Tuna Industry attacks Greenpeace, lessons for the data center industry?

WSJ has an article and video on Greenpeace vs. the Tuna industry where part of the accusation is Greenpeace is focused on fund raising.  It would be interesting to know how much money Greenpeace has collected due to the uncoal Facebook data center campaign. The Tuna Industry must be pretty fed up to go to the media with their story.

The WSJ articles is here.

Unfortunately, this attack on canned tuna isn't about science. It's about fund raising, and Greenpeace has discovered a recipe for success: Target something that's easily recognizable (like tuna), make some scary claims in the media, parade around in funny costumes—and start raking in the donations. It's a recipe that Greenpeace has perfected over the past two decades.

Here is the video Greenpeace has put on line.

87,675

Uploaded by  on Aug 14, 2011

Each year the canned tuna industry kills thousands of sharks, rays, turtles and seabirds. Now that's a dirty little secret. Greenpeace is launching a new campaign to get the canned tuna industry to clean up its act and end its destructive ways. To kick things off we've teamed up with Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Mark Fiore on this video. Help expose the the tuna industry's dirty little secret by sharing this video with everyone you know.

Learn more at www.greenpeace.org

  • likes, 114 dislikes

 

Note how much dislikes (114) vs. likes (259).

SSDs arrive in the Public Cloud, Is CloudSigma starting a new trend

I speculated a year and half ago that AWS would add SSD, but I was wrong and AWS added HPC instead.

GigaOm reports on CloudSigma adding SSD support.

CloudSigma adds SSDs to its public cloud

By  Nov. 8, 2011, 11:44am PT No Comments

Cloud provider CloudSigma has become the first to add solid-state-drive storage to its public cloud computing service. SSDs (aka flash memory) are well known for their ability to significantly increase storage I/O performance and decrease power consumption when compared with hard disk drives, but until recently they have been too expensive for consideration in most data centers that aren’t backed by serious computing needs and deep pockets. That’s starting to change with the advent of new companies promising ever-lower prices on enterprise-grade flash storage, but making flash available as a service to cloud customers is still relatively unheard of.

There is mention of the lower power consumption, but the key is performance.  BTW, part of why I like my MacBook Air is its 256GB SSD that makes my machine outperform my other laptops.

The SSD is meant for high performance areas of the cloud.

At this point, CloudSigma is targeting its flash offering at tiered storage environments in which companies place “hot” data or data that requires high I/O throughput on flash, while keeping less-performance-intensive data and backup operations on hard disks.

Is it time for unbiased journalism to end, what happens if writers have opinions? More interesting news?

One of the classic rules of media journalism is being unbiased.  But is unbiased journalism real?

The Illusion of Unbiased Journalism

The title is not a misprint. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism, just like the term "political science" is an oxymoron. There is no quantitative scientific formula for winning an election, for the variable of the voter's mind is too inconsistent, and thus there is no such thing as unbiased journalism because of that same human factor.

GigaOm writes on the issues of Twitter and Journalism.

Twitter and journalism: It shouldn’t be that complicated

By  Nov. 8, 2011, 9:34am PT No Comments

The Associated Press caused a minor furore recently when the news-wire serviceupdated its social-media policy and forbid its writers from expressing any opinions on Twitter, including implied opinions caused by retweeting others. In the wake of that controversy, Jeff Sonderman at the Poynter Institute has suggested thatjournalists could use their own Twitter shorthand to prevent anyone from getting the wrong impression when a reporter retweets something. But as I’ve argued before, all we really have to do is admit that journalists of all kinds might have opinions, instead of trying to pretend that they don’t, or trying to force them not to.

Anyone who thinks journalists don't have a bias hasn't had a lengthy conversation with one in a bar.  Most have very strong opinions, but when they write for their job the "unbiased journalism" rules kick in.

I have lost the articles I found that discussed how part of what got unbiased journalism its start is when a newspaper became a monopoly in area news it was in its best interest to tell both sides of the story to maximize readership which then maximizes subscriptions and advertising.

But in this day, monopoly news is out.  People want to hear opinions.  And it is what they expect.  How many times have you read something expecting some good points and are disappointed there is no clear opinions.  I know many who have had media interviews spent a lot of time explaining their issues, and then when the article comes out their expert opinion is compared to a nobody, but a nobody who has the opposing view that allows the journalist to appear unbiased.

By pretending that their journalists don’t have opinions, when everyone knows that they do, mainstream media outlets are suggesting their viewers or readers are too stupid to figure out where the truth lies, or too thick to consider the facts of a story if the reporter happens to have retweeted someone or joined a Facebook page. Given that kind of treatment, many of those looking for news are likely to migrate to sources that admit they have views on events, rather than continue to be talked down to by newspapers and TV networks that pretend they are above that sort of thing.

GIgaOm highlights the power of Twitter.

But all that reinforces is how media entities like CNN are missing the point about social media, or seeing only the potential negatives instead of the positives. As journalism professor Robert Hernandez noted on Twitter:


Robert Hernandez
The thing is RT/Twitter/social media is working fine. It's traditionalists that don't get it and want to 'fix it,' aka control it.

