The Hilarious Things Passengers Say On Virgin Airlines

virgin air chat

Imgur

See Also

porn strip shop

matt wunsch

sergey brin google glasses

Someone at Virgin Airlines had the foresight to install seat-to-seat chat capabilities to let passengers write messages to each other while in flight.

Imgur user MangoMuffinz posted screenshots of some of the funnier conversations that passengers have had with each other.

We can’t confirm that these are genuine, and it’s likely most if not all of them were made in Photoshop, so take these for what they’re worth –– an innocent chuckle.

Article source: SAI http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/p5I-fmwrv5k/funny-virgin-airlines-conversations-2013-5

Yahoo Wants To Pay $1.1 Billion For Tumblr’s Mind-Blowing Traffic (YHOO)

According to Quantcast, which has direct access to Tumblr‘s traffic data, the site now has about 184 million unique visitors per month and 12.1 billion page views.

Of those 184 million unique visitors, 36 million come from mobile devices like smartphones and tablets.

That’s huge, and it all falls in line with Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s strategy of buying companies with tons of users and a strong mobile presence. According to multiple reports, Yahoo’s board just approved the $1.1 billion purchase of Tumblr, but Tumblr still has to formally accept the offer.

To the charts!

Here’s Tumblr’s traffic for the last month:

tumblr traffic april to may

Quantcast

And here’s Tumblr’s traffic growth since 2009:

tumblr traffic since 2009

Quantcast

SEE ALSO: 
Yahoo Board Approves $1.1 Billion Purchase Of Tumblr

Article source: SAI http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/usV2NSRRAQQ/tumblr-traffic-data-2013-5

Tumblr Users Are Already Revolting Over The Potential Yahoo Buyout (YHOO)

News broke this morning that Yahoo’s board approved a $1.1 billion all cash deal to acquire blogging site Tumblr.

Tumblr users are notoriously vocal and the platform’s Yahoo keyword search has erupted in posts protesting the acquisition. One user even started a petition to stop Yahoo from buying Tumblr.

Here’s a look at what members of the Tumblr community are saying:

tumblr yahoo users

Tumblr

tumblr yahoo

Tumblr

Yahoo buying tumblr

Tumblr

Yahoo buying tumblr

Tumblr

tumblr yahoo backlash

Tumblr

Yahoo buying tumblr

Tumblr

But one user optimistically looked at the possible benefits:

tumblr yahoo

Tumblr

 

SEE ALSO: 
Tumblr’s Mind-Blowing Traffic Data

Article source: SAI http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/5OsbbCx6OtI/tumblr-users-are-against-yahoo-buyout-2013-5

YouTube reveals users now upload more than 100 hours of video per minute, as the site turns eight

These days there are few things bigger than Facebook on the Internet, but Google-owned YouTube is one of them, and today the world’s top online video service marked its eight year anniversary by revealing that it is now seeing more than 100 hours of video uploaded every minute.

That’s right, every minute. That’s quite astonishing. It works out as more than four days of video uploaded each minute.

YouTube, like Facebook, is used by more than 1 billion people per month, and it has gone from strength to strength in recent times. Back in 2011, YouTube users were adding 48 hours of video per minute, while that figure jumped to 72 hours per week last year.

YouTube paid tribute to its users and incredible milestones in a blog post (via @hunterwalk) that includes the following comment:

Over the years, you’ve continued to surprise and delight us. And the past year was no exception. Who would have guessed that a tux-rocking K-pop star would shatter records left and right or that Sesame Street would go global with 1 billion views? That’s one of our favorite things about our global audience: you’re as unpredictable as you are creative and irreverent.

This year, Google is taking the service into new territory with the recent launch of paid-for channels that are aimed at rivalling streaming services like Hulu and Netflix.

This isn’t YouTube’s first foray into original content. It kicked off its Channels program in 2011, which provides selected content partners with an undisclosed sum of funding to create content for YouTube channels. The money is not a freebie but instead an up-front payment of future advertising earnings over the next year. That encourages them to invest in equipment and talent to produce compelling shows — that’s the aim, at least.

Channels began in the US, but has since been expanded to a range of new markets, including, the UK, France, Germany and Japan, with more expansions planned.

