend, we got some useful feedback that we could make people more clearly aware of when they are granting access to this data. We agree, and we are making changes to help ensure you only share this information when you intend to do so. We’ll be working to launch these updates as soon as possible, and will be temporarily disabling this feature until those changes are ready."

How Facebook Eclipsed Google In 2010

Facebook beat out Google as the No. 1 most-visited site in the United States in 2010, according to Internet analytics firm Hitwise.

How was Facebook able to outplay the former Web champion? And can Google make a comeback in 2011 and beyond?
Let's begin by admitting that the Hitwise data doesn't represent the whole truth. For starters, Hitwise only measures unique visitors in the United States. What's more, Hitwise measures sites on a per domain basis: If the analytics firm were to include Google-owned YouTube in its calculations, Google's network of websites would outrank Facebook properties.
Nonetheless, there's a tectonic shift at work here: Facebook, once easily dismissed as the next social networking fad, has seemingly discovered Google's weak spots.
What are they, and can Google regain ground here?


Identity Wars
The first area in which Facebook has bested Google is online identity. Remember the days when trying out a new website required entering your name, username, password and other details into a form? Now sites can opt to use your Facebook account for one-click signup, making life easier for both websites and their users.
Facebook was able to make this move because the service was founded around the principle of real names. While this may have slowed Facebook's growth in its early days, the company now owns a massive database of more than 500 million identities, most of them real.
As a result, Facebook is becoming the de facto identity system for the Web. The social optimization service Gigya claims that Facebook accounts for 46% of website logins versus Google's 17%.


Social struggles
Where else is Google behind? How about "social," one of the biggest Web trends of the past five years? Understanding the connections between people is Facebook's core competency, but Google has struggled to compete in the social networking arena.
Google Buzz, widely considered a flop after a highly anticipated launch this year, unsuccessfully tried to turn Gmail contacts into social networking friends. Gmail users, it turned out, didn't need yet another social network, and didn't see their email contacts as synonymous with their real-life friends. That's a major hurdle for all of Google's social efforts: The company doesn't possess a "social graph" of our real-world connections.
More troubling is that social gaming, with such Facebook hits as FarmVille, has become a megatrend over the past few years. Google has few inroads here.
Google is expected to roll out a "social layer" uniting its Web properties in 2011, but the company has played down claims that it will launch a full social network, and expectations are low for Google's next social foray. Google could change its social fortunes through an acquisition, however: The purchase of social messaging service Twitter is the obvious move.


Search Rivalry?
Google is synonymous with search and continued to reign supreme in 2010. Surely this is the one area in which the company can maintain its lead in the coming years.
Google would indeed prove difficult to unseat in search, and yet Facebook may eventually gain a little ground here, too. Not only does Facebook possess a large database of every users' personal preferences, but its increasingly popular "Like" buttons allow members to express interest in particular Web pages.
If the company felt so inclined, Facebook might be able to provide a search engine that delivers highly personalized results. Better still: Facebook may stockpile enough personal information to recommend relevant content without the need for a search box.
Such a move is unlikely to unseat Google overnight, but this means of social discovery could lessen our dependence on search engines in the long haul.


Google's big gains: Mobile, video
Facebook is only "beating" Google if we limit the playing field to the Web. But in the rapidly growing mobile sector, Facebook is a minor player.
While the leading social network is attempting to bring social features to phones, Google owns an entire operating system: Android. What's more, Android is spreading like wildfire and proving to be a real challenger to Apple's iOS. Facebook, meanwhile, doesn't even have an iPad app.
What about watching online video, one of the Web's most popular activities? Yes, Google wins there, too: As the owner of YouTube, the company serves up the vast majority of online video views. In neither mobile nor video does Facebook look to be a threat to Google's position.
Google will always retain the lead, meanwhile, in professional life: From collaborative document creation to enterprise email, it's hard to see Facebook challenging Google's role in the workplace.


An uncertain victory
In 2010, Facebook challenged Google where it is weakest: Online identity and the social Web. Given that "social" is the Web's fastest-growing trend, it's hardly surprising that Facebook has benefited from the rising tide.
And yet Facebook only outranks Google on that very narrow metric: U.S. Web traffic. As mobile operating systems and app stores grow in popularity, is Web traffic really an accurate measurement of an Internet company's success?
and let's not forget that Google still crushes Facebook on the number that really counts: Revenue.


by : Pete Cashmore
@CNN

Not Exactly A Friend !

