With the fall movie season upon us, I'm suddenly presented with an ambarrassment of riches. I could take the easy way out, and say something nice about the science of Surrogates. Unfortunately, that would overlap heavily with my recent comments on Sleep Dealer and Moon.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? One word: rats. If food feel from the sky, within a week we'd be armpit deep in garbage and vermin. Paranormal Activity? Give me a break.

What really excites me right now —and not in a good way!— is the recent spate of superficially sci-fi movies that are not merely scientifically illiterate, not merely unscientific or antiscientific in their outlook, but actually promote mysticism as a superior alternative to science.

Perhaps the most common reason given for joining the microsharing site Twitter is "participating in the conversation" or some version of that. I myself am guilty of using this explanation. But is Twitter truly a conversational platform? Here I argue that the underlying mechanics of Twitter more closely resemble the knowledge co-creation seen in wikis than the dynamics seen with conversational tools like instant messaging and interactions within online social networks.

(...)

If microsharing tools resemble wikis more than conversational tools and social networks, this has huge implications for how people and organizations approach use of this emerging technology. Solis suggests, I think rightly, that "sometimes it's effective to... maintain a presence simply by reading, listening, and sharing relevant and timely information without having to directly respond to each and every tweet." The strategy of being a "lethally generous" member of a community would seem to be more worthwhile in this context, contrasted with the individual-level customer service approach of (for example) @ComcastCares.

This framework for thinking about microsharing platforms as knowledge co-creation enablers also puts Nielsen's recent data on Twitter's "user retention and loyalty" in a new light. When the average user is a consumer of the content produced by subject-matter experts and passionate mavens, how much does it matter if the majority of use is infrequent spectating (particularly when the information is archived for asynchronous retrieval)? As Shirky recently noted in his talk at the IAC/ACT Management of Change Conference that I attended in Norfolk, VA, such an imbalance of contribution is not a condition of failure for the platform or its users.

Finally, if microsharing is equated with knowledge co-creation, rules for attribution becomes an important consideration. But while the wiki attribution process has generally been worked out, attribution on Twitter is like the wild west —there are no rules; only conventions that are commonly accepted in some circles but not others. In addition, it is relatively easy to cheat the system, hard to catch someone doing it, and difficult to determine what the consequences are of such behavior. This problem will be a lasting one, requiring careful consideration by not only the user community, but also Twitter itself.

High aspirin dosing levels used to treat patients during the 1918-1919 pandemic are now known to cause, in some cases, toxicity and a dangerous build up of fluid in the lungs, which may have contributed to the incidence and severity of symptoms, bacterial infections, and mortality. Additionally, autopsy reports from 1918 are consistent with what we know today about the dangers of aspirin toxicity, as well as the expected viral causes of death.

An analysis of public opinion polls and terrorist activity in 143 pairs of countries has shown for the first time that when people in one country hold negative views toward the leadership and policies of another, terrorist acts are more likely to be carried out.

Princeton University economist Alan Krueger has found that there is a strong relationship between attitudes expressed toward a foreign country —indicated in surveys on foreign leaders’ performance— and the occurrence of terrorism against that country. The research is detailed in the Sept. 18 issue of the journal Science.

“Public opinion appears to be a useful predictor of terrorist activity,” says Krueger, the Bendheim Professor in Economics and Public Policy who is currently on leave from Princeton, working as the assistant secretary for economic policy and chief economist at the U.S. Department of Treasury.

“This is the first study to relate public opinion across countries to concrete actions such as terrorism,” he adds.

Until now, the notion that public attitudes can contribute to terrorism has been inadequately explored, Krueger notes. The study’s findings are significant, he says, because public opinion provides a valuable early warning signal of terrorism and helps researchers better understand the causes of terrorism.

(...)

The study does not explain whether terrorists act in response to public opinion or whether they are simply reacting just like the larger public to external events, he notes. In either case, however, he says that public opinion surveys can provide a powerful indication of the likelihood of terrorist activity.

Krueger hypothesizes that greater disapproval of another country’s leaders or policies may result in more terrorist acts because it increases the number of people who provide material support and encouragement for terrorism, and increases the number of people interested in joining cells and carrying out terrorist acts themselves.

Las actividades que realizamos en nuestro tiempo libre pueden ser un indicador de nuestro nivel de felicidad o desdicha, según un nuevo estudio realizado por sociólogos de la Universidad de Maryland. Analizando datos recopilados a lo largo de los últimos 30 años, los investigadores han llegado a la conclusión de que las personas que no son felices pasan más tiempo viendo la televisión, mientras que las personas que se describen a sí mismas como felices dedican más tiempo a leer y a socializarse. Los detalles se publican en la revista Social Indicators Research.

Según el sociólogo John P. Robinson, coautor del trabajo y pionero en los estudios sobre el uso del tiempo, ver la televisión es una actividad pasiva que suele actuar como vía de escape. “Los datos sugieren que el hábito de ver la televisión puede ofrecer un placer inmediato a expensas de sufrir malestar a largo plazo”, dice el investigador, que añade que es una actividad cómoda y barata que no requiere compañía ni esfuerzo. Por el contrario, leer libros, prensa o revistas y relacionarnos con los demás nos produce satisfacción a largo plazo