There was controversy this year as a number of partners were reported to have not been offered fresh terms. But, with YouTube’s subscription plans now public, Channels appears to have refocused on upcoming content makers, which might go towards explaining this.

Note: Thanks to those who picked up on the error in the initial headline. The amount is 100 hours of video per minute, not 100 million…just yet.

Cue Doctor Evil…via YouTube, of course.

Headline image via korosirego / Flickr

Article source: TNW http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheNextWeb/~3/YMxfHuL2JFI/

Yahoo board approves $1.1B Tumblr salvation, but will the company accept?

Today it became known, via the Wall Street Journal, that the Yahoo board has approved the $1.1 billion offer for Tumblr, a microblogging service and social destination.

It’s a good thing, too, as Tumblr is poor, and revenue-low. It’s even better for the firm as it cashes out all of its investors as a positive ROI, something that isn’t always the case with aqusitions. Frankly, the company wanted more. We all know that. But so long as the deal was all-cash, Yahoo’s hands were tied.

Tumblr’s most recent round valued the firm at roughly $800 million, in 2011. Given the $1.1 billion price, its most recent investors will see a return of 37% for the period. They wanted more. Tumblr employees wanted more. Tubmlr management, I’m sure, want more.

However: “An acquisition by some tech giant is likely in the cards for Tumblr, though, as sources say the company only has a few months of cash runway left.” They spent all the money. It’s gone. And: “Tumblr pulled in $13 million in 2012, but has accelerated its advertising offering in hopes of hitting $100 million in revenue this year. The money’s not coming in fast enough to support its expenses though.”

In short: Tumblr is a very valuable property, given its reach, demographic, and momentum; however, as a financial entity, it’s a goat rodeo and a half. The company burned through $85 million in two years, and now has two options: raise a new round, or sell.

Why not raise a few hundred million, you might ask. Well, as Foursquare recently learned, if your revenue ramp is all but flat, late into your life, after you have achieved the ‘scale’ you long chased in the youth of your company, valuing your enterprise is difficult; if growth doesn’t lead to revenue, is it worth a damn?

Tumblr doesn’t have much top line, and it has a bucket of red ink below it. Yahoo is, now approved, willing to make everyone’s investment more than whole. It’s a gift.

The kicker: why all cash. Yahoo’s short term investments and cash accounts tot to just over $3 billion. That isn’t much for a modern technology company, and it isn’t much if you are buying firms for north of $1 billion; if the deal had been a mix of stock and cash, it would have been a higher total figure.

The Instagram deal appears to loom; after Facebook offered it $1 billion, the value of the stock component of the deal fell, leading to a final effective price of $715 million. Cash holds what stock might lose.

Expect to see Tumblr join Yahoo tomorrow, unless hubris clouds its eyes.

Update: Howard Lindzon has interesting commentary on the all-cash aspect of the deal: “$yhoo offered cash because cash is actually cheaper than stock today. She could now go raise $2 billion at 2 percent. Simple market math.” This is very interesting, provided that Yahoo is more willing to take on debt than potentially dilute its shareholders.

Top Image Credit: Luz Bratcher

Article source: TNW http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheNextWeb/~3/VA3YWE9rdp8/

That buzzing sound: President Obama to address drone program in Thursday speech

It’s a pity that ‘drone’ isn’t ‘Dorne,’ but I digress.

This Thursday the President of the United States will address the nation on its current drone program that targets enemies abroad for what are called ‘targeted’ killings. Naturally, however, when you are firing explosive-laden rockets, things tend to explode. Drones are a popular current tool of modern warfare as they put no usage-side lives at risk; the US doesn’t lose a soldier if a drone is shot down, just a good deal of money.

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration will address other topics in the address including “counterterrorism practices.”

Why might TNW be bringing you dronish war news that feels like it has a political bent? It’s simple really, drone tech isn’t just an abroad affair; it’s coming home, and in some instances already has. Drones as a tool for surveillance are not merely a potentiality for the homeland; the technology is attractive enough that it will find cachet in your neighborhood.

This is now a regulatory question, not one that directly pertains to technology.