“I researched my condition on Wikipedia.” That’s what more doctors, myself included, are hearing from patients every day.
Wikipedia is the Web’s most popular online encyclopedia. Its more than 13 million articles cover almost every topic imaginable. It is among the most visited sites primarily because its articles routinely show up near the top of search engine results, like those from Google.The ability to research diseases and drugs on the Web has empowered patients in managing their health. More than 160 million adults in the U.S. have gone online to look for medical information. With two-thirds of them beginning their Internet health inquiry using a search engine, it is no wonder that Wikipedia has become a common medical resource for patients. More than half, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, reported that their most recent Web session influenced how they took care of themselves or for someone else, illustrating how critical online health information has become.
But Wikipedia’s medical entries — as has been reported with other entries on other issues — are not reliable for the simple fact that they are prone to manipulation, as is all Wikipedia content.Anyone can write and edit its topics, which means millions of non-doctors can essentially dispense medical advice. In several instances, pharmaceutical companies intentionally tried to delete or modify Wikipedia entries that mentioned adverse effects associated with their drugs.For example, in 2007, a claim that the psychiatric medication Seroquel made teenagers “more likely to think about harming or killing themselves” was deleted from the Wikipedia entry by a computer registered to AstraZeneca, the drug’s manufacturer.
Even more troubling is that doctors, too, appear to be increasingly reliant on Wikipedia. According to a survey of 1,900 physicians by Manhattan Research, a health care market research firm, nearly half of doctors going online for professional purposes reported using Wikipedia as a source of medical information. That number has doubled in the past year alone.
The threat is obvious. Can you imagine your doctor stepping out from the exam room, tapping away at his or her computer seeking the advice of Wikipedia? Research has documented the danger. A study from The Annals of Pharmacotherapy compared drug information from Wikipedia with the Medscape Drug Reference, a resource whose information is reviewed by pharmacists. Researchers found that Wikipedia omitted important information, including drug side effects. Another entry overlooked a commonly prescribed pain medication’s association with miscarriages.
This isn’t to say patients shouldn’t research their medical conditions to become better informed. But it’s imperative that patients not rely on Wikipedia as the primary source of their health research. Websites sponsored by the government, academic medical centers, or professional medical societies all have more authoritative information that can be relied upon.
Jay Walsh, head of communications at the Wikimedia Foundation, says: “Wikipedia shouldn’t be taken as a 100% reliable source of medical information. … But Wikipedia always strives for a degree of improvement.
”And as for physicians, there’s no excuse turning to Wikipedia as a source when reputable medical resources are a few more keystrokes away. Although these other sites might require more time for a busy clinician, doctors need to eschew convenience to ensure their decisions are based on sound medical information.
Quality patient care demands no less.

published on July 15th, 2009 in the USA Today.

WikiLeaks : 5 Basic Questions

The WikiLeaks controversy pits one hallowed purpose of US government – preventing security threats from abroad – against another, that of protecting constitutional rights of expression by the media and individuals. Striking that balance has become difficult in an age of the Internet hackers, bloggers, self-appointed public policy watchdogs, and thousands of online “publications” marked by ideology and attitude.

So far, WikiLeaks has released more than 700,000 sensitive or classified documents about US military and diplomatic activity – 92,000 on the war in Afghanistan, 392,000 on the Iraq war, and now nearly 250,000 diplomatic cables that US officials say are damaging to foreign relations and intelligence operations. Within weeks, WikiLeaks says, it’ll release inside information on business interests – starting with a major American bank.
Here are answers to five key questions by Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer  ThFire.com

1. Who is responsible for the leaks?
WikiLeaks describes itself as a “not-for-profit media organization” whose goal is to “bring important news and information to the public.” Launched in 2006, it is a loose network of individual leakers and advisers with a post office box at the University of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. A shadowy, mostly volunteer organization, WikiLeaks operates on many servers and under domain names around the world. Much of its work is conducted from a rented house in Iceland.
Australian Julian Paul Assange is WikiLeaks' editor in chief and only spokesman. He is in his late 30s, studied physics, math, and computer programming, all of which made him an expert computer hacker. Mr. Assange seems to travel constantly, although not to the United States, sometimes altering his appearance to avoid being recognized or possibly arrested.
The other prominent name connected to WikiLeaks is US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. Manning was a military analyst in Iraq, where, despite his low rank, he had wide access to sensitive and classified information. Among other things, he allegedly downloaded and leaked video footage of an attack by a US Apache helicopter gunship that killed Iraqi civilians, including two employees of the Reuters news agency.
Manning was arrested in May and later charged with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in conjunction with “transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system,” as well as “communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source.