An example of what is behind the belief High Speed Rail is good for the world

Yesterday I wrote a post on the topic of whether Obama's High Speed Rail was on the ropes and it would be better to put the money into high speed internet connectivity.

With Obama's train initiative on the rope, why don't they take the money and build Internet Infrastructure instead of rail lines

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011 AT 9:34AM

MSNBC.com has an article on the dire straights of Obama's high speed rail line.

Is Obama's rail initiative a 'train to nowhere'?

High-speed train plan draws little enthusiasm as California costs soar

One the points I made was the reason high speed rail was popular is because of lobbyists.  An example of the response due to the negative PR is this Research ;-) from Worldwatch Institute.

Global Expansion of High-Speed Rail Gains Steam

Washington, D.C.----As interest in high-speed rail (HSR) surges around the world, the number of countries running these trains is expected to nearly double over the next few years, according to new research by the Worldwatch Institute for Vital Signs Online. By 2014, high-speed trains will be operating in nearly 24 countries, including China, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United States, up from only 14 countries today. The increase in HSR is due largely to its reliability and ability to cover vast geographic distances in a short time, to investments aimed at connecting once-isolated regions, and to the diminishing appeal of air travel, which is becoming more cumbersome because of security concerns.

"The rise in HSR has been very rapid," said Worldwatch Senior Researcher Michael Renner, who conducted the research. "In just three years, between January 2008 and January 2011, the operational fleet grew from 1,737 high-speed trainsets worldwide to 2,517. Two-thirds of this fleet is found in just five countries: France, China, Japan, Germany, and Spain. By 2014, the global fleet is expected to total more than 3,700 units."

Is the alternative to cars and planes a train?  Or traveling through a virtual presence?  What is the carbon footprint for grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-kilometer for a WebEX on Skype meeting?

Not only is HSR reliable, but it also can be more friendly than cars or airplanes. A 2006 comparison of greenhouse gas emissions by travel mode, released by the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, found that HSR lines in Europe and Japan released 30-70 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-kilometer, versus 150 grams for automobiles and 170 grams for airplanes.

China has even cut its budget.

China considers shrinking railway investment goal -report

Nov 8 (Reuters) - China's annual investment on railway construction could fall to about 500 billion yuan ($78.7 billion) a year, retreating from ambitious heights mapped out in a plan for the sector that has struggled with high debts, an official Chinese newspaper said on Tuesday.

The China Securities Journal cited an unnamed source who said yearly spending on rail construction for the remainder of the current five-year plan (2011-15) could shrink from the 800 billion yuan a year proposed in a long-term plan.

My vote is to stay home and have a virtual presence in real-time anywhere in the data center world when they need you there.

In fact, that is part of what I am working on with some data center experts.

High speed presence means minutes if not seconds.  As products like Skype get integrated into Microsoft will be the biggest threat to travel be video and audio communications?  (Disclosure: I have good friends who work at Skype and use the product regularly)

 

With Obama's train initiative on the rope, why don't they take the money and build Internet Infrastructure instead of rail lines

MSNBC.com has an article on the dire straights of Obama's high speed rail line.

Is Obama's rail initiative a 'train to nowhere'?

High-speed train plan draws little enthusiasm as California costs soar

President Barack Obama's high-speed rail initiative is in danger of turning into the Big Engine That Couldn't.

As part of the economic stimulus plan of 2009, Obama pushed through more than $8 billion in initial funding to extend high-speed intercity rail service to 10 major U.S. rail corridors by 2034. The idea is to create superfast rail service — like Japan's futuristic bullet trains — that would be available to 80 percent of the U.S. population.

Image: Railroad mapFederal Railroad Administration

Red lines in this map show planned high-speed rail corridors across the U.S.

Now you know there a bunch of lobbyists somewhere - construction, rail, manufacturers who have said the high speed railway is the future of the country.  I don't know about you, but I would much prefer ways to eliminate travel than an alternative to driving or flying.

That 2020 ribbon-cutting? It's now projected to be no earlier than 2033 — at least 13 years late. That $33 billion price tag? It's been recalculated at $98.5 billion — nearly three times the original estimate.

The news came from the state's High Speed Rail Authority, which issued an updated "business plan" (.pdf) last week at the direction of California Gov. Jerry Brown. The good news, said Tom Umberg, chairman of the authority, is that "we understand the project better." The bad news is that "as time goes by, things get more expensive."

Google selected Kansas City for its broadband project, and people are asking where this goes.

Kansas City’s Google superhighway has unclear destinations

By SCOTT CANON

The Kansas City Star

OK, Kansas City. You’ve been promised special Google goodies.

Now, whatcha gonna do when the search engine company finally hooks you up to an oh-so-fast Internet?

Short answer: Nobody knows.

Last week, Kansas City may have gotten a hint that Google will bundle its plan to include a cablelike television package with the Internet service. That might get more homes to sign up for the search giant’s offerings, but it doesn’t say how the ultrafast Internet might change other aspects of our lives.

What would happen if Obama funded a gigabit Internet in the US?  The lobbyists behind the high speed rail project would through a fit, but don't you think the future is better with gigabit ethernet than 200 mph trains?