Rev2.org

Rumors have been flying about the (as yet unconfirmed) Apple tablet device that’s supposedly been in the making for quite a while now.  Now, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple will be shipping the new tablet in March, after making an announcement later this month.

Their description gives the new (unnamed) Apple tablet a size of aout 10 inches square with Wi-Fi connectivity and possibly two finishes (looks) for the touch-screen computer.  Price guesses range from $1,000 to $3,000.

Every industry analyst is in the game of speculating about the tablet, citing all kinds of things as evidence of this or that.  In eWeek, two former executives in Asia, gave their thoughts on what the tablet will look like and how it will function, including “3G graphics.”  Another eWeek prediction says the announcement will be at the end of January because Apple has rented stage space for January 26-27.

After doing some critique of the WSJ report, MG Siegler at TechCrunch then goes into some interesting speculation and analysis of the way the story has broken, who broke it, and what they’ve done in the past that has, it seems, always been to Apple’s benefit.   Namely, in this case, the timing of this latest WSJ buzz and the release of the Google Nexus One.

Finally, though, we get to the “3G graphics” alluded to earlier.  Since 3G is not a graphical interface, but a cellular data network, it is likely a mis-print or mispronunciation by someone.  There is a rumor that the Apple tablet will have three dimensional (3D) graphics capabilities and to flesh that out, Gus Sentementes at the Baltimore Sun did some digging.

What he found is a patent application by Apple dated December 10, 2009 and only just released.  The patent, which he traced to Apple, goes into detail over a “touch screen device, method and graphical user interface for manipulating three-dimensional visual objects.”

The patent was actually created by Fabrice Robinet, Thomas Goossens, and Alexandre Moha and purchased by Apple in September of 2008.  All three are French citizens and, it appears, are employees of Apple.

Interesting times, indeed.  We’ll know in a couple of weeks whether all of this is hokum or real, of course.  It is fun to speculate, though.  Isn’t it?

A funny Web app from the Netherlands is the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine.  Through it, users can commit (virtual) suicide to kill off their accounts on various social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.  The app graphically shows your accounts in their death throes before the final snuff-out.  Noticing the 50,000+ users who had nixed their accounts through the machine, Facebook banned the IP addresses the site uses, without comment.

The Suicide Machine is not a forced endeavor, but a voluntary decision by people who really want to get rid of their online social lives.  Rather than just abandoning your account, which leaves all of that information and virtual friend connection online, the Suicide Machine completely obliterates the account, top to bottom.

Using the machine, a user logs into one of their social networking accounts and sets the machine in motion.  Over about a minute’s time, the app graphically shows you un-friending all of your friends, deleting extranneous data (pictures, profile info, etc.) and then finishes off the account with a final goodbye.

The accounts are deleted outright on most services (since this is actually almost impossible), but the passwords and email addresses are changed, making them non-recoverable.  The service works with Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

Well, it used to work with Facebook.  The LA Times reported this morning the Facebook blockade.  The machine is fighting back, though, working to find a way to circumvent the ban.  I’m sure it won’t take those clever folks long.  Here’s video of the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine in action:

web 2.0 suicide machine promotion from moddr_ on Vimeo.

After the “underwear bomber” attempted to set off a small explosive on an airline on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a memorandum regarding new security procedures for screening at terminals.  That memo was circulated to 10,000 or more personnel at airports and was then leaked to at least two bloggers, who posted it on their sites.

The TSA then moved to investigate the leak and immediately drew attention and outrage from the public when it targeted the two journalist bloggers with subpoenas demanding they reveal their sources for the leaked memos.  Wired Magazine picked up the story and was on hand during one of those interviews, with travel writer Steven Frischling.

The writers, Chris Elliot of Winter Springs, Florida and Steve Frischling of Connecticut, were served with subpoenas and threatened with legal measures and job loss if they didn’t comply.  Firschling complied and allowed the agents to copy his hard drive while Elliot refused and responded with a lawyer and threat to contest the subpoena in court.

Both bloggers published the leaked memo within minutes of one another and both were approached by TSA agents at about the same time.  Since then, both have received phone calls from the TSA informing them that the case was being closed and the subpoenas against them were being withdrawn, according to the Associated Press.

Wired confirms this withdrawal of subpoenas, but also interviews Frischling who says his computer is all but useless now that the TSA has given it back.  It’s full of bad sectors, glitches, non-working components, and worse.

New questions were raised about whether Google received a subpoena, since one of the blogs is hosted by Blogger, a Google-owned company.  SearchEngineLand’s Danny Sullivan writes about the history of Google in court with these issues and it’s not always good news for privacy advocates.

The real issue here may be how the new world of mostly-independent bloggers and journalists can be protected from heavy-handed government agencies.  Doug Fisher at Commonsensej asks these questions and gives his ideas for solutions.  Without the huge legal department at a giant news agency, many journalists today are finding themselves without much recourse to fight back when agents such as these from the TSA approach them with threats and implied legal problems if they don’t comply with investigator’s wishes.

As technology changes and news reporting with it, government (always generally 10 years behind) will not likely be able to confront this issue.  Many cooperatives and journalistic groups have come together to build legal funds and membership benefits for protection to replace the now-crumbling huge media outlets and their legal clout.

I think this is a good thing and the overall incident with the TSA memo (which can hardly be said to have been “leaked” when it was sent to over 10,000 people as an open memo) highlights how today’s independent journalist is vulnerable.  The Internet has changed almost everything about our lives, including how we get our news and who reports it.  Other things are going to have to change with it.