2. How could so much classified information be stolen?
During the months Manning worked with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division in Iraq, it was apparently easy for him to find, download, and copy sensitive military information. Writing in an online chat, he claims to have had “unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months.”
“I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga’ … erase the music … then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing … I listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history.”
“Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counterintelligence, inattentive signal analysis,” Manning wrote. “A perfect storm.”
“No one suspected a thing,” he wrote to a former computer hacker who eventually tipped off the FBI and Army officials. “I didn’t even have to hide anything.”
Officials have told the Associated Press that Manning is the prime suspect in the most recent leak of diplomatic cables. He is now awaiting court martial at the US Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. He faces up to 52 years in prison.


3. How did the information become public?
WikiLeaks provided the latest cache of 251,287 diplomatic cables to Der Spiegel, El País, Le Monde, and The Guardian newspapers. The New York Times, which had published earlier reports critical of Assange and Manning, was snubbed by WikiLeaks for this round of leaked documents. But the Guardian quickly passed along the leaked material to the Times.
In justifying the decision to publish reports on the leaked cables, New York Times editor Bill Keller offered this explanation:
“We have edited out any information that could identify confidential sources – including informants, dissidents, academics and human rights activists – or otherwise compromise national security,” he wrote in response to questions on the Times website. “We did this in consultation with the State Department, and while they strongly disapprove of the publication of classified material at any time, and while we did not agree with all of their requests for omission, we took their views very seriously indeed.” He also noted that the Times chose "a small selection of the cables – about 100 in all, out of a quarter of a million documents – that we think provide useful source material for the articles we have written.”


4. What information got released?
In July, WikiLeaks released some 92,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan, including information on civilian casualties, the strength of the Taliban, friendly fire episodes, and links between Pakistan’s intelligence services and the Taliban.
Three months later, WikiLeaks disclosed nearly 392,000 US Army field reports – the largest military leak in US history – dubbed the “Iraq War Logs.” Among other things, the information included details of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, secret civilian death counts, Iran’s involvement with Shiite militias operating in Iraq, tensions between Kurds and Arabs in northern Iraq, and new information about three American hikers arrested along the Iraq-Iran border and taken to Iran.
Of the 250,000 confidential and secret diplomatic cables released Nov. 28, 15,652 are classified as “secret.” Of those, 4,330 also are labeled “NOFORN,” meaning they should not be seen by foreign nationals. The frankly worded cables revealed US spying on United Nations officials, included disparaging remarks about national leaders such as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and recounted Saudi Arabia’s urging the US to attack Iran over that nation’s nuclear program.


5. Could this kind of leak happen again?
Unless the US changes how it distributes and tracks sensitive information, the short answer is “yes.”
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, agencies began sharing information that previously had been “stove-piped.” At the same time, the number of individuals with access to classified information via the secure Secret Internet Protocol Router Network grew to nearly 2.5 million people (most of them at the Defense Department). Manning was one such person
“Obviously that aperture went too wide,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters recently. The Pentagon is now tightening controls on classified information. For example, classified computers will be “read-only,” preventing the use of thumb drives and other removable media to copy and walk away with sensitive data.
The State Department and other agencies, too, are tightening information-sharing. Moreover, the White House has directed government entities that handle classified information to review their "implementation of procedures for safeguarding classified information against improper disclosures.”

Cisco and T-Mobile Announce Wi-Fi Calling For Business

Cisco Systems, Inc. and T-Mobile USA have announced the Wi-Fi Calling for Business. This service ensures reliable voice calls over a Wi-Fi connection. The service also ensures seamless roaming of voice and data traffic between cellular networks and Wi-Fi.

This service will help businesses save on communication costs. Cytec Industries is one of the early adopters of the service. About 1,000 out of 6,000 Cytec employees have actively been using the service for the last 6 months.
This service requires a Cisco wireless LAN infrastructure. The infrastructure includes Unified Wireless Network technology and Cisco Compatible Extensions (CCX). Unfortunately CCX currently only works for BlackBerry and Nokia smartphones, but not Android and iPhone yet.



