[..] don’t forget that continued funding of any park hinges on public support. Kids who have access to green spaces grow up to appreciate their value [..], and a report funded by the Forestry Commission [..] suggests that kids who do shocking things like climb trees and build dens are more likely to visit parks when they’re older. So by ensuring access to parks, you are also securing public support and funding in future years.
Pathdigger – a new blog about parks and conservation by my sister, Hannah Werdmuller.
[..] the plain truth is this: it’s empirically way too painful still for first-time OAuth developers to get their code working, and despite the fact that OAuth is a standard, the empirical “it-just-works-rate” is way too low.
Joseph Smarr: Implementing OAuth is still too hard… but it doesn’t have to be.
This isn’t just true of OAuth; try writing an OpenID client or server from scratch. The same probably holds for every part of the open stack. Open doesn’t just mean that anybody can use a format or API; it also has to mean that it’s accessible. Coding barriers are just a different sort of closed.
I think what Joseph suggests here is absolutely right, and he’s doing a good thing to start the conversation rolling.
Why do we create and maintain social networks? Most people can immediately think of a few natural reasons — we get something from the interaction, or the person is nearby and is close to us in proximity, age or gender. But researching such theories on a large scale has never before been possible — until digital social networks came along.
Tracking the digital traces of social networks. The study found that technology reinforces existing social networks far more than it creates new ones – something that backs my Internet is People argument.
A group of unpaid volunteers used social media to create a global event that has already – before anything like the final total has been counted – raised a six figure amount to provide clean water to some of the world’s poorest people. Your response to that was sneering and deliberately skewed to prove your point.
Can you guess what my column’s going to be about this week? Paul Carr rips Andrew Orlowski a deserved new one. Orlowski is an awful journalist, who seems to be prone to temper tantrums; here’s his version.