However, where tech policy and tech hardware meet, TNW is there. Here’s the rubbish nub: Drones are currently shrouded in defensive obscurity; the administration has been infamously tight when it comes to drone legality details. To their credit, it’s a senscial position; the less they say, the less those on the other end of Hellfire missiles know.

But as drones come home, we need to know. We must know. The legally daunting situations are already stacking. So, this Thursday, tune in. It’s not often that the government drives technology forward, after all.

Top Image Credit: Don McCullough

Article source: TNW http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheNextWeb/~3/i4qmD0ugULc/

Please Don’t ‘Like’ This Post (And I Really Mean It This Time)

Please Don't 'Like' This Post (And I Really Mean It This Time)

Editor’s Note: This is the last installment of a 3-part series covering Len Kendall’s abstinence from the “Like” button for a month.

If you haven’t been following along, in April I decided to commit myself to a simple behavioral experiment. I pledged to not “like” anything on or off of Facebook for a month, no matter how tempted I was (and believe me, I was tempted often).

My hypothesis was that at the end of this 30 day cycle I would be free of likes and that my detox period would be over. That isn’t the case. I still actively have to stop myself often from hitting that button, and it troubles me quite a bit. It was so simple and I did it for so long that it has burned into my internet muscle memory far more severely than I had anticipated.

I’ve learned several things along the way, but when I started this trial I wanted to answer one primary question:

Who exactly is benefitting the most from me hitting the like button?

While this experiment didn’t provide me with a direct answer to this question, it did force me to think long and hard about the probable ones. I’ve concluded that the following parties benefit from those billions (yes billions) of likes each day:

  • Me: I’m not going to claim I get no value. Facebook has an algorithm that shows me people and information that I’m more interested in based on my like behavior. It’s not always spot on, and it irritates the shit out of me when I see this kind of stuff, but nonetheless it has a smart engine that shares timely content from people I care about.
  • Brands: Likes feed brands who are trying to understand how they can refine their content distribution (copy, timing, targeting). They also increase the visibility of branded content through all sorts of Edgerank-y goodness. The fact of the matter is, I don’t care about making my favorite brands better marketers. I care about my favorite brands continuing to make products that I like. In other words, these likes don’t help me.
  • Facebook (Part 1): Facebook makes the majority of its revenue from selling data. Yes, that manifests as selling ads, but in reality the company is selling the data that drives who sees ads and who buys them. Every single time I hit “like”, even if it’s on a friend’s baby picture, Facebook is growing its data stockpile that is being refined for their advertising customers. Sure, you could claim I’ll see more relevant ads if I help Facebook understand my tastes, but ultimately these likes don’t help me.
  • Facebook (Part 2): When I give my friends likes, a little Pavlovian red flag goes off in their browser windows and it pulls them back into Facebook. There they spend more time, see more ads, and see more ads, and see more ads. While directly my likes may help my friends’ important posts rise to the top, it also trains them to crave likes and potentially augment their sharing behavior to earn them more likes. Again, these likes don’t help me.

Above are just four benefits yielded from “like” behavior. The obvious problem is that only 25% of the these items are benefitting me. And that’s being generous since I didn’t list off countless other beneficiaries. Call me selfish, but the ROI of the like button isn’t high enough for me to continue using it. Therefore, I plan to continue abstaining from it.

Although I started this experiment around a single element of Facebook, it’s led me to question the value of the many services the social network provides. Facebook has in many ways become the “big box” store of the internet. And while I do shop at such places in real life for certain commodity items, I don’t really want to go there for all my many specialty needs. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I personally don’t want a big-box internet experience. For me, the web is about discovery, being bombarded with choice, and finding niche experts.

Refraining from likes has been a trivial experiment. I know that there are far more important behavioral issues online worth exploring (cyber bullying, crowdfunding, and citizen journalism just to name a few), but I hope that this small example of personal reflection on digital habits encourages you to do the same. Think about how you’re spending time on the internet, who its benefitting, and what’s worth testing in your own digital world.

And don’t like this post. I really mean it this time.