@computerworld.com

Person of The Year 2010

 

Time magazine has named Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Person of the Year.

Zuckerberg’s accomplishments in 2010 are truly outstanding: he cemented Facebook’s status as the biggest social network and one of the hottest Internet companies, surging past 500 million users. He’s one of the world’s youngest billionaires, and recently he pledged to give the majority of his wealth to charity.
“For connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them; for creating a new system of exchanging information; and for changing how we all live our lives, Mark Elliot
Zuckerberg is Time’s 2010 Person of the Year,” explains Time.

Not everyone agrees with the choice, however. WikiLeaks founder and owner Julian Assange was also a likely candidate, and many commenters over on Time think his accomplishments are far more important that Zuckerberg’s.

دوست

احتمالا این موضوعی که می خواهم مطرح کنم برای عده ای غیر قابل قبول است: لازم میدانم در ابتدا حساب استثنائات که عمدتا  مشمول اتفاقات خوب زندگی شده اند,را از این متن جدا می کنم.این جاا صحبت از یک جریان غالب است:
موضوع هم موضوع دوستی ها و روابط عاشقانه در جامعه ای است که من شناختم:  که اگر بخواهم تشبیه مناسبی به کار ببرم ،شکلاتی فا سد با زرورقی شیک است.ابزاری مناسب برای فریب انسان های ساده دلی که همچنان از دیدگاه افلاطونی برای تفسیر رفتارها ی قاطبه جامعه امروزی استفاده می کنند.شخصا از تنهایی بیشتر لذت می برم و انسان اجتماع نیستم، شاید دیده ها و تجربیات خود ویا دوستان همدل و مورد وثوقم در شکل گیری این گرایش درونی نقش داشته است. نمی دانم چه عنصر انسانی دراین به اصطلاح دوستی قابل کشف است:چه پارامتری که انسان را به کمال نزدیکتر می کند در این ترکیب ناجور رمانتیسیسم کور و هیجانات فروخفته وجود دارد؟ گشت وگذار در رستوران های درجه یک ،سواری مجانی گرفتن از تو،بهره گرفتن از نام ،شخصیت و معلومات تو در هنگام لزوم، استفاده از امکانات مادی تو وقتی در رفاه هستی...و البته در جامعه ای که دریوزگی نسبت به شایستگی منتج به کامیابی بیشتر می گردد،انتظار دیگری نمیشود داشت...طبیعی است که در هر کجا،از خیابان و محیط مجازی گرفته تا کلاس های دانشگاه!، انسان های خود باخته ای را ببینی که کاسه ای در دست،گدایی می کنند:گدایی محبت،گدایی عشق... آیا بوی تعفن از همین پوسته ی خوش رنگ استشمام نمی شود؟
اگر وارد این چرخه ی معیوب  کامجویی لجنی شدی باید خود را برای نیمه ی دوم و محتوم این بازی آماده نمایی.قطعا تصور این که امروز به هسته ی دور انداختنی میوه ی خوش طعم دیروز تبدیل شده ای دلپذیر نیست...ولی آیا انتظار یک عمر موج سواری را داشتی؟آیا می شود از یک رابطه ی بنا شده بر نیازهای مادی و اقناع هیجانات زودگذرانتظار بیشتری داشت؟ وقتی می رسد که احساس می کنی از هر 100 جمله ات یک جمله هم ارزش ورود به ساحت اندیشه ی دوست را نمی یابد!اگر دغدغه هایت کمی دورتر از بستر خاکی اجازه ی فرود بخواهند ،هیچ گاه این اجازه را نمی یابند و صادقانه بگویم اصلا روءیت نمشوند. اگر روزی مشکلی پیدا کنی که عرضه ی لذت به رفقا را با وقفه مواجه کند ،می توانی خروج حتمی خود، خارج از صحنه ی نمایش  را پیش بینی کنی...با آغوش باز بپذیر و مهر اختتام را بر این تجربه بزن که هر چه پیشتر می روی  حس پوچی و افسردگی بیشتری را در شریان هایت جاری می کند..برعکس آن چه با روءیا پردازی در ذهنت پرداختی 

