Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Web 2.0

Feed Link Has Moved

Feedburner has borked the old RSS feed for the site and has completely disassociated me from it (meaning it’s no longer in my Google Feedburner admin options and they won’t let me re-claim it).

So… the new feed link is http://rud.is/b/feed/atom/.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

You’re The Mayor of FUDville!

Rik Ferguson, Director Security Research at Trend Micro, had a great tweet early last Tueday morning calling out potential FUD in an article over at The Metro:

Given the plethora of FUD-dropping in the article, I could only think of one way to do it justice, and that was a paragraph-by-paragraph check-in via:


Every FUD-check counts!

(it may help to have the article open in another window)

OK! we’ve got you at The Metro. You’ve been here 1 time.
  • +1 for heartstring tug (“Children”)
  • +1 for immediate FUD in headline
  • +1 for Facebook reference in headline
Nice check-in! You earned +3 points!
  • +1 for mention of Pentagon in sub-head
  • +3 for context switch from personal to national scariness
  • +1 for Facebook reference in sub-head
  • +1 for first use of “cyber”

Great mixing of FUD domains!
  • +3 for context switch to “child pornography” in main article picture caption
  • +1 for Facebook reference in caption

You’ve been to Facebook FUD 3 times! You’re the Mayor!
  • +3 for context switch back to national scariness
  • +1 for use of “cyber”
Every cyber-FUD check-in counts!
  • +2 for global scariness
  • +1 for social-media scariness
  • +3 for Facebook (you’re the Mayor!)
  • +1 for mentioning Sony attack
  • +1 for national scariness
  • +1 for mentioning Lockheed attack
  • +1 for mobile scariness
  • +1 for use of ‘bot’
Whoa! +10 points! Awesome check-in!
  • +3 for context switch back to personal scariness
  • +1 for re-mention of child pornography
  • +2 for added scariness of kidnappers

You know “they” know where they live and aren’t afraid to spread the FUD!
  • +1 for geolocation scariness

Headed in the right direction with this check in!
  • +1 for more geolocation scariness
  • +3 for Facebook (you’re the Mayor!)
  • +2 for “bedroom”

With that last check-in, you’re well on your way to becoming the Mayor of FUDville!
  • +1 for social-media scariness

Social-FUD FTW
  • +3 for Facebook (You’re the Mayor!)
  • +3 for coining ‘lifejacking’
  • +1 for mobile scariness

The Mayor is in the house!
  • +2 for Android scariness
  • +1 for “Wild West”

Artifical life-form FUD meets historic gunslinger FUD!
  • +1 for mobile/acrobatics tie-in
You’re a FUD gymnast!
  • +1 for SMS scariness
Every check-in counts!
  • +3 for Anonymous reference
  • +3 for LulzSec reference
  • +3 for context switch back to national scariness
Good use of “cyber-vigilante” FUD!
  • +1 for Lockheed reference

Defense FUD FTW!
  • +1 for “cyber”
  • +1 for “cyber”
  • +1 for “cyber” (You’re the Mayor!)
  • +3 for “cyber”

You’ve earned the Cyber-FUD Badge!
  • +3 for “cyber” (You’re the Mayor!)
  • +10 for nuclear scariness
  • +10 for “scary”
FUD is scary
  • +10 for context switch to global “Olympic” scariness

Congratulations! You scored over 100 points! You’re the mayor of FUD-ville!
(Done with homage to @shpantzer‘s SCSOVLF.)

WEIS 2011 :: Session 2 :: Identity :: Negative Information Looms Longer Than Positive Information

Laura Brandimarte
Alessandro Acquisti
Joachin Vosgerau

Twitter transcript

#weis2011 How does information related to past events and retrieved today get discounted? Why does neg valence receive more weight?

#weis2011 how do we improve trustworthyness?

#weis2011 "designers of modern tech do not understand human fallibility and design systems w/o taking them into account" < true #weis2011 the reason why bad sticks better than good is that they way it gets discounted may be different. #weis2011 experiments were survey based & randomized. all were students < not sure that's random enough or broad enough selection #weis2011 (me) I hope they make the slides avail. ton of good info I just can't capture (and I don't have an e-copy) #weis2011 "good" information only matters if it's _recent_. "bad" information is not discounted at all. it "sticks" < huge e-implications

WEIS 2011 :: Session 2 :: Identity :: Social Networks, Personalized Advertising & Privacy Controls

Catherine Tucker

Presentation [PDF]

Catherine’s talk was really good. She handled questions well and is a very dynamic speaker. I’m looking forward to the paper.

Twitter transcript

#weis2011 Premise of the study was to see what impact privacy controls enablement/usage have on advertising. It's an empirical study #data!

#weis2011 click through rates DOUBLED for personalized ads after the fb privacy controls policy change

#weis2011 it's been a "slightly augment the slides with humor" for the remaining slides. Good data. View the slides & paper (when avail)