Lead image via Flickr user Djenan, CC 2.0

Article source: RWW http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/readwriteweb/~3/TQXSNioZoAs/please-dont-like-this-post-and-i-really-mean-it-this-time

The week in cloud: Google and Microsoft in slap fight while IBM and SAP play hot hands

Google I/O, which saw the public launch of Google Compute Engine, also spawned a “I know you are, what am I,” slapfest between two companies that would like to unseat Amazon Web Services as the king of public cloud. Apparently Google CEO Larry Page doesn’t think the company’s “Don’t be Evil” mantra applies to trash talking rivals. LarryPageGoogleIO2013-3 And someone should clue in him in that a billionaire whining about how other billionaires have done his company wrong is a tad unseemly. Especially coming as it did after Page bemoaned the “negativity” in press reports about Google technology.

“Every story I read about Google is us versus some other company or some stupid thing. Being negative is not how we make progress. The most important things are not zero sum.” Page said Google struggles “with people like Microsoft,” he said. As for Oracle, which is suing Google over Android’s use of Java, Google has “a difficult relationship with Oracle, including having to appear in court … Money is obviously more important to them than any collaboration.”

In comments emailed to CIO.com, Microsoft responded:

“It’s ironic that Larry is lending his voice to the discussion of interoperability considering his company’s decision — today — to file a cease and desist order to remove the YouTube app from Windows Phone, let alone the recent decision to make it more difficult for our customers to connect their Gmail accounts to their Windows experience.”

Page’s words came a few days after Microsoft announced interoperability between its Outlook.com email service and Gmail and just after word came out that Google demanded that Microsoft rip its home-built YouTube app from the Windows store (and remove the app off the Windows Phones that were already running it.)

So, who’s the winner in this melee? Neither vendor comes out looking good. For Microsoft to complain about Google’s business practices is laughable given its own track record. But for Google to claim it’s not evil while restricting consumer choice is also awful. Consumers might just say a pox on both their houses.

IBM spreads Watson around …

ibm-rometty-pr-photo2Watson, the natural-language-understanding software that played (and won) at Jeopardy, will be made more broadly available to third-party software makers, IBM CEO Ginny Rometty said last week. Thus Watson technology could be used perhaps even by IBM competitors, to build self-teaching computer systems, according to Bloomberg News.

IBM has made the most possible PR use of Watson capabilities, working to embed that intelligence in medical and other applications. Last week, IBM took its show on the road to Washington D.C. last week to show Congress the progress Watson has made in healthcare applications.

… as SAP doubles down on HANA

German enterprise software giant SAP, in a move you could see coming miles away, said this week that HANA, it’s in-memory analytical database, will be the brains and guts of its ERP software going forward, according to InformationWeek and other  outlets.

SAP_2011_logoRunning do-or-die ERP and CRM applications on HANA is a big step up from data warehouses because ERP and CRM cannot go down for hours or a day without severe blowback. And yet at the annual SAPPHIRE conference last week SAP announced general availability of its core Business Suite applications on HANA. Or, as CRN put it, it “bet the farm” on HANA.

From around the interwebs:

Top 5 data center stories of the week, from Data Center Knowledge.

AWS is the McDonalds of cloud, who’s the Burger King? from GigaOM.

Tableau, Marketo software IPOs soar to cloud from Business Recorder.

Windows 8 is an enterprise non-starter because IT sees no value in changes from ComputerWorld.

Article source: GigOM http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/sxh9SRAJhYM/story01.htm

For developers, the cloud means having to rethink everything they know about making software

The paradigm hasn’t changed since the advent of software: Applications run, and platforms are what they run on. But the underlying principles of application design and deployment do change every now and then – sometimes drastically, thanks to quantum-leap developments in infrastructure.

For instance, application design principles changed dramatically when the PC, x86 architecture, and client/server paradigm were born in the ’80s. And  it happened again with the advent of the web and open-source technology in the mid ’90s. Whenever such abrupt changes arise, application developers are forced to rethink how they build and deploy their software.

Today, we’re seeing a huge leap in infrastructure capability, this time pioneered by Amazon Web Services. It’s clear that to take full advantage of the new cloud infrastructure, applications that run successfully on AWS must be inherently different than applications that were built to run successfully on a corporate server – even a virtualized one. But there are a number of other particular ways in which today’s (and tomorrow’s) cloud applications will need to be designed differently than in the past. Here are the most crucial ones, and how the ways of the old world have been changed in the new one :

Scaling 

In the old world, scaling was accomplished by scaling up – to accommodate more users or data, you simply bought a bigger server.