دینامیک حاکم بر این روابط دیگر هیچ رغبتی رادر من بر نمی انگیزد.شور وشعوری را، که از خواندن اثر یک نویسنده مورد علاقه در وجودم هستی می یابد ،بیشتر می پسندم.دوست دارم سخن و اندیشه ای که به زندگیم وارد می کنم همسو با تکامل شخصیتی و فکریم باشد.نه این که خود را با دوستی های دروغین فریب دهم و به دانسته ها و شعور خود دهن کجی کنم.  این دوستانی که درخوشی ها گوی سبقت را در نزدیکی به تو از یکدیگر می ربایند،اما در سختی ها ناپدید می شوند.حقیقت آن است که دیگر تحمل این همه ابتذال برایم سخت است ، حس می کنم گاهی چه ساده انسان به شعور خودش توهین می کند. چه ساده به آرزو های مترقی خود پشت می کند.آینده ی خود را فدای احساسات ناپایدار امروز می کند.شخصا ترجیح می دهم در سکوت و آرامش به علائق راستین زندگیم بپردازم .با حلقه ی کوچک دوست داشتنی خودم سعی کنم این ایام سخت را پشت سر بگذارم تا بعد.../پدرام.

Biograph mMR: MRI and PET are one

At RSNA a new system was unveiled, Biograph™ mMR*, the world's first integrated whole-body molecular MR with simultaneous data acquisition technology, currently undergoing clinical-use testing in Europe.

With this system, Siemens has brought together state-of-the-art 3T MRI and PET technology to enable simultaneous acquisition of both modalities – exquisite morphology, function and metabolism assessed in a single image.
Along with this exciting launch, Siemens highlighted the new imaging software syngo.via** and the commitment to reduce radiation dose across the entire spectrum of imaging and therapy.

*Biograph mMR is pending 510(k) review and is not commercially available in the U.S.


**syngo.via can be used as a stand-alone device or together with a variety of syngo.via-based software options which are medical devices on their own rights. These products are pending regulatory clearance in some countries and therefore not yet commercially available in all countries. In particular the products are not yet available for sales in Brazil.

*** syngo.via can be used anywhere if the following prerequisites are met: Internet connection to a clinical network, DICOM compliance, meets minimum hardware requirements and adherence to local data security regulations.