In the new world, scaling is typically done by scaling out. You don’t add a bigger machine, you add multiple machines of the same sort. In the cloud world, those machines are virtual machines, and their instantiations in the cloud are instances.

Resilience 

Before, software was seen as unreliable, and resilience was built into the hardware layer.

Today, the underlying infrastructure – the hardware – is seen as the weak link, and it is up to applications to accommodate for this. There is no guarantee that a virtual machine instance will always function. It can disappear at any moment and the application must be prepared for this.

By way of example, Netflix, arguably the most advanced user of the cloud today, has gone the farthest in adopting this new paradigm. They have a process called ChaosMonkey that randomly kills virtual machine instances from underneath the application workloads. Why on earth do they do this on purpose? Because they are ensuring uptime and resilience: By exposing their applications to random loss of instances, they force application developers to build more resilient apps. Brilliant.

Bursting

In the old world – think accounting and payroll applications – the application workload was reasonably stable and predictable. It was known how many users a system had, and how many records they were likely to process at any given moment.

In the new world, we see variable and unpredictable workloads. Today’s software systems have to reach farther out in the world, to consumers and devices that demand services at unpredictable moments and unpredictable loads. To accommodate such unforeseen fluctuations in individual application workloads required a new software architecture. We now have it in the cloud, but clearly it is still in its infancy.

Software variety

In the past we didn’t have much software variety. Each application was written in one language and used one database. Companies standardized on a single, or at least very few operating systems. The software stack was boringly simple and uniform (at least now in retrospect).

In the new world of cloud, the opposite is happening. Within a single application, many different languages can be used, many different libraries and toolkits can be employed, and many different database products can be used. And because in a cloud you can create and spin up you own image, tailored to your and your application’s specific needs, applications within one company must be able to operate under a spectrum of configurations.

From VM to cloud 

Even between the relatively new technology of hypervisors and the modern cloud thinking, there are differences. VMware, the pioneer and leader in virtualization, built its hypervisors to essentially behave the way physical machines did before.

But in the cloud world, the virtual machine is not a representation of a physical server; it’s a representation of units of compute. (Steve Bradshaw wrote about this topic in depth.)

User patience

In the old world, users were taught to be patient. The system may have needed a long time to respond to simple retrieval or update requests, and new features were added slowly to the application (if at all).

In the new cloud world, users have no patience. They hardly tolerate latency or wait times, and they look for improvements in the service every week, if not every day. Evidence of this can be found in self-service IT. Rather than file a ticket with IT and wait for a response several days later, users of IT can self-provision the resources they need.

Do these observations rhyme with what you are experiencing and taking action on in your organization? I look forward to comments and debate on this topic.

Marten Mickos is the CEO of Eucalyptus Systems. He previously served as CEO of MySQL AB, which was acquired by Sun Microsystems. He is a member of the board of directors of Nokia.

Have an idea for a post you’d like to contribute to GigaOm? Click here for our guidelines and contact info.

Photo courtesy of Mike Flippo/Shutterstock.com.

Article source: GigOM http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/2fzPYr8QN6M/story01.htm

Report: Yahoo’s board agrees to pay $1.1 billion for Tumblr

Yahoo’s board of directors has agreed to acquire Tumblr for $1.1 billion, the Wall Street Journal and AllThingsD reported Sunday. The deal is expected to be announced Monday.

Tumblr founder David Karp, who owns at least 25 percent of the company, has agreed to stay on for at least four years, according to ATD. The WSJ says Tumblr would remain an independent company.

comScore pegged Tumblr’s worldwide traffic at 117 million visitors in April. The site has raised about $125 million in funding, putting its valuation at $800 million. As my colleague Mathew Ingram points out, the company’s revenues were less than $15 million in 2012, though Karp has estimated they will hit $100 million this year.

Yahoo is holding a press event on Monday afternoon in New York, but hasn’t specified what the event will be about. We’ll be there.

Article source: GigOM http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/w473Ffvk0aA/story01.htm

Load More