Hacker Threatens More Attacks On WikiLeaks Foes

On Thursday, a man identifying himself as one of the activists from a group called Anonymous, who used the pseudonym Coldblood in an interview with BBC radio, said: “This campaign is not over from what I’ve seen. It’s still going strong.” The speaker had an English accent and said he was a 22-year-old software engineer with no specific political loyalty.
Within 12 hours of a British judge’s decision on Tuesday to deny Mr. Assange bail in a Swedish extradition case, attacks on the Web sites of WikiLeaks’s “enemies,” as defined by the organization’s impassioned supporters around the world, caused several corporate Web sites to become inaccessible or slow down markedly.
Targets of the attacks, in which activists overwhelmed the sites with traffic, included the Web site of MasterCard, which had stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks; Amazon.com, which revoked the use of its computer servers; and PayPal, which stopped accepting donations for Mr. Assange’s group. Visa.com was also affected by the attacks, as were the Web sites of the Swedish prosecutor’s office and the lawyer representing the two women whose allegations of sexual misconduct are the basis of Sweden’s extradition bid.
The Internet assaults underlined the growing reach of self-described “cyberanarchists,” antigovernment and anticorporate activists who have made an icon of Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian.
Though Reuters said that no major Web sites appeared to be under attack early Thursday, a Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, reported that the Swedish government’s Web site had gone down briefly during the night.
The speed and range of the attacks appeared to show the resilience of the backing among computer activists for Mr. Assange, who has appeared increasingly isolated in recent months amid the furor stoked by WikiLeaks’s posting of hundreds of thousands of secret Pentagon documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Assange has come under renewed attack in the past two weeks for posting the first tranche of a trove of 250,000 secret State Department cables that have exposed American diplomats’ frank assessments of relations with many countries, forcing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to express regret to world leaders and raising fears that they and other sources would become more reticent.
The New York Times and four other news organizations last week began publishing articles based on the archive of cables made available to them.
In recent months, some of Mr. Assange’s closest associates in WikiLeaks abandoned him, calling him autocratic and capricious and accusing him of reneging on WikiLeaks’s original pledge of impartiality to launch a concerted attack on the United States. He has been simultaneously fighting a remote battle with the Swedish prosecutors, who have sought his extradition for questioning on accusations of “rape, sexual molestation and forceful coercion” made by the Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied any wrongdoing in the cases.
American officials have repeatedly said that they are reviewing possible criminal charges against Mr. Assange, a step that could lead to a bid to extradite him to the United States and confront him with having to fight for his freedom on two fronts.
The cyberattacks in Mr. Assange’s defense appear to have been coordinated by Anonymous, a loosely affiliated group of activist computer hackers who have singled out other groups before, including theChurch of Scientology. Last weekend, members of Anonymous vowed in two online manifestos to take revenge on any organization that lined up against WikiLeaks.
Anonymous claimed responsibility for the MasterCard attack in Web messages and, according to one activist associated with the group, conducted waves of attacks on other companies during the day. The group said the actions were part of an effort called Operation Payback, which began as a way of punishing companies that tried to stop Internet file-sharing and movie downloads.
The activist, Gregg Housh, who disavows a personal role in any illegal online activity, said that 1,500 supporters had been in online forums and chat rooms organizing the mass “denial of service” attacks. His account was confirmed by Jose Nazario, a senior security researcher at Arbor Networks, a Chelmsford, Mass., firm that tracks malicious activity on computer networks.
Most of the corporations whose sites were targeted did not explain why they severed ties with WikiLeaks. But PayPal issued statements saying its decision was based on “a violation” of its policy on promoting illegal activities.
Almost all the corporate Web sites that were attacked appeared to be operating normally later on Wednesday, suggesting that any economic impact was limited. But the sense of an Internet war was reinforced when Netcraft, a British Internet monitoring firm, reported that the Web site being used by the hackers to distribute denial-of-service software had been suspended by a Dutch hosting firm, Leaseweb.
A sense of the belligerent mood among activists was given when one contributor to a forum the group uses, WhyWeProtest.net, wrote of the attacks: “The war is on. And everyone ought to spend some time thinking about it, discussing it with others, preparing yourselves so you know how to act if something compels you to make a decision. Be very careful not to err on the side of inaction.”
Mr. Housh acknowledged that there had been online talk among the hackers of a possible Internet campaign against the two women who have been Mr. Assange’s accusers in the Swedish case, but he said that “a lot of people don’t want to be involved.”
A Web search showed new blog posts in recent days in which the two women, identified by the Swedish prosecutors only as Ms. A. and Ms. W., were named, but it was not clear whether there was any link to Anonymous. The women have said that consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange became nonconsensual when he stopped using condoms.
The cyberattacks on corporations Wednesday were seen by many supporters as a counterstrike against the United States. Mr. Assange’s online supporters have widely condemned the Obama administration as the unseen hand coordinating efforts to choke off WikiLeaks by denying it financing and suppressing its network of computer servers.
Mr. Housh described Mr. Assange in an interview as “a political prisoner,” a common view among WikiLeaks supporters who have joined Mr. Assange in condemning the sexual abuse accusations as part of an American-inspired “smear campaign.”
Another activist used the analogy of the civil rights struggle for the cyberattacks.
“Are they disrupting business?” a contributor using the name Moryath wrote in a comment on the slashdot.org technology Web site. “Perhaps, but no worse than the lunch counter sit-ins did.”

John Markoff and Ashlee Vance contributed reporting from San Francisco, and Alan Cowell from Paris.
NYTIMES

Top Ten Brains of The Digital Future: Prospect Debate

Two billion people online; half a billion on Facebook; the launch of the iPad, the explosion of digital publishing, the relentless expansion of mobile phone networks through the developing world—2010 has seen astonishing landmarks in the ongoing evolution of digital culture.

Next year will see even more—and an ever-more furious debate surrounding everything from net neutrality to copyright laws, digital business strategies, virtual property rights, the censorship of interactive media and the status of the increasingly complex identities the world’s citizens are building online.
Who are the great minds helping to create the culture of the internet and the world’s powerful digital media? Prospect’s January 2011 list will feature a" pick of the world’s digital thinkers"—the ones to watch if you want to understand the big ideas shaping the 21st century through technology.
There's an open debate for the audience :who you think ought to make the cut.I think it's a wise idea by Prospect magazine .I ought to think deeply in order to join the enthralling debate.
@prospectmagazine.co.ok
pic : Who will emerge as the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates? " by : Joi Ito